
What I.Q. doesn't tell you about race - papersmith
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/12/17/071217crbo_books_gladwell?currentPage=1
======
nailer
There's absolutely no point discussing this.

Race has bearing on:

\- skin color

\- whether you're likely to get sickle cell anaemia

\- the age your children develop teeth

\- the age your children walk

\- the size of your penis (if you have a Y chromosome)

\- the amount of fast twitch fibres in your muscles

It has no bearing whatsoever the brain. Why? Because of magic. While all of
the aforementioned effects of race on physiology links are well known and
freely discussed, race cannot have any bearing on anything inside the skull,
because _the brain is magic_.

Anybody that suggests otherwise, or suggests investigating or discussing the
effects of race on the brain is a racist and we need to moderate them down.

The only people who would discuss such things are racists with an agenda like
James Watson, not scientists like the people that understand how the brain has
magical properties.

Brain=magic. You don't even need to read the article. Now lets moderate the
racists down!

~~~
neilk
1) Race, genetically, doesn't exist. People who are black basically have one
trait in common: black skin. Just think of how "White" covers a range from the
Sami people of Scandinavia all the way to the Portuguese or the Persians. And
"black" covers everything from Zulus to Pygmies.

[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-
GSRD-071...](http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-
GSRD-071098.php)

This isn't to say that heredity plays no part, or that certain groups of
people won't be more likely to have certain traits. Maybe you could say that
some tribes in West Africa are such-and-such. But we can't expect our eyes to
reveal genetic truths.

2) I think you're missing Gladwell's point. It is not that heredity doesn't
affect the brain. It's that IQ testing is far too flawed to yield meaningful
results, especially when comparing groups of people tested in different places
and at different times.

In the story, they mention how properly normalized IQ tests find that Asians
have a _lower_ average IQ than whites. They speculate that Asians' success in
academics is due to cultural values and individual efforts -- and if you know
any super-achiever Asian students, that was in plain sight all along!

~~~
ntoshev
All concepts are fuzzy by nature, including the concept of race.

There are so many breeds of dogs, you can hardly find a common thing among
them. This doesn't mean dogs don't exist.

~~~
neilk
Yes, but the human notion of "race" is just "people of a certain color". In
dogs, this would group black yorkshire terriers and black labs together.

Furthermore, dog breeds are nothing like ordinary human populations. We simply
don't have human populations that are subjected to the extreme selection
pressures that we apply to dogs, which produce breeds with strong natural
talents and lots of natural deficiencies that would kill them if they were
turned loose in the wild. Chihuahuas versus Great Danes. People vary, and
natural selection matters, but it's nothing like dog breeds.

~~~
ntoshev
Would you say that "Dog breeds, genetically, does not exist?"

Whatever you mean by that, it is pretty clear that it makes sense to talk
about Caucasian race (or terriers) and use that concept, even if the
manifested features vary.

~~~
politrix
No, it doesn't make sense to talk about Caucasian race. There isn't enough
genetic difference between any human populations to divide humans into
subspecies or races, unlike for example dogs. Humans have the least genetic
variation of any mammalian species, so you can't make the dog comparison
anyways.

Furthermore the name was created on fallacious premises to begin with. From
the creator of the "Caucasian race" Johann Friedrich Blumenbach:

Caucasian variety - I have taken the name of this variety from Mount Caucasus,
both because its neighborhood, and especially its southern slope, produces the
most beautiful race of men, I mean the Georgian; and because all physiological
reasons converge to this, that in that region, if anywhere, it seems we ought
with the greatest probability to place the autochthones (birth place) of
mankind.

~~~
ntoshev
How much genetic difference is enough? It is obvious that there is a grouping
of features beyond skin color. Where you put the line between races is
somewhat arbitrary - and this is the same with all concepts, so it doesn't
make sense to think about genetic difference (e.g. in Rwanda Hutu and Tutsi
are considered different races, even though genetic difference is almost
inexistent <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Tutsi_and_Hutu>). People
have established this concepts because they are/were useful, and will continue
to use them.

