Spearman's hypothesis, g and explication of black/white IQ differences

[snafupants]

Perhaps, before we get started, I should elucidate three subtly disparate yet related definitions. Here we go: Spearman's g (general mental ability) is one's ability to understand and manipulate complexity; g is obliquely gauged by IQ tests, which are fallible predominately because they are created by humans; and, thirdly, intelligence is a psychological construct which parallels the definition of g and according to David Wechsler is the "aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally and to deal effectively with his environment," although some more contemporary psychologists, while conceding the import of abstract reasoning, argue g is more than the foregoing definition.

Now that I have laid the conceptual framework for thinking about intelligence, we can advance to more stimulating issues. Let me go back to the closing of my opener (from the admittedly poorly titled thread on gender differences in IQ scores) and talk about black/white intellectual differences and the contribution of Spearman's hypothesis. Spearman basically postulated that these ethnic differences arose more sharply when the test more accurately gauged g. In other words, a test with a paltry statistical g-loading (e.g., a one-dimensional memory task) is going to be more favorable to blacks regarding their IQ inferiority to whites than a tougher, more g-loaded examination of intellectual ability. This positive relationship between the degree of g of a particular task and IQ score disparity applies, of course, for individual questions, subtests and overriding IQ test scores.

As things currently stand, there is a fifteen point difference between black and white intelligence test scores, which, because of those three definitions I gave above, one could quibble over on grounds of construct validity. But those are the results: American blacks have historically shown an IQ score average (~IQ 85) one standard deviation above mental retardation (IQ 70) and one standard deviation below the white average (IQ 100). Essentially the rule of thumb is that the more g-loaded the measure, the greater the difference between black and white IQ scores.

The critique of these numbers is, often, something to do with cultural bias. In fact, however, when the test is culture-free and is heavily g-loaded blacks tend to widen the one standard deviation divide between whites. The crux of the debate is Spearman's hypothesis and the extent to which the test is saturated with g. There was a psychometric hoopla a few years ago over Kaufman Assessment Scale for Children (KABC) test scores: reports claimed that blacks merely had an eight point (~.5 standard deviation) difference to whites. Factor analysis later revealed that these numbers were skewed because the test was bogged down by memory tasks, which are less saturated with g compared to visuospatial tasks, which white and asians have historically performed much better than blacks on. The basic reason for this dissonance between subtest scores is that g is more present in visuospatial tasks than memory tasks. The critiques were mostly rescinded.

For those who still believe that the black/white difference can largely be attributed to cultural bias, I have one question: why do East Asians perform slightly higher than whites on American IQ tests? Seemingly the cultural and educational, overarching environmental differences, are not subsumed solely be some factor which preferentially attacks blacks and leaves asians alone. Some critics then shift gears and argue that SES brings down IQ for blacks. Let's remember two things though: SES informs IQ, and IQ informs SES; second, when the statistical analyses are computed, SES only explains one third of the standard deviation difference between blacks and whites. What explains the rest? Genetics? Something else? I would love to hear your opinions.

 

[Antediluvian]

Well, I will post this here, as I saw your message in the other thread

If I recall, don't those of different socioeconomic classes score differently? Also, I thought there was a study done where children of a lower class were adopted by higher class members and scored higher after a significant amount of time had passed.

 

[snafupants]

Well, I will post this here, as I saw your message in the other thread

If I recall, don't those of different socioeconomic classes score differently? Also, I thought there was a study done where children of a lower class were adopted by higher class members and scored higher after a significant amount of time had passed.

Yes and no. Here's the deal, when researchers pluck a score of IQ 110 obtained by white subjects, of both high and low SES, the profile breakdown is appallingly similar. That is, those at both high and low SES, with identical aggregate IQ scores, tend to score well on visuospatial subtests. Blacks tend to display different profiles at high SES and low SES. This perhaps suggests that environment has a constituent role, along with genetics, in explaining IQ score variations of up to 1.2 standard deviations between blacks and whites.

There are two important things to remember though: SES informs IQ and IQ informs SES. That means that, since IQ is largely genetic and since SES and IQ correlate highly themselves, smart parents tend to have smart kids, who happen to be more affluent than their dumb counterparts, and dull parents tend to recreate their own intellectual shortcomings; dumb people, for whatever reason and since time out of mind, also have more kids. The second thing to bear in mind is that only .33 percent of the variance in the foregoing IQ difference between blacks and whites is accounted for by SES, which is a big part of the environmental driver of intelligence because its role is so inclusive. For the record, genetic factors putatively can be ascribed to between .4 to .8 (average ~.6) of the variance in IQ scores.

Edit: You've added some text from your original message. Allow me to take a look and respond accordingly. Edit II: I would be glad to supply data for these words, but the rub with twin studies is that genetics still explains the greater variance in IQ score differences. There is an ascending order of explained variance from monozygotic twins to half siblings, with every conceivable interstice (e.g., full sibling) included. The greater the genetic similarity, in essence, the greater amount of variance in IQ is explained by this genetic congruence. To put the results bluntly, typically the more time that elapses, even given dissimilar early home environments, the more the twins' IQ scores converge.

 

[lucky12]

If KABC test scores were done properly they would be the most accurate collection of results, reason being: they are most recent you mentioned, and they dealt with children (outside influences/educational influences are of low frequency) . Agree?

I think separating the visuospatial from the memory tasks was a very interesting move, even though a mistake. That alone brings a lot of attention to genetics if we ignore the homely lives of the children.

SES is a factor that should only be incorporated if the subjects education was provided within an area saturated with low income/standards. I imagine SES is factored partially on that, I'm just pointing that out..


Now.. ripped from wiki..

Test bias
A 1996 report by the American Psychological Association states that controlled studies show that the black-white IQ gaps are not substantially due to bias in the content or administration of the IQ tests. Furthermore, the tests are equally valid predictors of future achievement for black and white Americans.[3] This view is reinforced by Nicholas Mackintosh in his 1998 book IQ and Human Intelligence,[56] and by a 1999 literature review by Brown, Reynolds & Whitaker (1999).[57]
Studies on other groups and in other nations have argued that IQ tests may be biased against certain groups.[58][59][60][61] The validity and reliability of IQ scores obtained from outside of the United States and Europe have been questioned, in part because of the inherent difficulty of comparing IQ scores between cultures.[62][63] Several researchers have argued that cultural differences limit the appropriateness of standard IQ tests in non-industrialized communities.[64][65] In the mid-1970s, for example, the Soviet psychologist Alexander Luria concluded that it was impossible to devise an IQ test to assess peasant communities in Russia because taxonomy was alien to their way of reasoning.[66]

But then I stumbled on this..

The Abecedarian Early Intervention Project, an intensive early childhood education project, was also able to cause an average IQ gain of 4.4 points at age 21 in the black children who participated in it compared to controls.[71] Arthur Jensen agreed that the Abecedarian project demonstrates that education can have a significant effect on IQ, but also said that no educational program thus far has been able to reduce the Black-White IQ gap by more than a third, and that differences in education are thus unlikely to be its only cause.[84]

Considering they only gained 4.4 points, to me this makes genetics most probable... based on what can be collected data wise. Learning comes so much from community within the family and with social interactions/physical interactions (ex. playing with a ball).

To you personally.. a manly kiss.
I appreciate your vocabulary, even though my native language is English

 

[lucky12]

Well, I will post this here, as I saw your message in the other thread

If I recall, don't those of different socioeconomic classes score differently? Also, I thought there was a study done where children of a lower class were adopted by higher class members and scored higher after a significant amount of time had passed.

Should be just as accurate as the last piece of information I posted.. minus the whole adoption.

 

[Antediluvian]

To put the results bluntly, typically the more time that elapses, even given dissimilar early home environments, the more the twins' IQ scores converge.

I'll respond to this portion, as I find the twin studies highly interesting. The reason is due to reading Flynn's book "What is Intelligence?," specifically the section dealing with twin studies and Flynn explaining one of his four paradoxes dealing with disparate environments and yet twin's IQs converge despite that issue, more or less. If I remember correctly, the "paradox" is that the environment matters, and yet it does not. Supposedly, his theory was that someone of equal intelligence would find a way to level the playing field, so to speak, educationally, or whatever, by seeking further stimuli. Basically, the environment is there as a means for providing stimuli, but it is ripe for the taking. I'm not sure how this would apply to visual-spatial skills, but these are my tentative thoughts on the matter.

 

[snafupants]

If KABC test scores were done properly they would be the most accurate collection of results, reason being: they are most recent you mentioned, and they dealt with children (outside influences/educational influences are of low frequency) . Agree?

I think separating the visuospatial from the memory tasks was a very interesting move, even though a mistake. That alone brings a lot of attention to genetics if we ignore the homely lives of the children.

SES is a factor that should only be incorporated if the subjects education was provided within an area saturated with low income/standards. I imagine SES is factored partially on that, I'm just pointing that out..


Now.. ripped from wiki..

