
Should scientists study race and IQ? - kqr2
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231/full/457788a.html
======
gjm11
The trouble with "race" is that it's pretty meaningless biologically; human
"races" are a long way from being (e.g.) biological subspecies. What race
boundaries _do_ correlate well with is sharp _social_ differences, and
therefore with things like wealth and education and social status. So, if IQ
tests measure some combination of (1) innate cognitive differences, (2)
acquired cognitive differences (quite possibly strongly affected by those
socially-governed factors), and (3) purely social things like familiarity with
ideas assumed in the test, then looking for connections with "race" is going
to exaggerate #3 and #2 in comparison to #1.

On the other hand, any reported result about relationships (or absence of
relationships) between "race" and IQ is inevitably going to be interpreted in
terms of #1.

So I'm all for scientists studying genetic correlates of intelligence, but
anything that's described as a study of "race and IQ" seems likely to generate
more heat than light.

And that's even without getting into the fact that racism (on the one hand)
and "political correctness" (on the other) seem likely to introduce bias into
the research, how it's written up, whether it gets published, and how the
published results get reported to the general public. (Despite all the
measures that competent and honest scientists take to reduce the effects of
bias.)

~~~
byrneseyeview
_The trouble with "race" is that it's pretty meaningless biologically_

You can find an interesting piece disagreeing with that view here:

<http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007>

~~~
Retric
One problem is when someone in the USA is 75% white 25% black people label
them black. It's not that ethnic groups don't share common traits it's just
the borders are so fuzzy it's going to be hard to narrow down specifics.

~~~
endtime
Some people might, especially if the person looks black, but I'm sure a lot of
people would also label that person white, or mixed. There might even be
people ( _gasp_ ) who don't go around labeling people.

* It's not that ethnic groups don't share common traits it's just the borders are so fuzzy it's going to be hard to narrow down specifics.*

There are plenty of less-mixed people than the example you give. I don't think
a studies invovling ethnicity necessarily have to involve every single person
in the US, so people without a clear ethnicity don't need to cloud things
(though studying someone of mixed ethnicity might be illuminating in some
contexts).

~~~
Retric
My point is people don't consider 25% black an edge case. Having two parents
that where 40% black does not make you 100% black but Americans label people
that way.

Take Halley Berry the "first black woman to be nominated for a Best Actress
Academy Award." (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halle_Berry>) I would be
shocked if she was more than 40% "black" at the genetic level.

It would be an interesting study, but I suspect 60+% of "African Americans" to
be at least 25% white in the USA. I suspect if you compared the relative
percentage vs (whatever) you would see little change, because social issues
tend to swamp most other issues and they tend to identify with black. My first
boss was darker than the average African American, but he graduated from Yale
and acted more stereotypically "white" than I do.

Other classic examples would be trying to separate Arabs from Jews, Indian
from white, Japanese from Chinese, etc. People like to identify with specific
groups, but when you look at genetic studies anywhere up to 30% of children in
married couples have a different father than they think they do. Culturally
Incest is considered evil in part because genetic diversity is positively
correlated with survival, but this also extends across cultural and ethic
bounds.

PS: Not to mention war / rape and other issues. I heard that the "Black Irish"
originated from the destruction of the Spanish armada in 1588. Plenty of
people swam to shore and never made it back to Spain.

------
awt
Yes. One way to learn is to compare things to each other and find out why they
are different. The answers are usually illuminating.

~~~
Tangurena
I agree. Reality isn't what _you_ want things to be. Reality isn't what _I_
want things to be. Reality is what _is_.

~~~
kurtosis
Someone wise once said:

"Reality is what doesn't go away when you stop believing in it."

~~~
josefresco
I have to disagree with you both (although both statements are well put) ...
Reality is what is, based on our current understanding. Many realities have
changed over time, as our society progresses and evolves into a higher
understanding.

~~~
endtime
I think you're mixing up reality with our perception thereof. Reality is not
dependent on what we think, except the part of reality concerned with our
brain states.

That said, of course reality changes, if it didn't we kind of wouldn't have
time. (I'm sure Stephen Hawking could put it more eloquently than that.)

------
jeremyw
Hear, hear. A courageous article. How often journals such as Science or
popular outlets as Scientific American permit themselves creeping or outright
ad-hominemisms.

Recapture politics to fortify the scientific method: publish all data and
source code, publish negative results, aid higher rates of experiment
replication and competitive epidemiological studies.

------
pchristensen
There has to be willingness to get things wrong if there's going to be any
progress. If the fear of getting wrong answers at first prevents research,
then we'll never get the right answers.

------
tokenadult
Scientists have studied race and IQ. The foremost scientist who has looked at
the issue is James R. Flynn, who discovered an important phenomenon, increases
in IQ scores over time, that had not been noticed by psychologists in data
sets that Flynn reexamined. As Mackintosh (1998, p. 104) writes about the data
Flynn found: "the data are surprising, demolish some long-cherished beliefs,
and raise a number of other interesting issues along the way." His book, by
the way,

[http://www.amazon.com/IQ-Human-Intelligence-N-
Mackintosh/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/IQ-Human-Intelligence-N-
Mackintosh/dp/019852367X/)

is the best first book to read about IQ testing. The best second book to read
about IQ testing is Flynn's latest book,

[http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Beyond-Flynn-
Effect/...](http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Beyond-Flynn-
Effect/dp/0521880076/)

and the best third book on IQ testing to read, after the other two books have
given you a conceptual foundation, is Keith Stanovich's latest.

[http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-
Psycholog...](http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-
Psychology/dp/030012385X/)

A more complete annotated bibliography

<http://learninfreedom.org/iqbooks.html>

lists other books, not all from the same point of view.

------
amichail
Research showing that group X is generally best at doing task Y will not be as
helpful to society as a DNA test for identifying individual talent for task Y
regardless of group.

Of course, knowing which genes will help with task Y may tell you which group
is best at task Y. But the reverse is not true and will likely cause
discrimination and suboptimal outcomes.

~~~
kingkongrevenge
Even then, the DNA test is never going to be as effective as, well, a normal
test. If you're looking for people who can run fast, line them up and run a
race. No need to take DNA samples...

~~~
amichail
Speaking of running fast...

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4314209.stm>

------
msie
A recent scientific study concludes that 100% of all research is misreported
or distorted when it reaches the general public.

------
azgolfer
This seems like a pretty solid argument for a gender gap in math.

<http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math2.htm>

------
bluishgreen
<http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2008/11/28>

------
steveplace
As long as you normalize for socioeconomic variables.

------
endtime
If you say no, that means you value political correctness more highly than
science. I find that a hard position to swallow.

