AliceFraser
patreon
Race and I.Q
🕑 Added 2017-05-06 07:09:03 +0000 UTC There's a bit of stuff going round in the discourse, particularly on the right/alt-right about IQ and race - it's seen as a failing of the left that left thinkers refuse to engage with the idea of IQ and race, or are disingenuous about the data which exists; finding flaws in the methodology of those who engage in such research, accusing the scientists of racism or eugenics bordering on nazism.The idea that there is a relation between IQ and race is seen as a dangerous idea, and because we've become more ideologically tribal in our thinking, even entering such an area is seen as allying yourself with the worst of all racists - those who would use differences in IQ as an excuse for dehumanising or perpetrating violence on other races.
Also, statistics don't really have much useful predictive value on determining whether any individual member of the group will be the thing statistically associated with that category, but will almost inevitably be used as though they do.
As an aside, I think this kind of slippery slope thinking is worryingly prevalent on both sides of politics these days; making a direct equivalence between careless speech and malicious violence for example, or the slippery slope argument against gay marriage as a direct analogy with utter moral degeneration in society.
I don't really know. I feel like IQ tests are much like any test of potential - more or less useless. I feel like people should be judged on what they actually do, and how they actually behave, rather than their potential or even really their intent (though obviously intent is a relevant factor in moderating judgement on, for example, criminal action).
I think also there's an element worth considering when we look at the outcomes of IQ tests (which might be improved with further research, but isn't being done much except by people with direct political motives because it's such a politically fraught area) that certain tests are geared for certain kinds of intelligence.
A good analogy would be looking at the corporate world - in which the qualities privileged for executive leadership status are ones that are predominantly (traditionally) masculine: aggression, ruthlessness, detachment from emotion, non-cooperation, vertical hierarchies.
Which is interesting when it comes to our uncertainty about how much gendered traits are biological or socialised: is it better for women who want to be CEOs to cultivate 'masculine' traits, or better for the corporate world to begin to value 'feminine' excellences as useful leadership qualities.
So with IQ - if it turned out (as it seems so far to be indicated by the research) that different racial biologies trend towards different types of intelligence the tests for 'success' in those tests will advantage the intelligence type valued by the culture of the test makers.
So there are some thoughts. No real sense of whether it's right or wrong to cultivate scientific research in the area, though part of me thinks more knowledge is almost always an absolute good, and another part of me finds such areas of research inherently sort of impolite and distasteful, and worries about the social implications of motive-driven science... particularly in light of new evidence that a lot of the results coming out of modern science have been corrupted by the pressures of grant funding, ambition and academic economics.
What do you think?
Comments
So at the top of the list of "things I didn't expect to read in bed at 7:30 AM, bleary-eyed".... (it's been a few hours since) I had a whole big long thing I was going to post, but I'll try to be more brief. 1. There is a very obvious road bump of correlation v causation. If I say that Mexicans speak Spanish, I'm being overly broad but not saying anything crazy. If I say that Mexicans speak spanish because their tongues and skull shapes make them genetically predisposed to speaking Spanish instead of English, I'd be an idiot. "The evidence is overwhelming, a huge majority of Mexicans speak Spanish! Checkmate, snowflake, race is real!" The statement seems superficially the same, but the devil is in the details. 2. In Japan (all smug anecdotes start this way), they have a thing about blood types. Instead of saying someone is a certain way because they're a Sagitarius, they would say it's because they have B blood. Also, if people have the same blood type it means they're more compatible, and AB is compatible with everyone because it's the best and most rare. A lot of people, like me, look at this as superstition, but I don't know that it's any less reasonable than using "race", especially if we're using it in a genetic sense and not the broader sense that people tend to mean where they could be referring to cultural aspects etc. The racial version is literally more superficial, and is based on assuming that expressed physical differences (skin color, hair type, skull shape) must indicate or be responsible for other differences (psychological, intellectual, emotional). 3. It is not absurd to point out the eugenics/racist leanings of these sorts of theories, because human beings are part of the equation, and not just their expressed physical traits; they're about lumping people into categories, and then the people who feel a need to express why they're better than other people pick them up and run with them. It is ahistorical for this to go without consideration. Scientific racism is and always has been a valuable tool for all sorts of unsavory types. Even the question is revealing; not are different races more studious, or does race cause XYZ behavior, but are races more or less intelligent. Also, the argument that people refuse to "engage" with these ideas are biased applies equally (better) to the other side. So... On the subject: IQ is not static: <a href="http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/2013/02/is-our-collective-iq-increasing/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/2013/02/is-our-collective-iq-increasing/</a> IQ is not static, 2: <a href="https://reason.com/archives/2012/08/07/nations-smart-rich-wealth-creation" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://reason.com/archives/2012/08/07/nations-smart-rich-wealth-creation</a> IQ not equally heritable (commentary by Charles Murray of all people): <a href="https://www.aei.org/publication/how-can-iq-be-heritable-for-rich-kids-and-not-for-poor-kids/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://www.aei.org/publication/how-can-iq-be-heritable-for-rich-kids-and-not-for-poor-kids/</a> Nicholas Wade's book was dumb: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/agustin-fuentes/the-troublesome-ignorance-of-nicholas-wade_b_5344248.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/agustin-fuentes/the-troublesome-ignorance-of-nicholas-wade_b_5344248.html</a> etc
Lars Ivarsson
I was thinking about the nature - socialisation debate in relation to a discussion I had with someone much more conservative than me with regards to feminism. We found that (the rational parts) of our disagreements really came down to the fact that he believes that women are biologically wired to be into certain jobs and certain academic fields and men others. The interesting part for me was that I realised that the belief I have in the opposite is so deep that I don't really know how to argue for it - and I argue for a living! I am sure I could go build a case for it, but it was just an interesting reflection, and I was listening to some of your podcasts at the same time and realised that this is one of those things that some of us have just internalised in our world view and kind of expect everyone else to just accept; now we are on to discussing just how social patterns are made up etc, and not concerned with the fundamental question. But some people never got on the train, so now everything we say will seem a bit crazy. It's like, if you don't accept the basic dogmas of Christianity you can't debate the finer points of theology with a priest, and from the outside it just looks baffling.. Kind of related, maybe, in terms of fundamental and therefore uncomfortable research?
