Why would a liberal pub like Slate publish a series on “Created Equal”?

[jody]

Liberal Creationism

Last month, James Watson, the legendary biologist, was condemned and forced into retirement after claiming that African intelligence wasn't "the same as ours." "Racist, vicious and unsupported by science," said the Federation of American Scientists. "Utterly unsupported by scientific evidence," declared the U.S. government's supervisor of genetic research. The New York Times told readers that when Watson implied "that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn't a scientific leg to stand on."

* * * * * * * * * * * *

I'm for reconciliation. Later this week, I'll make that case. But if you choose to fight the evidence, here's what you're up against. Among white Americans, the average IQ, as of a decade or so ago, was 103. Among Asian-Americans, it was 106. Among Jewish Americans, it was 113. Among Latino Americans, it was 89. Among African-Americans, it was 85. Around the world, studies find the same general pattern: whites 100, East Asians 106, sub-Sarahan Africans 70. One IQ table shows 113 in Hong Kong, 110 in Japan, and 100 in Britain. White populations in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States score closer to one another than to the worldwide black average. It's been that way for at least a century.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

In fact, there's a mountain of evidence that differential evolution has left each population with a balance of traits that could be advantageous or disadvantageous, depending on circumstances. The list of differences is long and intricate. On average, compared with whites, blacks mature more quickly in the womb, are born earlier, and develop teeth, strength, and dexterity earlier. They sit, crawl, walk, and dress themselves earlier. They reach sexual maturity faster, and they have better eyesight. On each of these measures, East Asians lag whites and blacks. In exchange, East Asians get longer lives and bigger brains.

How this happened isn't clear. Everyone agrees that the three populations separated 40,000 to 100,000 years ago. Even critics of racial IQ genetics accept the idea that through natural selection, environmental differences may have caused abilities such as distance running to become more common in some populations than in others. Possibly, genes for cognitive complexity became so crucial in some places that nature favored them over genes for developmental speed and vision. If so, fitness for today's world is mostly dumb luck. If we lived in a savannah, kids programmed to mature slowly and grow big brains would be toast. Instead, we live in a world of zoos, supermarkets, pediatricians, pharmaceuticals, and information technology. Genetic advantages, in other words, are culturally created.

Environmental Impact

One objection is that IQ tests are racially biased. This is true in the broadest sense: On average, African and Asian kids have different advantages, and IQ tests focus on the things at which more Asian kids have the edge. But in the narrower sense of testing abilities that pay off in the modern world, IQ tests do their job. They accurately predict the outcomes of black and white kids at finishing high school, staying employed, and avoiding poverty, welfare, or jail. They also accurately predict grades and job performance in modern Africa. The SAT, GRE, and tests in the private sector and the armed forces corroborate the racial patterns on IQ tests. Kids of different backgrounds find the same questions easy or hard. Nor do tests always favor a country's ethnic majority. In Malaysia, Chinese and Indian minorities outscore Malays.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

The best argument against genetics isn't in these studies. It's in data that show shrinkage of the black-white IQ gap over time. From these trends, environmentalists conclude that the gap is closing to zero. Hereditarians read the data differently. They agree that the gap closed fractionally in the middle decades of the 20th century, but they argue that scores in the last two to three decades show no improvement.

I've been soaking my head in each side's computations and arguments. They're incredibly technical. Basically, the debate over the IQ surge is a lot like the debate over the Iraq troop surge, except that the sides are reversed. Here, it's the liberals who are betting on the surge, while the conservatives dismiss it as illogical and doomed. On the one hand, the IQ surge is hugely exciting. If it closes the gap to zero, it moots all the putative evidence of genetic barriers to equality. On the other hand, the case for it is as fragile as the case for the Iraq surge. You hope it pans out, but you can't see why it would, given that none of the complicating factors implied by previous data has been adequately explained or taken into account. Furthermore, to construe meaningful closure of the IQ gap in the last 20 years, you have to do a lot of cherry-picking, inference, and projection. I have a hard time explaining why I should go along with those tactics when it comes to IQ but not when it comes to Iraq.

When I look at all the data, studies, and arguments, I see a prima facie case for partial genetic influence. I don't see conclusive evidence either way in the adoption studies. I don't see closure of the racial IQ gap to single digits. And I see too much data that can't be reconciled with the surge or explained by current environmental theories. I hope the surge surprises me. But in case it doesn't, I want to start thinking about how to be an egalitarian in an age of genetic difference, even between races. More on that tomorrow.