------
politrix
If you consider the historical genetic variation in humans through our
expansion from Africa and then spreading throughout the continents.
Differences in the development of intelligence due to the different
environmental factors makes little sense. Likewise the overall genetic of
variation in humans is extraordinarily small and interbreeding extraordinarily
high compared to other mammalian species further reducing any likelihood of
significant variation between the continental populations.

~~~
earthboundkid
If anything, the Chinese should be the dumbest, the Europeans second dumbest,
the Africans smartest. Think about it:

For centuries, what did you do if you were a bright kid in China? Get your
balls loped off and become a eunuch. Who needs children when you have the
Imperial household to run? Even if you didn't become a eunuch, you at least
became a Buddhist monk or something if you were smart.

Europe was pretty much the same thing. Smart people became priests and monks,
who, while not completely celibate in the real world, still had much lower
rates of reproduction.

On the other hand, in Africa, you gotta be smart, or your ass is lion fodder.
Are you a lazy daydreamer with no head for thinking? Too bad, because when the
drought comes, only smart dudes will be able to provide for their families
through alliances and phony witch doctor magic tricks.

\----

That a story like this can be so easily constructed is why I never put too
much stock in things like evolutionary psychology per se. It's easy to come up
with a fable that "explains" why the world is the way it is. Real history and
real facts are much harder to piece together.

~~~
politrix
Africa had some of the world's first high culture societies which are probably
older than Europe's or China's due to the tremendous history of that
continent. I mean it is the cradle of the civilization after all. But you
wouldn't think that way today with a lot of that history having been nearly
eradicated and not taught.

------
mhartl
This reminds me of the article in _Harvard Magazine_ a couple of years ago
about "applying science to gun control". As soon as I saw the title, I had a
sense of foreboding. Regardless of the merits, based solely on the publication
you know which way the argument _has_ to go. To his credit, the author of the
_Harvard Magazine_ article waited until the second paragraph to note that the
scientist in question considered himself lucky to live in a safe state like
Massachusetts, with its "strong gun-control laws". You can guess the
conclusion of his "scientific analysis" of gun control...

And so it goes with _The New Yorker_ : when you are deeply emotionally
committed to a position, it's virtually impossible to trust anything you say.
I admire Malcolm Gladwell, and enjoy _The New Yorker_ , but really, could this
article have gone any other way?

~~~
neilk
So this is the argument from bias: I perceive the author to have been
favorable to one side, therefore I discard all his evidence and argumentation.

Bias itself is not a flaw in an argument. Bias may tell us where to look for
flaws in the argument.

~~~
mhartl
_I perceive the author to have been favorable to one side, therefore I discard
all his evidence and argumentation._

Not _discard_ , simply _distrust_. Remember all those Microsoft studies
comparing the total cost of ownership of Windows and Linux? Finding flaws in
the studies was hard. Discovering an _a priori_ reason to distrust the studies
was not.

Simply put, any article like this is going to make claims: " _X_ is a fact."
When the source is biased, and _X_ confirms the bias, it's much harder to
trust that _X_ is true.

------
tarkin2
Malcolm Gladwell is probably my favourite non-fiction author of late.

I wonder if you can subscribe to the New Yorker in the UK. I'm starting to
appreciate that magazine more and more.

~~~
mdemare
Yeah, the other article
([http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/10/071210fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/10/071210fa_fact_gawande))
was fantastic as well.

------
amichail
If you want to avoid discrimination, just start your own company and avoid the
whole mess!

~~~
earthboundkid
Until you go to the bank for a loan.

"What's that? Your parents aren't rich? Nor are your friends? All you have in
collateral is an old Buick? Next please."

~~~
DaniFong
Apparently, Bill Gates and Paul Allen (and Paul Gilbert) started a company
before Microsoft, called Traf-O-Data. (wow.)

They did data analysis from traffic controllers.

Despite the name, they actually made a fairly decent revenue for high school
kids (some tens of thousands annually). Once Bill's age was discovered they
had a much harder time selling anything.

Even Steve Jobs had to stop being a shaggy hippie.

But luckily for founders, unless you're in the consulting business, the market
really doesn't care who you are. There are far too many layers of abstraction
for your identity to have any meaning, beyond of course, that which is
deliberately constructed. (Mac People, Japanese Cars, German Engineering,
Scandinavian design, etc) ^.^

