

Rising Above I.Q. - tokenadult
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/opinion/07kristof.html

======
bokonist
This article is both is both fallacious and intellectualy dishonest.

 _Richard Nisbett cites each of these groups in his superb recent book,
“Intelligence and How to Get It.” Dr. Nisbett, a professor of psychology at
the University of Michigan, argues that what we think of as intelligence is
quite malleable and owes little or nothing to genetics._

Nisbett actually writes, "The evidence of the adoption studies indicate that
postnatal environmental factors - biological and social ones combined -
probably outweigh the genetic ones" (p. 79). On another page, "The
environmentalist camp estimates heritability to be .50 or less... And I agree
with these scientists - in fact I suspect heritability may be even lower than
.5" (p 21)

In both quotes Nisbetts uses couched language to suggest that heritability may
be lower than .50. Kristof then morphs this this into, "owes little or nothing
to genetics." That's a lot different than what Nisbett said.

And of course, Nisbett is a member of the environmentalist camp. Kristof fails
to acknowledge that many others who have studied the evidence strongly
disagree with Nisbett's conclusions.

 _“I think the evidence is very good that there is no genetic contribution to
the black-white difference on I.Q.,” he said,_

I read Nisbett's case. Personally I found it much less convincing than
articles that have suggested some genetic contribution: (
<http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/> ,
<http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/02/race-iq-and-ses.php> , and
<http://members.cox.net/bvv/h2b.html> )

 _As for Jews, some not-very-rigorous studies have found modestly above-
average I.Q. for Ashkenazi Jews, though not for Sephardic Jews._

Again, this also supports the case for genetics. Harpending and Cochran argue
that the selection for Ashkenazi intelligence occurred from 1000 AD to 1800
AD, long after they separated from the Sephardic Jews. Read the book "The Ten
Thousand Year Explosion" to learn more: [http://www.amazon.com/000-Year-
Explosion-Civilization-Accele...](http://www.amazon.com/000-Year-Explosion-
Civilization-Accelerated/dp/0465002218)

 _One large study followed a group of Chinese-Americans who initially did
slightly worse on the verbal portion of I.Q. tests than other Americans and
the same on math portions. But beginning in grade school, the Chinese
outperformed their peers, apparently because they worked harder._

Cross group studies that use early-childhood comparisons can mislead, because
different rates of development can alter IQ measurements. For instance, if
group A on average will have a lower adult IQ, but a faster rate of childhood
development, the children of group A may have an equal or higher IQ than
average at a young age.

It's also noticeable that in twin studies environmental differences matter
much more at an early age, and then gradually disappear over time: "Another
way to demonstrate the vanishing nature of the shared environment is to look
at non-twin siblings. When reared together, their IQ correlation is 0.49 in
adulthood. When reared apart, their IQs correlate at 0.24 as children, but
this rises to 0.49 in adulthood. Unrelated children, reared together (adopted)
correlate at 0.25 in childhood and 0.01 in adulthood."
<http://members.cox.net/bvv/h2b.html>

_It’s that the most decisive weapons in the war on poverty aren’t transfer
payments but education, education, education._

Since 1930 government spending on education has risen from 1.5% of GDP to 6%
of GDP. That equates to an extra $6,000 per household spent on education.
Today 40% of Americans are either in school or working for the education
industry. Yet despite this incredible increase in education, measurements of
both vocabulary and numeracy have been flat ( <http://www.miller-
mccune.com/article/349> ).

So even if IQ could be improved through the environment, the policy
implication that we should spend more on education does not follow.

What evidence does Kristoff present that spending more on education will make
a difference? What dramatic change does he propose to actually make education
work as advertised?

 _One study found that a child of professionals (disproportionately white) has
heard about 30 million words spoken by age 3; a black child raised on welfare
has heard only 10 million words, leaving that child at a disadvantage in
school._

I hear this study cited more and more. The education establishment needs a new
explanation to help account for the continued failure of education spending.
Why hasn't spending $800 billion a year on education made a whit of difference
in vocab? Well, because we forgot the tots! Perhaps if we increase spending to
$1 trillion a year so that we can give toddlers 8 hours a day of vocab
immersion, the dream of true equality - as envisioned by authors like Aldous
Huxley - will finally be achieved.

