Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Thomas Sowell on IQ and Race
In the thread below, “Derbyshire Speaks,” Ricochet member Mark Wilson provides a link to an item I believe deserves everyone’s attention: Thomas Sowell on IQ and race. When Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein published the The Bell Curve almost ten years ago, Dr. Sowell wrote a review in the American Spectator.
What did Thomas Sowell make of the book? He took it apart.
If you can spare ten minutes for close argument, be sure to read the entire review. But–with thanks once again to Mark Wilson–here’s a hefty, and, to my mind, utterly compelling, excerpt:
[Herrnstein and Murray] seem to conclude… that… biological inheritance of IQ… among members of the general society may also explain IQ differences between different racial and ethnic groups…. Such a conclusion goes… much beyond what the facts will support….
[T]he greatest black-white differences are not on the questions which presuppose middle-class vocabulary or experiences, but on abstract questions such as spatial perceptual ability…. [Herrnstein and Murray’s] conclusion that this “phenomenon seems peculiarly concentrated in comparisons of ethnic groups” is simply wrong. When European immigrant groups in the United States scored below the national average on mental tests, they scored lowest on the abstract parts of those tests. So did white mountaineer children in the United States tested back in the early 1930s. So did canal boat children in Britain, and so did rural British children compared to their urban counterparts, at a time before Britain had any significant non-white population. So did Gaelic-speaking children as compared to English-speaking children in the Hebrides Islands. This is neither a racial nor an ethnic peculiarity. It is a characteristic found among low-scoring groups of European as well as African ancestry.
In short, groups outside the cultural mainstream of contemporary Western society tend to do their worst on abstract questions, whatever their race might be….
Perhaps the strongest evidence against a genetic basis for intergroup differences in IQ is that the average level of mental test performance has changed very significantly for whole populations over time and, moreover, particular ethnic groups within the population have changed their relative positions during a period when there was very little intermarriage to change the genetic makeup of these groups….
Perhaps the most dramatic changes were those in the mental test performances of Jews in the United States. The results of World War I mental tests conducted among American soldiers born in Russia–the great majority of whom were Jews–showed such low scores as to cause Carl Brigham, creator of the Scholastic Aptitude Test, to declare that these results “disprove the popular belief that the Jew is highly intelligent.” Within a decade, however, Jews in the United States were scoring above the national average on mental tests, and the data in The Bell Curveindicate that they are now far above the national average in IQ.
Strangely, Herrnstein and Murray refer to “folklore” that “Jews and other immigrant groups were thought to be below average in intelligence. ” It was neither folklore nor anything as subjective as thoughts. It was based on hard data, as hard as any data in The Bell Curve. These groups repeatedly tested below average on the mental tests of the World War I era, both in the army and in civilian life. For Jews, it is clear that later tests showed radically different results–during an era when there was very little intermarriage to change the genetic makeup of American Jews….
Herrnstein and Murray openly acknowledge such rises in IQ….But they seem not to see how crucially it undermines the case for a genetic explanation of interracial IQ differences. They say:
“The national averages have in fact changed by amounts that are comparable to the fifteen or so IQ points separating blacks and whites in America. To put it another way, on the average, whites today differ from whites, say, two generations ago as much as whites today differ from blacks today. Given their size and speed, the shifts in time necessarily have been due more to changes in the environment than to changes in the genes.”
While this open presentation of evidence against the genetic basis of interracial IQ differences is admirable, the failure to draw the logical inference seems puzzling. Blacks today are just as racially different from whites of two generations ago as they are from whites today. Yet the data suggest that the number of questions that blacks answer correctly on IQ tests today is very similar to the number answered correctly by past generations of whites. If race A differs from race B in IQ, and two generations of race A differ from each other by the same amount, where is the logic in suggesting that the IQ differences are even partly racial?
Where indeed is the logic–the word bears repeating: the logic–in suggesting that IQ differences are even partly racial?
Published in General
So is religion. Which if you look at the statistics is highly correlated to ones ancestry, probably even more so than IQ. Yet clearly it would be nonsense to claim that peoples religious convictions are genetically derived.
Studies of identical twins raised apart try to get at some of these points you raise, and generally find that almost every personality trait has a very strong genetic basis, and IQ more than most. In your example, specific religious convictions are learned, but “religiosity” is highly heritable/genetic. ·13 minutes ago
I would take all such genetic association studies with a big grain of salt. Especially considering the complicated and even subjective nature of the trait people are proposing to study. The broader and more general the phenotype (IQ or religiosity) the less faith I have in the findings because they can’t really be confirmed in any model organism. Genetic association analysis is really a correlation study it doesn’t prove anything in and of itself.
