[tt] NYT: James Watson Quits Post After Remarks on Races (more)

[Premise Checker]

James Watson Quits Post After Remarks on Races
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/science/26watson.html
[Statements from Watson and from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and from the 
NYT blog appended.]

By CORNELIA DEAN

James D. Watson, the eminent biologist who ignited an uproar last
week with remarks about the intelligence of people of African
descent, retired yesterday as chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory on Long Island, and from its board.

In a statement, Dr. Watson noted that, at 79, he was overdue to
surrender leadership positions at the laboratory, which he joined
as director in 1968. He was president from 1994 until 2003. But he
said the circumstances of his resignation are not those which I
could ever have anticipated or desired.

Dr. Watson, who shared a 1962 Nobel Prize for describing the
double-helix structure of DNA, and later headed the American
governments part in the international Human Genome Project, is
leaving in a swirl of denunciations and canceled speaking
invitations, including one from Rockefeller University, which
yesterday canceled a lecture he was to have given next week.

Dr. Watson, who has long had a reputation for challenging
scientific orthodoxy and for sometimes incendiary off-the-cuff
remarks, became a center of controversy last week after he was
quoted in The Times of London as suggesting that, over all, people
of African descent are not as intelligent as people of European
descent.

In the ensuing uproar, he issued a statement apologizing
unreservedly for the comments, adding, There is no scientific basis
for such a belief.

But Dr. Watson he did not say he was misquoted, and he could not be
reached for comment yesterday.

In a brief interview, Bruce Stillman, the president of the
laboratory, insisted that Dr. Watsons decision to step down was his
own. Last week, the board had relieved him of administrative
responsibilities as chancellor, a position in which he was
concerned mostly with education efforts and fund-raising.

In a statement, the laboratory said Dr. Watson had transformed Cold
Spring Harbor from a small facility into one of the worlds great
education and research institutions. Eduardo Mestre, chairman of
the laboratorys board, said he had made immeasurable contributions
to the establishment.

But a spokesman for the laboratory said yesterday that while Dr.
Watson would keep an office at the laboratory and would live there
in a house he built on land the laboratory owns, he would no longer
have a job there.

Other officials at the laboratory did not respond to telephone
calls.

The furor erupted in England, where Dr. Watson was touring to
promote his new book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in
Science (Knopf). After his remarks were reported, the Science
Museum in London canceled a sold-out speech he was scheduled to
deliver and his comments were widely denounced as racist.

The lecture Rockefeller University canceled yesterday was in
connection with Dr. Watsons receipt of this years Lewis Thomas
Prize, which the university awards annually to scientists whose
books help bridge the gap between the laboratory and the wider
world. Dr. Watson is being honored for "The Double Helix," the book
he wrote about the elucidation of DNA. Though he will still receive
the prize, and the $5,000 it carries, "there were some members of
the university community who had expressed reservations about Dr.
Watson coming here to speak after the controversy over his remarks
in the U.K.," Joseph Bonner, Rockefellers director of
communications, said yesterday.

Mr. Bonner said that just as Rockefellers president, Sir Paul M.
Nurse, had decided to cancel the event, Dr. Watson called to
suggest the same thing. Mr. Bonner said Sir Paul made the decision
after consulting various members of the university community and
university leadership.

In his statement, Dr. Watson said the work of the Human Genome
Project, an international effort that deciphered the chemical
contents of human genes, had opened the door to work on many
diseases, particularly illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar
disorder, ailments that he said had afflicted members of his
family.

But he was also aware of how the knowledge of genetics could be
used for malign purposes. One of his first acts as director of the
Human Genome Project was to set aside 3 percent of its money for
studies of the works legal and ethical implications. The figure was
later raised to 5 percent.

In his statement Dr. Watson referred to his Scots and Irish
forebears, saying their lives had been guided by faith in reason
and social justice, especially the need for those on top to help
care for the less fortunate.

+++++++++++++

Statement by James D. Watson
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/science/26wattext.html

Here is the text of the statement issued by Dr. James D. Watson
announcing his retirement, which was transmitted to The New York
Times in an e-mail message.

This morning I have conveyed to the Trustees of the Cold Spring
Harbor Laboratory my desire to retire immediately from my position
as its Chancellor, as well as from my position on its Board, on
which I have served for the past 43 years. Closer now to 80 than
79, the passing on of my remaining vestiges of leadership is more
than overdue. The circumstances in which this transfer is
occurring, however, are not those which I could ever have
anticipated or desired.

That the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory is now one of the worlds
premier sites for biological research and education has long warmed
my heart. So I am grateful that its Board now will allow me to
remain along my beloved Bungtown Road. Forty-nine years ago, as a
newly appointed young Assistant Professor at Harvard, I gave my
first course on this pernicious collection of diseases of
uncontrolled cell growth and division. Cancer, then an intellectual
black box, now, in part because of research at the Laboratory, is
almost full lit. Though important facts remain undiscovered, there
is no reason why they should not soon be found. Final victory is
within our grasp. Strong in spirit and intensely focused, I wish to
be among those at the victory line.

The ever quickening advances of science made possible by the
success of the Human Genome Project will also soon let us see the
essences of mental disease. Only after we understand them at the
genetic level can we rationally seek out appropriate therapies for
such illnesses as schizophrenia and bipolar disease. For the
children of my sister and me, this moment can not come a moment too
soon. Hell does not come close to describing the impact of
psychotic disorders on human life.

This weeks events focus me ever more intensely on the moral values
passed on to me by my father, whose Watson surname marks his long
ago Scots-Irish Appalachian heritage; and by my mother, whose
father, Lauchlin Mitchell, came from Glasgow and whose mother,
Lizzie Gleason, had parents from Tipperary. To my great advantage,
their lives were guided by a faith in reason; an honest application
of its messages; and for social justice, especially the need for
those on top to help care for the less fortunate. As an educator, I
have always striven to see that the fruits of the American Dream
are available to all.

I have been much blessed.

James D. Watson
One Bungtown Road
Cold Spring Harbor, New York

++++++++++++++++++++

Announcement by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/science/26watpr.html

Here is the text of the announcement by the Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory that the laboratorys chancellor, James D. Watson, would
retire immediately from his post as chancellor of the laboratory.
Separately, Dr. Watson said that he would also vacate his seat on
its board, but that he would continue to work at the laboratory.

October 25, 2007

Dr. James D. Watson Retires as Chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) today
announced that Dr. James D. Watson, 79, has retired after nearly 40
years of distinguished service to CSHL. He had stepped down as
President of CSHL in 2003 and most recently served as Chancellor.

In 1968, Watson became Director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory,
transforming a small facility into one of the worlds great
education and research institutions. Initiating a program to study
the cause of human cancer, scientists under his direction have made
major contributions to understanding the genetic basis of cancer.
Having served as home to a total of seven Nobel Prize-winning
scientists, CSHL expanded its research portfolio over the years to
programs that now include a broad cancer program, plant biology,
neuroscience, and computational biology. CSHL has also expanded its
science educational programs under Watsons direction to include the
famed Banbury Center and the DNA Learning Center that teaches
middle and high school students, and their teachers.

Eduardo Mestre, Chairman of the Board of CSHL, said, For over 40
years, Dr. Watson has made immeasurable contributions to the
Laboratorys research and educational programs. His legacy as 1962
Nobel Prize laureate for describing the structure of DNA will
continue to influence biomedical research for decades to come. The
Board respects his decision to retire at this point in his career.
We have great confidence in Dr. Bruce Stillman, who since 1994 has
served as Director, then President. His leadership of CSHLs 400
scientists will ensure the best environment for groundbreaking
research.

Dr. Stillman said, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory has been at the
forefront of research ever since its founding in 1890, but Jim
Watson created a research environment that is unparalleled in the
world of science. It was that environment that attracted me here 28
years ago. As one of the most highly rated research institutions in
the world today, our many award-winning researchers are well
positioned to continue to make new research breakthroughs thanks to
the extraordinary, young talent working here. We all owe Jim and
his wife Liz a great deal of gratitude for devoting much of his
professional career and all of their married life to building up
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory into a leading research center. Jims
legacy will not only include CSHL and the double helix, but his
pioneering efforts that led to the sequencing of the human genome
and his innovations in science writing and education.

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) is a private, non-profit
research and education institution dedicated to exploring molecular
biology and genetics in order to advance the understanding and
ability to diagnose and treat cancers, neurological diseases, and
other causes of human suffering.

For more information, visit http://www.cshl.edu

+++++++++++++++++

James Watson, Black Intelligence, and New Research by Fryer and Levitt
Freakonomics - New York Times Blog
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/james-watson-black-intelligence-and-new-research-by-fryer-and-levitt/

Steven D. Levitt October 19, 2007, 9:43 am
James Watson, Black Intelligence, and New Research by Fryer and Levitt
By Steven D. Levitt

Nobel Laureate James Watson got into trouble recently for
expressing the opinion that blacks are less intelligent than
whites.

If you look at almost all existing data from standardized tests in
the United States, there is indeed a sizable black-white test score
gap. Whether the gap is due to genetic differences is a hotly
debated academic question.

Roland Fryer and I have done some research on this topic which we
think is potentially quite interesting and important -- although we
seem to be the only ones with this opinion at present. (The paper
was rejected yesterday by the American Economic Review on the
second round of review, and a search of Google Scholar reveals only
two citations to the working paper version released in early 2006.)

In my work with Fryer, we analyzed a newly available nationally
representative survey of children ages two and under, done by the
Department of Education. Included in this study are tests of mental
ability around a child's first birthday. While you might think it
would be impossible to capture anything meaningful at such a young
age, it turns out that these measures of one-year-olds'
intelligence are somewhat highly correlated with IQ scores at later
ages, as well as with parental IQ scores.

The striking result we find is that there are no racial differences
in mental functioning at age one, although a racial gap begins to
emerge over the next few years of life.

So what does this mean for the genetics vs. environment debate?
Quoting from our abstract, "the observed patterns are broadly
consistent with large racial differences in environmental factors
that grow in importance as children age. Our findings are not
consistent with the simplest models of large genetic differences
across races in intelligence, although we cannot rule out the
possibility that intelligence has multiple dimensions and racial
differences are present only in those dimensions that emerge later
in life."

Like all research, our study has its flaws and limitations. I have
to say, however, that I imagined a lot of reactions to this paper,
none of which were utter indifference on the part of academics and
the popular press. But that was the reaction we got.

134 comments so far...

* 1. October 19th, 2007 9:55 am
Developmental Psychologists have been working on this for a
long time. Leave it to a couple of economists to solve the
nature v. nurture debate!
-- Posted by JS

* 2. October 19th, 2007 10:02 am
In a similar vein, allthough even more puzzling IMO, is the
black/black achievement gap. Blacks born in other countries,
such as haiti, africa etc, have a higher average income than do
American born blacks.
I have often wondered why no economist has ever seriously
studied this issue, (to the best of my knowledge)and would love
to see you gentlemen tackle it.
-- Posted by mwm131

* 3. October 19th, 2007 10:04 am
Next question to study:
Was the perceived "indifference" due to genuine disinterest in
your findings, or hesitance (fear) to speak out one way or the
other?
-- Posted by Eli

* 4. October 19th, 2007 10:04 am
"Like all research, our study has its flaws and limitations."
Fortunately, whatever the flaws, your research does *not* have
the potent and detrimental flaw of entrenched racism.
-- Posted by Rita: Lovely Meter Maid

* 5. October 19th, 2007 10:08 am
Nice post. Often overlooked is the selection problem w/ African
Americans. Uniquely, African Americans (most of them anyway)
are the descendants of involuntary immigrants. You get the
implications..
-- Posted by Doug G

* 6. October 19th, 2007 10:10 am
Isn't the hole in the paper caught in the very last paragraph,
that you don't know what is being tested at various ages? The
tests aren't and can't be the same for toddlers and older
people, so no matter your position on IQ it's difficult to see
how this work moves the debate in either direction. I can see
why academics on both sides don't want to touch this: if you
use the argument in your favor, you also raise an equally
potent counter-argument.
-- Posted by lergnom

* 7. October 19th, 2007 10:30 am
mwm131: that might be down to one group being self-selecting.
People who up and move from one country to another are likely
to be driven, motivated, hard-working, etc.
-- Posted by Tom

* 8. October 19th, 2007 10:47 am
I dunno...I think the information is good and results valid. I
simply wonder if the conclusion simply doesn't fit into the
current social agenda? The predominately white ruling class,
while publicly pushing for advancements in rights and
opportunities, probably secretly want to think that blacks are
indeed inferior and therefore not worth that much effort. Yes,
I'm a cynic, but I've observed much to advance my opinion.
Lergnom has some good points. IQ and IQ testing are, to this
day, being debated and redefined.
-- Posted by Toni

* 9. October 19th, 2007 10:55 am
Can someone clarify this point - you say that "...measures of
one-year-olds' intelligence are somewhat highly correlated with
IQ scores at later ages..." Then you state that "there are no
racial differences in mental functioning at age one, although a
racial gap begins to emerge over the next few years of life."
These statements are contradictory. If the two measures of IQ
are highly correlated, then the racial gap would exist either
in both places or in neither place. You would not see a gap
develop over time - this would contradict your previous
assertion of correlation.
-- Posted by David