 _The next step is intensive early childhood programs, followed by improved
elementary and high schools, and programs to defray college costs._

I jested in the previous paragraph, but there is a real tragedy here. Six
thousand dollars per family is no joke. If differences in achievement stem
mostly from genetics, than education spending is really a transfer of wealth
from hard working carpenters, machinists, engineers, etc to high IQ teachers
and administrators. Thus increasing schooling even more will not wipe out the
academic achievement gap, but it will widen the income gap between college
grads and the laboring class. After the gap widens more, people like Kristof
will then use this as evidence that we are not spending enough on education.
This cycle has been in place for 80 years, and it is rotten to the core.

------
tungstenfurnace
The way to rise above IQ is to stop thinking about oneself and stop being so
competitive. This parochial attitude leads to depression and failure.

The truest, most promising motivation for mastering a field or a craft lies in
the _beauty of the craft itself_. Beauty is the greatest stimulus for
creativity and imagination. It makes all things gentle and easy. Technical
competence follows as the night the day.

~~~
Emore
Interestingly, my impression is that this is exactly the strategy that Asian-
Americans _don't_ use.

While I completely agree on your argument, I don't see many people driven by
the beauty fo the craft itself. My guess is that competition and shortcuts are
simply much more effective in quickly reaching success.

The sad fact might be that it is perfectly possible to master a field or craft
without a passion for the subject. Simply because passion is not competitively
passable.

~~~
gruseom
I don't mean to pick on you personally, but the fact that you responded to
that rather profound comment with a borderline racial slur is indicative of
what's wrong with this thread and this entire class of conversation and
article. It makes me want to walk on the other side of the street.

Edit: I guess I should be more careful in putting this. I like frankness and
don't believe in imposing ideological rules on discourse. But I also observe
that discussions around this stuff tend to be of low quality. Your comment
struck me as a nice example because the first sentence seemed nasty and
jarring and the rest of the comment was just fine.

~~~
Emore
With "Asian-American" I meant international students temporarily studying
abroad, NOT Americans of Asian descent. I see no racism when referring to the
first group, since the Chinese education system (I'm only familiar with the
Chinese and Thai education system) is too a much larger extent composed around
pure memorization of either language or math.

I'm very sorry if what I posted came out as racial slur. It was not my
intention, since I certainly do not identify myself even remotely with that
kind of arguments.

------
yummyfajitas
Did anyone notice the tricky wording when he talked about race?

"Asian-Americans are renowned...for ruining grade curves in schools across the
land...

As for Jews...a quarter of Jewish adults in the United States have earned a
graduate degree, compared with 6 percent of the population as a whole.

West Indian blacks,...are one-third more likely to graduate from college than
_African-Americans_ as a whole..."

So Asians and Jews outperform all Americans, while West Indian Blacks only
outperform American Blacks (but presumably not Americans in aggregate [1])?
This hardly seems like evidence against racial differences in
intelligence/achievement.

(Note: I don't have a strong opinion on racial IQ differences, just pointing
out the tricky wording in the article. Unfortunately, the science on that
topic tends to be written mostly by activists on both sides, and is fairly
untrustworthy.)

[1] I assume that if West Indian blacks outperformed Americans, Kristoff would
have mentioned it (as he did with Asians and Jews).

~~~
frossie
_So Asians and Jews outperform all Americans, while West Indian Blacks only
outperform American Blacks (but presumably not Americans in aggregate)? This
hardly seems like evidence against racial differences in
intelligence/achievement._

He doesn't say there aren't racial differences in intelligence. He is saying
that irrespective of any actual differences in intelligence, some groups do
better than others purely due to cultural norms.

It's along the lines of genius being "1% inspiration and 99% perspiration".
The point put forward is that any natural variations in the inspiration part
are dwarfed by sufficient application of the perspiration part.

~~~
yummyfajitas
He does try to imply (without actually stating) that there are small/no racial
differences in intelligence. He first debunks a straw man ("success as a
simple product of intrinsic intellect") and then quotes someone claiming that
intelligence is malleable and non-genetic.

But lets ignore that. Going from his examples, cultural norms can help some
blacks outperform other blacks. But it doesn't actually allow blacks to
outperform whites. If his examples are representative, the natural variations
of the "inspiration" part are actually similar in size to the "perspiration"
part of the equation.

~~~
frossie
_Going from his examples, cultural norms can help some blacks outperform other
blacks. But it doesn't actually allow blacks to outperform whites. If his
examples are representative, the natural variations of the "inspiration" part
are actually similar in size to the "perspiration" part of the equation._

Actually it is not possible to prove or disprove that from the data presented
(which is not data at all), but one can envisage data that is consistent with
his position. For the sake of argument, say Asian-American kids study 20 hours
a week, Caucasian kids study 10 hours a week, West Indian origin black kids
study 5 hours a week, and African American kids study 3 hours a week. Then
both his statements would be correct - performance is related to study hours,
not innate talent, and West Indian kids would outperform other black kids but
not white kids.