I wouldn’t say there aren’t genetic components to all of these things I just think natural phenotypic plasticity may be a bigger factor.
Re comment 16 : Does Murray’s book have –not just the same take on I.Q. and race, but also the same tone as Derbyshire’s article? (I haven’t read Murray’s book.)No privately funded publication owes anyone a forum. Right?To me, Derbyshire’s article doesn’t just criticize behavior, and say this behavior is currently more prevalent in Americans who are black. Hence, white Americans are justified viewing black Americans with suspicion, and interacting with them more cautiously than with other whites. He doesn’t just sound indignant. (I’d be o.k. with that.) He sounds contemptuous, dismissive and sneering. Click on the second link Katievs provides in her first comment on the post “Derbyshire Speaks”. Listen to Gloria Purvis and tell me you’re not shamed by the thought of her reading what Drebyshire wrote. I am.
Just to through another wrench into all these theories of intelligence. How does the concept of multiple intelligences from Howard Gardner play out here?
I read the Bell curve years ago and can remember being blow away by its arguments as presented. I can also remember that there is only one chapter on IQ and race and that chapter does not focus exclusively on white vs. black.
I think the fact (as I see it) that this small portion of the book is generally presented (including in this blog post) as the primary thesis of the book is telling.
My recollection of the book’s central thesis, a decade after reading it, is that IQ is substantially heritable, and that “fact” has substantial implications on policy. So read the book or listen to it and decide, or don’t! But don’t take this blog post or even the great Dr. Sowell’s criticism as being what the book is about.
Utter nonsense. His work is part of the leftist attempt to sew their phony notions of equality. A person can be “emotionally intelligent.” Well, no, such a person is perhaps naturally empathetic. A person can be “kinetically intelligent.” No again, such a person is a born athlete. A person can be “spatially intelligent.” Not! There is no correlation between spatial ability and intelligence. Good chess players frequently exhibit no better than average IQ’s.
Someone should study the effects of “listening to ‘Reverend’ Al Sharpton” on intelligence. I would expect it has significant deleterious effects.
I know after I listen to him, all notions of civilization, justice, and truth go out the window. I’m reduced to the mind of a 2 year old toddler – all I see is color.
To me this suggests that there may be biological differences between racial groups in the US at a particular point in time, which might change dramatically over a generation or two. This, it seems to me, fits with Dr. Sowell’s observations of different IQ distributions in different ethnic groups at different times. Unfortunately, as other commenters have noted here, the black underclass in our society has been produced by the environment of the welfare state, and I think you have to change the environment to produce downstream epigenetic change.
Epigenetics has fundamentally changed the nature v. nurture debate, and it would not surprise me in the least to discover that intelligence is affected in large measure by epigenetic changes.
Unfortunately, we should not hold our breath waiting for science to give an answer. Finding the genetic determinants of intelligence has always been a near fruitless task, given the innumerable factors invovled. Consider that epigenetics is essentially a three-dimensional version of classical genetics, and it will be a long time until we have convincing proof of anything.
Where indeed is the logic–the word bears repeating: the logic–in suggesting that IQ differences are even partly racial?
The logic is based in observation, and I submit two cases: (1) The logic in the theory that the sun orbits the earth is based on the observation of the sun’s rise and set and apparent movement across the sky daily. The observation can be explained logically, without detailed analysis, by the sun orbiting the earth. (2) In the end, part of intelligence is physical, an issue of chemistry and biology. The brain is a collection of cells that fire impulses across synapses and some people’s brains do this better than others – better memory, better grasp of abstract concepts, etc. There are clearly physical differences between races – different skin color, different eye color, different shapes of eyes, noses, different athletic abilities. So given intelligence is at least partly physical and that there are physical differences between races, it is entirely logical to assume there are corresponding differences in intelligence.
Going back to the sun and earth, we can see that logical conclusions based on extrapolation from observation can be wrong, but the discussion/research must continue.
I think that it is absolutely obvious that traits are inherited, and therefore genetic. Those traits include any physical trait – and brains are also physical.
Those of us who are religious believe that every man is made in G-d’s image, and deserve respect on that basis alone. So to me, it may be true, but not important, that certain races have different traits.