* 10. October 19th, 2007 10:57 am
Racism and its consequences are alive and well in America! But
no one wants to hear it, especially not the Supreme Court; they
would probably like to shorten Sandra Day O'Connor's time line
for the end of racism (well actually the end of affirmative
action). No one in power wants to admit the extent of their
bias privilege of power.
"No racial differences in mental functioning at age one..."
"The observed patterns are broadly consistent with large racial
differences in environmental factors that grow in importance as
children age."
I, a white upper upper middle class male, have held a similar
opinion at least since college (Caltech), where the statistics
class taught by the then dean of students regularly examined
the statistics of the school population. Presuming that a
students graduating GPA was the least bias statistic and the
best measure of success we correlated all other know
quantifiable statistics to graduating GPA. Women, then less
than 20% of the student population, had a much higher GPA than
men based on the "bias" statistic like SAT score, HS GPA, AP
test scores or class rank. The other way of saying this was
that if the target GPA of applicant for admissions was a B GPA;
then when evaluating a female applicant the required SAT score
(to predict a B GPA and thus be eligible for serious
consideration for admission) was significantly lower (if I
remember correctly 50 to 100 points on the 1600 scale) than the
SAT score of a male applicant. Racial statistics were not
available due to the small sample size, but the statistics that
we did have would indicate that similar or larger bias was at
play. In addition to their efforts to recruit women, the school
did start also making a larger effort to identify and recruit
applicants that were not white or Asian.
Most persons associated with the university (faculty, students,
and parents of students) that were not in the Dean of Students
statistics class were incredulous to the policy of admitting
women with lower SAT scores than their male counterparts. Yet
the best measure of success of a student (their graduating GPA)
would indicate that test such as the SAT were bias against non
white males, and that a major correction to the SAT scores was
needed to put applicants on a level playing field. This was
only a measure of the bias discrimination sexism and racism of
the world that could be "corrected" late in life by a rigorous
college education, it could not measure the irrevocable harm
done by 18 years of exposure to our bias society.
I have never trusted a standardized test to be unbiased since.
In general such bias has been quite personally favorable
whenever I have been measured by such a test, but I also know
and acknowledge how artificial and bias such measures are.
People with lower scores on these tests are not necessarily any
less accomplished in the skill or subject matter that is
purported to be measured. In fact I have known several
instances where people with much greater skills or abilities
than me, have scored lower.
The power structure has no interest in examining or challenging
the source of their power.
-- Posted by Erik Hille

* 11. October 19th, 2007 11:06 am
Very interesting, and to some extent, a cause for optimism. If
the difference starts to expand between ages 1 and 2, would
that not then mean that perhaps there is a difference in how
children are raised and taught while they are just toddlers -
how much attention is given to their learning, how people
interact with those children, etc.? It would then just be a
matter of showing parents techniques or ideas to help their own
children.
-- Posted by Ezzie

* 12. October 19th, 2007 11:09 am
There's a simple reason why you've been met with disinterest:
Old news is not interesting.
That there is no fundamental (genetic) difference in
predisposition to (modern standards of) intelligence across the
races (which we should remember are arbitrary categories, not
biological ones) is not news.
That there are vast and varied social phenomena which affect
and interact differently with different demographics -
including race - that therefore yield different trends in
common traits, is also not news.
What are we missing?
What makes your work interesting, informative, new - in other
words, worth knowing and reading?
-- Posted by Mani

* 13. October 19th, 2007 11:17 am
I think that's an interesting finding, and am surprised it was
rejected. I'd have published it... :)
With that said, though, I'm not convinced it's really as strong
an argument against the genetic explanation for the IQ gap as
you think it is.
Let's talk about the brain for a second, and its relationship
to intelligence: Much of what it commonly called "intelligence"
happens in the prefrontal cortex. This is where you'll find
activity related to working memory, planning, rule maintenance,
various types of inhibitory control, et cetera.
The interesting thing about the prefrontal cortex is that it's
very slow in developing. Myelination of this area isn't
complete until late adolescence or early adulthood, for
example. (This finding has been correlated with the impulsivity
seen in teenagers.)
There are certainly genetic influences on the rate of
myelination, and on the patterns of prefrontal development in
general. If the genetic role in the IQ gap is considered to be
the influence on the rate and "completeness" of prefrontal
development, it would predict exactly your findings: a
gradually widening gap in IQs as development progresses.
Of course, that's exactly what a purely environmental influence
would predict, as well. That's one big hurdle for this type of
research.
The other big problem is that these types of questions are
scientific third-rails. If there *are* truly genetically
influenced intelligence differences between people, a better
understanding of how those differences work could lead to
better treatments for everyone "at risk", regardless of race.
Do you have the "slow myelination" gene? Bad luck. Maybe you
need to eat a boatload of Omega-3 fats to accommodate. It's
much more complicated than this, of course, but it's a shame
that that such an interesting and potentially helpful line of
research is so inextricably entangled with accusations of
racism.
And, in that regard, Watson isn't helping...
-- Posted by Todd

* 14. October 19th, 2007 11:17 am
Steven,
Could you respond to comment #9 from David as he has raised a
very valid point. I agree with him that you contradict yourself
in the post. Thanks.
-- Posted by Charles

* 15. October 19th, 2007 11:19 am
I would be interested to know how black children adopted by
white parents compare.
-- Posted by Toady

* 16. October 19th, 2007 11:38 am
I read the post, and scanned the paper (i'm not that
mathematically inclined, so I might have missed a few important
points), and the link, but from what I got both the paper and
the black-white test score gap are based on IQ values. I did a
little search on wikipedia (so if the data isn't reliable,
that's as far as I got) and found that Stephen Jay Gould says
"...the abstraction of intelligence as a single entity, its
location within the brain, its quantification as one number for
each individual, and the use of these numbers to rank people in
a single series of worthiness, invariably to find that
oppressed and disadvantaged groups--races, classes, or
sexes--are innately inferior and deserve their status." (in
Mismeasure of a man, pp.24-25)
I've never read the book, but I'm certainly intrigued (and
thinking about buying it now). Does anybody know how the IQ
tests were validated and standartized? Did they apply the tests
to equally competent (and by that I mean intelligent in the
broader sense of the word, not just what the IQ measures)
people of different races to see if they scored the same? Is
there any chance that the test, as Gould seems to imply, is
biased?
Also, wikipedia has an article on Sex and intelligence
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence), and it
mentions different results for men and women in regards to
verbal and spacial tests (women fare better on the first, men
on the latter). And we know women are not less intelligent than
men, but there are some differences as to which tasks they
might do better at.
Another interesting thing I thought about is the fact that
Brazil has a large number of mixed-race people. Maybe it'd be
interesting to see if the offspring of black and white parents
might score somewhere in the middle. I don't know if we have
any available data, though...
Either way, I agree with Rita, your research is not racist in
any way, it just presents data as it is.
-- Posted by Julio P.(from Brazil)

* 17. October 19th, 2007 11:45 am
"The striking result we find is that there are no racial
differences in mental functioning at age one"
Wow- you find that "striking"? Like how O'reilly finds it
striking that Blacks behave in restaurants?
I've only been reading the Freakonomics blog for a couple of
months, but I've noticed some subtle (and not subtle)
underlying white supremacist slant in Levitt's research and
comments (not so much Dubner, who I find pretty cool).
Just off the top of my head:
- Lets abort black babies to reduce crime
- The KKK wasnt so bad
- Wow! Striking revelation: babies are born the same!
There's other little jabs I `ve caught here and there, which I
am not going to go through the effort to find in your numerous
posts.
Suffice it to say, I don't think I will be reading this blog
anymore and rewarding it with my mouse clicks. Market forces,
baby! I don't think I am your target audience.
Good luck
-- Posted by Chris

* 18. October 19th, 2007 11:53 am
Given the PC atmosphere in the US, I'd say these topics are
dead ends.
-- Posted by Michael

* 19. October 19th, 2007 12:16 pm
My problem is not with the differences between the intelligence
test of blacks and whites, or with Asians for that matter, it's
with the testing itself. But before I go into that there is the
question of whether there is more variation within a group than
there is between groups which would tend to reduce the whole
argument to one of bragging rights only.
Lyndon Johnson once said if you can't walk into a room and tell
who's on your side and who isn't, you shouldn't be in politics.
How do you measure that in an IQ test? How many people do you
know who have trouble even answering their emails while they
can be the life of the party that everyone wants to talk to?
Low IQ but a personal success.
On the flip size, there are all those people who have extremely
high IQ's and we call them geeks, nerds, and all manner of
derogatory terms for their lack of social skills. They know all
about balancing formulas but can't make a simple match of a
shirt to a pair of pants. Why doesn't that show up on an IQ
test?
There is a whole nother aspect to being human that is going
unmeasured and we are judging people by just one currently
fashionable measurement. Get real. Dump the IQ test or develop
others that put it into perspective.
-- Posted by scout29c

* 20. October 19th, 2007 12:17 pm
I can only go my own experience. I would tend to lean toward
the environmental influence.
I am an African-American and I passed the Mensa test. I skipped
4th Grade and should have considered myself smart or
intelligent at the time. But it wasn't until I passed the Mensa
test that I truly felt that I was intelligent. I don't feel
that my learning environment was fully supportive.
I write this without assigning blame to anyone. When one grows
up in a social and community culture that does not honor
everyone's potential and does not hold children or parents
accountable for their choices and decisions about themselves
and how they interact in their communities, I think it is
possible to undervalue yourself. I don't think that a child
needs to be coddled all the time, but I do think that early
educational opportunities are key. Studies in early development
and learning indicate that the mind is most receptive during
early childhood. If the learning environment (and nutrition) is
not supportive during this early developmental stage, the later
learning and self-esteem is at risk.
Test scores are only a snapshot and must be considered only in
the much larger picture of cultural and societal expectations
of each and every child.
-- Posted by Doug E

* 21. October 19th, 2007 12:20 pm
At #14 and #9: here's my attempt to answer it.
"If the two measures of IQ are highly correlated, then the
racial gap would exist either in both places or in neither
place. You would not see a gap develop over time - this would
contradict your previous assertion of correlation."
The correlation he is talking about is between the IQ's of
children at different ages, not between races as you call out.
So this means that IQs of 1 year olds and 10 year olds are
pretty similar (correlated); regardless of race. However, when
you take race into consideration, you see that there is less
correlation than the general population; meaning race `could
be' a factor (remember: correlation does not necessarily =
causation).
-- Posted by DK

* 22. October 19th, 2007 12:23 pm
Aren't the following statements in the entry logically
contradictory:
"...measures of one-year-olds' intelligence are somewhat highly
correlated with IQ scores at later ages, as well as with
parental IQ scores.
The striking result we find is that there are no racial
differences in mental functioning at age one, although a racial
gap begins to emerge over the next few years of life."
How can both be true at the same time?
- - - - -
On a different note, and apart from that possible
inconsistency, Levitt's explanation does resemble Flynn's
explanation of the Flynn effect: intelligent quotients are
evenly distributed among children, but environmental pressures
tend to redistribute children's aptitudes as they grow.
-- Posted by Berto

* 23. October 19th, 2007 12:26 pm
@17.
Are you kidding ... he's not saying `Wow! Striking revelation:
babies are born the same!'
If you actually think all babies are born the same, then please
stop reading this blog as you're bringing down the collective
IQ of these discussions substantially.
Fact: No two babies are born the same (although maternal twins
are close). Why does one child die of cancer and another never
get it ... perhaps you think no illness is genetic, everything
is environmental; perhaps you don't even believe in genetics.
Good riddance.
-- Posted by Marco

* 24. October 19th, 2007 12:29 pm
I think the more interesting question is this: what if your
results skewed heavily toward the Blacks? Or Caucasians? Would
you have still submitted the paper, or would that have been
career suicide?
-- Posted by sgt_getraer

* 25. October 19th, 2007 12:32 pm
#9 and #14. The findings are contradictory at all.
Think of two baseball players. Let's say little league batting
average is highly correlated to pro career batting average.
This is essentially a correlation to rank. Let's say the little
league hitters hit .475 and .500 respectively. Then at the
prolevel they hit .250 and .350 respectively. Their rank
average is roughly correlated, but the relative difference in
their pro abilties as a percentage (or percentage point
difference changed).
-- Posted by Chappy

* 26. October 19th, 2007 12:41 pm
Re. standardized tests being `racist'...
1) 8 * 8 =
a) 4 b) 12 c) 27 d) 64 e) none of the above
2) 17 * 3 =
a) 15 b) 39 c) 57 d) 51 e) none of the above
Stop with the racism already!
At best I did average on these tests, I hated them; and don't
think they are highly correlated with `success' (there is still
some correlation, and hence they continue use these tests) ...
but let's get real, there's nothing racist about mathematics.
Leave the linguists and everything else that could be remotely
`racist' out of the comparison and my guess is that the results
will stay the same.
-- Posted by Marco

