Genes and Intelligence

[James Hannam]

This article (by noted bugbear of the left, Charles Murray) adds some more useful details to my explanation of why the middle classes do better at school:

www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/510/full

Only on one point is he wrong. He cites evidence that children with married parents do better. This is true, but he declines to mention that there is a genetic component to whether or not couples stay together. It is unlikely that nurture makes the difference he imagines for all sorts of reasons (not least that he shows that the quality schools themselves are largely irrelevant).

Best wishes

James

[eckadimmock]

You seem (if you don't mind my saying so) quite extreme in your determination to slate every human characteristic back to genetics!

I don't think you're making enough allowance for mediating variables or genetic:environmental interactions. Because parents and children share a characteristic does not make it solely genetics. By that standard even postcode is heritable!

I note in Murrays' piece that again, IQ is the be all and end all, as it was in The Bell Curve, If IQ tests considered musical ability (which should be an indicator, if you accept the IQist notion that intelligence is a single heritable "g" factor). How would Black Americans fare then?

I'm very suspicious of Murray's intellectual let-them-eat-cake stance, and it would be a tragedy if such thinking dominated education. Only the sons of corporate lords and ladies would ever get a chance to better themselves.

Here's a short comment on Murray's assumptions:

intelligencetesting.blogspot.com/2007/01/iq-and-school-learning-charles-murray.html

You may also want to note Richard Dawkins' views on Christianity and IQ. If he's had his way, you'd have been bunged out of your science course.

[James Hannam]

Two things confuse me about your reply.

First, why do people always bring up race? Simply raising the race question does not invalidate any of the points I have made. It is simply an example of the poisoning the well fallacy. I said nothing about rce and neither, if I recall, did the article I linked to.

Secondly, science really doesn't care about politics. Just because something offends our political beliefs won't make it untrue. I see no difference between rejected evolution because it conflicts with certain religious beliefs and rejecting genetics because it gets in the way of eqalitarian politics.

If Murray is right (and, on the whole, he is in the article linked to) it would be better to think how we can adapt our ideals to reality rather than just hoping the reality would go away.

Best wishes

James

[eckadimmock]

Firstly, people always bring up race because of the history of IQ testing has almost always been about race. You realize, don't you, that Murray (with Herrenstein) was the author of The Bell Curve, which was basically about racial differences in IQ, and claimed (with rather shonky, and solely correlational) data that black people were less intelligent than whites or Asians.

It has previously been used for eugenics and as the justification for forced sterilization. (There is a book on the subject: "IQ: A Smart History of a Failed Idea" www.amazon.com/IQ-Smart-History-Failed-Idea/dp/0471699772 (in your reply could you tell me how to insert hyperlinks?)

Science, if we're going to talk about it as though it had a single conscience, should care about bad decisions being made on the basis of flawed research. Education and parenting require effort, not quasiscientific excuses for inaction.

It may be that genetic research produces something positive in future, but at the moment it does more harm than good.

[James Hannam]

Sept 26, 2008 9:54:05 GMT eckadimmock said:

It has previously been used for eugenics and as the justification for forced sterilization. (There is a book on the subject: "IQ: A Smart History of a Failed Idea" www.amazon.com/IQ-Smart-History-Failed-Idea/dp/0471699772 (in your reply could you tell me how to insert hyperlinks?)

Yes, but you can link Darwinism to eugenics pretty easily too and that doesn't make Darwinism false. It isn't even an argument against Darwinism. Can't help with the hyperlinks, I just paste them in.

It may be that genetic research produces something positive in future, but at the moment it does more harm than good.

Positive or true? That, I think, is the problem. The truth may be pretty depressing. If we don't like the science (which is a perfectly valid position to take), we should just say so rather than try to pretend it isn't so. Intelligence is genetic. Really and truly. But it is perfectly valid to pretend humans are all equally gifted and treat them as such for moral reasons. We just need to admit why we do it.

Best wishes

James

[eckadimmock]

One could indeed say the same things about Darwinism, and I assure you I would have the same reservations about natural selection theory being applied in social policy. (Re Darwinism: Interestingly, Herrenstein and Murray claimed that IQ was going backwards, because stupid people had more children).

I'm not trying to argue that people are equally intellectually gifted, merely that IQ scores are limited in revealing those differences. They measure performance now, not potential. They are poor indicators of future performance. Moreover, when scientific studies are still returning contradictory results, it is not wise to jump to conclusions and start imposing the theory on society. Intelligence is not simply genetic, it is a combination of factors, of which genetics is one.

[James Hannam]

Sept 26, 2008 10:28:41 GMT eckadimmock said:

I'm not trying to argue that people are equally intellectually gifted, merely that IQ scores are limited in revealing those differences. They measure performance now, not potential. They are poor indicators of future performance.