~~~
earthboundkid
Gates' father was a lawyer. It takes seed capital to found Traf-O-Data.
Thankfully, the seed capital needed for a startup is dropping dramatically
thanks to the web, but it's still a serious problem for people from poor
families.

~~~
aston
Gates' mother was richer than his father. And well connected, with a friend on
the board at IBM. Though I doubt that mattered much...

------
amichail
_If I.Q. is innate, it shouldn't make a difference whether it's a mixed-race
child's mother or father who is black. But it does: children with a white
mother and a black father have an eight-point I.Q. advantage over those with a
black mother and a white father._

What is the logic behind this argument?

~~~
mynameishere
Assume men and women select for different characteristics--for instance, women
select for intelligent men, while men select for XYZ women (with XYZ being
anything other than intelligence.)

Assume that the average white IQ is 100 and the average black IQ is 85, and
assume that there is a genetic component to these numbers.

The average black woman (IQ: 85) will select a white male of >85 IQ. Her
average offspring will probably have >85 IQ.

The average white woman (IQ: 100) will select a black male of >100 IQ. Her
average offspring will probably have >100 IQ.

Therefore, the differences in sexual selection between men and women can
result in genetically distinct offspring given bm/wf, wm/bf pairings. So the
logic is...there is no logic.

~~~
pius
You're assuming a whole lot more than that, most notably that the researchers
used incredibly poor methodology, forgetting to control for the IQ of the
parents.

~~~
mynameishere
I would be utterly shocked if they controlled for anything--most social
experiments like this use what data they can get, and are, as you say
"incredibly poor". The closest thing to a reasonable experiment in this regard
are studies of separated twins--studies Gladwell obviously doesn't mention, as
they show exactly what everyone knows, that intelligence is largely inherited.
The German study that he brings up at the end has been dredged up over and
over and over for many years and is apparently not easily repeatable. Again,
most readers can't tell the difference between a data point and a proof.

Anyway, he's the one making a claim, and he's the one who needs to show that
the methodology is sound, not me.

~~~
pius
_" . . . studies Gladwell obviously doesn't mention, as they show exactly what
everyone knows, that intelligence is largely inherited._

You're misconstruing Gladwell's position. He's not arguing against inheritance
of intelligence; he's arguing against a _biologically innate and immutable_
race-based component to intelligence.

 _"Anyway, he's the one making a claim, and he's the one who needs to show
that the methodology is sound, not me."_

Actually, you made the latest claim. You set up a somewhat absurd strawman for
what Gladwell argued and then tried to lampoon it and make his position look
illogical when, in fact, the interpretation you constructed relies on the
researchers literally ignoring the most basic of statistics. That needed to be
pointed out, lest people buy the strawman and actually get swayed to believe
that black people are biologically less intelligent than whites.

~~~
mynameishere
I hardly made a "strawman", which would require a construction of the form,
"Gladwell said XYZ", which I did not do. Rather, I showed a single example of
how different kinds of pairings could result in different kinds of results.
Here is an example of a strawman argument, for your reference:

 _There are a lot of pseudo-scientists out there who claim that IQ tests are
perfectly accurate, not at all culturally biased, and are in fact objective,
innate measures of intelligence._

Anyway, as for

 _researchers literally ignoring basic statistics_

Their statistics may be pure as a mountain spring. It doesn't matter. What I
suspect is that there are factors they completely didn't account for--
something that _happens to every scientist_. It tends to happen more to
scientists trying to prove political points.

 _he's arguing against a consistent, innate, statistically significant, race-
based component to intelligence_

He needs to quit picking-and-choosing studies then. I've seen the German
study, and I'm glad to take it into account, and if there are repeated
examples, I'll take them into account also. Well, here's something most of us
have probably seen already:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations>

...the thing to reflect upon here isn't that innaccuracies exist (because they
do). Rather, the gross consistency of the results--why do poor countries like
Thailand and Malaysia have passable scores compared to Africa? Do Africans
suffer from a particularly racist sort of poverty? Why does a country like
Iraq--living under a dictator, facing decades of war and mass starvation and
international isolation have a higher average IQ than every African country?
More racism?