Test bias
A 1996 report by the American Psychological Association states that controlled studies show that the black-white IQ gaps are not substantially due to bias in the content or administration of the IQ tests. Furthermore, the tests are equally valid predictors of future achievement for black and white Americans.[3] This view is reinforced by Nicholas Mackintosh in his 1998 book IQ and Human Intelligence,[56] and by a 1999 literature review by Brown, Reynolds & Whitaker (1999).[57]
Studies on other groups and in other nations have argued that IQ tests may be biased against certain groups.[58][59][60][61] The validity and reliability of IQ scores obtained from outside of the United States and Europe have been questioned, in part because of the inherent difficulty of comparing IQ scores between cultures.[62][63] Several researchers have argued that cultural differences limit the appropriateness of standard IQ tests in non-industrialized communities.[64][65] In the mid-1970s, for example, the Soviet psychologist Alexander Luria concluded that it was impossible to devise an IQ test to assess peasant communities in Russia because taxonomy was alien to their way of reasoning.[66]

But then I stumbled on this..

The Abecedarian Early Intervention Project, an intensive early childhood education project, was also able to cause an average IQ gain of 4.4 points at age 21 in the black children who participated in it compared to controls.[71] Arthur Jensen agreed that the Abecedarian project demonstrates that education can have a significant effect on IQ, but also said that no educational program thus far has been able to reduce the Black-White IQ gap by more than a third, and that differences in education are thus unlikely to be its only cause.[84]

Considering they only gained 4.4 points, to me this makes genetics most probable... based on what can be collected data wise. Learning comes so much from community within the family and with social interactions/physical interactions (ex. playing with a ball).

To you personally.. a manly kiss.
I appreciate your vocabulary, even though my native language is English

I will get to the rest of your message in a moment, but I would respectfully disagree for two reasons. Because the environmental influence is slightly less than the genetic influence on IQ scores, their numbers would be more affected by their parents' IQ and SES, which are highly correlated and partly inborn, than their early home environment per se. The second caution I would provide is thus: there is more mutability of the link between childhood IQ and adult IQ when the kids are quite young (e.g., under nine) than from fifteen to their eventual adult IQ scores. Basically the older the child or adolescent, as you will probably attest, the more cemented the IQ score.

As an extraneous point, the results I reported also deal with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) and Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices, although their special mention was indeed omitted. Regarding the WISC I should add that blacks tend to do worse on the digits backward portion of the digit span subtest - that particular part is twice as g-loaded as the digits forward subsection - compared to their white counterparts. Blacks also have historically performed better on arithmetic and memory subtests, whereas whites have performed comparatively higher on visuospatial tasks; visuospatial subtests are typically more saturated with g than memory subtests. Taken collectively, this further corroborates Spearman's hypothesis as regards black/white discrepancies in IQ scores.

Well, I just might kiss you back.

 

[lucky12]

Yes, genetics. You do sway me.

One thing I'm wondering.. who wrote these tests? We know WISC, but were any of the writers black? And for the oral portions/instructions given.. do you think the black children would be more inclined to understand black administrators/writers?

That brings up the gender influences in classroom's too.. eh and maybe I'm just talking shit.

 

[snafupants]

Yes, genetics. You do sway me.

One thing I'm wondering.. who wrote these tests? We know WISC, but were any of the writers black? And for the oral portions/instructions given.. do you think the black children would be more inclined to understand black administrators/writers?

That brings up the gender influences in classroom's too.. eh and maybe I'm just talking shit.

Ironically the more culture-free the test, and the more g-loaded the test, the greater discrepancy between black and white IQ scores across basically all age groups. Item analysis, additionally, reports that blacks are more likely to score alongside their white brethren when the item is heavily dependent on cultural knowledge. The ethnic IQ differences are basically highlighted most starkly on subtests that involve numbers or symbols exclusively (i.e., culture-free) but call predominately on g over lesser cognitive skills. This seems counter-intuitive because we've all been brainwashed by unscrupulous but well-meaning multicultural psychologists from the sixties and seventies who've erroneously reported, in essence, we are all intellectually the same and genetic difference should basically be discounted. The data simply does not support this sanguine view of reality. That said, we should remember that only ~.6 of the variance is explained by genetic factors. Edit: Remember that with most quandaries posed about blacks, the same circumstances largely pervade East Asians, who actually score slightly higher than whites. In other words, we could also legitimately ask if any asians created the early IQ tests?

 

[Antediluvian]

Remember that with most quandaries posed about blacks, the same circumstances largely pervade East Asians, who actually score slightly higher than whites. In other words, we could also legitimately ask if any asians created the early IQ tests?

I think China used a form of intelligence testing some 2,000 years ago. Well, they were more akin to civil service exams, I suppose.

Anyway, I'll respond to the SES stuff later, it's definitely intriguing.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

For those who still believe that the black/white difference can largely be attributed to cultural bias, I have one question: why do East Asians perform slightly higher than whites on American IQ tests? What explains the rest? Genetics? Something else? I would love to hear your opinions.

Things to consider:

1. Bias due to within-group interaction (also applies to sex, dare I rehash that can of worms).
2. A genetic difference may simply result in different learning/thought mechanisms that escape the glorified Spearman's g as opposed to a reduced potential for intelligence. (see 3)
3. Sometimes apparently complex processes occur due to simple instinct that observers read too much into, i.e. insect migration, zugunruhe in birds, beaching in whales, mimicry and problem-solving in octupi, the social organization of Hymenoptera, naked mole rat social interaction, etc.

 

[snafupants]

I think China used a form of intelligence testing some 2,000 years ago. Well, they were more akin to civil service exams, I suppose.

Anyway, I'll respond to the SES stuff later, it's definitely intriguing.

There's a smartass in every lot. You're right though, Emperor Wu did require an achievement-like test on the Confucian classics; and in some instances throughout Chinese history, you could leapfrog money and status by doing well on these tests. In the larger discussion, however, I meant that most of the disenfranchised minority arguments which pundits love to strap onto blacks are almost equally applicable to asians. The fact that asians score, on average, slightly higher than whites goofs up the game of politically correct, social justice seeking contemporary psychologists as it unravels the putative connection between deleterious environmental conditions and poor intellectual outcomes. One must wonder why, since both blacks and asians are basically equally alienated from mainstream culture, asians do less bad on g-loaded measures of verbal ability.

 

[scorpiomover]

For those who still believe that the black/white difference can largely be attributed to cultural bias, I have one question: why do East Asians perform slightly higher than whites on American IQ tests? Seemingly the cultural and educational, overarching environmental differences, are not subsumed solely be some factor which preferentially attacks blacks and leaves asians alone. Some critics then shift gears and argue that SES brings down IQ for blacks. Let's remember two things though: SES informs IQ, and IQ informs SES; second, when the statistical analyses are computed, SES only explains one third of the standard deviation difference between blacks and whites. What explains the rest? Genetics? Something else? I would love to hear your opinions.

We've had Chinese kids being a recognisable part of kids in the UK for at least 40 years. The overwhelming view of them, here, as composed to the average, is that they work harder.

There is an interesting corollary to this. It was long commented that in classical music competitions, the Chinese performed flawless reproductions of pieces, which gained them higher marks than Western Caucasians. However, they didn't dominate, because they seemed to lack improvisation, indicating they lacked creativity. I just watched the BBC's Young Musician of the Year competition, where the Chinese guy won it hands down. However, he did something very unusual. He added a composition of his own, that more than made up for any lack of creativity. That required prior effort to prepare. So here too, the Chinese are putting in more hard work than the average Westerner.

 

[Hadoblado]

I don't have much time atm, but I would love to come back to this.

A few quick points:
- socioeconomic status and culturally unstimulating environments are potentially exponential gap wideners for IQ over generations. Stupid parents teach already stupid children their own maladjustments.

- Do not discount the influence of the environment on the genes themselves. Epigenetics could play a prominent role in snowballing those in already unfortunate circumstances, or at least keeping them at the bottom.

- I agree with Snafu that dismissal of racial differences as inconsequential is illogical, however I do not blame people one bit for abandoning that train of thought. Other than for for the joy of pure semantics I cannot think of a single benefit to society that could come about as a result of proving conclusively the intellectual inferiority of a demographic that is already discriminated against. It's also a pretty hard thing to prove

 

[Antediluvian]

There's a smartass in every lot. You're right though, Emperor Wu did require an achievement-like test on the Confucian classics; and in some instances throughout Chinese history, you could leapfrog money and status by doing well on these tests. In the larger discussion, however, I meant that most of the disenfranchised minority arguments which pundits love to strap onto blacks are almost equally applicable to asians. The fact that asians score, on average, slightly higher than whites goofs up the game of politically correct, social justice seeking contemporary psychologists as it unravels the putative connection between deleterious environmental conditions and poor intellectual outcomes. One must wonder why, since both blacks and asians are basically equally alienated from mainstream culture, asians do less bad on g-loaded measures of verbal ability.

Yeah, I believe I understood what you meant, you'll find I go on tangents fairly often

But, from what you're saying even though asians and blacks are equally alienated from mainstream culture, asians still perform better on verbal ability tests. And so, you're wondering then why that excuse should still apply when one group is theoretically overcoming the same environmental detriments. Stimulating question, I'll grant you that. Also, don't asians score somewhat below whites in verbal ability tests? I think they score higher on the arithmetic portions of the WAIS, not to mention on other standardized tests, such as SAT/ACT.

