User:Nectarflowed/1

Templer 2006 on S&R, Rushton
Is the Evidence on Ethnicity and Intelligence Conclusive?, By: Templer, Donald I., American Psychologist, 0003066X, February 1, 2006, Vol. 61, Issue 2

The article by Sternberg, Grigorenko, and Kidd (January 2005) is well written and contains a wealth of valuable information. I do have, however, a couple of concerns. One is that the authors imply that the question of whether the Black–White IQ discrepancy has a genetic component should be a closed issue. They said,

Thus, the statement that racial differences in IQ or academic achievement are of genetic origin is, when all is said and done, a leap of imagination. The literature on intelligence, race, and genetics constitutes, in large part, leaps of imagination to justify, post hoc, social stratifications. There is nothing wrong, in principle, with people expressing their views on social policy. But they need to recognize these views for what they are: social policy pronouncements, not science. (p. 57)

I maintain that no argument should be regarded as a closed one when there are so many psychologists on both sides of a scientific position. In one study (Snyderman & Rothman, 1988), over a thousand psychologists and other experts in intelligence testing were surveyed regarding the Black–White IQ difference. Fifteen percent said the reasons for the discrepancy were entirely environmental; 46% said they were at least partly genetic; 24% said the evidence was inconclusive; and 14% did not respond. The fact that 24% of the experts surveyed expressed uncertainty means that more research and dialogue rather than a “case closed” orientation is needed.

My second concern is that of the insufficient respect given to the work of Rushton (1995), who contended that greater intelligence evolved in colder climates because of the greater difficulty in obtaining food and protection from the elements. Sternberg et al. (2005) maintained that Rushton's position has no more merit than contending that greater intelligence evolved in tropical climates because of the need to cope with tropical diseases and the violence associated with hot weather. Sternberg et al. (2005) said, “Indeed, post hoc evolutionary arguments made in the absence of fossils at times can have the character of ad hoc ‘just so' stories designed to support, in retrospect, whatever point the author wishes to make about present-day people” (p. 50). Rushton presented a vast array of scientific evidence in his conceptualization, for example, a correlation of .62 between cranial capacity and distance from the equator with 20,000 crania representing 122 ethnically distinguishable populations (Beals, Smith, & Dodd, 1984). Templer and Arikawa (2003) reported a correlation of -.71 between mean IQ and mean high winter temperature and a correlation of -.61 between mean IQ and mean low winter temperature with 129 countries. There are alternative explanations to those of Rushton for such findings. To relegate Rushton's theory to the realm of absurdity, however, would neither constitute optimal scientific reasoning nor represent an ideal spirit of scholarly disagreement.

REFERENCES

1. Beals, K. L., Smith, C. L. & Dodd, S. M. (1984). Brain size, brain morphology, climate, and time machines. Current Anthropology, 25, 301-328.

2. Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, evolution and behavior: A life history perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

3. Snyderman, M. & Rothman, S. (1988). The IQ controversy: The media and public policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

4. Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L. & Kidd, K. K. (2005). Intelligence, race, and genetics. American Psychologist, 60, 46-59.

5. Templer, D. I. & Arikawa, H. (2003, December). Temperature, skin color, per capita income, and IQ: An international perspective. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Society for Intelligence Research, Newport Beach, CA.

Rowe et al. 1994 on S&R, cultural bias
No More Than Skin Deep : Ethnic and Racial Similarity in Developmental Process, By: Rowe, David C., Vazsonyi, Alexander T., Flannery, Daniel J., Psychological Review, 0033295X, July 1, 1994, Vol. 101, Issue 3

...Or, as Berry et al. (1992) concluded,

It appears that earlier views that sought to put the blame for unequal test scores primarily on the tests have lost much of their momentum.…[A] serious concern about cultural bias has become and will remain an inherent aspect of assessment, just as there is continuing concern for validity and the establishment of norms.…It is now generally recognized that within a society intergroup differences in test scores often are a reflection of a real state of affairs. (p. 313)

When IQ tests do show a slight bias, it lies in the opposite direction to that predicted by cultural bias theory—a single regression line slightly overpredicting Blacks' academic performance. In summary, the emerging consensus among testing experts is that cultural bias in the IQ tests themselves is no more than a minor source of group IQ difference (Barrett & Depinet, 1991; Snyderman & Rothman, 1987).

Lubinski 1904 on S&R, Gottfredson
Introduction to the Special Section on Cognitive Abilities : 100 Years After Spearman's (1904) “‘General Intelligence,’ Objectively Determined and Measured”, By: Lubinski, David, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 00223514, January 1, 2004, Vol. 86, Issue 1

Although the breadth and depth of g's nomothetic span is well documented and widely accepted (Gottfredson, 1997; Snyderman & Rothman, 1987), the causal force of this construct remains opaque. Is g causal, or do privilege and social status beget privilege and social status?

Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Intelligence and social policy Intelligence, 24 (1) [Special Issue].