Why would China, a country that still has hundreds of millions of peasants
score _much_ better than every African country? Compare China to Hong Kong--
areas with racial similitude, but vastly-- _diametrically_ \--different
histories and circumstances, with every advantage going to Hong Kong. Should
not the difference be greater than 7 points?

Eventually, the question is, "How much evidence does it take?" and the answer
is obviously, "No amount of evidence is enough". It's an idealogical question.

Let me present the inevitable extremes. The list of Jewish scientists (which
wikipedia warns is "incomplete") is broken down into numerous sections:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_scientists_and_p...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_scientists_and_philosophers)

The list of African Americans:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_African_Americans>

...contains no scientists at all. Yes, I know some exist, but no one thought
well enough to add any. Blame the community, I guess.

Not to belabour the point, but Jews are numerically inferior to African-
Americans, and have suffered a fair amount of uncomfortable circumstances. So,
how to explain the wild differences? Again, when does the evidence become
overwhelming..?

~~~
pius
You pretty clearly set up a strawman by saying that Gladwell ignored a study
because it supports the idea that intelligence is largely inherited, a
position he's not at all trying to refute. Then, you took the position you
manufactured and discredited it in hopes that people would get confused and
dismiss his real argument. That's the textbook definition of attacking a
strawman.

The statement of mine that you quoted, ironically enough, is _not_ a strawman.
It may be an ad hominem attack, but it's definitely not a strawman. ;)

 _Not to belabour the point, but Jews are numerically inferior to African-
Americans, and have suffered a fair amount of uncomfortable circumstances. So,
how to explain the wild differences? Again, when does the evidence become
overwhelming..?_

Thanks for revealing what you believe. I respect the fact that you're willing
to come out and admit that you think blacks just aren't as smart as whites.
Now we're getting somewhere! You're allowed to believe that without needing to
justify it with pseudo-science.

I'll let this sit for a while -- hopefully you've got the courage not to
delete it -- and I'll finish my coding tonight. Tomorrow, if I'm up to it,
I'll retort.

...

You know, on second thought, I don't think I will. I can't help my position
anymore than you already have.

-You practically conceded (or at least haven't adequately rebutted) the points I brought up against your characterization of Gladwell's article as illogical.

-You've weakened your position in an argument about the measure of biologically innate and immutable intelligence by resorting to bringing up a bunch of cultural phenomena that anyone on this board can easily rebut using vast socioeconomic factors. (If you really want to take it there, by the way, you can repost this to a new YC discussion thread questioning the legitimacy of the claimed non-biological factors that have stunted the economic growth of African-Americans and I'll address it there.)

-Most importantly, you've shown the people reading this that, indeed, there exist people who think that blacks are intellectually inferior to other races by their very biology. This is useful evidence I can point to every time someone says that racism no longer exists except amongst the most uneducated segments of society.

~~~
mynameishere
_vast socioeconomic factors_

Snore. Sub-sahara Africa has been near-100 percent black for many millenia.
There's no one else to stick the blame on, even if you want to bring up
"society" and "economics". Hell, the only country whose socio-economics can be
traced to white people is the only one with a decent economy. And, what do you
know, another one, Zimbabwe, took a nose dive right after its ethnic cleansing
of whites. Shock. Horror.

 _Thanks for revealing what you believe._

I believe the facts, sure. If there is anybody here who thinks that blacks and
Jews are genetically equivilent in intelligence, raise your hands. Please, I
beg you. But you have at least 2500 years of evidence fighting against you, so
bring some counter-evidence first...unlike pius.

~~~
pius
_If there is anybody here who thinks that blacks and Jews are genetically
equivilent in intelligence, raise your hands. Please, I beg you._

Ooh, this is getting nasty. A smart guy once told me when you find yourself in
a hole, stop digging. I'm black and even I can figure out how to heed that
advice! This is instructive though, so keep doing what you're doing.

 _Sub-sahara Africa has been near-100 percent black for many millenia._

Most African countries had robust cultures and economies before they were
plundered by the European imperialists. For example, as hard as it is for you
to believe, the first great libraries (pre-dating even the one in Alexandria)
were in Africa. I guess you think that because Native Americans were
successfully conquered, subjugated, and impoverished they must not have been
very bright either.

There's so much to say, but again you're really doing a great job sinking your
own ship. It's hard not to respond to you, but for the sake of my coding, I'm
gonna try to keep my finger off the reply button for the rest of the night.

Again, if you want to take this cultural discussion further, do feel free to
post a new thread and I'll address it at length tomorrow or so, I promise.