As for my postulates, it could be explained by behavioral pattern differences between the two groups (which could be tied to intelligence, but may not be), or it could be a simple genetic difference in ability to conceptualize. I'm not sure. There are also other theories of intelligence, and I'm not referring to Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. The Triarchic theory of intelligence as proposed by Sternberg as you of course know, deals with one's interactions with the environment, there are three components to it, but I can't recall them at the moment. I think this also needs to be taken into consideration.

Hadobaldo brings brings up an interesting point of discussion concerning epigenetics, and how that environment influences gene expression through inhibition of genes. This doesn't directly answer the disparate performances of asians and blacks despite similar deleterious environments.

As far as the cultural component issue goes, I'm not too familiar with asian culture on the whole, but it's possible they have more parental reinforcement in regards to education, effort, thereby creating a self-perpetuating "cognitively enriched" environment. Flynn has a whole section in his book that deals with the average performance of asians on IQ tests, I'll see if I can find the book. I have it around here, somewhere...

 

[snafupants]

We've had Chinese kids being a recognisable part of kids in the UK for at least 40 years. The overwhelming view of them, here, as composed to the average, is that they work harder.

There is an interesting corollary to this. It was long commented that in classical music competitions, the Chinese performed flawless reproductions of pieces, which gained them higher marks than Western Caucasians. However, they didn't dominate, because they seemed to lack improvisation, indicating they lacked creativity. I just watched the BBC's Young Musician of the Year competition, where the Chinese guy won it hands down. However, he did something very unusual. He added a composition of his own, that more than made up for any lack of creativity. That required prior effort to prepare. So here too, the Chinese are putting in more hard work than the average Westerner.

I agree that we should focus on other creative endeavors and achievements aside from intelligence but I also find your conclusion groundless based on the statistics. If hard word were largely attributable to higher IQ scores among East Asians (e.g., Chinese and Japanese) then why do their cognitive profiles show higher nonverbal intelligence results compared to White Americans but commensurate or slightly lower verbal intelligence results? Your explanation is inelegant because it doesn't explain why hard work would selectively apply to different cognitive abilities while ironically giving the semblance that East Asians score higher on sub/tests more saturated with g.

 

[snafupants]

I don't have much time atm, but I would love to come back to this.

A few quick points:
- socioeconomic status and culturally unstimulating environments are potentially exponential gap wideners for IQ over generations. Stupid parents teach already stupid children their own maladjustments.

- Do not discount the influence of the environment on the genes themselves. Epigenetics could play a prominent role in snowballing those in already unfortunate circumstances, or at least keeping them at the bottom.

- I agree with Snafu that dismissal of racial differences as inconsequential is illogical, however I do not blame people one bit for abandoning that train of thought. Other than for for the joy of pure semantics I cannot think of a single benefit to society that could come about as a result of proving conclusively the intellectual inferiority of a demographic that is already discriminated against. It's also a pretty hard thing to prove

Stupid parents pass on their stupid genes and sometimes their intellectually impoverished environments. The crux of the variance in IQ scores is actually unexplained by SES and environmental factors.

Considering how vastly IQ relates to criminality, educability, welfare and hundreds of other government programs and systemic problems, I can imagine thousands of ways in which combating low IQ could lead to societal gains.

 

[snafupants]

Yeah, I believe I understood what you meant, you'll find I go on tangents fairly often

But, from what you're saying even though asians and blacks are equally alienated from mainstream culture, asians still perform better on verbal ability tests. And so, you're wondering then why that excuse should still apply when one group is theoretically overcoming the same environmental detriments. Stimulating question, I'll grant you that. Also, don't asians score somewhat below whites in verbal ability tests? I think they score higher on the arithmetic portions of the WAIS, not to mention on other standardized tests, such as SAT/ACT.

As for my postulates, it could be explained by behavioral pattern differences between the two groups (which could be tied to intelligence, but may not be), or it could be a simple genetic difference in ability to conceptualize. I'm not sure. There are also other theories of intelligence, and I'm not referring to Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. The Triarchic theory of intelligence as proposed by Sternberg as you of course know, deals with one's interactions with the environment, there are three components to it, but I can't recall them at the moment. I think this also needs to be taken into consideration.

Hadobaldo brings brings up an interesting point of discussion concerning epigenetics, and how that environment influences gene expression through inhibition of genes. This doesn't directly answer the disparate performances of asians and blacks despite similar deleterious environments.

As far as the cultural component issue goes, I'm not too familiar with asian culture on the whole, but it's possible they have more parental reinforcement in regards to education, effort, thereby creating a self-perpetuating "cognitively enriched" environment. Flynn has a whole section in his book that deals with the average performance of asians on IQ tests, I'll see if I can find the book. I have it around here, somewhere...

The arithmetic section of the WAIS-III, if my memory serves me, had a very agreeable g-loading of .79, which was in that particular test's top five. The ACT is also quite g-loaded, based predominately on its criterion validity; according to 2010 correlation figures between the ACT, CCAT and WAIS-III data, all three tests share about .8 correlation coefficients. We can extrapolate about the ACT, in essence, because we already know how g-loaded the two other measures are.

I agree with your second point that the results could partly be explained by a behavioral dissonance between asians and blacks. We would need to see how these extra variables correlated with IQ scores and SES through factor analysis and multiple regression procedures though.

I almost prefer Sternberg's theory because it favors an information processing cognitive approach to folks' underlying intellectual merit. Sternberg's ideas are in many ways attuned to Spearnman's original conception of g, namely an animal's ability to understand and manipulate complexity, presumably stemming from his environment. I feel CHC Theory, however, does a serviceable job of subsuming and gauging broad mental abilities while not sacrificing theoretical concerns (e.g., the predictive validity of g to thousands of life outcomes).

I should iterate here that correlation correlation and causality are distinct statistical events, and what applies to a group of people may not apply to particular individuals within that group. There are many respectable black intellectuals, and my words shouldn't be perceived as a slight to these folks, or to anyone else really.

 

[scorpiomover]

I agree that we should focus on other creative endeavors and achievements aside from intelligence but I also find your conclusion groundless based on the statistics. If hard word were largely attributable to higher IQ scores among East Asians (e.g., Chinese and Japanese) then why do their cognitive profiles show higher nonverbal intelligence results compared to White Americans but commensurate or slightly lower verbal intelligence results?

Verbal skills would be affected by verbal comprehension of a language, which is largely developed during one's childhood. Be better to remove that factor.

One way would be to compare verbal skills in East Asians who were adopted at birth by pure English-speakers who live in a purely English-speaking area, to those who were born to those there. Either that, or to compare verbal cognitive skills in a language which is equally poorly understood by both, such as by testing for French verbal cognitive skils, in Chinese and English who both had 2 years of French in school, and no French at home or with friends.

How do the studies you cited, take care of the language exposure bias?

Your explanation is inelegant because it doesn't explain why hard work would selectively apply to different cognitive abilities while ironically giving the semblance that East Asians score higher on sub/tests more saturated with g.

Am not a fan of g, because in almost ALL tests, I score extremely highly, showing an extremely high g, while still being really poor and slow at those things that g should also apply to, but would not typically be tested for g, such as driving.

 

[Reluctantly]

Okay. Before I say anything, what is it that you constitute as verbal and nonverbal? If we can't first describe what our 'objective' reference point is, then there is going to be a problem in communicating what it is we're even referring to here.

 

[snafupants]

Verbal skills would be affected by verbal comprehension of a language, which is largely developed during one's childhood. Be better to remove that factor.

One way would be to compare verbal skills in East Asians who were adopted at birth by pure English-speakers who live in a purely English-speaking area, to those who were born to those there. Either that, or to compare verbal cognitive skills in a language which is equally poorly understood by both, such as by testing for French verbal cognitive skils, in Chinese and English who both had 2 years of French in school, and no French at home or with friends.

How do the studies you cited, take care of the language exposure bias?

Am not a fan of g, because in almost ALL tests, I score extremely highly, showing an extremely high g, while still being really poor and slow at those things that g should also apply to, but would not typically be tested for g, such as driving.

Well, for starters, East Asians score higher than their white and black counterparts whether they take the test in Japan, China or the United States. This suggests that knowledge of the mainstream culture is largely irrelevant for the overarching IQ discrepancies between ethnic groups. The issue appears to hinge around the extent to which the particular test is an expression of g.

As I've previously stated the issue of black/white IQ discrepancies conforms with Spearman's hypothesis. That is, that more g-loaded a test, basically regardless of cultural knowledge, the wider the chasm between black and white IQ scores. Blacks tend to perform better on arithmetic and memory subtests, which are less g-loaded than other visuospatial subtests, which whites and asians historically have outperformed blacks on consistently.

 

[snafupants]

Okay. Before I say anything, what is it that you constitute as verbal and nonverbal? If we can't first describe what our 'objective' reference point is, then there is going to be a problem in communicating what it is we're even referring to here.