Is this going to be a key issue in the next presidential election? If not, what is Slate's goal?

[valerief]

1. I thought black, white, and other racial classifications were just political.

After all, what makes a white person white, a black person black, etc.? They just say they're white or black or one of the other endlessly changing racial classifications.

When I was younger, there was caucasian, negroid, and mongoloid. Now, those labels have changed and hispanic and other classifications were created in my lifetime. I think those people who are slotted in the new classifications existed before the new classifications were created(or their immediate ancestors did).

If there are average intellectual differences across different pockets of people, it's a class issue. It's socio-economic. And just like the Bush elections showed us, it's who counts the votes, not who votes, that matters. Whose tabulating the IQ test results?

BTW, I didn't read the article you provided. Guess what my "race" is.

[jody]

2. Thanks for your comment. I still wonder why a liberal pub would raise the particular issue? n/t

[valerief]

3. Maybe they got paid a lot of money to write it. Maybe they're turning red. nt

[jody]

5. Turning red! I hope not because Slate has produced some useful articles for our liberal/progressive

cause.

[Hestia]

4. Yeah, they are political when it comes to gerry-mandering

or federal aid. It's pretty interesting that the scores are worldwide, not just US based. I don't know about using it in the elections, but maybe now there can be some grown-up discussions that not all students are A students. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone can grow up to be president or CEO or a Gates/Jobs. We need to quit putting all students under a huge blanket and same they are the same. They aren't. Harsh? Maybe, but ain't that the realities of life?

[jody]

6. OK but do you see this as a significant issue in the next presidential election? n/t

[valerief]

8. Do you mean white Mitt is going to call black-white Obama stupid or something? nt

[jody]

10. Hadn't thought about that. Could the issue be turned into an educational agenda or other focus? n/t

[valerief]

15. You know, I hate to think it could be, but then I never would have

believed "intelligent design" or attacking Iraq would make any headway either. I always think people are smarter. I keep forgetting how broken and angry most Americans are. I've already lost my pension. When I lose my job and can't afford adequate health care, I'll be just as angry. And stupid.

[jody]

18. Understand. I'm amazed and appalled at how a handful of divisive issues seized by someone like Rove

can be used to dupe voters and put in power a rogue president and a complacent congress.

[valerief]

7. What if IQ tests were administered worldwide based on socio-economic

classifications instead? There would, I guess, be the same results.

[jody]

9. Re your sig line. Republicans who prey together steal from We the People. n/t

[valerief]

11. Yours is a good one. Mine is crappy. What I meant with it was that

Rethugs profess to be holier than thou in the daytime and go out and troll for hookers at night.

[jody]

12. LOL and occasionally get sent to prison, e.g. Randy "Duke" Cunningham. n/t

[valerief]

17. Not often enough. Hell, we can't even impeach the treasonous criminals. nt

[jody]

19. IMO because a complacent Dem controlled congress doesn't have the courage. n/t

[Traveling_Home]

13. Look at birth rates for successful adaptations to today's world

"If so, fitness for today's world is mostly dumb luck. If we lived in a savannah, kids programmed to mature slowly and grow big brains would be toast. Instead, we live in a world of zoos, supermarkets, pediatricians, pharmaceuticals, and information technology. Genetic advantages, in other words, are culturally created."

The ultimate measdure of success has to be birth rates - doesn't it?

[jody]

14. "ultimate measdure of success has to be birth rates", how? n/t

[mrreowwr_kittty]

16. Poor nutrition leads to lower IQs.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20041021205759data_trunc_sys.shtml

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041117005027.htm

When Sub-Saharan African, African-American, Hispanic-American, and other groups who test low on those culturally-biased-as-all-hell tests are getting the same nutrients in early childhood that the other kids are, in addition to all the cultural advantages, and are still performing the same on tests, I'll give these essentialist assholes some credibility. Until then, they can stick their thinly disguised eugenics up their asses.

[jody]

21. Agree but my question was whether the issue will be significant in the next election? n/t

[mrreowwr_kittty]

24. I suppose they could make it an issue through code words

But openly asserting those racist views would not go over too well. I too am surprised that Slate would allow such egregious nonsense a forum.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. In other words, the ethnic groups with the highest levels of poverty

and the least access to education score worse on IQ tests.

[jody]

22. If you're correct, they also make up the majority of voters if you combine all groups into those

"with the highest levels of poverty and the least access to education {who} score worse on IQ tests."