~~~
mynameishere
_you're really doing a great job sinking your own ship._

You realize this isn't much of an argument, don't you?

The reason I brought up Jews was because I'm not Jewish and so I consider
myself neutral in the matter. I have nothing to gain from whatever inborn
virtues jews might have. But the evidence still stands... I also have nothing
to gain from whatever inborn virtues the Chinese might have. But the evidence
still stands... I'm also not offended by the Parsis or Armenians or Brahmans
or any of them, despite their achievements. What does it cost to be honest?
People are different, and if we deny it, we make mistakes...

 _Most African countries had robust cultures and economies before they were
plundered by the European imperialists._

It's just a cop-out. Every piece of land in this world (with a few exceptions)
has been overrun and plundered and ravaged time and time and time again.
People just can't get over those evil European colonists. No one ever
complains about the Turks or Tatars or Mongols or Huns or Aztecs or Arabs or a
thousand others...all monstrous in their time.

~~~
pius
_You realize this isn't much of an argument, don't you?_

That's because I'm no longer arguing with you. You haven't pieced together
much that's cogent enough for me to debate and your conclusions are nearly as
despicable as they are preposterous. You're trying to argue that black people
are biologically less intelligent than whites and other races, a view
controversial enough that the burden of proof lies with you. Let's review how
you've set out to prove it.

You tried to discredit Gladwell's article with fuzzy math and attacking the
strawman; I exposed it. You failed.

Then you tried citing other people's research into IQ to support your views.
Unfortunately there's no serious research that supports your world view, so
you were left citing "studies" that have been widely discredited and debunked.
(For example, "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" literally concludes that most of
Africa is functionally retarded.) Reductio ad absurdum, you fail.

Then you gave up citing research into IQ and g, and started citing cultural
phenomena that clearly are not relevant to the biological innateness topic at
hand. Even the cultural phenomena you bring up aren't particularly compelling.
(For example, you're comparing the plight of cultures conquered by the Ottoman
empire that fell in the 1600's to that of African nations occupied and
conquered by the British empire, which didn't leave in many cases until the
late 1960's and, in the case of Zimbabwe, until 1980.) Failed again.

Finally, you got frustrated and started blurting out that it's "trivial" to
conclude that blacks just aren't intelligent as other races, figuring that a
few upmods on YC.News will make you seem right without proof. Fail.

I'm sure you're going to find another flawed study funded by known white
supremacy groups to justify your beliefs. Or maybe you'll start citing
phrenology or Nordic theory. I don't know what you'll pull out next, but I can
assure you that I won't care, unless it's got some legitimate scientific
basis.

You're making a fool of yourself.

~~~
politrix
It's often the dumb ones who take the stance on discussing other people's
intelligence. There is a wealth of circumstances and complexity of the issue
that never crosses this posters mind, yet he is quick to make definitive
claims of such gravity. Racism has the interesting tendency of exposing the
fools even amongst the most educated individuals.

Oh, where would I start... The structure of the brain? Our understanding and
concept of what is "intelligence"? Nonexistentent genetical variation between
the so called "races", which are themselves based on fallacious premises? The
theory of races after all started in Germany as measured by the differences in
the shapes of skulls, and was mainly categorized as an issue of beauty. With
Germans obviously appointing themselves (aryans) the most graceful and
beautiful "race" of them all. And now people are trying to retrofit genetic
explanations on such an old theory based purely on pseudo-science? There is at
maximum 5-15% genetic variation between the continental populations, and note
that this is not the same as our naive notions of "race". There is less
genetic variation in humans than in any other mammalian species. Worldwide
genetic variation in humans is less significant than in 2 closely related
chimpanzee species having evolved closely together in western Africa, to give
you some magnitude for comparison. 90% of the genetic variation occurs on a
_local_ level as opposed to globally, if you can wrap your head around what
that means? And every instance of "child genius" that has been studied has
boiled down to no innate ability, but rigorous practice from an early age.
Meaning that "intelligence" is largely learned, mind is an empty plate of
neurons waiting to be connected. The only thing conceivably affecting their
training are chemical balances, malnutrition, toxicity of the environment, and
so on...