* 27. October 19th, 2007 12:48 pm
At any given moment there is only one person on Earth who is
smarter than everybody else. At the same time there are people
who are the smartest among the social groups to which they
belong. These are the only people who needn't learn the life
lesson that there is always someone smarter than them. Except
they too must face the matter eventually, when they age and
begin to loose their faculties. A more interesting question
than "Who's smarter?" might be: What economic purpose does a
lumpy distribution of high intelligence serve?
-- Posted by Chesapean

* 28. October 19th, 2007 1:05 pm
So why was the manuscript rejected? I'm quite curious as it
seems like a fine piece of scholarship. I encourage you to
submit it another journal.
-- Posted by Christopher

* 29. October 19th, 2007 1:17 pm
Next thing Watson will say is that Ashkenazi Jews are smarter
on a relative scale. He'll say that IQ tests, and, for example,
the fact that Jews make up .2% of the world population, but 40%
of the Nobel prizes in economics (including the three most
recent winners) proves it. This guy's off his rocker.
-- Posted by David

* 30. October 19th, 2007 1:26 pm
It's amazing how taboo this topic is. Discuss area of origin in
light of characteristics such as height, weight, fast twitch
muscle fibers, etc., and you won't receive anywhere near the
vitriolic reaction this topic engenders.
-- Posted by Mike

* 31. October 19th, 2007 1:48 pm
How come Dr. Watson gets fired from his job and his talks in
London get canceled at a mere mentioning of potential IQ
differences between blacks and whites while at the same time
the president of Iran is hosted by Columbia University and is
provided with the stage and media coverage to talk about his
racial views and annihilation of Jews and Israel? How come the
Western society is so bent out of shape over black/white
equality and any dissenting opinions are strict taboo? Prof
Levitt, do you think the Westerners are too afraid from the
political reasons to quote your research?
-- Posted by Ben

* 32. October 19th, 2007 1:58 pm
It seems to me that the "intelligence" testing that you can do
for a one-year old is significantly different than the testing
you can do for a ten-year old. As a result, the "intelligence"
you're testing is a different quality. Therefore, the
conclusion that different tests result in different
distributions is hardly remarkable or newsworthy. It would be
interesting if the 1-year old test was repeated with 10 year
olds. My guess is that would also show no variation with race.
Your paper illustrates the problem with the statistical method
of doing science. Sometimes, you have to go out in the field
and catch something.
-- Posted by misterb

* 33. October 19th, 2007 2:05 pm
I'm wondering if there is anything to be learned from the
hypotheses presented in A Farewell To Alms?
-- Posted by w

* 34. October 19th, 2007 2:10 pm
Prejudice produces bad policy and bad law. These beliefs result
in a waste of scarce, talented human resources. The opportunity
costs resulting from prejudice and discrimination are immense.
-- Posted by jdayton

* 35. October 19th, 2007 2:34 pm
On the same topic, I've seen plenty of data that puts Hispanics
in the lowest scores for standarized tests and IQ tests.
However, (I say this just from mere observation) children who
have been previously schooled in South America seem to perform
very well in school. This is also true for South American
interantional students.
It really leaves me wondering about the whole nurture vs nature
argument again. If anyone has any idea on what's up with
this...I'd love to know.
-- Posted by Pablito

* 36. October 19th, 2007 2:37 pm
Steven,
I think I know the easiest way to explain the data.
Black babies mature earlier (shorter gestation period too),
asians mature later.
In a sense you are comparing a 0.95 year old asian baby, a 1
year old caucasian, and 1.1 year old african.
Boris
-- Posted by Boris

* 37. October 19th, 2007 2:45 pm
This argument has a long history of absurdity. It's from the
Eugenisists movement of the early part of the 20th century.
Spontanious generation was in it's final hours and Darwin's
theory was new. Dalton brought to Cold Springs Harbor, New
Jersy the psudo-science of Eugenics (from England)and developed
the IQ test (given to our soldiers during WWI) and invented the
word "moron" from several Greek words knitted together. For
those interested in both the absurdity and ongoing danger of
this hypothythis read `War Against the Week' by Black. 70,000
people were steilized without their knowlege in America because
of it. The calamity of WWII and the Holocaust and was helped
incalculably by this perversion of science. Lets not play this
foolish and horrific game again. Watson, Watson, hmmmmm....
-- Posted by Glenn

* 38. October 19th, 2007 2:57 pm
Specification of the Independent Variable, race, is largely
spurious in light of the findings of the human genome project
(see Cavelli-Sforza etc.) The human race is almost homogeneous.
This type of research measures, if anything, subcultural
differences which are the result of conditioning histories etc.
There may be a minor role for nutrition, particularly
differential maternal nutrition histories or disease exposure.
Such factors are not genetic.
-- Posted by Art Horn Ph.D.

* 39. October 19th, 2007 3:02 pm
I think this is one area that might be clarified as we learn
more about epigenetics-environmental factors that can switch
genes on and off, sometimes over generations. Or maybe this new
field will just muddy the waters even more!
-- Posted by Roxane

* 40. October 19th, 2007 3:05 pm
It took 37 posts, but someone finally equated Watson to Hitler,
and the observation of test result differences amongst various
races to be the equivalent of eugenics. Is there a more
disingenuous way to end a debate than by playing the "Hitler"
card?
David at no. 29, stop with the crazy talk! Observations of that
sort are racist: you must filter test results and data through
a miasma of political correctness.
Watson's comments are insensitive, and unscientific, but the
following is basically true: blacks score significantly worse
on standardized tests of intelligence as compared to whites and
asians, probably due to a host of factors either environmental
or genetic. Pretending this isn't the case doesn't help us
identify, or potentially address, the problem(s).
-- Posted by Mike

* 41. October 19th, 2007 3:42 pm
What I want to know is how IQ scores measure across class, ie,
do very low income children have a steeper "fall off" than
middle or high income children of the same race? At the risk of
trending into "ELIMINATE ALL RACE BASED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND
REPLACE IT WITH CLASS-ONLY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!", I would think
that would be useful in helping to determine how much (or if
some of) of the black/white achievement gap is the environment
portion of environment/racial bias.
Here's a pure anecdote: I'm a law student with
lower-middle-class, blue-collar parents, and in my purely
personal experiance I've noticed (unfortunately) that some of
my classmates treat me like my IQ's taken a forty point drop
when they find out I'm not the child of, I don't know, a
world-renown cardiologist father and a society charity
volunteer mother or whatever other fancy professional combo
they think it takes to breed a successful law student.
You'd think once you hit this point they'd know better: we all
got into the same school, ect, ect, my grades are excellent
even though I attended a little no-name college that gave me a
huge scholarship and not a fancy ivy I could never have gotten
the loans on my own to afford, ect. But they don't. And I'm
white, so it's not a racial bias there.
Oddly, I've also noticed they tend also to assume our black
classmates came from the streets. I know most of `em (they're
sadly underrepresented-I don't think we have a single black man
in my class, and just four or five black girls in a class of
180-and one of them's South African, not American).
All the ones I know in my class had at least one college
educated parent.
-- Posted by legaleaglet

* 42. October 19th, 2007 4:00 pm
The problem is spending large amounts of time analyzing and
interpreting IQ test results. IQ test results show the ability
of people to perform on IQ tests.
One oddity of all this is that people spend much less time and
energy on the correlations between obvious physical gifts and
success in athletic competitions. What are the average 60-yard
dash times of tennis champions? How much can baseball players
bench-press?
No one knows. No one cares! Because it is obvious that playing
baseball itself is the measure of success.
There is no such thing as intelligence. It is a construct of a
childish, primitive model of the mind. Smart people would do
best to rid themselves of the notion, and spend their time
figuring out how the brain/mind actually works and how to
create economic systems that are fair and allow everyone a
chance to contribute.
-- Posted by Charlie

* 43. October 19th, 2007 4:12 pm
Yeah, Steven, take #28's advice and resubmit to another
journal.
Oh and yeah - this blog proves one of my favorite pseudo-laws.
It took 37 posts for Godwin's Law to hold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
-- Posted by Raj Pandravada

* 44. October 19th, 2007 4:29 pm
> From the end of the 18th century to the middle of the 19th the
United States experienced a conscious and concerted effort to
justify the enslavement of Africans using the argument that
they were an inferior sub-species of human. It was and is
irrational to hold that it should be illegal to teach a slave
to read because they are not capable of learning, but that
didn't stop anyone. The reason why the question of relative
intelligence is such a burning issue is because those who
wanted to protect their economic interest in slavery made it
the primary justification way back then. Over the course of
three generations every white person in the slave owning states
was taught to believe this, as were the slaves. People still
believe it today. It simplistically rationalizes the history of
slavery, not merely as justification but also as explanation of
why it was apparently so easy to enslave Africans. It also
explains today's African-American poverty rates. There is a
coincidence of motivations here. When someone tells me I am not
capable I can easily rationalize that that is good news for me.
They can do the work and they shouldn't expect much from me.
When I'm told that I am smarter than someone else I feel valued
and important. People generally believe what they are told and
generally live up to expectations. (I was always told that I
was very smart, I was almost never told that I was capable,
therefore today I am overeducated and underemployed.)
The African-American community needs to internalize the idea
that "White Superiority" was first and foremost a
rationalization to maintain an economic advantage, not over
Blacks but over the business competition. It later became
integrated into the myth of the Civil War that argues the
"nobility" of the Southern Cause. Great-Grand Pappy isn't such
a hero if you have to admit that he went to war to defend the
Flat Earth theory. Social Darwinism and eugenics came along
later and merely added another support for the idea of racial
superiority.
-- Posted by martin g

* 45. October 19th, 2007 4:36 pm
You ought to look at the research that Thomas Sowell's book
"Conquest and Cultures" is based on. It pretty convincingly
demonstrates on a world-scale that cultural factors far
outweigh genetics as predictors for intelligence, success,
etc...
-- Posted by Sharper

* 46. October 19th, 2007 4:40 pm
Toady is correct- the only real way to test the genetic
question is to sample a population of adopted children from
other racial heritages within white homes.
However, many adopted children may already exhibit several
background factors regarding lower intelligence scores (smoking
during pregnancy, an unfit diet during pregnancy, neglect as an
infant). Trying to find a large enough sample that meets as
many background criteria as the control group may be difficult.
@Raj Pandravada: Um, anytime Levitt (or anyone) uses a
Pearson's R, he's using a tool created by a statistician who
was so convinced by eugenics that he invented a way to compare
populations... to promote eugenics. Know your statistical
history before rolling out the Godwin's Law attack. Glenn's
concerns are perfectly viable. However, while comparing 2
populations, Levitt isn't using Pearson's r, or at least, isn't
acknowledging it as such. I'm unsure what he's using to compare
the two populations, as the model appears ad hoc to the study
(which is often frowned upon).
In sum, there are better methodologies to assess this question,
and better scholars to investigate it. Frankly, standardized IQ
tests have a wide assortment of critiques from inter-cultural
and language scholars who know better.
-- Posted by Silvanus

* 47. October 19th, 2007 4:44 pm
Raj P., nice to see a name put to the phenomenon I pointed out
in post #40. Thanks.
> From No. 42: "The problem is spending large amounts of time
analyzing and interpreting IQ test results. IQ test results
show the ability of people to perform on IQ tests."
Wrong. IQ tests correlate pretty strongly with intelligence:
i.e., someone who does well on an IQ test relative to the
population at large is overwhelmingly likely to do relatively
well at any other test of "intelligence" one can devise. But,
they're not perfect, and have a history of cultural bias. But
to say they're worthless is intellectually dishonest.
My biggest fear is that cultural taboos over exploring human
intelligence will result in a research myopia: scientists will
simply abandon the field rather than risk ruining their
careers.
If people believe that "intelligence" has been evenly dispersed
for every geographical area in which humans populate, why the
hue and cry over competing viewpoints or research?
-- Posted by Mike B.