But atheists, to me, have a bigger problem. If people are nothing more evolved animals, then it opens up everything from eugenics to genocide to a “rational” analysis.
Re comment #38
That’s exactly the effect that sinister buffoon has on me.
Utter nonsense. His work is part of the leftist attempt to sew their phony notions of equality. A person can be “emotionally intelligent.” Well, no, such a person is perhaps naturally empathetic. A person can be “kinetically intelligent.” No again, such a person is a born athlete. A person can be “spatially intelligent.” Not! There is no correlation between spatial ability and intelligence. Good chess players frequently exhibit no better than average IQ’s. ·10 minutes ago
I’m sure you are right that MI has been used by leftists to promote their ideas, maybe even Gardner himself. But I feel like the concept of MI actually demonstrates how uniquely individual we all are. Isn’t saying someone is kinetically intelligent and an natural born athlete about the same? Mozart was a musical genius but would he have also been a great engineer? As I mentioned in another post: the left politicizes everything! Often the biggest fault of intelligent people is to think that their genius in one area makes them experts in many. That’s why you have men like Stephen Hawking speaking about climate change and coming off as a fool.
Are you being facetious? I was thinking of the identical twin studies.
But it’s a much more difficult problem to go from “at least partly” to actually determine how great the influence of genetics is versus all other factors.
Speaking of genetics, what about our networks of neural pathways and the way they may also be passed on genetically.
As people learn they develop specific neural pathways that grow and strengthen to meet the task they are learning, and apparently these pathways can be genetically passed down as in the example of the mice earlier (#30).
So if you are the son of a long line of masons you will be predisposed physically and mentally to learning to become a mason.
What if your parents were European immigrants? Father a mason and mother from a long line of chef’s and cooks. You are born in the U.S. with a completely new set of social rules and a mix of the old world; you learn in a school system that has a different set of outcomes from that of your ancestors, and in a world rapidly changing through technology.
What role has your genetics played in your success or the lack there of?
Often the biggest fault of intelligent people is to think that their genius in one area makes them experts in many. That’s why you have men like Stephen Hawking speaking about climate change and coming off as a fool.
So do you find it equally foolish for an economist to expound on genetics?
Often the biggest fault of intelligent people is to think that their genius in one area makes them experts in many. That’s why you have men like Stephen Hawking speaking about climate change and coming off as a fool.
So do you find it equally foolish for an economist to expound on genetics? ·3 minutes ago
Well, everyone has their own opinions but I wouldn’t go to them as an authority. Would you call a mechanic, even a really good one, if you were having chest pains?
Utter nonsense. His work is part of the leftist attempt to sew their phony notions of equality. A person can be “emotionally intelligent.” Well, no, such a person is perhaps naturally empathetic. A person can be “kinetically intelligent.” No again, such a person is a born athlete. A person can be “spatially intelligent.” Not! There is no correlation between spatial ability and intelligence. Good chess players frequently exhibit no better than average IQ’s. ·48 minutes ago
It looks to me like you “refuted” the argument merely by changing the vocabulary.
Speaking as someone who scores very high on any kind of standardized tests (and therefore does well in IQ testing and most formal educational settings) but who has always struggled socially, I can tell you that having shortcomings in emotional intelligence, or whatever you want to call it, has real-world costs. It’s no fun being emotionally dumb. Conventional IQ ain’t everything.
Often the biggest fault of intelligent people is to think that their genius in one area makes them experts in many. That’s why you have men like Stephen Hawking speaking about climate change and coming off as a fool.
So do you find it equally foolish for an economist to expound on genetics? ·3 minutes ago
Exactly. Sowell is a dillettante in this area; Herrnstein, Jensen, Steven Pinker, etc are actual practitioners (which of course does not mean they cannot be treated skeptically).
Mendel and Valiuth: Did you see this study? I am not an expert in genomics, and I (ahem) only read the abstract because my institution doesn’t have access to the full text, but it looks interesting. It is a genome wide association study in which they conclude that genetics accounts for ~50% of some forms of intelligence (not sure of their measures from the abstract). What are your thoughts on the validity of their findings?
Well, I wasn’t trying to refute an argument because I didn’t want to make an argument; I wanted to promote a discussion. To take sides in an argument would suggest that believed I had the correct answer.
I think people who are high in logical-mathematical and spatial intelligences do well on IQ tests. But it seems people who are higher in interpersonal intelligence tend to be more successful despite often only average IQ’s, think many politicians.