Basing your theories directly on empirical evidence about the economies of the
world obviously can't factor in all the relevant facts. You say that all the
African countries with no whites are poor? Did you know that a lot of them
have been paying the debts created by the colonialists ever since they were
"liberated"? Do you know how the West still sponsors guerillas and pays
diamond merchants in many parts of Africa? Only a secluded mind could have
such delusions of grandeur. I recommend debating with some intellectual and
educated black scholars.

~~~
mynameishere
_And every instance of "child genius" that has been studied has boiled down to
no innate ability, but rigorous practice from an early age._

Completely laughable, and completely unverifiable. The only passable tests of
such things that I am aware of are studies of separated twins, which have
indicated quite clearly, time and time again, that variance in intelligence is
attributable in great part to inheritance. There's no arguing around such
tests--bring up as many chimpanzee breeds that you want.

 _Meaning that "intelligence" is largely learned, mind is an empty plate of
neurons waiting to be connected._

The oldest error in the discussion. Start your elementary education in the
subject here:

[http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-
Nature/dp/06...](http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-
Nature/dp/0670031518)

Pinker spends an enormous amount of time bowing down to the antique
emotionalisms of the age, and so the book shouldn't be too offensive to the
weak-hearted.

EDIT:

user: politrix

created: 1 day ago

~~~
rms
It seems pretty blindingly obvious that intelligence is both genetic and
environmental. They're not exclusive.

~~~
mynameishere
I've been saying that over and over. Maybe you should say that to someone
else.

~~~
politrix
Obviously intelligence has a genetic factor, there is no question about that.
Why is cat's intellect different from humans? Due to its DNA. But that is not
the point, when it comes to humans, there is no significant enough variation
that could lead into large scale intellectual differences. Likewise due to the
genetic mixing you couldn't label one traditionally understood "race" as one
or the other. Furthermore it makes little sense from evolutionary perspective.

The child genius comment is not laughable. A genius is always tied to a
particular skill given in a cultural context. For example playing a piano, or
juggling. It is possible that a child is born with certain innate physical
qualities that help him in whatever he practices. Like being fair, or strong,
tall, etc... But to assume that any 5 year old learned to play piano as some
kind of a genetic gift is far more ludicrous. It takes hard practice to
perfect your body and mind to work in unison for any particular task,
approximately the same for everyone bar perhaps the effects of personal
motivation and rigor of the exercise.

With the exception of people with disorders that in some way may make them
amazingly good at certain tasks, like having eidetic memory.

------
bootload
_"... There should be no great mystery about Asian achievement. It has to do
with hard work and dedication to higher education, and belonging to a culture
that stresses professional success. But Flynn makes one more observation. The
children of that first successful wave of Asian-Americans really did have
I.Q.s that were higher than everyone else's--coming in somewhere around 103.
..."_

Only at the summary do you get a hint why this might be. My guess is access to
improved nutrition could be one factor.

~~~
vitaminj
I'd say the self-selection bias would be a big factor. Most of the dumbass and
lazy Asians probably stayed at home. Those first generation asian-american
kids would likely have had the value of hard work forcefully instilled in them
as well.

~~~
earthboundkid
I have taught in Japan. Their dumbasses say, "hi."

(Seriously, "the Asians = smart" myth doesn't last long if you actually meet
normal people in Asia. Normal Asian people are... of normal intelligence! What
a shock!)

------
bayareaguy
My favorite part: "An I.Q., in other words, measures not so much how smart we
are as how modern we are."

------
downer
> _If what I.Q. tests measure is immutable and innate_

The entire premise is wrong. IQ scores typically rise 5-15 points on a second
test, now that the taker knows what kind of questions to expect. IQ tests can
be studied and practiced for.

Just like if you hear enough logic puzzles, you can work out solutions to
similar problems without needing the "AHA!" moment of insight that you needed
the first time.