* 48. October 19th, 2007 4:45 pm
Erik Hille (10:57 am) - my memory of it is pretty hazy, but I
believe Martin Shapiro, a psychologist with a law degree at
Emory University, conducted an analysis like this of LSAT and
law school GPA as an expert witness for the University of Texas
law school admissions case. His side lost, but I found the data
interesting and compelling in the same way you do the caltech
data.
-- Posted by Colin

* 49. October 19th, 2007 5:01 pm
I am South American. Born in Suriname and raised in Guyana , I
come from a very diverse background. Black, Indian and white.
My is wife is Guyanese and also comes from a diverse and
multi-ethnic background. We were both educated by the British
and agree that when we came to America we felt that our
American counter parts black and white were both lacking when
it came to intelligence. We say this because what we were
taught in elementary school...Americans were learning in high
school; as a whole American students fall way behind almost
every other country.
Is that because they (other cultures) are somehow genetically
superior to Americans because of where they were born?!?!
Are my wife and I only intelligent because we are mixed race?
I have traveled all over the world and have dealt with many
different kinds of people. Race and sex have nothing to do with
one's intelligence.
It's funny how all of you are pretending to be so intelligent
and want to show it by just quoting others and not really
thinking and looking at the world we live in and looking at our
history as one race... the human race and you will see that
real intelligence as we know it is not relegated by race nor
sex..
Oh yeah!!!!
This is for all you other people of color out there...yeah you
too!!!!
I know you like to think that were not all in the same boat
because your asian or Hispanic or whatever. YOU ARE!!! WAKE
UP!!!! YOU ARE NOT WHITE!!!!
IF SOMETHING IS SAID ABOUT A PERSON OF COLOR, IT AFFECTS US
ALL!!!!
REMEMBER, THE SLAVES CLOSEST TO THE MASTER WERE A BIT LIGHTER
YES... BUT STILL A SLAVE JUST THE SAME!!
-- Posted by Vrijheid

* 50. October 19th, 2007 5:07 pm
Two quick points:
1. I would not call an association of 0.3 "somewhat highly
correlated".
2. Contrary to what you wrote in the blog posts, in the paper
you do not report "no difference" between black and white
children; you find no difference only when you adjust for what
are arguably proxies for maternal IQ (socioeconomic status
etc.).
The reason your paper went unnoticed might be that it has no
bearing on the question of the black-white IQ gap.
-- Posted by LemmusLemmus

* 51. October 19th, 2007 5:18 pm
Dr. Levitt's work is important precisely because we continue to
have people (see. e.g. Charles Murray, 2006 article in
INTELLIGENCE, 34) arguing for very large, unchanging (therefore
inherent) differences in IQ. In contrast, we also have scholars
like James Flynn & colleagues, who using stronger methods and
better data, see the gap closing rather rapidly (also see
INTELLIGENCE 2006). Such a rapid change defies
evolutionary/genetic explanations. Art Horn is also correct:
there are no meaningful genetic differences across race. We
continually have to produce such work in order to counteract
the terrible tendencies of both scholarly arguments (e.g.,
Murray) and casual commentators (Watson). These tendencies to
support genetic arguments leave our policymakers and the
general public free from confronting many of the environmental
disparities associated with gaps not only on test scores, but
on very "real" indicators like income, wealth, home ownership,
access to highly qualified teachers, and educational
attainment.
Mindy K.
-- Posted by Mindy K

* 52. October 19th, 2007 5:25 pm
@ legaleaglet (#41)
You've demonstrated something I pointed out earlier very
succintly, albeit inadvertently:
"I don't think we have a single black man in my class, and just
four or five black girls in a class of 180-and one of them's
South African, not American."
Race is an arbitrary distinction with little to no biological
grounding. It it judged loosely on heritage (not genetics) and
subjective interpretation of phenotype.
We're not dealing with secluded tribes or Ashkenazi Jews -
we're dealing with an entire nation of immigrants and mutts. As
a biological distinguisher (i.e. "Are black babies genetically
predisposed to [BLANK]?") it is therefore virtually worthless
in a population as genetically diverse as Americans.
"Race" is a class distinction, not a biological one. In terms
of this discussion, class means "environment," not innate
genetics. On top of that, the cultivation of intelligence is
extremely heavily impacted by environment.
And which genetic markers for intelligence did you track? Or
were you just observing apparent phenotypes and assuming 1-to-1
direct genetic correlation (a mistake that is explained in
high-school bio classes)? In other words, were you testing the
environmental expression of a trait to be affected by
environment?
And on top of that, did you control for developmental
conditions that affect the manner and capacity of even taking
these tests (such as Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder),
which would account for the potential underachievement of very
bright (whatever that means) toddlers?
So where's all this leave us?
Assuming all controls are correct and therefore your
conclusions valid, your assertion boils down to: environmental
factors affect a trait that is developed through interaction
with one's environment.
You're right. I can't imagine which the academic community
wasn't just drooling at the chance to publish that.
All that this kind of research is good for, ultimately, is A.
repeating existing findings, for those who doubt any individual
studies - i.e. one more underline on an already established
point, and B. stirring up controversy just by including
"Blacks" and "predisposition to intelligence" in the same
phrase.
Hey. At the least, a healthy controversy brings out the real
idiots, racists, bigots, and ignorance in the public. Always
good to point those out and see where they are.
-- Posted by Mani

* 53. October 19th, 2007 5:39 pm
What does an IQ test measure?
- Learned Information, but not Ability to Learn Information.
- It measures how much breakfast you ate or didn't eat.
- It measures if your parents push you to read.
- It measures the quality of your school.
- It measures how much stress you are under, can I walk to
school safely, will someone beat me up in school.
- I test above average in an IQ test, but, my ancestor's on
both sides were peasents. If IQ is genetic they why isn't my IQ
below average? Because I had breakfast, am fed regularly, my
parents loved and protected me, my parents read to me, my
schools were at least average, I was under no stress mostly, I
was taught what to expect on the test.
-- Posted by Mike127

* 54. October 19th, 2007 5:44 pm
I still think IQ tests and scores are pretty worthless, even if
the tests correlate with each other. I would much prefer
scientists to be doing the hard work of understanding the brain
itself instead of the absurdly inaccurate proxy that an
"intelligence" test is. If there is a single measurable
quantity it should be a physical trait of the brain that can be
measured directly.
The single model of "intelligence" serves as a crutch for all
kinds of lazy thinking. "That idea must be right because
so-and-so says it is, and they're very 'smart'". But ideas are
correct or not no matter whose brain holds them. History is
full of smart people with dumb ideas.
I think that IQ scores are mostly used to justify feelings of
superiority by fortunate people who don't want to admit that
they were lucky, but want to believe that they are "better".
-- Posted by Charlie

* 55. October 19th, 2007 5:55 pm
The level of ignorance displayed in these comments is striking.
In particular, essentially every statement of fact by
"Mike127'' is clearly inaccurate and/or irrelevant.
Nobody has said that all peasants have low IQ scores. An IQ
test does not measure whether you have had breakfast or not,
and it does, in fact, test innate intelligence, not learned
knowledge. One can certainly game the test to an extent, but
dozens upon dozens of studies controlling for almost every
conceivable factor (wealth, education, income, etc.) has found
a massive delta in the relative IQs of blacks and whites. The
same studies show Asians, in the aggregate, as having scores
slightly higher than whites.
That is why the studies showing relatively IQ parity at age 1
are, notwithstanding some of their flaws, striking. They are
the only IQ study I have ever heard of -- again, out of dozens,
not a handful ... if you doubt this, read the Bell Curve --
that hasn't found a significant difference in any age group.
-- Posted by Damian

* 56. October 19th, 2007 6:14 pm
I'm not the least bit surprised at the disparities that appear
post yr 1, tho I'm still uncertain as to what constitutes I.Q.
Not having researched this topic myself, I can only offer
anecdotal observations. I started elementary school (there was
no kindergarten) in the mid 50s). There was no disparity
between the very few black children in our school and the white
ones (can I say `black' and `white?') By 3rd/4th grades these
few black children seemed to fade away. As a child, I simply
missed them, but had no reason to ask why. To this day I do not
know.
Later, when our children were in high school (mid-80s/90s) I
observed a signal situation. Black students were derided by
their racial peers if they `acted white,' i.e. got good grades
and were not disruptive.
Save soccer, most sports teams were nearly exclusively black.
There seemed to be a certain honor in being `dumb' and speaking
unintelligibly on the part of black students. Asian students,
OTOH, were precise in their enunciation (darned difficult
considering the difference in language bases and tonal
components of Asian languages). American blacks were raised
speaking English in English speaking countries. I cannot
comprehend why they would choose not to be clearly articulate.
Also, as a H.S. senior, I volunteered w/ a local Head Start
program. The participants were delightful and the parents were
eager (witnessed by their participation). I was stunned at the
number of parents who had no books in their homes. I suppose
this could've been the result of low income, but I grew up
pretty poor in rural Maryland and my mother made sure that I
visited a library every other Saturday. Could it've been
parental illiteracy? I don't think so. I certainly never
encountered a `dumb' black person, tho I understand that
non-readers can fight a fierce battle to remain undetected.
At the same time, the perfectly lovely black lady who helped my
grandmother care for family and workers on our small farm,
managed to raise a doctor, a lawyer, an Air Force officer and a
research scientist in a dirt floored cabin.
I cannot believe that continental variances in race development
are definitive. Cultural/societal anomalies clearly implicate
nurture over nature.
As a society, we've gone sideways somewhere. While I don't
promote girl/boy only schools nor black/white schools, it used
to be that exclusively black schools produced extraordinary
graduates.
Is it possible that there is too much emphasis on `getting into
college?' A college degree does nothing more than guarantee
that one is willing to be obedient to preconceived curricula
post 12-yrs of being adherent to same. I suppose this
presupposes an ideal employee.
Lordy, I have so many more questions than answers,
Thank you for your attention,
Anne
-- Posted by annef

* 57. October 19th, 2007 6:39 pm
What if actual intelligence, whatever it might be, does not
follow a pretty bell curve? Then everyone in this field is out
of luck!
-- Posted by di

* 58. October 19th, 2007 6:41 pm
re: "Roland Fryer and I have done some research on this topic
which we think is potentially quite interesting and important
-- although we seem to be the only ones with this opinion at
present."
Not so! David Leonhardt cited that very study in the popular NY
Times Magazine article on affirmative action just a few weeks
ago:
"Other recent studies have looked at intelligence testing.
There have long been two uncomfortable facts in this area:
Intelligence, indisputably, is in part genetic; and every
intelligence test shows a gap between black Americans and
others. For a long time, scientific research wasn't very good
at explaining this gap. But it has gotten better lately. For
one thing, the gap between white and black adults has narrowed
significantly since 1970, according to work by the noted
researchers William Dickens and James Flynn. Four decades is
too short a time period for the gene pool to change, but it's
not too short for environment to improve. Most intriguing,
Roland Fryer and Steven D. Levitt, two economists (the latter
is one of this magazine's Freakonomics columnists), have found
there to be essentially no gap between 1-year-old white and
black children of the same socioeconomic status."
Re David's comment at 10:55:
"These statements are contradictory. If the two measures of IQ
are highly correlated, then the racial gap would exist either
in both places or in neither place. You would not see a gap
develop over time - this would contradict your previous
assertion of correlation.".
Not really. High scorers at age one could continue to be high
scorers on other tests at later ages; black one-year olds just
wouldn't maintain parity with their white counterparts.
E.g., if at age one both B and W test in the top 1 percentile,
and at age five on a new test B is in the top 20th percentile
and W is still in the top 1 percentile, the test scores are
correlated even though a racial gap is developing.
The result would be even more clear if the results were
partitioned by race - then both B and W would (I'll guess)
remain in the top percentile for their races, and the high
predictive power of the one-year-old test would be even more
obvious.
-- Posted by Tom Maguire

* 59. October 19th, 2007 6:55 pm
@ #9,14,22:
Define a variable X which is equally likely to be 0 or 1, and a
variable Y which is also equally likely to be 0 or 1 but is
completely independent from X. Then of course these two are
uncorrelated with one another. Now define Z = X + Y, which can
take on values of 0, 1 (most likely), or 2. Then both X and Y
are both positively correlated with Z, but they are still not
correlated with one another.
I'm not suggesting that this is anything like the actual
mechanism at play in the research, but this shows that it is
possible statistically to have Z (playing the role of IQ at age
1, which is the same across races) be correlated with X and
also with Y (playing the roles of the later IQs of each race),
but to have those be quite divergent from one another.
-- Posted by julian

* 60. October 19th, 2007 7:06 pm
I have a theory related to this on my blog at
www.zatavu.blogspot.com . It is deeply tied in to the
psychosocial theory of Clarie Graves as developed by his
students Don Beck and Christopher Cowan in their book "Spiral
Dynamics." I would be curious to see if intelligence increases
with psychological complexity.
-- Posted by Dr. Troy Camplin

* 61. October 19th, 2007 7:45 pm
I agree with comment #6. The part where you said "we cannot
rule out the possibility that intelligence has multiple
dimensions and racial differences are present only in those
dimensions that emerge later in life" basically was very
problematic for me.
I'm not much of a brain surgeon, so I don't know how brains
function. My first thought was maybe black brains' development
"topped out" earlier than white brains. That could be a
possible explanation. Comment #13 was informative, and I think
perhaps he could be onto something. Comment #36 was also
informative. I was not aware that african babies matured faster
than white babies, which in turn matured faster than asian
babies. I almost feel like that might be made up, but I have no
background info on that. Personally, I hold onto the view that
brains are fairly comparable regardless of race.
Finally, #16 comment on mixed babies. I forget where I read
this, but one of the most surprising things I've read about
women's intelligence was about their IQ and race. There was a
study that found that in general, the average Asian-American
woman's IQ is slightly higher than the average Caucasian. But,
as a real surprise, those women who were half Asian and half
Caucasian, their IQs were smack-dab in the middle of the two
groups.
-- Posted by lordvoldemort