I agree than an operational definition would benefit communication. Well, a nonverbal task would be your traditional visuospatial sub/test, often involving the manipulation of numbers and discovering patterns and reasoning using novel stimuli. Two examples of nonverbal tests and activities might be matrix reasoning, whether as part of the Raven's Progressive Matrices tests or WAIS-III performance index, and the WAIS-III backward digits subsection of the digit span subtest, which is also part of the WAIS-III performance index. These nonverbal subtests, according to factor analysis, are typically more saturated with g. In CHC theory, nonverbal subtests basically fall under the broad ability of visual processing or fluid reasoning wherein, with the latter at least, the task calls for inductive or deductive reasoning with novel stimuli. The basic criterion, I suppose, for a nonverbal task is that it be independent of word or cultural knowledge.

An example of a verbal task would be one heavily dependent on cultural knowledge or cultural intelligence to the detriment of pure reasoning ability and, in essence, fluid intelligence. In other words, a task in which the directions and successful completion of the task requires extensive knowledge of the lexicon and history of a particular culture. I agree that potentially misunderstanding the instructions could be a confound to attaining the subject's true IQ score though, and this is why practicing psychologists are often urged to use translators when in doubt of the subjects comprehension of the instructions. Actually the KABC-II has what's called a mental processing index (MPI) which omits cultural knowledge and focuses mainly on nonverbal intelligence. With the KABC-II the main focus within the MPI are the CHC broad abilities of fluid intelligence, short term memory (working memory) and spatial reasoning.

Alan Kaufman is one researcher and test developer who does a great job of providing culture-free options which are in sync with current neuroscience yet faithful to statistics (e.g., g). This is an aside, but partly because recent neuroscience has suggested a link, and basically shared neuronal substrates, between fluid intelligence and working memory, Kaufman has boosted the extent to which his tests gauge working memory. I find this sort of refreshing considering Wechsler's tests have basically disregarded CHC theory until recently and, to my knowledge, only accidentally aligned themselves with current neuroscience research.

 

[Reluctantly]

I agree than an operational definition would benefit communication. Well, a nonverbal task would be your traditional visuospatial sub/test, often involving the manipulation of numbers and discovering patterns and reasoning using novel stimuli. Two examples of nonverbal tests and activities might be matrix reasoning, whether as part of the Raven's Progressive Matrices tests or WAIS-III performance index, and the WAIS-III backward digits subsection of the digit span subtest, which is also part of the WAIS-III performance index. These nonverbal subtests, according to factor analysis, are typically more saturated with g. In CHC theory, nonverbal subtests basically fall under the broad ability of visual processing or fluid reasoning wherein, with the latter at least, the task calls for inductive or deductive reasoning with novel stimuli. The basic criterion, I suppose, for a nonverbal task is that it be independent of word or cultural knowledge.

Okay, just to make sure I got this right then. Nonverbal has to do conceptually with how we relate and arrange things with one another?

An example of a verbal task would be one heavily dependent on cultural knowledge or cultural intelligence to the detriment of pure reasoning ability and, in essence, fluid intelligence. In other words, a task in which the directions and successful completion of the task requires extensive knowledge of the lexicon and history of a particular culture. I agree that potentially misunderstanding the instructions could be a confound to attaining the subject's true IQ score though, and this is why practicing psychologists are often urged to use translators when in doubt of the subjects comprehension of the instructions. Actually the KABC-II has what's called a mental processing index (MPI) which omits cultural knowledge and focuses mainly on nonverbal intelligence. With the KABC-II the main focus within the MPI are the CHC broad abilities of fluid intelligence, short term memory (working memory) and spatial reasoning.

This is sort of where I get confused now because learning a complex mathematical framework can aid the nonverbal ability by giving more to work with. But it's considered verbal until it is learned; once learned, then it can be a part of the nonverbal processing. In a way, the nonverbal has to work with the verbal in order to create anything.

I know Asian people have a learning focus on the verbal, since they have to cram of lot of information about different things. They have cram schools and examinations that they have to pass in order to go into higher education and it's rigorous and soul-crushing from how it's portrayed. But I don't think they spend much time understanding how those things relate together (Nonverbal). Is their average Nonverbal IQ lower than whites?

There's also the effect of early learning on a child
It has been documented that wealthier families tend to have children that score higher on IQ tests. It has been hypothesized that this is because they have been given access to earlier critical thinking abilities.

I'd like to say that the nonverbal is a proper identification of someone's IQ, but it would relate to the verbal that a young child learns too. Supposedly, autism relates to a high verbal and a low nonverbal. I guess it's possible that someone with a high nonverbal IQ might have more overall activity going on in their brain. People with less activity seem to be much more decisive, perhaps because they see no reason not to act. I can't help but feel this is what intuition is supposed to represent. BUT is this to say that what you are referring to is not necessarily the broad notion of intelligence, but rather a way to gauge the innate intellectual awareness of a person compared to another? That seems hard to pinpoint, given the developing role of a child's mind as stimuli shapes it, although I imagine the concept of introversion is Jung's abstract way of noting the difference, once a child matures.

 

[scorpiomover]

Well, for starters, East Asians score higher than their white and black counterparts whether they take the test in Japan, China or the United States. This suggests that knowledge of the mainstream culture is largely irrelevant for the overarching IQ discrepancies between ethnic groups.

It shows that East Asian ethnic influences, be they genetic, or environmental, produces higher IQs than Caucasian-American ethnic influences, and higher IQs than African-American ethnic influences, irrespective of the influence of the country they are growing up in, which in turn shows that public education and country-based peer pressure are much weaker than ethnic influences.

The issue appears to hinge around the extent to which the particular test is an expression of g.

g is supposed to be a single general value for intelligence. Thus, it is independent of all types of intelligences which different tests would measure differently. So in effect, a normalised g, must show the same values, on every test, or the tests are designed in such ways as to show bias, and are no good, for g or anything else.

As I've previously stated the issue of black/white IQ discrepancies conforms with Spearman's hypothesis. That is, that more g-loaded a test, basically regardless of cultural knowledge, the wider the chasm between black and white IQ scores. Blacks tend to perform better on arithmetic and memory subtests, which are less g-loaded than other visuospatial subtests, which whites and asians historically have outperformed blacks on consistently.

The main thing that is known about differences between blacks and whites in schools, and that the whole idea of a difference of intelligence between whites and blacks was based on, is that whites do much better in maths and similar subjects than blacks, while blacks do much better in sports and anything required for sports, such as visuospatial subjects. So you are contradicting known fact. You're gonna have to bring a few studies that explain why the evidence is the other way than you claimed.

 

[EditorOne]

"Other than for for the joy of pure semantics I cannot think of a single benefit to society that could come about as a result of proving conclusively the intellectual inferiority of a demographic that is already discriminated against"

I'm with hado on this one. The practical applications of proving conclusively the intellectual inferiority of a demographic would be exactly what?

Dispassionate INTP analysis like this is easily misconstrued by a non-INTP audience. Look before jumping into this outside this arena.

 

[snafupants]

"Other than for for the joy of pure semantics I cannot think of a single benefit to society that could come about as a result of proving conclusively the intellectual inferiority of a demographic that is already discriminated against"

I'm with hado on this one. The practical applications of proving conclusively the intellectual inferiority of a demographic would be exactly what?

Dispassionate INTP analysis like this is easily misconstrued by a non-INTP audience. Look before jumping into this outside this arena.

Affirmative action policies would be heavily influenced by knowing the precise quantitative disparity separating black and white intelligence test scores, or their de facto proxy, SAT, GRE and LSAT scores. Allow me to provide some sobering statistics, in 1993 over 7000 white SAT test takers scored in the 700s on the SAT verbal; that same year, only 130 black SAT test takers scored in the 700s on the SAT verbal. To shift gears to the LSAT, that same year saw over 1100 white students scoring in the 170s (out of a possible 180) whereas only three black students scored in the 170s on the LSAT. These are tomorrow's supposed leaders and we're effectively giving blacks (and latinos to a lesser degree) a free pass, which they demonstrably do not deserve, to stellar universities. This means less qualified professionals for the United States in the future. Scores on IQ tests follow the same ethnic ascending progression (black, latino, white, asian) as the ethnic scoring reports from the SAT, GRE and LSAT. Should we, then, give blacks a fifteen point gratuitous bump on all IQ tests?

 

[snafupants]

It shows that East Asian ethnic influences, be they genetic, or environmental, produces higher IQs than Caucasian-American ethnic influences, and higher IQs than African-American ethnic influences, irrespective of the influence of the country they are growing up in, which in turn shows that public education and country-based peer pressure are much weaker than ethnic influences.

g is supposed to be a single general value for intelligence. Thus, it is independent of all types of intelligences which different tests would measure differently. So in effect, a normalised g, must show the same values, on every test, or the tests are designed in such ways as to show bias, and are no good, for g or anything else.

The main thing that is known about differences between blacks and whites in schools, and that the whole idea of a difference of intelligence between whites and blacks was based on, is that whites do much better in maths and similar subjects than blacks, while blacks do much better in sports and anything required for sports, such as visuospatial subjects. So you are contradicting known fact. You're gonna have to bring a few studies that explain why the evidence is the other way than you claimed.