Why would such a majority that cuts across all racial lines not vote for a government that will help them at the expense of the 1% of Americans who own perhaps 50% of our financial wealth, control all major multinational corporations, and use our government like puppets?

[valerief]

23. Who says they didn't? Or didn't try? The votes were hacked.

The poorest districts had the fewest voting machines along with other classic voting misinformation.

Why did exit polls stop working when Bush got selected?

[jody]

25. When less than 50% of eligible voters actually vote, then IMO the group in question didn't try

because I believe they make up nearly all of the non-voters. n/t

[valerief]

27. Just read up on what happened to Ohio in 2004. A crapload of

people voted or tried to vote. Their votes got tossed or the polls closed after they waited hours in line.

How long did you have to wait? Geez, I tell myself to avoid trolls. I must be tired. Gotta click the Ignore and go to bed now.

[jody]

28. I waited perhaps 2-3 minutes and I understand why others gave up rather than wait. n/t

[killbotfactory]

37. The poor are divided, hopeless, and politically powerless

Just the way our government wants them. The deck is stacked so greatly against poor people in this country, it's ridiculous.

[jody]

40. Agree. The majority of voters allow themselves to be polarized on a few divisive issues

that do not affect the economy. In the meantime, the corporatist group finances candidates from both major parties and control government whenever a bill is proposed that advances the corporatist agenda.

Benito Mussolini said "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."

[EFerrari]

26. I'm not for reconciliation. I see no reason and feel no need

to reconcile with bigots.

And this article is based on the premise that different groups score differently on tests developed by one group -- while in competition with the same group. lol

[jody]

29. Understand re reconciliation but do you believe it could become a key issue? n/t

[blogslut]

30. Only to bigots

Anybody who wants to make this "an issue" is race-baiting ass.

[jody]

33. But divisive issues, e.g prayer in public schools, same-sex marriage, abortion, are used by

candidates.

Why would you assume the issue raised in Slate's articles would not also be used?

[blogslut]

34. Yes, wedge issue politics is a common tactic

However, the suckers that glom onto wedge issues aren't bright enough to grasp this one. Those types are more into simple stuff they can relate to. Take this whole illegal alien crap. It's racism alright, but it's racism hidden behind an imagined economic threat.

[LeftishBrit]

54. Almost anything can be used by nuts and racists...

However, I don't quite see why the current crop of presidential candidates should suddenly start using material from academic debates in 1994. If 'The Bell Curve' and its offshoots weren't used in presidential campaigns at the time when the book was first published, why should they start being used now? Is there someone in particular who you think is going to use this stuff?

[EFerrari]

36. I don't think so. It's too intellectual for the nutwing base. n/t

[jody]

41. I agree for the Bubba and Bubbette group. n/t

[EFerrari]

53. And, fwiw, I don't mean to diss anyone. And, should clarify by

saying "pseudo intellectual". But, it's framed in big hanging old abstractions and some people don't connect with them.

Now I don't know if my clarification is better or worse than my original statement. :dunce:

[TreasonousBastard]

31. Why does it have to be political at all? If there were...

absolute proof that one or more "races" is in some way inferior to others, it would be the worst thing that could possibly happen, and would most likely be suppressed. This can't have any direct effect on elections or public policy because nobody in their right mind is going to come out publicly and say we should treat some of the population a certain way because they have less capability.

Why would you assume that Slate has a political point to make? This is an unfortunate research path that doesn't seem to want to go away and should be aired out to stop those midnight emails "explaining" why we shouldn't try to educate some people.

[jody]

32. IMO the articles are quite different from Slate's typical publications. That prompted my question

whether it had a purpose?

[MADem]

35. By DU standards, Slate is a BushCo neoncon enabling bunch...

And I only say that half-sarcastically.

Slate's focus and editorial slant is politically liberal, as seen in choice of columnists, choice of and position on topics, and featured cartoon, Doonesbury. During the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign, a significant majority of staff and contributors supported Democratic challenger John Kerry.<3>

A more fine-grained analysis puts Slate slightly to the left of The New Republic, but still to the right of Salon.com or The Nation. It includes many voices of the Clintonian / Democratic Leadership Council / neoliberal point of view. These include two of its bloggers: Mickey Kaus, whose favorite subjects include welfare reform and the potential for a future candidate from either party to reap major political gains by taking a law-and-order stance on immigration issues; and Bruce Reed, who was President Clinton's domestic policy adviser, and is current president of the Democratic Leadership Council. Jack Shafer, one of its top editors, has stated that he has voted for the Libertarian Party candidate for President in every election since he became eligible to vote. (One unusual feature of the magazine is that it explicitly states its staff's biases, going so far as to publish the presidential votes of individual staff members and writers<4>.) Slate frequently publishes columns that advocate a neoclassical view of economics, for example articles by professors Paul Krugman, Steven Landsburg, and Tim Harford, who although perhaps classifiable as liberal, are still part of the economic establishment and have each done significant research work.