* 62. October 19th, 2007 8:32 pm
Watson's comment had the following context: why is Africa
struggling so much and why isn't the aid helping more than it
is? Let's assume for a second that all people are created
equal. No significant genetic differences. Can Africa's
problems be explained by (only) differences in things like
natural resources, harsh climates, etc? Or would you say there
is probably an effect related to culture involved?
By the way I highly recommend The Mismeasure of Man.
Intelligence testing is terribly flawed and has a horrific
history.
-- Posted by Cartman

* 63. October 19th, 2007 10:05 pm
And may I ask Mr. Levitt for scientific definition of
intelligence?
Before we settle on that, there cannot be reasonable discussion
on the subject.
Poor Watson gets older, and his brain is not functioning
properly anymore. I saw him on Charlie Rose the other day, (not
the famous double interview with Wilson), and he had clear
memory problems. Could not remember topics he just statred.
-- Posted by bib

* 64. October 19th, 2007 10:18 pm
There is nothing new about finding very small differences in
cognitive ability among the very young. There are numerous
examples of this being observed when environment is controlled
for. The problem is that the gaps emerge as the subjects age.
The preponderance of the evidence suggests that this can not be
adequately explained by the encroaching effects of differing
environment but rather an indication that important genes are
kicking in as we get older. All sorts of measures show larger
heritability at age 17 than at age 3 for example, not just IQ.
-- Posted by BJ and The Bear

* 65. October 19th, 2007 11:05 pm
All your research shows is that black children mature faster
than white children in the first year of life. It's obviously
impossible to give 1 year old babies tests of adult level
thinking. They can't read, write, or even talk. It is
incredibly unscientific to think that this somehow proves that
adult blacks and whites have exactly equal distributions of
intelligence.
On the other hand, it DOES prove that IQ is genetic, because a
test given to a 1 year old baby is able to predict IQ later in
life.
-- Posted by Half Sigma

* 66. October 19th, 2007 11:28 pm
What about brain development after the age of one? It is still
very possible that genetic differences don't appear until later
in toddlers lives.
-- Posted by Cameron

* 67. October 20th, 2007 12:15 am
referencing Di (# 57)- Not sure what you mean by perhaps it
doesn't follow a bell curve (the normal distribution)... In
that case, how would you explain the observed normal
distribution of actual intelligence tests? Besides, it is
clearly true that whatever intelligence is, most of us are
closer to the middle and there are a few extremes at either
end...
Sounds like it follows a Bell curve!
-- Posted by DanBub

* 68. October 20th, 2007 12:50 am
This is just one of the many findings in The Bell Curve.
I know it's a controversial book, but jeez, there's no reason
to reinvent the wheel here.
-- Posted by Swami

* 69. October 20th, 2007 1:03 am
This seems like an extremely risky area of research unless you
have already established yourself with previous research. Are
there significant barriers to research topics as risky as this
one? I'm a grad student and it seems like a dissertation
proposal about a topic like this would be quickly rejected, in
favor of a more traditional research topic. Is there any truth
to this? I'm a new grad student so I'm probably being naive.
-- Posted by Michael

* 70. October 20th, 2007 2:43 am
I'm curious about your use of the word "race". How did the test
administrators determine the "races" of the subjects? Is there
a blood test available to indicate "race". Did you administer
that test? If you went by skin color, how did you determine
pigmentation? I wonder what the pigmentation test for "Asian"
was? Or maybe you used some kind of parental self-report of
"race"? When I read your abstract I feel somewhat ashamed of
humans, that the Ph.D. social scientist would, in 2007, be
calling people Black, White and Asian. Would it not be more
scientific in your paper to say, "People in the United States
who self-report by the word "Black"" have test scores this or
that...?
-- Posted by Michael

* 71. October 20th, 2007 3:06 am
Before rushing to judgment, please read Watson's new book
"Avoid Boring People." This is a wonderful and brilliant
autobiography. It provides a nuanced look at a truly great man.
Watson is outspoken and at times inflammatory. He doesn't
suffer fools. And yes, he admits to being delighted at the
sight of a pretty woman. But he is fundamentally fair and
compassionate. When you read his book, you will be inclined to
cut him a break.
-- Posted by UCD Neuroscientist

* 72. October 20th, 2007 3:52 am
Why is it that society can accept that there are obvious
biological differences between black people and white people,
but it is taboo to suggest there might be other differences
(intelligence) also?
I'm no scientist, but it seems to me that if you took emotion
out of it, one could argue that there are differences among
species. A Polar Bear and a Black Bear are both bears, but what
if one were inherently smarter than the other? Can we not talk
about that in polite society without screaming racism?
-- Posted by Digger

* 73. October 20th, 2007 4:33 am
You do realize of course, that baby chips score *higher* than
human babies at a young age but they top out sooner.
This is typical for animals.
-- Posted by Ugly American

* 74. October 20th, 2007 4:35 am
What the hell is BJ and the Bear talking about?? Genes kicking
in?? What has them kicking in?? What stimuli? Is it an organic
thing (time-release) or perhaps hmmmm (wait for it . . .wait
for it . . .) environmental effects? You know, the chance that
a -- student (fill in your "race") gets into the right school
and is inspired by the right teacher / professor to strive for
excellence vs. the -- student that does not have that
OPPORTUNITY.
-- Posted by Mo

* 75. October 20th, 2007 4:39 am
I am the product of a mixed-race marriage (my Mother, black and
my Father, white) I am 36 years old so nothing that I am
reading on this blog is any news to me; I've been observing
worthless debates between very intelligent factions of both
races for many years now...and I must say that most of it is a
complete waste of time.
As for IQ scores...What is your exact point? If it is Nature,
then we've got a problem on our hands that we can not even
combat at this point in time. And if it is Nurture, then
perhaps the people who are investing so much time and spending
so much money to study such discrepancies (and often in the
form Federal Grants), should simply invest it in creating more
practical and readily available parental education.
-- Posted by Danni

* 76. October 20th, 2007 5:37 am
It is interesting to notice that none of the results from any
"intelligence" testings carried out so far shown that Black
have higher intelligence than white/asian. if these tests are
biased, can somebody please make a test that is biased against
white or asian and shown us what is wrong with those iq tests.
-- Posted by Eric

* 77. October 20th, 2007 6:18 am
I have to say, all this stuff about the descendants of
immigrants somehow being genetically superior to people who
don't migrate just seems like American narcissism.
Immigrants themselves may well be highly motivated but there is
no evidence that such characteristics can be transmitted
between generations over hundreds of years...
...genetic heritage and its interraction with cultural
environment is much too complex for that.
-- Posted by David

* 78. October 20th, 2007 9:15 am
Environment is the cause of minorities' low scores in
intelligence test, is not genetics.
I worked as a teacher in an african americans (92%) and Latinos
(8%) neighborhood's community school,in my class too many
students came from disfunctional homes.However, the "ghetto
mentality" originated many decades ago, during the segregation
years, is the one of the causes. "Ghetto mentality" is like the
force of inertia, prevents one for moving ahead.
We, minorities, have to struggle with that inertia plus the
poverty we dealing with everyday. The school can help but can
not change our communities withouth the goverment involvement.
Our communities are neglected, forgotten by our goverment!
Stop blaming on us! (our genes!)
-- Posted by Latino school teacher

* 79. October 20th, 2007 9:47 am
David said: "genetic heritage and its interraction with
cultural environment is much too complex"
It's funny how the very same people who say that intelligence
and environment is much too complex to ever draw any
conclusions are usually the ones who think that hundreds of
billions of dollars need to be spend to reduce carbon emissions
because the average temperature is warmer today than it was in
the early 1970s. The climate is actually a lot more complex.
They have to use the most modern super computers to model the
climate, while researchers were doing statistical calculations
with respect to intelligence back in the days when they had to
use pencil and paper. There is lots of evidence to suggest that
the recent warming trend has nothing to do with carbon
emissions. The case for the black-white IQ difference being
genetic is a lot stronger.
A transracial adoption study supports the conclusion that the
black-white IQ difference is genetic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adop
tion_Study
The study clearly shows that the same one standard deviation IQ
difference exists when upper-middle-class white parents adopt
black children.
As someone above said, the average 1-year-old chimpanzee
appears smarter than the average 1-year-old human, it doesn't
mean that if we give the chimp the proper environment he can go
to college.
-- Posted by Half Sigma

* 80. October 20th, 2007 9:55 am
Let me first say there is sooo much in this post I am both
honored and frightened to put my "stamp" of opinion on it,
but...
Here I sit the mother of two boys who are multi-racial. (notice
I said multi-not bi- the fact is I agree much with # 49, but I
have something to add) They have been primarily been raised
without their father (he is African American, I am Caucasian)
and thus far I am convinced that due to some serious issues on
his part this has been the best choice and opportunity for them
to succeed. I do believe that there are recent studies in the
way children of different cultures learn that show the impact
our current educational system has on success. Some of these
differences cross racial lines and are related to
"class"...such as discipline of the middle to lower class being
quite different from upper class. Am I arrogant to believe `my
way' is "better"? I hope not, to me it is a matter of
practicality and survival. Even Ben Carson, the noted pediatric
neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins (I read his book "Gifted Hands",
and saw him speak in-person) admits that his mother used what
she learned by observing the upper class families she did
laundry/housekeeping for to help steer her son in the right
direction. In a similar fashion, I was standing in line behind
an Asian family at an amusement park and noticed that parent
and child used the considerable wait time to discuss "every day
math". It was casual conversation and a lesson for me. Could be
why they generally excel beyond their classroom peers (parental
discussion on education at opportune moments that otherwise are
wasted)hmmmm...
I, for one, think this research and the volume of opinion on
this post show there is room for discussion and that the
information is valuable. Since it is relevant to me on a
personal level I have been following some of the work along the
way. I'm going to see "The Pact" at the Heartland Film Festival
this weekend as well-about three African American men who grew
up in the inner city and together succeeded to become doctors.
I'm always looking for the clues to success and I believe that
should be the focus in this situation (as Ben Carson's mother
did).
-- Posted by April

* 81. October 20th, 2007 11:31 am
As a doctoral candidate in the humanities, I'm not really
qualified to speak to the science of this issue, and my
statistics knowledge has long vanished. But I find it
interesting that the prevailing metaphysical materialism and
darwinism in academia allows scholars to simultaneously destroy
anything but sociological, genealogical accounts of morality
and then express moral outrage when one of their own guild uses
science, coupled with assumptions about evolution, to argue
that there is no reason to expect different isolated
populations of a species (in this case h. sapiens) to have the
same level of intelligence. I disagree with Watson's
conclusion, but how can any metaphysical materialist not at
least grant his foundational point about there being no reason
to automatically assume that isolated populations of a species
will continue to evolve comparable faculties. I mean, either
we're simply the most successful animals in history or we're
not. If we are, then what warrants moral outrage? Do we look
down on lionesses for attacking gazelles?
-- Posted by barlow

* 82. October 20th, 2007 12:10 pm
Someone wrote,
"Not really. High scorers at age one could continue to be high
scorers on other tests at later ages; black one-year olds just
wouldn't maintain parity with their white counterparts."
This does not do away with the contradiction, it seems to me.
The reason is that the claim appears to be that there is a
racial gap at age one but not at later ages. But this cannot be
true if it is acknowledged -- as it appears to be -- that there
does appear to be such a gap, since black high scorers would
then tend NOT to remain high scorers, at least by percentage.
In other words, if parity is not maintained, then the first
correlation cannot stand, because it would diminish because of
the (supposed) fact of nonparity (i.e., the general decline of
black high scorers).
-- Posted by Love All Humanity

* 83. October 20th, 2007 12:17 pm
...it doesn't mean that if we give the chimp the proper
environment he can go to college.
Go to an inner city public school and tell me that is the
proper educational environment.
This stuff is just rationalization for people who are too
selfish to share resources with people that aren't of their
"tribe", and too intellectually lazy to improve their teaching
methods through actual study of the mind and brain.
-- Posted by Charlie

* 84. October 20th, 2007 12:33 pm
A minor correction to my post, No. 82. I meant to say that the
claim appears to be that there was NO racial gap at age one and
yet such a gap at later ages. It is the existence of this gap
that is inconsistent with the supposition of parity -- i.e.,
parity would be inconsistent with correlation.
-- Posted by Love All Humanity

* 85. October 20th, 2007 1:03 pm
Why does the argument have to be nature vs nurture? One does
not have to do much additional research to conclude that it is
both.
When one actually lives and works with various racial and
cultural groups, as I have, one will learn that no race has
supremacy in intelligence. But cultures do. Some cultures value
and nurture intelligence more than others. I would like to see
a study that takes in to account cultural differences when
comparing races. However, this is likely to be extremely
complex.
-- Posted by kl