Whites perform higher than blacks and latinos, and slightly below asians, on heavily g-loaded tests. Blacks tend to perform best on arithmetic and memory subtests, which are traditionally less g-loaded than fluid intelligence tasks, and whites tend to wholesale outperform blacks on visuospatial tasks. By visuospatial I mean visual processing and fluid intelligence subtests, typically within nonverbal domains. Asians report an overall score advantage over whites of about three IQ points, although the disparity has been reported to be as high as ten points, which is perhaps attributable to dissimilar data sets and varying methodologies. Those are the facts, and I haven't a clue what sports has to do with intellectual ability.

 

[EditorOne]

Affirmative action policies would be heavily influenced by knowing the precise quantitative disparity separating black and white intelligence test scores, or their de facto proxy, SAT, GRE and LSAT scores. Allow me to provide some sobering statistics, in 1993 over 7000 white SAT test takers scored in the 700s on the SAT verbal; that same year, only 130 black SAT test takers scored in the 700s on the SAT verbal. To shift gears to the LSAT, that same year saw over 1100 white students scoring in the 170s (out of a possible 180) whereas only three black students scored in the 170s on the LSAT. These are tomorrow's supposed leaders and we're effectively giving blacks (and latinos to a lesser degree) a free pass, which they demonstrably do not deserve, to stellar universities. This means less qualified professionals for the United States in the future. Scores on IQ tests follow the same ethnic ascending progression (black, latino, white, asian) as the ethnic scoring reports from the SAT, GRE and LSAT. Should we, then, give blacks a fifteen point gratuitous bump on all IQ tests?

What's your vision of how intelligence and status and opportunity should be related?

 

[snafupants]

What's your vision of how intelligence and status and opportunity should be related?

Well, as I've stated before, although SES influences IQ, IQ also influences SES. For practical purposes this means that parents typically pass on their genes and the good/bad practices and environments that they themselves grew up with. Environment, predominately through SES, explains approximately thirty percent of the genetic variation in IQ scores.

In other words, environmental influences can certainly impinge or facilitate the flourishing of a youngster's intelligence but the core influence is genetics. The ironical finding is that the more environment is equalized, the greater the influence of genetics on IQ scores. This makes intuitive sense because when you're dealing with two, binary influences, the encumbrance of one (e.g., environment) will lead to the greater expression of the other (e.g., genetics). One's genetic inheritance of intelligence, unfortunately, can also be truncated by environments which are less than stimulating and ultimately cognitively fulfilling.

I would like to personally excoriate the following governmental educational programs as squandering taxpayer money, failing to improve the intellectual prowess of youngsters, which is often a stated or implied aim, and promoting cheating, coaching and reverse discrimination: affirmative action, no child left behind, head start and (to lesser degrees) ESEA and IDEA. These programs have been abject failures and have only served to complicate admissions and practice whilst focusing on the left side of the bell curve to the detriment of tomorrow's eventual leaders.

Take affirmative action. The University of California at Berkeley has traditionally shown a three hundred point disparity between black and white/asian SAT scores. This fundamentally, and maybe even inadvertently, serves to lower the amount of slots for smarter white and asian populations. Indeed, the competition has become more fierce among whites and asians and the median scores have escalated in lockstep with affirmative action policies.

My primary concern might just as well be blacks though. Although blacks encompass only a minority of Ivy League student populations, they are largely overrepresented among drop outs and struggling students on academic probation. They are simply not intellectually ready for the big leagues. To remedy this situation we need three things, in this order: widespread concession and acceptance that the IQ disparity between blacks and whites is veritable and present, an understanding of the underlying neuroscience and environmental factors which perpetuate these differences, and more effective educational policies and interventions aimed at remediating dull black and latino students.

Once this is accomplished we can postulate a true intellectual meritocracy but in the interim affirmative action is an extremely unsatisfying and frankly unfair surrogate. As an addendum, I would recommend more than one tenth of one percent federal educational funding for gifted programs; yes, that is the current number going towards the right side of the bell curve.

To slink back to your question, because our society valorizes things other than cognitive ability (looks, athletic skill, fame, etc.) there will perhaps always be an indirect link between status and intelligence, in most circumstances. The bulk of exceptions come wherein intelligence mingles, almost accidentally, with fame and societally approved ideas (e.g., Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg) but in these instances we are actually rewarding something other than intelligence.

 

[Antediluvian]

My studies have briefly touched on sociology, and if I remember certain white groups (various European descent) scored significantly below 100 shortly after the advent of IQ tests. I'm not completely sure on that though, I wish I still had my old textbook.

On a separate note, I would also like to add that certain aspects of intelligence were more prized in specific time periods. For instance, Flynn states that existential intelligence (or whatever) was perceived as more important (compared to today) during the middle ages. I sometimes wonder if cultural bias can be completely removed.

 

[snafupants]

My studies have briefly touched on sociology, and if I remember certain white groups (various European descent) scored significantly below 100 shortly after the advent of IQ tests. I'm not completely sure on that though, I wish I still had my old textbook.

On a separate note, I would also like to add that certain aspects of intelligence were more prized in specific time periods. For instance, Flynn states that existential intelligence (or whatever) was perceived as more important (compared to today) during the middle ages. I sometimes wonder if cultural bias can be completely removed.

The Flynn Effect is largely attributable to three things: improved nutrition, compulsory education and practice effects. This claim is corroborated in that the crux of the supposed increases in IQ, but not necessarily intelligence, occur almost exclusively on the left side of the bell curve. IQ tests have actually changed quite little since their inception. The WAIS retains digit span and vocabulary subtests which are highly redolent of the one's Alfred Binet used about one hundred years ago.

 

[Antediluvian]

Right, I'm not saying they've changed much, except for using deviation IQs instead of mental age for calculation (well, you are still ranked against your peers).

As for the Flynn effect, I agree it's not as simple as increased intelligence. I believe he spoke of a school in India where the average IQ was 130, but upon the investigation the norms were severely out of date.

Concerning the advent of IQ tests and certain European-descent groups scoring below average, I read this in the sociology textbook "Strangers to these shores." I believe the reason cited was SES, but my memory of that is murky.

 

[Hadoblado]

Can cultural bias be completely removed? No. It could be understood and accounted for, but not completely removed. Different societies value different things, and an objective test can't cater to every perceived value and still maintain it's legitimacy.

I don't have an article to cite unfortunately,this example is from an old textbook; some of the native Australian aboriginal tribes have no words or systems for numbers greater than ten or so (I believe the actual number was smaller, but can't remember exactly. In the environment they inhabit there is no fiat currency or debt, only a hand-to-mouth lifestyle which requires very little abstract thought. Their numeric vocabulary goes something along the lines of one, two, three, four, five, many, very many, manymany etc.
How would an IQ test be culturally unbiased and still apply to both their demographic and our own? They can't count to eleven, and have no reason to!

 

[snafupants]

Can cultural bias be completely removed? No. It could be understood and accounted for, but not completely removed. Different societies value different things, and an objective test can't cater to every perceived value and still maintain it's legitimacy.

I don't have an article to cite unfortunately,this example is from an old textbook; some of the native Australian aboriginal tribes have no words or systems for numbers greater than ten or so (I believe the actual number was smaller, but can't remember exactly. In the environment they inhabit there is no fiat currency or debt, only a hand-to-mouth lifestyle which requires very little abstract thought. Their numeric vocabulary goes something along the lines of one, two, three, four, five, many, very many, manymany etc.
How would an IQ test be culturally unbiased and still apply to both their demographic and our own? They can't count to eleven, and have no reason to!

Fortunately most black Americans have the intellectual capability to count and because they can view the page, they're amply qualified to attempt the fluid intelligence subtests. Actually blacks tend to perform quite well on arithmetic and memory subtests, which of course rely on numbers.

 

[Antediluvian]

Can cultural bias be completely removed? No. It could be understood and accounted for, but not completely removed. Different societies value different things, and an objective test can't cater to every perceived value and still maintain it's legitimacy.

I don't have an article to cite unfortunately,this example is from an old textbook; some of the native Australian aboriginal tribes have no words or systems for numbers greater than ten or so (I believe the actual number was smaller, but can't remember exactly. In the environment they inhabit there is no fiat currency or debt, only a hand-to-mouth lifestyle which requires very little abstract thought. Their numeric vocabulary goes something along the lines of one, two, three, four, five, many, very many, manymany etc.
How would an IQ test be culturally unbiased and still apply to both their demographic and our own? They can't count to eleven, and have no reason to!

Right, I know it would be impossible to cater to every cultural disconnect, but that was my point. Making a test 100% full proof is an impossible task, considering neuroscience is in its infancy compared to other fields. Also, sociology itself is tentative in many ways. I do highly respect IQ tests, though.

I even think that testing environment can inject a feeling of cultural disconnect, simple things like this can be overlooked.

 

[snafupants]

Right, I know it would be impossible to cater to every cultural disconnect, but that was my point. Making a test 100% full proof is an impossible task, considering neuroscience is in its infancy compared to other fields. Also, sociology itself is tentative in many ways. I do highly respect IQ tests, though.

I even think that testing environment can inject a feeling of cultural disconnect, simple things like this can be overlooked.