Petrill et al. 2004 on heritability of cognitive ability, S&R
Genetic and Environmental Contributions to General Cognitive Ability Through the First 16 Years of Life, By: Petrill, Stephen A., Lipton, Paul A., Hewitt, John K., Plomin, Robert, Cherny, Stacey S., Corley, Robin, DeFries, John C., Developmental Psychology, 00121649, September 1, 2004, Vol. 40, Issue 5

The roles of genetics and the environment have been central to theories of cognitive ability. Although debate initially centered on whether genes or environments were important to cognitive abilities, over the past 30 years, a more balanced view recognizing that both nature and nurture are important has emerged. When data across all studies are collapsed, genetic influences account for around 50% of the variance (e.g., Bouchard & McGue, 1981). However, when samples of varying ages are examined, genetic influences increase from accounting for roughly 20% of the variance in childhood to accounting for 80% of the variance in adulthood (see Plomin, DeFries, McClearn, & McGuffin, 2001, for a discussion). The shared family environment accounts for significant variance in cognitive ability in childhood, but the proportion of variance it accounts for drops to zero by adolescence. The nonshared environment is significant throughout the life span. Indeed, these findings are some of the most consistent and highly replicated in the psychological literature (e.g., Alarcon, Plomin, Fulker, Corley, & DeFries, 1998; Bouchard & McGue, 1981; Cardon, Fulker, DeFries, & Plomin, 1992; Mackintosh, 1998; Plomin, Fulker, Corley, & DeFries, 1997; Reznick, Corley, & Robinson, 1997; Rice, Carey, Fulker, & DeFries, 1989; Skodak & Skeels, 1949; Snyderman & Rothman, 1998; Wilson, 1983). As a result, few contemporary scientists seriously engage in nature versus nurture debates or dispute the overwhelming finding that cognitive ability involves both genetic and environmental influences.

Plomin and Spinath 2004 on history and S&R
Intelligence : Genetics, Genes, and Genomics, By: Plomin, Robert, Spinath, Frank M., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 00223514, January 1, 2004, Vol. 86, Issue 1

In 1963, a review in Science of genetic research on intelligence was influential in showing the convergence of evidence from family, twin, and adoption studies pointing to genetic influence (Erlenmeyer-Kimling & Jarvik, 1963). During the 1960s, environmentalism was beginning to wane in psychology and the stage was set for increased acceptance of genetic influence on intelligence. Then, in 1969, a Harvard Educational Review monograph (Jensen, 1969) almost brought the field to a halt because it suggested that ethnic differences might involve genetic differences. Exactly 25 years later, this issue was resurrected in The Bell Curve (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) and caused a similar uproar.

The storm raised by Jensen's (1969) monograph led to intense criticism of all behavioral genetic research, but especially research in the area of intelligence (e.g., Kamin, 1974). These criticisms had the positive effect of generating about a dozen bigger and better behavioral genetic studies that produced much more data on the genetics of intelligence than had been obtained in the previous 50 years. Intelligence is the target of more genetic research than any other domain in science, with the exception of self-report personality questionnaires. Some of the new data and all of the old data were summarized in another influential Science article (Bouchard & McGue, 1981) that began to turn the tide in psychology toward acceptance of genetic influence on intelligence (Neisser et al., 1996; Snyderman & Rothman, 1987, 1988).

Kuncel et al. 2004 on g and educational success, S&R, Cattell
Academic Performance, Career Potential, Creativity, and Job Performance : Can One Construct Predict Them All?, By: Kuncel, Nathan R., Hezlett, Sarah A., Ones, Deniz S., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 00223514, January 1, 2004, Vol. 86, Issue 1

Less dramatic, but no less informative about the relationship between g and learning, are the numerous studies that demonstrate the strong positive correlation among g and educational success1 (e.g., Kuncel, Hezlett, & Ones, 2001; Linn & Hastings, 1984), skill acquisition (e.g., Ackerman, 1987, 1992; Lohman, 1999), and job training success (for reviews, see Ree & Caretta, 1998; Schmidt, 2002). These studies represent just some of the many meta-analyses and comprehensive reviews summarizing the literature that support the relationship between g and what are effectively different operationalizations of learning. On the basis of this literature, defining g, in part, as an ability or capacity to learn and acquire new knowledge and skill (e.g., Cattell, 1971; Schmidt, 2002; Snyderman & Rothman, 1987) is very appropriate.

Benbow and Stanley 1996 on history of response to ability testing
INEQUITY IN EQUITY : How “Equity” Can Lead to Inequity for High-Potential Students, By: Benbow, Camilla Persson, Stanley, Julian C., Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10768971, March 1, 1996, Vol. 2, Issue 2

Ability tests were designed to do an unpopular job—to sort individuals, to identify talents and areas lacking strength. Given their purpose, “it would be surprising if the test were not the object of considerable hostility” (Gardner, 1984, p. 62). The better tests become in fulfilling their purpose, the more hostility they should engender; and indeed, IQ and ability testing have become inflammatory topics (Bereiter, 1976–1977). It is considered elitist to favor IQ or ability testing, whereas those who oppose such testing view themselves as egalitarians. For example, intelligence tests, or indeed any other ability or achievement test, are often portrayed in the media as the all-purpose instrument of oppression, a way of depriving certain unfortunate individuals of what, through their own hard work, they have already earned (Bereiter, 1976–1977) and even supporting eugenic motives. Educators are now being told that all children are gifted but in different ways (Winner, 1996). Educating intellectually talented children is intertwined with IQ and ability testing in that they share a historical tradition. As a result, espousing an antigiftedness attitude is often seen as virtuous, as being synonymous with holding egalitarian views.