* 86. October 20th, 2007 1:33 pm
This is an odd discussion, really. In some senses, it seems a
bit ineffectual. I generally make a point not to even read
blogs, as they tend to relay the opinions of people I would
normally not waste my time debating. This isn't to say that all
posters on all blogs are moronic. That's an indefensible
position to take. On the whole, however, most bloggers lack the
intellectual capital to engage in a serious debate about a
serious topic. Nevertheless, I find this topic interesting, and
would like to stoke the fire a bit.
Before I go any further, I think it's worth noting that if you
self-identify yourself on this blog as `black' or `Latino' (as
in the case of #78), please, please, please do your best to
avoid proving the point of those who would compare you to
chimps. Specifically, learn how to write proper English.
I guess in some sense, poster #78 excellently demonstrates how
environmental factors can adversely impact intelligence. If
you're a poor minority student at a school where he/she
teaches, you're unfortunately being taught by someone who is
hardly literate himself. It is only reasonable, then, to expect
this discrepancy in erudition to pass along an academic
lineage.
If #78 is not an anomaly, then on average, it's likely fair to
say that poor teachers teach at poor schools. If these `poor
schools' are predominated by minorities, then this would
explain at least some portion of the divergence between races
in intelligence testing across age groups.
There are hosts of other examples of environmental factors that
could impact intelligence (which, for the purposes of my
argument, I take to mean `aptitude for acquiring knowledge').
Moreover, I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that
certain biological factors don't play a role in the
determination of intelligence. The question here, though, is
whether `race' is amongst those latter factors.
That, I suppose, largely depends on what we define `race' to
be. Several other posters have commented on the need to
classify race more precisely-I certainly agree with this, and
propose the following: `race' is equivalent to heredity. To be
precise, a person isn't `black,' `white,' `Asian,' etcetera.
Instead, a person is Irish, English, German, Angolan, Chinese,
Japanese, Indian, Spanish, or some other classification. And to
be more specific, they are particularly the amalgam of their
parents' heredities.
I think it is well-established that at least some portion of
intelligence is inherent to an individual. Not all people are
created equally. Some people are smarter than others. We should
be able to admit this to one another in a scholarly debate.
Note that I am not saying anything about groups of people. I am
speaking only about individuals.
Now, how do these individuals identify themselves? If I say
that I am `black,' that does not, in fact, make me `black' (I
would certainly be the pastiest black person of all time). Let
us say, then, that the grouping of individuals into races is a
societal construct. If this is the case, then you belong to
whichever race others perceive you to belong.
Let us say, then, that when comparing people who are perceived
as being `black' (however weak a classification that is)
against those who are perceived as `white' or `Asian'
(presumably, peoples from the Far East), they tend to do
unfortunately poorly on measures of intelligence.
In a lot of senses, this seems racist. It's not really, though.
It's only racist if it's used to justify some backward-thinking
social construct (like slavery). If, however, the intention of
the work is to classify differences so as to target social
programs to better meet the needs of a currently disadvantaged
segment of the populace, then the work ought to be pursued.
In any case, I don't think any of the science is conclusive,
and that is why more work is needed. It would be helpful if
people didn't automatically condemn the work as `racist.' Some
seem to say, "Why even study this?" It is the nature of
science, though, to ask questions. Why do we want to know
anything? Because we can. If you are able to know a thing, you
should feel obliged to learn it. That's a sufficient reason.
All in all, I'd say the work would be more interesting if it
were investigated further. Someone raised the question earlier
about the intelligence of Jews. I would be interested in a
study to this effect. Maybe Dr. Levitt would be so kind...
-- Posted by Michael

* 87. October 20th, 2007 2:32 pm
Barlow,
You raise some valid points, but what is the corrective?
Metaphysical materialism and Darwinism have contributed to
incredible strides in knowledge, understanding, and
technological advancement. I don't think we can do away with
them so easily or quickly. Nor do I think we should.
Alternatives such as rejection of metaphysics as Heidegger
pretended to do don't seem to lead us in very good directions
(Heidegger was an unrepentant Nazi for a reason, you know), and
idealism often results in silliness. Certainly Darwinism as a
theory of evolution is incomplete, but nonetheless valid. I do
have my own ideas, some of which have been posted on my
aforementioned (in this thread) blog, but I would be interested
in hearing your ideas, seeing as you are a fellow humanities
scholar (I received my Ph.D. in the Humanities from UT-Dallas
in 2004 and am currently teaching Interdisciplinary Studies at
UT-Arlington).
-- Posted by Dr. Troy Camplin

* 88. October 20th, 2007 3:33 pm
Charlie said in #83 above:
"Go to an inner city public school and tell me that is the
proper educational environment.
This stuff is just rationalization for people who are too
selfish to share resources with people that aren't of their
`tribe', and too intellectually lazy to improve their teaching
methods through actual study of the mind and brain."
The last time I was in an inner-city school was when I voted in
2006. I saw desks, chairs, and blackboards, just like the
middle-class school I attended when I was a kid. As far as
sharing resources, New York City spends more than $10,000 per
year per pupil, and I feel the pain of that every time I pay my
taxes. Believe me, I am sharing a lot.
On the other hand, if post #78 is indicative of the quality of
the teachers at the school, then yes, a case might be made that
they are getting inferior educations compared to children with
literate teachers. But that doesn't really prove or disprove
anything. The self-identified Latino teacher was probably an
affirmative action hire who wouldn't have been hired if he were
white. Teachers like that were hired because liberals like you
said that the reason why minority kids weren't doing well in
school is because they were being taught by white teachers and
didn't have proper minority role models. Well the guy who wrote
#78 is the role model you wanted.
But if you had bothered to read all of my post #79 which you
quoted, you will see that I intentionally linked to a
transracial adoption study, which studied what happens when
black children are adopted by upper-middle-class white parents.
Those kids went to the schools where upper-middle-class white
children would normally go, and not to inner-city schools, but
when they were tested at the age of 17, their IQ and scholastic
performance was still below that of white children. This
conclusively disproves the "it's the inner-city schools"
explanation.
It should also be noted that when children are tested at the
age of five, or even three, the one standard deviation IQ gap
still shows up. So it's not that the school system causes the
gap, it's that the school system doesn't undo the gap that
already exists before schooling even begins. The reason why the
authors of this blog post are writing about an "IQ test" given
to infants is because all IQ tests given at a later age show
the black-white IQ difference.
-- Posted by Half Sigma

* 89. October 20th, 2007 6:58 pm
You didn't meet with complete indifference. I pointed out the
flaw in your study. Here's what I wrote:
I always love how the New York Times is oh-so-skeptical about
IQ testing in general, except when it supports something they
like, and then credulity is the order of the day. Look, there
is no IQ test for 1-year-olds. What Levitt did in this paper is
show that a test of infant liveliness (e.g., how often the
infant babbles) that has a low but positive correlation with
childhood IQ [like a huge number of other things that have a
correlation with IQ] doesn't show the normal differences
between the races at age 8 to 12 months. Indeed, the highest IQ
children (Northeast Asians) do the worst on this test of infant
vivacity. With a typical Freakonomic leap of faith, Levitt and
Fryer suggested that this shows that IQ differences aren't
genetic but are caused by environmental differences, presumably
between age 1 and the earliest ages at which IQ tests are
semi-reliable.
Of course, all Levitt actually did was show that this test of
infant liveliness is a racially biased predictor of IQ. Why is
it racially biased? Well, there are lots more ways for
something to go wrong than to go right, but one obvious
possibility is that the test of infant alertness might measure
traits that differ on average between the races, but aren't
related to IQ differences between the races. For example,
within a race, babies that babble more turn out to be a little
bit smarter on average than more taciturn babies. Yet, Asian
infants don't babble as much on average as other babies, but
that doesn't mean they'll turn out to have lower IQs on average
than babies from races that babble more. But pointing out that
this test of babies is racially biased is not as sexy a story
as claiming it shows Nurture Triumphs Over Nature.
-- Posted by Steve Sailer

* 90. October 20th, 2007 7:07 pm
I just did a study of lactose tolerance among one-year-olds,
and guess what? I didn't find any racial differences! They were
all lactose tolerant. So all those stories you hear about how
East Asians don't have a gene for lactose tolerance are just
racist myths! I proved it with science!
I also did a study of one-year-olds' ability to slam dunk on a
ten foot basket. Once again, there were no racial differences.
None of them could dunk. So, when you watch the NBA and there
are all these blacks guys slam dunking, that's just racism. Who
are you gonna believe, science or your lying eyes.
Then, I got a bunch of Kenyan and Ethiopian highlander
one-year-old babies and timed them in the marathon. As always,
there were no racial differences. Not a single baby of any race
finished the 26.2 mile run. So, the next time the top ten
finishers at a big marathon are eight Kenyans and two
Ethiopians, don't believe it!
You don't want to end up like James D. Watson, suspended from
running the laboratory that he has built up over the last 39
years for political incorrectness, do you?
-- Posted by Steve Sailer

* 91. October 20th, 2007 9:56 pm
The more money we have thrown at public schools. the worse they
have become. And don't give me anything about test scores
improving. I have taught, and we were made to teach how to pass
the test (which is different frm being taught information to
pass the test -- we were told how to teach testing skills).
Further, when many students do poorly on the tests, the
response has been to dumb down the tests. So any rise is
artificial.
It's time we started letting students advance at their own pace
rather than by age (the most ridiculous, arbitrary standard
ever devised), and we need to be able to fire teachers who are
bad at their jobs!
-- Posted by Dr. Troy Camplin

* 92. October 20th, 2007 11:17 pm
"The reason why the authors of this blog post are writing about
an "IQ test" given to infants is because all IQ tests given at
a later age show the black-white IQ difference."
Probably true. Which is the state of academia today when this
topic is discussed. How disappointing.
-- Posted by Mike B.

* 93. October 21st, 2007 1:38 am
I hope more study is done in this area.
I know many, actually countless, black persons that are highly
intelligent and educated. It is statistically obvious blacks
(African-Americans, if you prefer) are not doing well in school
in the USA.
I have questions I hope someone better trained in research than
I can answer
In terms of enrollment statistics, integration has largely been
successful. On the surface, it would appear that integration
has not been very successful regarding academic achievement.
Black, white, Hispanic, and Asian children in the same
classrooms and schools have very different success rates. Is
this true? Are their other variables more important than race?
What? What is to be done about this?
-- Posted by Rob

* 94. October 21st, 2007 3:10 am
Why do Americans always put the whole black race in one basket?
Surely we can agree that a survey on African-Americans cannot
truly represent the millions of other blacks worldwide that
have entirely different cultures and languages. I am a Haitian
citizen who came to this country about eight years ago, during
my junior and high school years, my English scores were low
because I did not fully understand the language but my math
test scores were always higher than anyone in the school, black
or white and the simple reason is because the courses in my
country are more rigorous. But in America many schools
especially in black neighborhoods aren't equipped with adequate
resources and the right staff thus overtime this will result in
a gap between whites and blacks. The findings should not be put
in a racial context but rather as an indicator that we need to
increase funding for urban schools.
-- Posted by Thierry Derane

* 95. October 21st, 2007 3:25 am
Comment #78, by "Latino school teacher," stated: "The school
can help but can not change our communities withouth the
goverment involvement. Our communities are neglected, forgotten
by our goverment! Stop blaming on us! (our genes!) "
Assuming this really is written by a teacher in a 00% minority
area (92% black and 8% latino), and not a joke designed to
prompt comments like this, I hope that people can see how
ridiculous that line of reasoning is and to understand why the
culture of victimhood and abdication of responsibility by
minority communities simply cannot continue if any
environmental-driven disparities can be addressed.
I don't mean this to offend the person I quoted, but victimhood
and a perpetuation of ghetto culture by its participants, not
"the government," is the real problem. That people who profit
off of the racial differences in performance and outcome --
e.g., Jesse Jackson -- by perpetuating the culture of
victimhood is a disgrace that has cost the U.S. several
generations' worth of talent, fulfillment of dreams, and racial
harmony.
-- Posted by Damian

* 96. October 21st, 2007 3:27 am
This has to be one of the most ridiculous things on the racial
gap I've ever read.
A few points. Didn't Levitt argue in Freakonomics that reading
to one's child had no effect on their educational performance
and IQ (I might be confusing with somebody else but I think it
was him)? Yet, in this study, what does he list as one of the
environmental determinants? The number of children's books in
the house! I guess we know how seriously he takes his own
research.
And there is this howler of an understatment from the end of
this paper:
"A final argument in defense of the genetic story would be one
in which the racial differences are concentrated in higher
order thinking (or general intelligence, "g", see Jensen, 1998)
which may not yet have emerged among one year olds."
-- Posted by Hans Gruber

* 97. October 21st, 2007 3:52 am
You say that your results are consistent with racial IQ
disparities being caused by environmental influences after age
1.
Aren't they equally consistent with racial IQ disparities being
caused by racial disparities in brain development after age 1?
Other than the apparent fact that we should be looking at
mental development after age 1 to understand racial IQ
disparities I don't see what else you have found.
-- Posted by Michael Friedman