But, according to the blog you linked to, they are the best indication we've got with about a 50% correlation. I agree with you that IQ scores are far from perfect. The advantage of them is that they are measurable and hence we can do statistics with them. I think for some fuzzy thinkers (present comany excluded) its that very rigour that worries them.

Moreover, when scientific studies are still returning contradictory results, it is not wise to jump to conclusions and start imposing the theory on society. Intelligence is not simply genetic, it is a combination of factors, of which genetics is one.

But the current educational model is based on nothing more than wishful thinking. Sure, the science is not clear cut, but it's the best we've got and miles better than ideologically inspired guesswork.

Best wishes

James

[humphreyclarke]

Well, I agree with Francis Galton and the principle of hard hereditary. Some people are born "smart", some people are born "stupid". The error is in thinking this is a bad thing, after all it was the "smartest" who thought that investing heavily in sub prime mortgages was a great idea and got us into the current mess. You simply can't assess people's value purely in terms of intelligence, but this is what our current system seems to do. There is a fundamental error in our current education system which holds as its guiding principle that we should all go into higher education and the result has been massive grade inflation. A lot of degrees are simply not worth the paper they are printed on. I would rather see a system that recognised that people have a diverse range of abilities and talents and channelled them into occupations they are likely to enjoy excel at rather than trying to mould them into some elusive ideal. Realising our limitations is an important first step.

[eckadimmock]

That seems a reasonable position Humphrey.

As I say, I don't say that everyone can be an astrophysicist, but that no-one should be prejudged on the basis of birth or social status.

It's not the variation that's a problem, but the assumption made by various bodies over the years that a test of a very limited range of skills is an accurate reflection of a child's entire potential and destiny. Worse, those who don't pass the test are worthless ineducable dross who deserve no education of any sort (or need to be bred out of existence).

It's just such a seductive notion: one number expresses all you are or can ever be.

[eckadimmock]

But, according to the blog you linked to, they are the best indication we've got with about a 50% correlation. I agree with you that IQ scores are far from perfect. The advantage of them is that they are measurable and hence we can do statistics with them. I think for some fuzzy thinkers (present comany excluded) its that very rigour that worries them.

Two points: why predict anything? Isn't it better to start with a level playing field before you start making judgments about what people can and can't do?

Secondly, statistics are not the only tool available to educational researchers. They are not easy to interpret correctly when human potential encompasses so many variables and the figures are based on such a limited range of data.

But the current educational model is based on nothing more than wishful thinking. Sure, the science is not clear cut, but it's the best we've got and miles better than ideologically inspired guesswork.

You keep phrasing this as science versus ideology, but (like "science versus religion") that characterisation is unfair. Many scientists (and I've provided some examples) have reservations about IQ testing. Many educators do too, and I tend to trust people who have been in classrooms and worked with real children than boffins running software.

Regards,

Colin

[Al Moritz]

Sept 26, 2008 10:28:41 GMT eckadimmock said:

I'm not trying to argue that people are equally intellectually gifted, merely that IQ scores are limited in revealing those differences. They measure performance now, not potential. They are poor indicators of future performance. Moreover, when scientific studies are still returning contradictory results, it is not wise to jump to conclusions and start imposing the theory on society. Intelligence is not simply genetic, it is a combination of factors, of which genetics is one.

I agree. Also, from my daily work as a scientist I am keenly aware that you only get the output from a scientific query that corresponds to the input and the underlying premises. And the input and underlying premises in IQ tests are often limited and poor. Thus, attaching too much value to IQ tests for the sole reason that they are "scientific" is shallow and wrong-headed.

As far as potential goes: there are people who reach intellectual awareness and maturity early on, but then do not proceed much further in later life. On the other hand, there are late-bloomers who in their youth are restricted in their outlook but later in life climb to great heights. All this is not measured by IQ tests.

Also, I am afraid that IQ tests may tend to favor "quick" minds. These however can be superficial as well, while deep thinkers are often rather slow in their thought processes, but obtain greater achievements in some areas (while in other areas of life and profession "quick" thinkers will be the best performers).

[eckadimmock]

As far as potential goes: there are people who reach intellectual awareness and maturity early on, but then do not proceed much further in later life. On the other hand, there are late-bloomers who in their youth are restricted in their outlook but later in life climb to great heights. All this is not measured by IQ tests.

Precisely: even Albert Eisteins parents were warned that their child was retarded (and he was famously speech delayed). Although they have improved, IQ tests don't measure creative abilities or problem solving, only "crystallized" intelligence that is easiest to test. Intelligence tests really only test the ability to pass intelligence tests!