Personally, I have high intrapersonal intelligence so it is often difficult for me to get past a paralysis of analysis personally.
It is also fortunate that learning is a factor of intelligence and so we can learn to become stronger in our weaknesses.
Re comment # 47
I’m confused. Does Charles Murray have a background in Genetics? I thought Sowell was disagreeing with Murray’s interpretation of statistical data. I’d better go back and carefully reread what Sowell is saying about “The Bell Curve”.
I’m confused. Does Charles Murray have a background in Genetics? I thought Sowell was disagreeing with Murray’s interpretation of stastical data. I’d better go back and carefully reread what Sowell is saying about “The Bell Curve”. ·0 minutes ago
Murray has a background in stats, but Richard Herrnstein was one of the top psychologists/psychometrists of his era.
It looks to me like you “refuted” the argument merely by changing the vocabulary.
Nope. Words have meaning unless like Humpty-Dumpty they mean whatever you want them to mean. It doesn’t take any intelligence whatsoever to bench press 400 lbs. A clinical moron can do it. So why refer to the ability as “kinetic intelligence”? I feel for your lack of social skills, dude, but does your inability make you any less intelligent? Don’t confuse “personality” with intelligence. While they may be related, they aren’t the same thing.
It looks to me like you “refuted” the argument merely by changing the vocabulary.
Nope. Words have meaning unless like Humpty-Dumpty they mean whatever you want them to mean. It doesn’t take any intelligence whatsoever to bench press 400 lbs. A clinical moron can do it. So why refer to the ability as “kinetic intelligence”? I feel for your lack of social skills, dude, but does your inability make you any less intelligent? Don’t confuse “personality” with intelligence. While they may be related, they aren’t the same thing. ·0 minutes ago
Maybe, Gardner shouldn’t use the word intelligence because it could be he is distorting what is its accepted current meaning and usage. However, we can also recognize that the meanings of words change, just ask any Etymologist.
And bench pressing 400 pounds is not a measure of athleticism but physical strength. How much could Joe Montana bench?
The logic is really simple:
1. People with high IQ parents have higher IQ’s than those with low-IQ parents, on average, and we have been unable to find any other variable that also predicts IQ (except for year of birth—the Flynn Effect, and things like brain damage).
2. Blacks have black parents, on average.
3. Blacks have lower IQs than whites, on average.
4. Thus, we deduce that what is true at the individual level is also true at the group level, blacks IQ’s are lower because of heredity.
Just to see this clearly, let’s see how we explain blackness of skin.
1. People with darker-skinned parents have darker skin than those with lighter-skinned parents, on average.
2. Blacks have parents with darker skin, on average.
3. Blacks have darker skin, on average.
4. Thus, we deduce that what is true at the individual level is also true at the group level.
One difference is that it may be that there is a known cause that explains much of the difference in skin color— suntans— whereas we don’t know what variables besides heredity affect IQ to any significant extent.
1. People with high IQ parents have higher IQ’s than those with low-IQ parents, on average, and we have been unable to find any other variable that also predicts IQ (except for year of birth—the Flynn Effect, and things like brain damage). ·1 minute ago
This is how Derbyshire got into a fix. All you say is true but as a conservative I am concerned with individuals, individual freedom, and their pursuit of happiness.
Statisticians deal in averages and things like outliers but when focusing on people then those outliers are people, and averages are made up by a myriad of people with incalculable differences sharing only a limited commonality.
Statistics can be useful in things like advertising and marketing but completely dehumanizing in to many other areas.
That is where the left lives pushing everyone in to groups to be managed.
I have read this review before and it appears to be convincing. My understanding though is that tests that are not racial suggest that IQ is in very large part hereditary.
Nonetheless, I find myself wondering why black Americans have found themselves so unable to work positive change in their community.
Peter, what originally prompted me to run the Google search that led me to the book review was a recollection that I had heard Dr. Sowell discuss it with you in an episode of Uncommon Knowledge. I was hoping to find the video clip and post that, but I was unsuccessful. If you know what I’m referring to and could pass it along, I’d be grateful.
Peter:
If the equlity of black Americans is yoru goal, this is not a very good argument to make. Remember what von Hayek said on this subject:
“To rest the case for equal treatment of national or racial minorities on the assertion that they do not differ from other men is implicitely to admit that factual inequalities would justify unequal treatment; and the proof that some differences do, in fact, exist would not be long in forthcoming. It is of the essence of the demand for equality before the law that people should be treated alike in spite of the fact that they are different.”