* 98. October 21st, 2007 9:09 am
James Watson, Nobel Prize winner (along with two others) for
the discovery of DNA is certainly one of the few titans of
biology during the last century.
In his "Sunday Times Magazine" interview,' he posited that
blacks are inferior to whites in intelligence via genetic
differences.
But, he forgets that: "intelligence" is a construct
which is fromed by many variables.
We all know the quite literate Ph.D. in literature
who cannot add numbers without a calculator.
But, `common sense' -- which is hard to define is a component
of intelligence. But, Dr. Watson uses almost no common sense
when he posits his conclusion.
For a prominent Nobel biologist to put into print his ideas,
does he not realize how sensitive a topic he is dealing with?
And, the hurt he is visiting upon a group of individuals? And,
that his comments are unbelievably self-destructive!
We all know about holloring FIRE in a filled theater -- whether
it is true or not.
His obituary will surely mention two aspects of his life: the
DNA-Nobel connection and his quite
foolish racial superiority comments.
His lack of basic `common sense' may be genetic. Who knows?
-- Posted by David Chowes

* 99. October 21st, 2007 2:19 pm
It sure seems like Fryer and Levitt want their research to show
something, namely that there is no racial difference with
respect to IQ. This is always a bit dangerous, whether we're
talking about science, or policy (see the Bush Administration).
The question is, are they prepared to find an answer that they
are not comfortable with?
-- Posted by J. Davis

* 100. October 21st, 2007 4:04 pm
I think it's pretty well documented that most inner city
schools have significantly less resources than suburban
schools. Certainly if you look at spending in the Boston area
where I live you see that. New York City might be different,
but I suspect if you factored in the private schools and
accounted for specific in-district discrepancies you'd see that
white kids were being lavishly spent on compared to the black
kids. The black kids have desks and blackboards while the white
kids get computers and whiteboards and art and music, etc.
The point is not that this is responsible for test score
differences, which I have no idea about, or even care very much
about. The point is that it isn't fair, and there are a lot of
black kids getting a seriously raw deal. Our society is failing
miserably to educate them.
Some of this may be of their own family/sub-culture's making,
with the rampant anti-intellectualism that is endemic to their
society. Fair enough. The problem is that smart people who
could be figuring out solutions to the problems of fairness,
poor teaching environments, and ineffective teaching methods
have turned away because these kids aren't part of their tribe.
Because they can excuse it away with genetics and IQ tests.
Because it's easier to be smug and self-centered and
intellectually lazy.
I don't know what the answer is for urban schools, but nice
buildings, small classes, and innovative approaches to teaching
would be a start. I bet if we tacked on some higher
expectations and genuine rewards for achievement we'd see some
real improvement. I'd bet if the followers of Freakonomics
could invent some new incentive systems to spur academic
achievement we'd have a revolution.
-- Posted by Charlie

* 101. October 21st, 2007 4:14 pm
37 pertaining to 40.
This is not about equating any individual with any other. I was
refering to history and the perversion that was caused to
humanity by the psudo-science Eugenics. President Wilson signed
on to it as did other well meaning people prior to it's
exposure as a fraud. The ABA `American Breeders Association'
was involved in "positive (verse negative) eugenics" finding
the perfect humans. Dalton came up with the Norwegians. This is
where the inception of the "IQ" test came from. Hitler was
exchanging letters with Dalton when Hitler was in prison after
WWI. Mengele was a Eugnecs Doctor and experimented on identical
twins thus identical genetics..
IBM (genome project folks) did the punch cards then for the
German government to trace what was called the submerged
population, the term used in America by the Eugenics Movement.
Now that we have the ability to use manipulation of fetuses
that same thinking is still available. Thus `gene doping'
(manipulation of physical and or mental `IQ' prowess) is
disallowed pre-emptivly in the American Athletics Association
NOW. Will the rich choose and the poor be brought low. How
shall who select and for what? To much to talk about concerning
this egotistic, unscientific, perverse sickness. Please
consider the research from the book that I mentioned in post
37.
-- Posted by Glenn

* 102. October 21st, 2007 4:15 pm
> From Hans Gruber:
"Didn't Levitt argue in Freakonomics that reading to one's
child had no effect on their educational performance and IQ (I
might be confusing with somebody else but I think it was him)?
Yet, in this study, what does he list as one of the
environmental determinants? The number of children's books in
the house! I guess we know how seriously he takes his own
research."
> From Freakonomics:
"... factors that are correlated with school test scores:
...
The child has many books in his home.
... factors that are not:
...
The child's parents read to him nearly every day."
> From Gruber again, but in a more ironic context this time:
"I guess we know how seriously he takes his own research."
When your brain is telling you that you might be confused,
listen to it. It might be trying to save you from doing
something embarrassing like insulting someone based on false
premises.
-- Posted by roystgnr

* 103. October 21st, 2007 4:55 pm
Studies I've read say African-American kids adopted into
affluent white families achieve like an affluent white kid.
However, the kid is still genetically predispositioned to
sickle cell anemia (for example) for purely biological reasons.
To say that "race" is "arbitrary" and not biological is to
oversimplify.
As a teacher of kids of all ages, I see that there are those
who shine, and those that are more dim as far as catching on.
As a language teacher, I ask myself these questions all day
long. I want all my students to do well.
I'm fascinated to read this kind of research, and thrilled that
even public schools now openly discuss race and achievement
gaps!
-- Posted by Amy in Texas

* 104. October 21st, 2007 7:19 pm
In response to #103: How was "achievement" measured in those
studies? Any citations? If the threshold for "achievement" is
something like graduating from high school -- or even attaining
a decent GPA in high school -- it's reasonable to think that
anyone adopted into an affluent family, black, white, or
otherwise, would be pushed to achieve some minimal goal like
that. If "achievement" is something else, like getting into
college, well, those black kids still get the benefits of
affirmative action even though they were raised in an affluent
environment. If we're talking about actually having the
intelligence to contribute positively to society, I'd be
curious to see how it is measured. I'm honestly curious here,
and do not mean to insinuate by the tone of this post that the
parity of achievement you have referred to is not real. I am,
however, a bit dubious.
-- Posted by Damian

* 105. October 21st, 2007 7:35 pm
An alternative is to calibrate a model on census data for
highest level of educational attainment - for persons of
differing ethnicity, but all born in the country, and aged
between 20 and 40. I have done this with the UK census 2001 -
using the 5% Sample of Anonymised Records. The advantage of
this is that the numbers are really big 2.5m individuals, and
genuinely random; and consequently specific ethnicities can be
tested with statistical confidence. The difficulty is the
simplifying assumption that attaining a degree level
qualification is a valid comparitive indicator of intelligence.
But if that simplifying assumption is made - then there are big
ethnicity differences apparent in the data. Broadly, the
highest probablility of attaining a university degree is found
in three ethic groups: Black Africans, White Irish, and Chinese
(all with odds ratios around 3, compared to White British). The
only ethnic category to do worse than the White British, are
Mixed White/black.
What this tells us, is that categories based on "race" are
useless - the research must distinguish Black Africans from
Black Caribbeans; and these again from Mixed Race categories.
And the Irish must be distinguished from the British. Whether
these results indicate a "genetic" effect, a "cultural" effect,
or an "inheritance " effect (brainy parents have brainy kids)
is a moot point. But the differences are highly significant and
totally robust.
Consequently, any study of adults that fails to demonstrate
higher functional intellicence for children of Black African
immigrants must be manifestly ill-specified.
-- Posted by Tom Hennell

* 106. October 21st, 2007 8:49 pm
"Studies I've read say African-American kids adopted into
affluent white families achieve like an affluent white."
Well, sometimes the authors of a study "interpret" the findings
in a way in which the data does not support. Like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adop
tion_Study
-- Posted by Hans Gruber

* 107. October 21st, 2007 9:12 pm
I am reading all this trash. Simpleton whites now think they
have the intellect to cast judgement on Black folks. We have
been here before. Western scientific communities once held,
whites were physically superior to Blacks. This point of view
is now a joke. If we accept IQ test as the measurement of
biological superiority, then Asians especially East Asians are
the superior race. Asian IQs are higher than whites.
Affirmative Action programs were never a programs for African
Americans. The wording was "women and minorities." In fact,
white women have been the biggest benefactor of Affirmative
Action. Also it seems that Affirmative Action in higher
education in the California university system was benefiting
whites more than any other group. It was whites hurting Asian
applicants more than Blacks. I am less intelligent than a white
because I don't know what a caboose is(what if my country don't
have trains?). It is cowardly and pathetic of Western society
to compare themselves to people who are poorer and still
developing the material/social structure for bringing about
modernity, especially towards people they have had a hand in
stunting development. This IQ debate is an attempt for whites
to remain relevant. We have seen the ascendancy of Asians. The
white race is no longer the superior race both physically and
intellectually.
-- Posted by bobby

* 108. October 21st, 2007 10:06 pm
Boys and girls at age 1 have the same breast size. 20 year old
women have larger breasts than 20 year old men. It must be
environment! Not really. Some genes don't kick in until later
in life. That is why IQ scores of 1 year olds and adults don't
correlate that well in the first place. The heritability of
intelligence grows with age.
-- Posted by Mike S

* 109. October 21st, 2007 11:01 pm
Roystgnr,
In Levitt's paper he didn't include the number of books, he
commented on the number of CHILDREN'S BOOKS. Since we're
talking about very young children (children that can't read to
themselves for the most part), isn't it safe to say he intended
to measure to what degree the child was read to? And, sure, the
number of books (children and otherwise) probably coorelates
with socioeconomic status and parental involvement as well as
parental IQ, so it would be unsuprising if it did indeed
coorelate. But that would mean the number of books, in itself,
had nothing to do with the child's success, so it wouldn't make
sense to include it as a environmental determinant; though it
is correct to note that it "correlates". I could agree that
once a child is old enough to read to himself, that he may
garner some benefit by having many books available to him, but,
again, these kids are too young for that possibility to be
meaningful.
Note: I submitted this post before, but got caught by a spam
filter or something (said I couldn't post more than once every
5 seconds, yet I only posted once). My apologizes if a
duplicate post appears.
-- Posted by Hans Gruber

* 110. October 21st, 2007 11:07 pm
"For a prominent Nobel biologist to put into print his ideas,
does he not realize how sensitive a topic he is dealing with?
And, the hurt he is visiting upon a group of individuals? And,
that his comments are unbelievably self-destructive!"
If you talk to anybody about genetic differences between races
the conversation quickly resembles the sentiments you've
expressed here. First, the person states it can't be true,
everybody knows it isn't true! Next, the person fairly quickly
admits there are differences, but that talking about them does
no good and is destructive (that it's a forbidden truth of
sorts).
This holds true even for yours truly. I was talking to a very
liberal friend about this years ago. He brought up the subject,
reflecting on his years of exposure to high IQ individuals in
science, commenting on relative strengths of certain groups,
Asians and Jews, for example. My flabergasted response was:
"You really believe that there are inherence differences?" He
said, sure, it was difficult for him not to believe it, the
obvious physical differences being what they were it was easy
to imagine cognitive differences of some magnitude, which was
consistent with his personal experience as well (as well as the
data). My response? "Well, sure, but what good does it do to
talk about it?"
I can tell you from experience, those aren't carefully
considered reactions. They're emotional. We're conditioned by
society, which is rigoroulsy enforced by taboo (witness the
fury visited upon poor Mr. Watson), that race is superficial or
even non-existent. We don't think about it because only bad,
racist people think about those sorts of things. Well, science
marches on, our wishes, hopes and politics be damned. The
question is, do you want society to grapple with these issues
today, in anticipation that there may be racial disparities in
IQ which have a genetic basis, or do you want society to be
blindsided sometime in the future, if the Murrays and Watsons
and Sailers are right?
-- Posted by Hans Gruber

* 111. October 21st, 2007 11:44 pm
Human babies are totally helpless. I bet a one-year-old monkey
would be smarter than its human counterpart, regardless of
race. It's almost as if human babies are helpless fetuses that
have gotten too big to stay in the womb. It seems pretty
obvious to me that most human intelligence develops later, and
that there are both nature and nurture components.
-- Posted by Tim

* 112. October 22nd, 2007 8:06 am
I would be interested in which children they are comparing. Are
they studying children from the same zip code or school
district or are they controlling for socioeconomic background
,family values, psychology, etc...?
What happens when you compare poor white children from trailer
parks to those that are from suburbia? Is there a gap? Has
anyone studied this? There are too many factors to draw such a
conclusion. I think that when one sets out to prove something,
one seeks out conditions that support one's opinion.
-- Posted by c. auk