On the occupation of Iraq, Slate has taken a "liberal hawk" perspective. This viewpoint is embodied in the frequent contributions of Christopher Hitchens, William Saletan, Michael Kinsley, Anne Applebaum, and others. Timothy Noah is the only Slate staffer who initially opposed the U.S. invasion, and even he was persuaded to abandon his relatively dovish position by Colin Powell<5>. Since the war began, however, the magazine has been increasingly critical of the war's handling, most strongly in Fred Kaplan's "War Stories" column.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_(magazine)

[LeftishBrit]

38. If he's quoting IQ figures....

he should also quote those that show that IQ scores have been consistently increasing in most developed countries over the past 60 years (the so-called 'Flynn effect'). Since this has been happening too rapidly and recently to be due to genetics, it must indicate social and environmental effects on IQ.

Most within-group studies suggest that both heredity and environment affect IQ. One cannot, however, extrapolate from within-group studies to between-group studies, as the environmental differences between groups are generally far greater than the typical environmental differences within a group.

There is of course absolutely no evidence that any racial/ ethnic groups are genetically 'more intelligent' than others.

But racists won't listen to reason on this subject - and even if you could somehow prove to them that minority groups were *not* genetically 'inferior' to the majority group, they would simply change their argument to 'the minority groups are morally inferior because they have *chosen* to be less successful!' They will always find some excuse to feed their prejudices.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. This is why people shouldn't use wikipedia as their only source.

If you read the references, you'll find this joker's entire argument is based on "studies" from known white supremacists.

[jody]

42. The article cited articles from American Psychologist, Science, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.

I don't believe those journals are in bed with "known white supremacists."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. The article's main source was Jensen.

A white supremacist who gets his "research" money from the Pioneer Fund, a recognized hate group committed to proving the eugenic superiority of the white race.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund

[jody]

45. But you said "why people shouldn't use wikipedia as their only source". I simply pointed out other

sources.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. That was a joke.

I was implying that the author didn't take a look at his sources, or he would have found he's just spreading pseudoscientific bigotry.

[jody]

48. "pseudoscientific bigotry" or a disagreement among scholars studying intelligence and psychometrics?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. Pseudoscientific bigotry.

Duh.

[fishwax]

52. Pseudoscientific Bigotry n/t

[fishwax]

44. sounds like "The Bell Curve" is back

It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. I didn't read the entire article, but did notice that one of the first supporting links he offers relies heavily on the work of Richard Lynn, whose work was featured prominently in The Bell Curve and who was one of it's biggest defenders. But it was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.

[jody]

47. Makes sense to many however fifty-two professors signed an opinion statement "Mainstream Science on

Intelligence" supporting the book. See "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" (Wall Street Journal, Dec. 13, 1994, p A18)

My question still remains, will the topic be an issue in the next presidential election?

[LeftishBrit]

50. Note that this was written 13 years ago....

And some of the signatories are known for being rather biased.

More importantly, it does *not* state that between-group differences in intelligence are due to genetics. It argues that there is a significant genetic contribution to *within*-group differences in IQ, and says of between-group differences:

'There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups. The reasons for these IQ differences between groups may be markedly different from the reasons for why individuals differ among themselves within any particular group (whites or blacks or Asians). In fact, it is wrong to assume, as many do, that the reason why some individuals in a population have high IQs but others have low IQs must be the same reason why some populations contain more such high (or low) IQ individuals than others. Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too.'

So while not saying definitively that genetics *aren't* involved in between-group differences, they basically admit that there's no good evidence that they are!

In what way is this being treated as an issue in the forthcoming presidential election?

[fishwax]

51. It wasn't the first (and perhaps won't be the last) bit of

science purporting to prove differential intelligence based on race that has been supported by numerous scientists and professors. The tradition dates back well into the last century, as Stephen Jay Gould showed in The Mismeasure of Man. The first edition of that book came out several years before The Bell Curve, but in the second edition Gould added a few chapters explicitly addressing that latest manifestation.

As for whether it will be a topic in the next presidential election, I don't know ... what form might you expect it to take?