Yet IQ and ability testing was not designed to and do not serve to protect the elite (Bond, 1995). IQ breaks down, rather than preserves, class privileges (Gardner, 1984). For example, in the 1970s it was reported that between 50% and 60% of sons from parents in the professional–managerial class stay in that class as they mature (Bereiter, 1976–1977). Yet Jencks and colleagues (1972, p. 81) calculated that if admission to the professional–managerial class had been based entirely on IQ, which is the best single predictor of job performance (Ree & Earles, 1992; Schmidt & Hunter, 1992), only a third of the professional sons would have remained. Thus, two thirds would come from lower socioeconomic classes. To some this news may come as a surprise. Because IQ correlates positively with socioeconomic status, it is often forgotten that there are large numbers of gifted children in lower economic groups (Humphreys, 1985). As Abraham Lincoln remarked, “The Lord prefers common-looking people. That is the reason He made so many of them.” Ability testing can open up opportunities for gifted children in lower economic groups, opportunities that might allow them to move into the professional–managerial class, rather than deny them such opportunities. “Even with their imperfections they (tests) are in important respects more fair than methods previously used” (Gardner, 1984, p. 64). Nonetheless, the message often communicated is that “the uses of tests have impeded rather than supported the pursuit of high and rigorous educational goals for all students” (Darling-Hammond, 1991, p. 222).

Ability testing was developed for educational purposes and is held in high regard by professionals in psychology (Snyderman & Rothman, 1987). Even by its critics, it is regarded as one of the single best predictors of academic success (H. Gardner, 1993; Sternberg, Wagner, Williams, & Horvath, 1995). Use of ability testing can identify both those who will experience learning problems in school and also those for whom much that is offered in school will be too easy. Nonetheless, at least partly because of legal challenges, many educators are extremely hesitant to administer aptitude and achievement tests and to use such test data to group students for instruction (see discussion later in this article). This results in students at both ends of the ability continuum receiving an education that is unresponsive to their learning needs.

Tesser 1993 on history of behavior genetics, S&R
The Importance of Heritability in Psychological Research : The Case of Attitudes, By: Tesser, Abraham, Psychological Review, 0033295X, January 1, 1993, Vol. 100, Issue 1

The notion that complex behavior may have genetic antecedents is not new. For example, Francis Galton (1875) studied the heritability of genius in the nineteenth century. Although the idea that genetics influences behavior went through a period of controversy, particularly with respect to race and intelligence, it is currently enjoying a new, high level of acceptance (Plomin & Rende, 1991). For example, most social scientists now believe that intelligence test scores are significantly affected by genetics (Snyderman & Rothman, 1987).

Levin 1995 on S & R
Does Race Matter?, By: Levin, Michael, American Psychologist, 0003066X, January 1, 1995, Vol. 50, Issue 1

It might also be recalled that shortly after Jensen's (1969)Harvard Educational Review article appeared, Bodmer and Cavalli-Sforza (1970) urged an end to funding for any research on race and intelligence. The intellectual community having gagged hereditarians, it should not complain of their inarticulateness.

Indeed, the harsh career sanctions and private unpleasantnesses (including death threats) awaiting anyone who publicly entertains genetic race differences explain the apparent want of support of hereditarianism on the part of geneticists. When experts are polled anonymously, the majority favor the view that genes explain some part of the between-races variance in intelligence (Snyderman & Rothman, 1988).

Plomin 1989 on history of acceptance of heritability and individual differences
Environment and Genes : Determinants of Behavior, By: Plomin, Robert, American Psychologist, 0003066X, February 1, 1989, Vol. 44, Issue 2

Increasing acceptance of hereditary influence on individual differences in development represents one of the most remarkable changes in the field of psychology that has occurred during the decade since the 1979 special issue of the American Psychologist on children. Even for IQ scores, traditionally one of the most controversial areas, a recent survey of over 1,000 scientists and educators indicates that most now believe that individual differences in IQ scores are at least partially inherited (Snyderman & Rothman, 1987).

Gagne and Pere 2002 on S&R and Gottfredson
When IQ is controlled, does motivation still predict achievement? Françoys Gagné and François St Père Intelligence Volume 30, Issue 1, January-February 2002, Pages 71-100 There is virtual unanimity among intelligence theorists that g reflects the ability to reason, solve problems, think abstractly, and acquire knowledge (Snyderman & Rothman, 1987). Gottfredson (1997) points out: "Intelligence is not the amount of information people know, but their ability to recognize, acquire, organize, update, select, and apply it effectively. In educational contexts, these complex mental behaviors are referred to as higher thinking skills" (p. 93).

Gottfredson, L.S., 1997. Why g matters: the complexity of everyday life. Intelligence 24, pp. 79–132.