* 113. October 22nd, 2007 11:22 am
Another factor to be considered which I have yet to see brought
up here. I have heard it said, by those whose professsion is
the study of genetics. That there exists more genetic diversity
amongs the african, than amongst all the out of africa races.
That is to say that the genes of the pygmy and the zulu are
differ from each other more than the genes of say, caucasions
and asians do.
If this is correct, and there is a greater level of diversity
wihthin africa than without, it would stand to reason that this
level of diversity would be reflected in the gentic make-up of
american blacks. If this is the case, then isn't it possible
that depending on the exact tribal genetic's of a particular
persons background, that his genes may have been optimised by
evolution for different traits?
That is to say, if evolution could create tribes in which
physical difference have become genetic traits, such as the
short staure of the pygmy tribe, isn't it also possible that
some of the tribes could have undergone an evoltuionary process
in which intelligence was not as well rewarded as other traits?
If these suppositions are correct, how does it influence the
study of intelligence as it regards racial dispersal? Would the
inabillity to control for a black subjects exact tribal
ancestry skew the study? does the greater diversity of genetics
within the black community in africa, and one would suspect
worldwide, make any conclusions drawn invalid? If we posit that
some tribes found intelligence to be the best survival
strategy, and that others found other adaptations more
successful, what would we expect the spread to be?
Is it possible that the standard deviation is a result of
regression to the mean?
I have no answers to these questions, nor even clues as to what
they mmay be. But it seems that the level of genetic diversity
I mentioned does not lend itself to simple black/white
defintions of racial ancestry. Also as I pointed out, the
difference in median income between blacks born in america and
those born elsewhere would seem to suggest that the issue (as
far as economic outcomes can serve as a proxy for intelligence
which is nebulous to say the least) isn't so much racial or
gentic as cultural.
It has often been said that the brain is like a muscle, in that
the more you use it, the satronger it becomes. If true wouldn't
we expect those who exercise the least to show the lowest
level's of intelligence? If so, then wouldn't a culture which
actively ridicules scholarship and study as the trait of a
different culture be expected to produce those with the least
exercised mind? And if so wouldn't the observed patterns of
intelligence follow the same pattern as seen in Mr. Levitt and
Mr Fryer's stidy? That is to say roughly comparable levels of
intelligence at a young age with rapidly declining intellignece
due to lack of mental excercise? If two individuals with
negligble genetic difference where to enagge in physical
exercise regimes, would we be at all surprised that the one who
exercises more and harder begins to pull away from the other in
measurments of strength? Could this same effect be responsible
for the "intelligence gap"?
These and many other questions and issues must be confronted
before we can really even begin to answer questions such as
this. My personal feeling is that the lack of success by
american blacks is due to the pernicious influneces of ghetto
culture, which is really nothing mroe than redneck culture in
blackface.
-- Posted by mwm1331

* 114. October 22nd, 2007 12:31 pm
I believe a closer examination will find that rather than a
racial divide, we have a socio-economic divide. This class
divide drives the disparity (and the despair) that we see
between white performance and black performance, I believe.
Very simply, lets take blacks out of the equation and replace
them with certain lower-class whites. Do we find a divide
there? I think we might.
Very simply, many blacks are relegated and raised in an
innercity culture that works almost as an "intelligence
killer." At birth, these precious young children could
conceiveably stand toe-to-toe with any other student, but as
time goes on, the concepts and culture of the ghetto replace
the synapses, it seems.
Very simply, children that are raised in these types of
cultures-whether black or white-eventually cannot compete
academically with those who are raised differently.
I have also wondered what role illegitimacy plays, since 70% of
black births are illegitimate in America.
In any case, what is the solution? Well, obviously, whatever it
is, it is about ending the influence of the ghetto (or the
trailer park, perhaps) on the lives and minds of these
children.
And you will never end the influence of the ghetto so long as
there are children in the ghetto.
It's not about housing. You can have surburban NEIGHBORHOODS
that have the same sort of negative influence, if you aren't
careful. No, it's about SEPARATION from the ghetto...and
INTEGRATION INTO cultures that cultivate achievement.
-- Posted by Aaron

* 115. October 22nd, 2007 1:26 pm
Strikes me as findings developmental psychologists have known
about for years.
-- Posted by S. Heaton

* 116. October 22nd, 2007 2:22 pm
Regarding multi-ethnic identities: Isn't it difficult to find a
"pure" sample set in the United States? Any studies comparing
IQ-impacting genetic differences should limit study particpants
to individuals from Africa and Europe who can demonstrate that
they are the product of only one race. Scottie Pippen and
Jordan are both black in the United States. Anyone with eyes
can see that they are different colors, have different facial
characteristics and have different bone structures. Are Jews,
Romanians, Norwegians and Russians all the same race for IQ
test purposes? Why? Are Italians genetically closer to
Moraccans or the Irish? What about East Africans and
African-Africans? Sure, they are the same color, but has an
African-American (by that I mean descendants of slaves in the
US) ever won the Boston Marathon?
Interestingly, from what I read above, the groups with probably
the highest racial purity in the US (Jews and Asians) perform
best on IQ tests. Is that important? It doesn't account for the
mixing done by Jews for the previous 2,000 years. Are Indians
and Chinese both "Asian." They don't look the same. In fact, a
lot of Indians look *gasp* black!
-- Posted by Chris

* 117. October 22nd, 2007 2:44 pm
"It sure seems like Fryer and Levitt want their research to
show something, namely that there is no racial difference with
respect to IQ. This is always a bit dangerous, whether we're
talking about science, or policy (see the Bush Administration).
The question is, are they prepared to find an answer that they
are not comfortable with?"
Indeed, Fryer and Levitt make themselves to be this the Indiana
Jones of economics and sociology, going where others fear to
tread.
But in reality, they are just like every other
sociologist/economist. Discovering that Sumo Wrestlers cheat
isn't much of a big deal, at least not in the United States.
When the topic turns to real controversial subjects, like race
and IQ, Fryer and Levitt just repeat tired left-wing platitudes
without doing any real research.
How can they look at themselves in the mirror and say that a
test of how much a 1-year-old infant babbles has anything to do
with adult level thinking? If they were honest, they realize
this is just another indicator of how black children mature
faster than white children and has nothing to do with racial IQ
differences.
-- Posted by Half Sigma

* 118. October 22nd, 2007 6:29 pm
There`s no racial difference with IQ fags.just so you
know i`m African-American and I have a very high IQ.
-- Posted by jake

* 119. October 23rd, 2007 12:34 am
I think Jake's comment just provided us with the answer we were
looking for.
-- Posted by Steve

* 120. October 23rd, 2007 2:11 am
No need to tell us you have "a very high IQ", jake (post #118).
We could immediately tell by the erudite and lucid tone of your
post.
-- Posted by Mike B.

* 121. October 23rd, 2007 10:43 am
Rebuttal:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/2007/10/levitt-on-iq-at
tempts-by-do-gooders-to.html
-- Posted by John Ray

* 122. October 23rd, 2007 11:22 am
The rebuttals suffer from the problem of which they complain.
Sailer notes that comparing 1 year olds is problematic because
the results might skew towards groups that mature faster. But
isn't that just a complaint about what the study measures? The
same complaint that one hears about all IQ tests? In any event,
as mentioned or implied by several people above, any test that
tries to measure IQ by race in the United States, Brazil, the
Middle East, Southeast Asia or any other place where it is
difficult to seperate races is, well, evidence of a low IQ.
Moreover, there are the problems with the responses and
rebuttals: 1) White people are performing better on IQ tests
than black people. Let's deal with it. Now what? 2) Any
responses that don't acknowledge that studies show that fluid
IQ is rising in Western countries and that Black fluid IQ is
rising faster than White fluid IQ are not helpful responses.
(Of course, I'd still like to know the actual genetic
background of every person in the fluid IQ studies.)
-- Posted by Chris

* 123. October 23rd, 2007 5:32 pm
Chris, #122, says, "Any responses that don't acknowledge that
studies show that fluid IQ is rising in Western countries and
that Black fluid IQ is rising faster than White fluid IQ are
not helpful responses."
Just because intelligence is difficult to measure doesn't mean
that it can be dismissed. It seems that certain people from the
political left have no problem identifying people as "racist,"
even though there's no way to measure a person's racism. For
that matter, they think the know stupidity when they see it in
Republican politicians.
SAT scores, for example, haven't been rising, and the ability
to do well on the SAT is a more useful application of
adult-level thinking. The SAT is probably a better IQ test than
most self-named IQ tests. Most researchers spend too much time
obsessing over culture-fair IQ tests, but I don't think such an
animal will ever exist. The SAT can't compare someone in the
U.S. to someone in Africa, but it's an excellent comparison
between people who grew up in the United States.
Now it's interesting that how much a 1-year-old baby babbles
has some small correlation with the baby's future SAT score,
and its also interesting that a baby's head circumference has a
small correlation with the baby's future SAT score. But neither
head circumference nor babbling is an application of adult
level thinking skills. But both correlations are an indication
that there's some biological and genetic component influencing
adult intelligence.
-- Posted by Half Sigma

* 124. October 23rd, 2007 9:11 pm
So wait, you mean you have a study that is neither positive, in
reaffirming black's ability, nor negative, in that it casts
them as inherently inferior, and you are suprised that it got
an indifferent reaction?
For something to be picked up, it needs to either support
offensive people, and offend people who are "nice", or visa
versa. Such a stidy also needs to have a simple tagline that
can be reduced to a simple sentence like "homosexuality is
genetic" or "homosexuality is merely a choice".
Your research leaves so many possibilities, from poor parenting
to poor opportunities to bias in testing, that it doesn't
supply anyone with any ammunition, and is therefore best
ignored by propogandists on all sides.
Not that I am cynical or anything...
-- Posted by Mike

* 125. October 23rd, 2007 10:30 pm
Stephen J. Gould taught me we all have that same genes. Your
data validates my knowledge.
-- Posted by David R.

* 126. October 24th, 2007 7:14 am
Why not measure the IQ of foetusus if it will show that blacks
equal whites? Foetuses are equal (unless Mom is a crack whore,
of course).
-- Posted by Guessedworker

* 127. October 24th, 2007 2:14 pm
If something shouldn´t be true, then it isn´t true.
If someone says something terrible, ipso facto, it isn´t true.
If something makes you angry, it isn´t true.
How can something which makes you angry and is bad be true?
If everyone gets angry at someone for saying something, he´ll
retract it.
No one is smarter or better than anyone.
Everyone is just as good as everyone else.
We are all created equal.
Nature, not nurture, determines everything about us. Except
homosexuality. That´s in your nature. Only! Don´t be bad and
make people mad.
There´s nothing whatsoever in the the way a person grows up
that can make anyone turn out gay. Ever. This goes for
everyone. No exceptions.
On the other hand, there is nothing whatsoever about Asian
people or Jews in their genetics that makes them, on average,
smarter, or bad drivers. If they dominate certain fields or
have more accidents, it´s something to do with the way they are
raised, and nothing whatsoever to do with their genes.
But remember, gay is all genes.
Got it? Gay is all genes and smart is 0% genes. How do I know
this? Because it´d be bad otherwise. It would make me mad.
Anything that makes me mad is automatically untrue.
-- Posted by chrisrus

* 128. October 24th, 2007 7:47 pm
Perhaps I'm just a bit confused. Levitt states that IQ scores
at 1 year of age are highly correlated with IQ scores later in
life as well as to parental IQ scores. Yet he shows that
African-Americans and Whites test similarly at 1 year of age,
but have differences of as much as a full standard deviation
later in life. If there is such a large differnce later in
life, but no difference at 1 year, how can scores at 1 year be
said to highly correlate to scores in adulthood?
-- Posted by Adam

* 129. October 25th, 2007 12:08 am
What's so incredibly depressing about research into
intelligence and race/genetics, etc. is that at the end of the
day, it results it nothing practical learned - much worse, it
validates the pre-judgement of others based on general racial
characteristics - judgements which take in no account of the
individual, and could therefore be dead wrong, thus totally
unfair and exclusionary - it's called prejudice... Haven't we
learned better by now ?
-- Posted by Holten

* 130. October 25th, 2007 1:04 pm
Nobel James Watson simply forgets in human history there was
always non-white intelligence !
-- Posted by sam

* 131. October 26th, 2007 2:39 am
It is stunningly remarkable that in today's world people still
speak this way about black people, let alone a Nobel lauriate.
Also notice his self-serving narcissistic remark on the strong
"character" of Celtic people - his own ethnic origin, and the
hypocracy of his statement about "his own kind" being guided by
a sense of social justice vs. his attitude towards blacks.
Typical blockhead mentality. This guy is an idiot who is
better-off spending his time rooting boisturously for Notre
Dame "Fightin'Irish" football than being chancellor of an
esteemed research laboratory....
-- Posted by LPA

* 132. October 26th, 2007 5:05 am
I've read Dr Levitt's draft paper and it is interesting. There
is a lot of good work there. However, much rests on the
assumption that `intelligence' is a unitary independent
construct, rather than a melange of separately learned
abilities. That's the first problem -- as with much research
about intelligence. The second problem is with the assumption
that any assessment at the age of one year tests anything very
meaningful. Much in the paper by Levitt and Fryer rests in
assessments using the Bayley Scales. I'm not sure whether Dr
Fryer and Dr Levitt have seen or used these scales. Very little
meaningful information is garnered about higher intellectual
functioning. How could it be? One year olds can't talk, for
example, so one has to rely on information about pre-verbal
activity, and much of the ultimate assessment rests on motor
and sensory development. Really quite gross information is
collected. In this sense, it is unsurprising that little
differentiation is shown between races -- I'd doubt that very
much differentiation is shown either between other
characteristics, such as socioecononomic status of parents. If
the authors would like to send the paper to me I'd be glad to