Questions
on IQ's of ethnic groups
Mr. Sloan,
Thank you for your response. After reading through your
comments I am even less convinced that your selection of information
and the conclusions you have drawn from it point to any correlation
between race and IQ.
Firstly, it seems you present certain ideas as fact when they are still
being questioned by equally qualified researchers on both sides of the
race/intellect debate. From what I can tell, this debate is
fueled by research as opposed to political correctness.
Sloan replies: In any field, there are
varied opinions. What I present in my website is the majority
opinion of academic researchers.
Secondly, the information you present does not conclusively point to
race as a determinant of IQ any more than it points to race as a
determinant of whether someone will be born with a sense of humor,
leadership ability or drafting skills. In other words, it
seems that intelligence, like personality, is more determined by
factors both clear and mysterious such as your parents' choice of mate,
environmental stimuli, fatty acids, breastfeeding, chance...
Given that, I would be interested to hear your responses to the
following questions:
1. Your claim: "Measures of intelligence like SAT
tests show consistent group differences that are not explainable by
culture or class"
My questions:
- Where is the evidence that
blacks and whites from the full spectrum of socioeconomic and
cultural
backgrounds comprised the sample groups from which these conclusions
were drawn? In other words,
who
gets sampled and what are the selection criteria?
Sloan replies: The charts in www.sq.4mg.com/IQincome.htm
show how various ethnic groups score on SAT
tests. It is noteworthy that Hispanic SAT scores are
higher than those of Blacks, yet the incomes of the
two groups are about the
same. Both groups have a higher percentage
of high school dropouts than
Whites. So their SAT scores come
from a smaller percent of their population than the scores for
Whites. If all high school students were tested for
SAT or IQ, it is likely that average Hispanic and Black scores would be
even lower than the White averages.
-
Moreover, does said evidence take into account that that many
success-minded upper class parents
will
pay princely sums for Kaplan courses in order to boost their kids' SAT
scores? I
remember meeting several white students in college who took expensive
courses to increase their
previously lackluster test scores. See also:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/katzman.html
Sloan replies: The data on Kaplan/
Princeton Review success in raising SAT scores has not been available
publicly for academic scrutiny.
- If the
SAT-based IQ figures you present are averages, how do you account for
the high end of black
test
scores, or outliers, that contribute to the black average? If
blacks were mentally
incapable of surpassing a Caucasian score, as your website implies, how
do you explain the ones that
do? I
am certain that these black outliers exist as I have met some of them:
a female African
acquaintance with a summa cum laude from Yale Law School and magna cum
laude from Harvard, a
fraternal cousin and uncle with genius IQs... If
blacks are destined for lower intelligence no
matter what mitigating factors come into their lives, then why do some
blacks far exceed their white
and
Asian counterparts?
Sloan replies: Like all physical characteristics
that occur in a bell curve distribution, IQ's of all ethnic
groups include some very high (and very low) individual
scores.
-
Similarly, how would you explain the significant difference in IQ
scores amongst whites that belong
to
the same regions, ethnic groups and genetic stock?
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-inferiorIQ.htm
Sloan
replies: Scientists do not have good data
or analysis for all IQ questions. Where there is no clear majority
opinion, I usually do not include such topics in my
website. There has been much analysis
of the difference between the higher IQ's of Jews of
Eastern European vs Jews of Mediterranean
background. Scientists generally feel that varying
persecutions (like Holocaust) and survival rates are related
to that IQ difference.
The same radio program that I mentioned before, This American Life, has
done a number of interesting
shows
that illuminate the nature of intelligence. They did a show
on two women who were switched at
birth. They were from similar ethnic stock and socioeconomic
class. The women talked about
their
experiences unknowingly growing up in families that were not their
own. One woman described
how
she had a completely different personality and aptitude than her
supposed siblings. They,
along
with their biological parents were bookish, high achieving and
conservative. She was outgoing
and a
marginal student with none of their academic talent, although she
seemed to have superior
people skills. If being of Germanic stock and good health
ensures that you have a higher intellect
than
everyone else, then why was there a marked aptitude difference between
these two women? Surely
other
factors come into play when mental capacity is determined in the womb.
Sloan replies: Anecdotal evidence is not as strong
as data. And sibling differences are much greater that the
genetics of identical twins.
2. Your claim (regarding twins raised by different
families): "Their different environments cause only a 10-20%
difference in their IQ's".
My question:
- In upper
class culture, many people choose a mate based on their intellectual
prowess. Many upper
class families put outward pressure on
their children to pick a mate that has gone to a good
school, has a prestigious job,
etc. Conversely, in many lower class families selection of a
mate
may have more to do with criteria such as
having a caring personality, being a breadwinner, being
handsome or being humorous with high IQ
having less weight in the decision. In any case, when
people of any class reproduce, they pass
on their genes to their children.
However, given the existence of IQ disparities among very similar
whites and the existence of
blacks and Africans that score higher
than whites and Asians, one could rightfully conclude that
race is not a determinant of
intellect. If anything, these disparities point toward choice
of mate
as a strong factor in determining the
intellect of one's progeny. What is your take on the issue?
Sloan replies: You make some
assertions that choosing a mate varies in
different ethnic groups. I find no data to confirm this.
2. Your claim: "It is true that IQ tests require
reading and other skills learned in the
classroom. But they mainly test for
problem-solving abilities, not facts learned at school. Most
respected IQ-type tests (like the SAT-1) have been well researched for
flaws and their scores have been shown to correlate well with each
other."