Controlling for SES and other salient environmental factors (e.g., level of education) is still possible. Ensuring that the test downplayed words and cultural knowledge would be another way to partly obviate cultural bias. Come on, what's with the defeatist attitude?

 

[Antediluvian]

Controlling for SES and other salient environmental factors (e.g., level of education) is still possible. Ensuring that the test downplayed words and cultural knowledge would be another way to partly obviate cultural bias. Come on, what's with the defeatist attitude?

Ah, I suppose those were just musings. And to be fair, neuroscience has mapped the areas of general intelligence by capturing images of the damaged brains of those that perform poorly on those tests (or on certain sections). So, upon reflection, I suppose a "completely culture fair test" is still possible, but at present I see this happening from a neuroscience perspective, brain imaging and the like, in addition to traditional IQ tests.

And, to be fair again, psychology has inadvertently brushed up against neuroscience, as the Vocabulary subtest is used by neuropsychologists to assess pre-incident intelligence. There are also full-fledged tests meant to gauge pre-morbid functioning, and in the day and age of mental illnesses, they are definitely handy.

That being said, I think there are some obscure cognitive abilities that haven't been given due credit yet. But, I'll say that general intelligence is one of the most important combination of traits for having a decent quality of life.

Finally, I foresee that IQ tests will enjoy much longevity, as they are being refined to fit the needs of society. There has been an IQ test made that was meant to predict if one would develop schizophrenia or not, so obviously extrapolating function or future potential function by observing performance will always be useful, I hope.

edit: well, I believe those types of IQ tests were in the works, I'm not for sure if they are used by mainstream psychologists.

 

[snafupants]

Ah, I suppose those were just musings. And to be fair, neuroscience has mapped the areas of general intelligence by capturing images of the damaged brains of those that perform poorly on those tests (or on certain sections). So, upon reflection, I suppose a "completely culture fair test" is still possible, but at present I see this happening from a neuroscience perspective, brain imaging and the like, in addition to traditional IQ tests.

And, to be fair again, psychology has inadvertently brushed up against neuroscience, as the Vocabulary subtest is used by neuropsychologists to assess pre-incident intelligence. There are also full-fledged tests meant to gauge pre-morbid functioning, and in the day and age of mental illnesses, they are definitely handy.

That being said, I think there are some obscure cognitive abilities that haven't been given due credit yet. But, I'll say that general intelligence is one of the most important combination of traits for having a decent quality of life.

Finally, I foresee that IQ tests will enjoy much longevity, as they are being refined to fit the needs of society. There has been an IQ test made that was meant to predict if one would develop schizophrenia or not, so obviously extrapolating function or future potential function by observing performance will always be useful, I hope.

edit: well, I believe those types of IQ tests were in the works, I'm not for sure if they are used by mainstream psychologists.

There's actually little need for infighting within subfields of psychology. I see scant benefit in saying where neuroscience or biopsychology starts and, say, cognitive psychology or clinical psychology begins. Wouldn't your example be an illustration of neuroscience impinging on psychology rather than the reverse though? I mean, those tests basically predate modern neuroscience.

As an aside, I'd say tests designed to gauge psychopathology (e.g., schizophrenia) are outside of even the theoretical purview of an intelligence test, and are probably best left to brain scans and astute psychiatrists. In other words, the content validity of intelligence tests would remain unscathed by omitting that type of psychopathological screening.

 

[scorpiomover]

Whites perform higher than blacks and latinos, and slightly below asians, on heavily g-loaded tests. Blacks tend to perform best on arithmetic and memory subtests, which are traditionally less g-loaded than fluid intelligence tasks, and whites tend to wholesale outperform blacks on visuospatial tasks. By visuospatial I mean visual processing and fluid intelligence subtests, typically within nonverbal domains. Asians report an overall score advantage over whites of about three IQ points, although the disparity has been reported to be as high as ten points, which is perhaps attributable to dissimilar data sets and varying methodologies. Those are the facts,

About 4-5 years ago, someone reported that a study showed women preferred muscular men. I looked up the study. The data actually showed that women preferred TONED men, in preference to muscular men.

Another study claimed that atheists were smarter than religious people, based on a study done with American high school students, that showed that there was an inverse correlation between religiosity and confidence in science, the more religious you were, the less you trusted in science. I then read a multi-country comparison of studies, where in Malaysia, the more religious you were, the MORE you trusted in science.

Another study was being discussed recently, that showed that under-16s were less likely to be delinquent, if they were having sex. I looked up the study. It actually said that there was no change whatsoever in under-16s, if they were having sex, and that in 16+ kids, they were MORE likely to be delinquent, if they were having sex outside of a committed relationship. But everyone seemed to gloss over that.

I've read plenty of other "studies", that made claims, and when I looked up the actual study, either the data showed something else, or the conclusions of the studies were being entirely misreported by people.

Another problem I have, is that mathematics is based on skill with arithmetic, and mathematical thinking, is the entire basis of solid scientific thinking. If what you are saying is right, then blacks are much better scientists than white people.

Another problem is that in Western countries, most blacks are of a much lower socio-economic level than whites, and whites in low socio-economic classes show a MASSIVE drop in IQ from whites in high socio-economic classes, by as much as 20 IQ points! If what you are saying is right, then, when factoring for socio-economic classes, that means black people are smarter than whites, by 17 IQ points!

There are just so many problems I can see with such "facts", that unless I have the original data to analyse, then I cannot prove you are right. All I can say, is that based on my own experience of such studies, they usually either agree with Einstein's benchmark, experience, which this one clearly doesn't, at least, not with people from the UK, who are known to treat black people very differently from Americans, or, the actual data either shows nothing at all of the claims of the researchers, or they actually show the OPPOSITE of the claims are right, which is very common, in my experience. So I can take this as about as reliable as saying that people who can't read or write, are the smartest people on the planet!

and I haven't a clue what sports has to do with intellectual ability.

Your body moves by relying on bones and muscles. The way they work, they actually boil down to a complex set of rods, ropes and pulleys. We're effectively string men, as far as body movements go. If you don't get them perfectly in balance, you will be over-balanced, and will fall over. To even walk, your body's muscles have to make exact pressures, to keep everything from falling over. Something has to do all those complex calculations. Call it your "subconscious". That subconscious has to be WAY smarter at algebra, in people who are better at sports.

 

[snafupants]

About 4-5 years ago, someone reported that a study showed women preferred muscular men. I looked up the study. The data actually showed that women preferred TONED men, in preference to muscular men.

Another study claimed that atheists were smarter than religious people, based on a study done with American high school students, that showed that there was an inverse correlation between religiosity and confidence in science, the more religious you were, the less you trusted in science. I then read a multi-country comparison of studies, where in Malaysia, the more religious you were, the MORE you trusted in science.

Another study was being discussed recently, that showed that under-16s were less likely to be delinquent, if they were having sex. I looked up the study. It actually said that there was no change whatsoever in under-16s, if they were having sex, and that in 16+ kids, they were MORE likely to be delinquent, if they were having sex outside of a committed relationship. But everyone seemed to gloss over that.

I've read plenty of other "studies", that made claims, and when I looked up the actual study, either the data showed something else, or the conclusions of the studies were being entirely misreported by people.

Another problem I have, is that mathematics is based on skill with arithmetic, and mathematical thinking, is the entire basis of solid scientific thinking. If what you are saying is right, then blacks are much better scientists than white people.

Another problem is that in Western countries, most blacks are of a much lower socio-economic level than whites, and whites in low socio-economic classes show a MASSIVE drop in IQ from whites in high socio-economic classes, by as much as 20 IQ points! If what you are saying is right, then, when factoring for socio-economic classes, that means black people are smarter than whites, by 17 IQ points!

There are just so many problems I can see with such "facts", that unless I have the original data to analyse, then I cannot prove you are right. All I can say, is that based on my own experience of such studies, they usually either agree with Einstein's benchmark, experience, which this one clearly doesn't, at least, not with people from the UK, who are known to treat black people very differently from Americans, or, the actual data either shows nothing at all of the claims of the researchers, or they actually show the OPPOSITE of the claims are right, which is very common, in my experience. So I can take this as about as reliable as saying that people who can't read or write, are the smartest people on the planet!

Your body moves by relying on bones and muscles. The way they work, they actually boil down to a complex set of rods, ropes and pulleys. We're effectively string men, as far as body movements go. If you don't get them perfectly in balance, you will be over-balanced, and will fall over. To even walk, your body's muscles have to make exact pressures, to keep everything from falling over. Something has to do all those complex calculations. Call it your "subconscious". That subconscious has to be WAY smarter at algebra, in people who are better at sports.

Here's the deal: SES, which is basically the most influential environmental factor, only accounts for one third of the variance in IQ scores. Also, as I've previously stated, SES affects IQ and IQ affects SES. Thinking in terms of multiple regression intercorrelations may prove helpful here. Your conclusion is completely erroneous because it assumes that one hundred percent of the variance in IQ, particularly the standard deviation difference between blacks and whites, can be ascribed to environmental factors (e.g., SES). If you've been following my posts, I've also stated that genetic factors account for ~.6 of the variation in IQ scores. The IQ disparity among races and ethnicities is best illustrated by Spearman's hypothesis. Black people tend to do well on verbal and nonverbal tasks alike when the task isn't that g-loaded (forward digit span, etc.), the reverse is true when you introduce g heavily (matrix reasoning, etc.). Your suggestion that environment accounts for all, or even the majority, of the variation in IQ scores is simply beguiled. I guess my advice would be to hold the fireworks and omit the exclamation points! Edit: Another thing to consider is that high SES whites score much higher than high SES blacks.