[Of course we are grossly oversiplifying, the suggestion is that wider
cultural norms such like intactness of families are the contributor, not just
study hours].

I don't know whether he is right or not, but it's not possible to decide he is
wrong by the fact that are included just in that article.

------
byrneseyeview
_These three groups may help debunk the myth of success as a simple product of
intrinsic intellect, for they represent three different races and histories._

I must have missed something. Couldn't he just as easily have said "These
three groups may help confirm the fact that success is a product of intrinsic
intellect, for they represent three different races and histories, with
different average levels of intellect, which strongly correlate with their
outcomes."

~~~
nostrademons
Yeah, I took this article as a great case study on how different people can
look at the exact same data and draw totally opposite conclusions. Almost
exactly the same example is used in The Bell Curve to argue that intelligence
is innate, because Ashkenazi Jews and Asian-Americans tend to have higher IQs
than whites, while West Indians tend to have higher IQs than Africans.

------
Matti
After reading that column, read "Logical Fallacies used to dismiss the
evidence on intelligence testing" by Linda S. Gottfredson. It's available
here:
[http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2009fallacies....](http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2009fallacies.pdf)

Now, go back and re-read the New York Times piece.

How many fallacies did you notice?

~~~
te_platt
The point of the article isn't that IQ differences don't exist. Only that on
average how hard you work is much more important than how smart you are in
achieving success. At least in the measures used in the article - graduate
degrees and income.

From the article:

"In any case, he says, the evidence is overwhelming that what is distinctive
about these three groups is not innate advantage but rather a tendency to get
the most out of the firepower they have."

------
xiaoma
" _Richard Nisbett cites each of these groups in his superb recent book,
“Intelligence and How to Get It.” Dr. Nisbett, a professor of psychology at
the University of Michigan, argues that what we think of as intelligence is
quite malleable and owes little or nothing to genetics._ "

Stephen Pinker argued very persuasively in _The Blank Slate_ that this is not
the case. Brains are malleable to some degree, but genetics are still very
important. One of the more convincing pieces of evidence is the similarities
in the abilities of twins raised in separate families. He recounted case
studies in which identical twins who had never even met each other both had
the same proffession, favorite hobby and even shared odd habits, such as
wearing a rubber band around their wrists

More bluntly, if intelligence "owes little or nothing to genetics", why is it
that children acquire an understand of the language spoken in their home while
house pets do not?

As Chomsky's discovery of universal grammar implies, humans already have a
great deal of what we need for language processing built into our brains from
birth.

~~~
emmett
Psychologists love twin studies, but they're mostly worthless. The unstated
assumption is always "A twin study holds genetics constant while randomizing
the environment".

Of course the families of two identical twins are far from independent
variables. They're both made of the kinds of people who would adopt a child in
the same city at the same point in time. You haven't managed to separate the
variables at all!

~~~
yummyfajitas
You can measure that effect quite easily just by comparing to a control group
of random pairs of adoptees (from the same orphanage/etc as the twins).

Any environmental correlations between twins should also be present between
random adoptee pairs.

~~~
emmett
Why? The twins who were adopted were of the exact same race, gender, age, and
appearance at the moment of adoption. People aren't just given a random child
when they adopt, they choose. So you still haven't untangled selection effects
entirely.

~~~
yummyfajitas
The only one of those factors that can't be controlled for very easily is
appearance at the moment of adoption.

    
    
       def random_twin_like_pair(children):
            x = random(children)
            y = random([c for c in children if (c.race, c.age, c.gender) == (x.race, x.age, x.gender)])
            return (x,y)

~~~
emmett
At which point you're down to n of 1-2 per group, because separated-at-birth
twin studies commonly contain no more then 30-40 pairs of twins, and your
study is fatally flawed.

I'm not saying twin studies _couldn't_ be done well, I'm saying in practice
most real twin studies are not large enough or well designed enough to
actually control for those outcomes. There just aren't enough identical twins
separated at birth to allow it to be done well.

(That's not to mention further issues like womb environment, which further
muddy the issue and are very important)

Here's a summary of what's wrong with twin studies in general:
<http://drbeetle.homestead.com/twins.html>

~~~
yummyfajitas
You don't need to restrict to demographic cross sections. You can take a set
of 30-40 twins (of all demographics) and compare them to a set of N>40
randomly selected twin-like pairs (of all demographics). As long as your twins
and twin-like pairs have the same demographic mix, you have an adequate
sample.