My questions:
- There is no
consensus that the SAT is an IQ test. It seems that you are
lumping together
intelligence tests and standardized achievement tests when the two
tests contain different content
and
measure different aptitudes. From what I understand most IQ
tests measure for pattern
recognition, memory, logic, reasoning, spatial evaluation and other
non-school related aptitudes,
evidenced by the fact that many IQ tests are administered to small
children.
SAT tests on the
other hand are mainly achievement tests that measure one's ability to
apply
arithmetic principles to scenarios, one's memorization of vocabulary
and word sense, reading
comprehension and test-taking ability in addition to basic
logic.
When I took the
SAT in the early 90s I tested in the top percentile and I never took a
course to
help
my chances. When I took practice tests
with no pressure I often aced the tests or had one or
two
mistakes that I could easily detect on a second
pass. Nonetheless, I know that my IQ would
NOT
have
helped me do well on the SAT at all had I not had a rigorous and
challenging formation in math
and
english.
Given that, how
can you say that the SAT is an IQ test when the verbal part of the exam
measures
vocabulary level and reading comprehension? Those are skills
you hone in a well run English class
that
exposes you to British English through literature (a lot of the
"harder" vocabulary words are
found
more often in written and spoken British English than in American
English). And clearly, you
would
not do well on the mathematical portion of the test had you not
memorized and repeatedly
applied algebraic/geometric formulas and theorems as part of your
homework routine over
many
years. Try taking an SAT test now and compare the results
with the ones you received as a
teenager still in school. You'll probably see that your math
abilities have atrophied independent
of
your level of intelligence.
Admittedly, there are logic problems on the SAT but having a highly
logical mind alone and no
exposure to academic subjects will not win you a good score on the
test. Also, I think it is fair
to
say that being in challenging courses affords you a more agile mind
that is better equipped to
handle logic questions.
Thus,
is it fair to look at SAT averages as a measure of IQ? To me
they mainly seem like a measure
of
schooling and test-taking ability, with some reference to innate
intelligence.
Sloan replies: Yes, the SAT is structured
differently than some IQ tests. But the important point is:
"The SAT and IQ test correlate very highly. Between the SAT
and the IQ, they correlate almost as much as the SAT correlates with a
second administration of the SAT, as much as it correlates with
itself." Quote by Stanford Psychology department
chair. This and similar quotes from respected
academics at www.sq.4mg.com/IQ-SAT.htm
3. Your claim: "Early Childhood Education programs do give a boost to
school performance of youngsters. But the boost is only
temporary."
My questions:
- Research shows that
heritable and functional IQ fluctuate throughout one's lifespan and can
be temporarily boosted by changes in one's environment. This
is true for all races. Given that, wouldn't a program like
Head Start fall into the category of a temporary change of
environment? Thus, wouldn't it follow that once it is taken
away with all other factors remain the same that a child would be in
danger of losing the temporary gains?
Sloan replies: Head Start evidence
supports the conclusions implied by your questions above, especially
for temporary boosts in IQ scores.
So
what is responsible for reversing the progress made by
HeadStart? I don't think it's racial inferiority; I think
it's environment. One thing you may not see is that many
families of a working class culture do not cherish academic achievement
in the same way upper class families do. They tend not to put
as much pressure on their kids to pursue mind-expanding extra
curricular activities like studying a musical instrument or foreign
language. They talk about different things at the dinner
table. Expectations in lower class families may be set at a
lower bar (i.e. a poor family with no college graduates may be ecstatic
if one their own goes to a local college whereas a wealthy family will
only be satisfied if their kid gets into an Ivy League school--after
prepping him for it all his life.) I don't know if your
theories take into account the environment kids spend their time in out
of school and how that can determine their abilities.
Sloan replies: Nobody really knows the reasons for
Head Start's lack of permanent gains in some school
performance measures.
- On your Educational Equality page you
mention that blacks tend to perform better in Olympic running events
because of their physical attributes and from that one can conclude
that brain capacity must vary by race as well. Following that
logic I could say that white people, being deficient in melanin
compared to
blacks, must somehow be deficient in
their brain capacity compared to blacks. Sounds silly
right? Frankly, your Olympics statement recalls Nazi thought
and is a bit crypto-racist. If anything, it makes your site
seem like it is based on confirmation bias (i.e. I want to believe that
whites are superior so I will construct
a case to defend that position). How would you respond to
that?
Sloan replies: The majority of Americans
in all ethnic groups believe, as you do, that IQ group differences are
caused by environmental factors. The majority of researchers
in the IQ field believe that the differences are caused mostly by
genetic factors. Occasionally there is some
hard evidence of environmental impact,
as I added to www.SQ.4mg.com/IQbasics.htm
- (new
finding: 2005 research indicates that children's IQ scores improved 5 points after studying Chinese characters)
The difference between what is popularly believed
and what researchers believe (on group IQ's) bothers me. It
leads to unrealistic expectations of what teachers and administrators
in low income school districts ought to be able to
achieve.
3. You claim: "Researchers also agree
that IQ is set for life by age five or earlier"
My questions:
- I have read several articles claiming
otherwise. Some say IQ increases through
adolescence. Others say that heritable IQ is is not static
and that it can be enhanced by a number of different environmental
factors. Why have you chosen to reject what other researchers
claim? See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effectSloan replies: The Flynn effect (of IQ's
increasing worldwide over time) is real, but its causes are not
understood. On IQ changing during one's lifetime,
the reality depends on the definition of IQ. Yes, a child's
ability to think through problems improves through adolescence, and it
declines in old age, particularly in math skills.
But IQ is really a measure of an individual's intelligence
relative to his peers of the same age. Most evidence shows
that relative intelligence (IQ) does not change after age 5.
Awaiting your response, (now in bold above)
--Anonymous