 

[EditorOne]

I thought I'd just complicate things.

Conservative politics and low effort thinking

 

[scorpiomover]

Here's the deal: SES, which is basically the most influential environmental factor, only accounts for one third of the variance in IQ scores. Also, as I've previously stated, SES affects IQ and IQ affects SES. Thinking in terms of multiple regression intercorrelations may prove helpful here. Your conclusion is completely erroneous because it assumes that one hundred percent of the variance in IQ, particularly the standard deviation difference between blacks and whites, can be ascribed to environmental factors (e.g., SES). If you've been following my posts, I've also stated that genetic factors account for ~.6 of the variation in IQ scores. The IQ disparity among races and ethnicities is best illustrated by Spearman's hypothesis. Black people tend to do well on verbal and nonverbal tasks alike when the task isn't that g-loaded (forward digit span, etc.), the reverse is true when you introduce g heavily (matrix reasoning, etc.). Your suggestion that environment accounts for all, or even the majority, of the variation in IQ scores is simply beguiled. I guess my advice would be to hold the fireworks and omit the exclamation points! Edit: Another thing to consider is that high SES whites score much higher than high SES blacks.

I understand that you are a very smart person. That's why I asked for the original data, and I know, that you being such a smart person, know that any data analysis that I would do on your data, would only show the exact same results as you got.

My problems are that the whole premise of such studies are entirely racially motivated, because no-one on the entire planet would seriously do a study this way.

1) Take your claims of genetics being the major factor: We know for a fact, that genetics is involved heavily in obesity. We can also see that obesity is common in Caucasians, and much rarer in blacks. Ergo, if we treated them both for genetics, in an equal fashion, we would either say that blacks are genetically lower in g, and IQ scores, on certain subjects, than whites, but whites are genetically predisposed to obesity, or we would look for a g-gene and an obesity gene in both subjects, and then declare that all those blacks with the g-gene are easily as smart as the smart white people, and do the same with the obesity gene.

But we aren't doing that at all. With obesity, we are looking for, and identifying specific genes. But with IQ, and such matters, we are basing it purely on the amount of melatonin in their skin. These are the same criteria, both genetic. Yet, we treat them entirely differently.

No-one rational would do that, unless they have a prejudice.

2) As to your suggestions of Affirmative Action, in the UK, we already have a great system for that. Over 20 years ago, boys outshone girls in school. So we changed the education system, to be fairer to girls, and now they outshine boys. We should do the same for black people, change the educational system to be in their favour.

Alternatively, we could require that black people get 2 hours extra tuition every day, and double the homework of the white kids, until black kids average at least 5 points higher than white kids, in every way, in every SES, in every subject, in everything.

I would accept either as being a solution to the issue.

3) I never wrote that IQ had no genetic factor at all. Check my posts again. I was very careful not to state that outright, and only to allow for that being a possibility. You didn't miss that. You didn't read what I wrote. So you didn't understand anything I wrote, and the reason why that is, is because you are hung up on melatonin.

Get over your melatonin fixation, and get back to genetics. It's unscientific to base things on the colour of someone's skin.

 

[BigApplePi]

What the? I completely missed this thread being distracted by the Federal Government. I hate the Federal Government. They are so "S." Their taxes are awful. They come from nowhere. The rules are ugly, disgusting and distracting. EOR (end of rant).

To this OP. I'm thrown. What is SES? The acronym list lists hundreds. I'm not going to read them.

Spontaneous comments.

Perhaps, before we get started, I should elucidate three subtly disparate yet related definitions. Here we go: Spearman's g (general mental ability) is one's ability to understand and manipulate complexity;

Well good for Spearman. What kind of complexity? Something special or the whole world? I imagine we are talking something special. In that case we are being selective so I would question this "mental ability." What if one's emotions restrict one's mental ability? Think "J" types. They specialize. They play favorites. So they lack mental ability outside of their favorites. Is that covered in "mental ability"?

Now that I have laid the conceptual framework for thinking about intelligence, we can advance to more stimulating issues. Let me go back to the closing of my opener (from the admittedly poorly titled thread on gender differences in IQ scores) and talk about black/white intellectual differences and the contribution of Spearman's hypothesis. Spearman basically postulated that these ethnic differences arose more sharply when the test more accurately gauged g. In other words, a test with a paltry statistical g-loading (e.g., a one-dimensional memory task) is going to be more favorable to blacks regarding their IQ inferiority to whites than a tougher, more g-loaded examination of intellectual ability. This positive relationship between the degree of g of a particular task and IQ score disparity applies, of course, for individual questions, subtests and overriding IQ test scores.

Maybe.

As things currently stand, there is a fifteen point difference between black and white intelligence test scores, which, because of those three definitions I gave above, one could quibble over on grounds of construct validity. But those are the results: American blacks have historically shown an IQ score average (~IQ 85) one standard deviation above mental retardation (IQ 70) and one standard deviation below the white average (IQ 100). Essentially the rule of thumb is that the more g-loaded the measure, the greater the difference between black and white IQ scores.

So are we measuring culturing differences? Are we talking English speaking countries or what?

The critique of these numbers is, often, something to do with cultural bias. In fact, however, when the test is culture-free and is heavily g-loaded blacks tend to widen the one standard deviation divide between whites. The crux of the debate is Spearman's hypothesis and the extent to which the test is saturated with g. There was a psychometric hoopla a few years ago over Kaufman Assessment Scale for Children (KABC) test scores: reports claimed that blacks merely had an eight point (~.5 standard deviation) difference to whites. Factor analysis later revealed that these numbers were skewed because the test was bogged down by memory tasks, which are less saturated with g compared to visuospatial tasks, which white and asians have historically performed much better than blacks on. The basic reason for this dissonance between subtest scores is that g is more present in visuospatial tasks than memory tasks. The critiques were mostly rescinded.

Distracting.

For those who still believe that the black/white difference can largely be attributed to cultural bias, I have one question: why do East Asians perform slightly higher than whites on American IQ tests?

How about this as an answer? East (what east?) Asians have a culture of educational accomplishment. Parents work hard for their children to succeed. I attended a seminar on school performance back in the fall with statistics given by ethnical divisions. Not I.Q., but school performance which supported what I just said. I have no supporting references.

Blacks (in the U.S.A. at least), this has been historically hopeless. Why would parents (What parents? Their homes have been broken) encourage their children to beat their heads against the ghetto walls?

Seemingly the cultural and educational, overarching environmental differences, are not subsumed solely be some factor which preferentially attacks blacks and leaves asians alone. Some critics then shift gears and argue that SES brings down IQ for blacks. Let's remember two things though: SES informs IQ, and IQ informs SES;

I've got it! SES = secret environmental settings/standards?

second, when the statistical analyses are computed, SES only explains one third of the standard deviation difference between blacks and whites. What explains the rest? Genetics? Something else? I would love to hear your opinions.

Yeah. Shove that down my throat.

Pardon me. Some mood has overtaken me. It's me against the government and I'm not happy losing even if it is to a monster.

 

[snafupants]

I understand that you are a very smart person. That's why I asked for the original data, and I know, that you being such a smart person, know that any data analysis that I would do on your data, would only show the exact same results as you got.

My problems are that the whole premise of such studies are entirely racially motivated, because no-one on the entire planet would seriously do a study this way.

1) Take your claims of genetics being the major factor: We know for a fact, that genetics is involved heavily in obesity. We can also see that obesity is common in Caucasians, and much rarer in blacks. Ergo, if we treated them both for genetics, in an equal fashion, we would either say that blacks are genetically lower in g, and IQ scores, on certain subjects, than whites, but whites are genetically predisposed to obesity, or we would look for a g-gene and an obesity gene in both subjects, and then declare that all those blacks with the g-gene are easily as smart as the smart white people, and do the same with the obesity gene.

But we aren't doing that at all. With obesity, we are looking for, and identifying specific genes. But with IQ, and such matters, we are basing it purely on the amount of melatonin in their skin. These are the same criteria, both genetic. Yet, we treat them entirely differently.

No-one rational would do that, unless they have a prejudice.

2) As to your suggestions of Affirmative Action, in the UK, we already have a great system for that. Over 20 years ago, boys outshone girls in school. So we changed the education system, to be fairer to girls, and now they outshine boys. We should do the same for black people, change the educational system to be in their favour.

Alternatively, we could require that black people get 2 hours extra tuition every day, and double the homework of the white kids, until black kids average at least 5 points higher than white kids, in every way, in every SES, in every subject, in everything.

I would accept either as being a solution to the issue.

3) I never wrote that IQ had no genetic factor at all. Check my posts again. I was very careful not to state that outright, and only to allow for that being a possibility. You didn't miss that. You didn't read what I wrote. So you didn't understand anything I wrote, and the reason why that is, is because you are hung up on melatonin.