This sample will average out demographic variation, but the twin-induced
correlations are controlled for.

Womb environment can be controlled for by comparing identical to fraternal
twins.

It may be the case that most twin studies are performed badly. I'm just
pointing out that most of the issues you raise are not a real problem for
anyone who understands basic statistics (admittedly, this may exclude most
psychologists).

~~~
emmett
Yes, I generally agree that it would be _theoretically possible_ to do a
separated at birth identical twin study. In practice, the requirements are so
stringent that they've never (to my knowledge) been met.

The setup you describe could indeed separate genetic/genetic+environment
feedback component from the purely environmental component. Albeit with
caveats:

\- Identical twins given up for adoption and then separated at birth are
probably not drawn at random from the population.

\- You can't draw any conclusions at all about which genetic variance is
causing the issue, unless you restrict the demographic cross sections. So it
can't possibly give you evidence that one race has a higher average IQ, for
example.

\- The conclusions you draw may be much more about environmental feedback than
genetics - maybe with a different environment, the differences will go away.
For example, maybe you've found genes that code for susceptibility to iodine
deficiency, and your society hasn't discovered iodized salt yet. In that case
it's hard to say that you've determined the degree to which intelligence is
"genetic" except in the most general sense.

In practice, locating identical twins separated at birth is _hard_. Finding a
representative sample of them across demographic mix is harder. Doing it again
for fraternal twins to control for womb environment makes it yet more work.
I'm not sure how you control for the fact that the identical twins who are
given up and then separated at birth are probably a different population from
random adoptees, but I don't doubt with sufficient cleverness it could be
done. The problem is that real twin studies almost always fail to control all
these factors, and failing to control even one factor dooms your entire
experiment.

------
nazgulnarsil
Mainstream commentary on the IQ debate is worthless. The vast majority are too
innumerate to understand statistical concepts used in gathering the data in
the first place.

~~~
david927
And those who believe they are "above" the vast majority are too arrogant to
discuss the issue rationally. Simply, if you believe that IQ measures
intelligence, you lose 80 IQ points.

~~~
bokonist
_Simply, if you believe that IQ measures intelligence, you lose 80 IQ points._

Your comment is a self-negating insult. If IQ does not measure intelligence,
than saying "you lose 80 points" is not derisive.

~~~
yters
Or, it's an especially clever insult, since it'll only matter to those he
insults.

~~~
david927
I thought it was clever and funny, but that doesn't justify it. Clearly I
offended people here and for that I apologize.

------
yters
So, why do people care so much about IQ in the first place? If it determines
your success, then it doesn't matter what you do, you might as well learn what
you are passionate about. If it doesn't, then you should learn what you are
passionate about since that'll raise your IQ...

The real issue is that people think success is a determiner of human worth.
So, if people are inherently less capable of being successful than others,
they think they are inherently less of a human. The IQ debate is really a
debate about what determines human worth.

~~~
bokonist
Politics. The political left is the faction of academia. As institutions, the
universities and the teachers unions wish to reallocate money to education
spending [1]. To do so, they must simultaneously get people to believe two
things: 1) that scholastic achievement is extremely important and 2) that
everyone can achieve any scholastic goal. Conversely, those on the right wish
to debunk #2 so that politicians will stop reallocating money to academia, and
instead allocate it to their favored causes.

Scholastic achievement is closely related to tested IQ. The SAT is a not-so-
thinly veiled IQ test. Every American is taught by the educational
establishment that both scholastic achievement and the SAT are very important
to our future. For the first twenty-two years of our life, we get graded
continuously on scholastics, but rarely on character. In all, we are raised to
be obsessed about IQ, and we are caught in the midst of a political battle
where trillions of dollars are at stake.

[1] Note - I do not impute cynical intent to the actual individuals comprising
the educational institutions. Institutions promote themselves via selection
effects. True believers who believe what's good for Harvard is good for the
country will fill the ranks of Harvard and enter leadership positions. Cynics
will find jobs elsewhere. Thus an institution will fill with people who
sincerely believe in promoting the institution, whether or not the institution
actually is doing any good. Thus the actions of an institution as a whole can
be self-serving at the harm of the whole, while the individuals comprising it
are sincere. Other institutions besides academia have the same effect, see for
instance, the 16th Century Catholic Church.

------
jerryji
Reminds me of the rice paddy chapter in the Outliers, and to me they are
equally not very scientific.