Get over your melatonin fixation, and get back to genetics. It's unscientific to base things on the colour of someone's skin.

The studies weren't performed with some diabolical deductive rationale of putting down the black man, as Malcolm X would have it. In fact, most investigations of race and IQ aren't even studies in the traditional sense. One source of data comes from the hodgepodge data set that is the decades-long National Longitudional Study of Youth (NLSY) which was subsidized by the US Department of Labor, although these results have been replicated elsewhere ad nauseum. There were over twelve thousands adolescents and young adults in the study, and one of the reasons the data is so compelling is because the government allowed many of these people to be tested with the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), which is more g-loaded (~.8) than most contemporary IQ test batteries (~.7), and Air Force Qualification Test (AFQT), which ironically enjoyed better predictive validity than the ASVAB, as part of a recruitment effort. Basically the NLSY grafted some of the government's data and used it to augment their own stuff. Lest the data be besmirched by squeals of non-representativeness, the meta-analyses also includes IQ measures performed in the schools, per federal educational fiat.

That said, meta-analyses (i.e., multiple regression between variables, simple correlations, etc.) were performed on the data in a disinterested yet pragmatic manner. This had little to do with skin color per se. If the data's descriptions had been reversed, such that white people showed (on average) lower IQ scores than black people, I strongly believe that data would have been presented, sensationalized even. On the contrary, this finding of black/white IQ disparity has been a consistent and pronounced statistical mainstay throughout hundreds of data sets. Hans Eysenck reported on this same phenomenon near the middle of last century. Now, getting back to your nature versus nurture argument as regards IQ results, here's what we know. When you transplant an adoptee from an extremely impoverished and low SES background and place her into an extremely enriched and high SES background from an early age, the IQ gains are on the order of approximately six points. While that's quite substantial, it does underline the overriding relevance of genetics in determining IQ scores: even with advanced interventions, the IQ score remains impervious to fluctuations of more than half a standard deviation.

 

[scorpiomover]

The studies weren't performed with some diabolical deductive rationale of putting down the black man, as Malcolm X would have it.

Being diabolical has nothing to do with being malicious.

In fact, most investigations of race and IQ aren't even studies in the traditional sense. One source of data comes from the hodgepodge data set that is the decades-long National Longitudional Study of Youth (NLSY) which was subsidized by the US Department of Labor, although these results have been replicated elsewhere ad nauseum. There were over twelve thousands adolescents and young adults in the study, and one of the reasons the data is so compelling is because the government allowed many of these people to be tested with the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), which is more g-loaded (~.8) than most contemporary IQ test batteries (~.7), and Air Force Qualification Test (AFQT), which ironically enjoyed better predictive validity than the ASVAB, as part of a recruitment effort. Basically the NLSY grafted some of the government's data and used it to augment their own stuff. Lest the data be besmirched by squeals of non-representativeness, the meta-analyses also includes IQ measures performed in the schools, per federal educational fiat.

So the data IS about Americans, in particular, American high-schoolers. Well, why didn't you say so in the first place? America is one of the most unique countries on the planet. I've also spoken to Brits, Americans, and done analyses on data taken from the NLSY. The NLSY is a study of Homo Americanus. For a number of reasons, it has no bearing on Homo Sapiens.

That said, meta-analyses (i.e., multiple regression between variables, simple correlations, etc.) were performed on the data in a disinterested yet pragmatic manner. This had little to do with skin color per se. If the data's descriptions had been reversed, such that white people showed (on average) lower IQ scores than black people, I strongly believe that data would have been presented, sensationalized even.

Probably in your country. But in my country, the reverse happened. When the papers reported that Pakistanis were treating white British women badly, everyone here went crazy. When it was subsequently reported that when the same data sources showed that white men were treating white British men far worse, no-one batted an eyelid.

On the contrary, this finding of black/white IQ disparity has been a consistent and pronounced statistical mainstay throughout hundreds of data sets. Hans Eysenck reported on this same phenomenon near the middle of last century.

I'm sure he did. Back in those days, there was a LOT more racism than today, in the UK, and all over Europe. my IQ probably would have been 1/3rd of what it is today, because a guy like me would not have been allowed to have a high IQ.

Now, getting back to your nature versus nurture argument as regards IQ results, here's what we know. When you transplant an adoptee from an extremely impoverished and low SES background and place her into an extremely enriched and high SES background from an early age, the IQ gains are on the order of approximately six points.

Interesting, because I was discussing the topic of genetics and intelligence on another site a few years ago. The primary discussion was on the twin studies. One of the PDFs with the data was with whites from a poor background, who were adopted into a rich white family, who had a twin who stayed with the biological family. Some were fraternal twins and some were identical twins. I recall that the difference in average IQ between families was on the order of 20-30 IQ points. The average child who was adopted, raised IQ by some 10 points.

While that's quite substantial, it does underline the overriding relevance of genetics in determining IQ scores: even with advanced interventions, the IQ score remains impervious to fluctuations of more than half a standard deviation.

Genetics refers to GENES, not SKIN COLOUR.

There have been a number of biological genetic studies over the years. What I recall, is that lots of genes that are common in white people, were also found to occur in black people, and vice versa. We know that genetics is independent of skin colour and race.

We also know that because of the perceptions of people, white people and black people are treated very differently, and that's been borne out by studies, again and again.

So the only consistent factor that would properly delineate between black people and white people is environmental.

So if you were trying to find an environmental factor in intelligence, looking at differences between whites and blacks, would be a good place to start. You'd probably find lots of important environmental factors that way.

But if you were trying to find a genetic factor in intelligence, looking at differences between whites and blacks, would be an awfully poor place to start. You'd just get correlations that would almost certainly be wrong.

 

[BigApplePi]

Pardon my ignorance but can someone define "SES" please?

Socioeconomic Status?

 

[Amagi82]

This isn't really on topic, but I just have to say... oh my fucking god, how can people score 100 or less on an IQ test? I consider myself of mediocre intelligence, and I can rock a 145 on IQ tests all day long. I can't imagine getting through life being stupider than I am.

 

[snafupants]

Being diabolical has nothing to do with being malicious.

So the data IS about Americans, in particular, American high-schoolers. Well, why didn't you say so in the first place? America is one of the most unique countries on the planet. I've also spoken to Brits, Americans, and done analyses on data taken from the NLSY. The NLSY is a study of Homo Americanus. For a number of reasons, it has no bearing on Homo Sapiens.

Probably in your country. But in my country, the reverse happened. When the papers reported that Pakistanis were treating white British women badly, everyone here went crazy. When it was subsequently reported that when the same data sources showed that white men were treating white British men far worse, no-one batted an eyelid.

I'm sure he did. Back in those days, there was a LOT more racism than today, in the UK, and all over Europe. my IQ probably would have been 1/3rd of what it is today, because a guy like me would not have been allowed to have a high IQ.

Interesting, because I was discussing the topic of genetics and intelligence on another site a few years ago. The primary discussion was on the twin studies. One of the PDFs with the data was with whites from a poor background, who were adopted into a rich white family, who had a twin who stayed with the biological family. Some were fraternal twins and some were identical twins. I recall that the difference in average IQ between families was on the order of 20-30 IQ points. The average child who was adopted, raised IQ by some 10 points.

Genetics refers to GENES, not SKIN COLOUR.

There have been a number of biological genetic studies over the years. What I recall, is that lots of genes that are common in white people, were also found to occur in black people, and vice versa. We know that genetics is independent of skin colour and race.

We also know that because of the perceptions of people, white people and black people are treated very differently, and that's been borne out by studies, again and again.

So the only consistent factor that would properly delineate between black people and white people is environmental.

So if you were trying to find an environmental factor in intelligence, looking at differences between whites and blacks, would be a good place to start. You'd probably find lots of important environmental factors that way.

But if you were trying to find a genetic factor in intelligence, looking at differences between whites and blacks, would be an awfully poor place to start. You'd just get correlations that would almost certainly be wrong.

My god you're being difficult. As I've stated before, these same results are replicated across many studies, countries and age groups which use varying data sets and methodologies. Some groups are just generally brighter than others. Whether in Asia or the United States, for instance, East Asians tend to score higher than whites on g-loaded nonverbal tests. That's a fact. To the second highlighted point, I've been talking about how SES affects IQ, and the reverse, this whole fucking time.

 

[EditorOne]

This isn't really on topic, but I just have to say... oh my fucking god, how can people score 100 or less on an IQ test? I consider myself of mediocre intelligence, and I can rock a 145 on IQ tests all day long. I can't imagine getting through life being stupider than I am.

Yes, and in this forum you're far from unique, but do you know what SES is? I don't. Thanks to Pi for reminding me why I hate acronyms. Silly Expectation Syndrome gets my vote.

 

[snafupants]

Yes, and in this forum you're far from unique, but do you know what SES is? I don't. Thanks to Pi for reminding me why I hate acronyms. Silly Expectation Syndrome gets my vote.

So are certain personality types (INTP, ENTP, INTJ, etc.) a cause or an effect of smarts?