Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 14

message: Puzzling:
While the existence of average IQ test score differences has been a matter of accepted fact for decades, during the 1960s and 1970s a great deal of controversy existed among scholars over the question of whether these score differences reflected real differences in cognitive ability.
Does this mean that average of one group is different than the average of another group? From year to year? Or what? I suppose the reader can guess what the intended meaning is, but avoiding such guesses is desirable because of what can happen when the reader guesses wrong. P0M 07:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (3)

message: Because I anticipate that this will not be resolved until we discuss it in detail, here is some commentary on the APA & WSJ statement. Let's start with the WSJ statement, which is the shorter and easier of the two.
* The Meaning and Measurement of Intelligence (1-6) seems to reflect the opinions of all experts but the multiple-independent intelligences crowd, such as Sternberg, Gardner, and colleages.
* Group Differences (7-8) are just a matter of fact
* Practical Importance (9-13) is again old school stuff and seems to reflec the opinions of all experts except the same IQ is only academic crowd (i.e., Sternberg, Garder, et al)
* Source and Stability of Within-Group Differences (14-18) is concensus, but take note that many non-experts confuse this issue with that of group differences and so attack both errantly
* skipping ahead ... Implications for Social Policy (25) is just a statement about the relationship of facts versus values -- universal
* Source and Stability of Between-Group Differences (19-24) we should examine one item at a time
** 19. There is no persuasive evidence that the IQ bell curves for different racial-ethnic groups are converging... this is discussed in the article, and both sides are given plenty of room to make their point; but the phrasing "no persuasive evidence" is a safe way to say it because most people don't seem to be convinced
** 20. non-controversial; you can read about it in the NY Times
** 21. some controversy, but the opinions S&R opinion survey backs up this claim
** 22. seemingly the "crux" that bothers Jokestress. Let's go sentence by sentence
*** There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups. -- a broad reading of this should be noncontroversial; some may think they know what class of answer is correct, but no one can say to have the definitive answer in detail
*** 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). - a non-controversial warning about misapplying individual heritability to group heritability
*** 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. - again more warning
*** Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too. - the phrasing "Most experts believe" indicates we're talking about the S&R(1987) survey again, where the plurality/majority of experts/informed-experts hold this opinion. "could be involved too", in one reading, merely says that most experts don't discount the possibilty that genetics "could be involved too". this would account for all experts but the ~15% who believe only environment is involved. although from the S&R survey we know that if anonymously asked their opinion, most experts think genetics really is involved too
** 23. non-controversial, just a matter of fact
** 24. non-controversial caveat to this research
I don't see anything in the WSJ statement that isn't (a) noncontoversial or (b) believed by a strong majority of experts (or nearly all experts depending on how you process phrases like "could be involved too"). So, the "implication or assertion that there is evidence of a race-based genetic component to intelligence" is not a problem with the WSJ statement (nor with the APA statement).
(Hypothetically!) But even if they did present that view, they would be speaking for at least 52% of responding experts in the S&R survey. Indeed, your "problem" doesn't rule out the possibility of counter evidence against a genetic contribution, which could be driving the second most common response to that survey question -- The data are insufficient to support any reasonable opinion. Thus, it would hardly be a problem (for WP or them) to claim that a majority of experts believe there is some evidence. --Rikurzhen 22:17, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
:: The current form of Jokestress objection about the reliability of the WSJ as representative of mainstream science is in the form of a footnote with the body text "but note objections[12]". That won't work. I understand Jokestress argument (even though I think she is wrong—that's not the point), but the objection needs to be attributed to somebody else. Wikipedia cannot be a primary source introducing Jokestress' argument. If the argument is novel (as it appears in the current form: Wikipedia is having objections) then it needs to be removed as per WP:NOR. If the argument has been made by somebody else, then that source needs to be cited. It was hopeful that the Sternberg/Miele interview contained such a passage, but came up blank. Remember that we aren't allowed to use common sense (especially not common sense that we don't agree on, as in the case of Jokestress' objection). Somebody else needs to make the common sense observation for us. We can report evidence, and are often tempted to report selectively, but we cannot introduce novel conclusions about evidence. So, Jokestress, please find any source that allows us say something like the following: "Jay S. Silver (2003) has questioned the representativeness of the statement based on the number of solicited signatures. Gottfredsson (2001) reports that yaddayadda....". ���If you must, write a blog entry yourself and quote that. But WP is expressively forbidden from becoming a primary source. We cannot have anybody, later, writing something like this
:::The encyclopedia "Wikipedia" points out that the WSJ statement may not be representative of...
::To make this clear: any reference would work. Actually, I was sure that Sternberg had written something to that effect, maybe I'm not looking hard enough. Arbor 19:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The crux of the problem is the implication or assertion that there is evidence of a race-based genetic component to intelligence 

message: some numbers are missing??? --Rikurzhen 00:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Something whacky happens when footnotes are placed inside of pictures (footnotes in pictures get numbering priority). I suggest you remove the two footnotes from inside the pictures and replace them with something such as "See footnote x below." —Wayward 02:38, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
::I think this is fixed now. If anyone moves a section with a footnote, please re-order the footnotes, remembering that any footnotes in charts must appear before notes on the article body. Jokestress 17:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  footnotes out of wack 

message: Responding to Jokestress' comment, I don't see anything questionable in Gottfredson's bibliography(here).  Her career appears to have started with vocational issues, including promotion of Blacks, such as her paper "Providing Black Youth More Access to Enterprising Work," Vocational Guidance Quarterly, December 1978.  Her early work also dealt with vocational issues and intelligence.  
Her publications soon moved also into race, sex, and vocational issues, such as her paper "Race and Sex Differences in Occupational Aspirations:  Their Development and Consequences for Occupational Segregation."  Report no. 254, Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University, 1978.  A number of her papers dealt with the role of aspiration in vocation.  She published some papers on the role of dyslexia and vocation issues in the early 80s.
August 1986 is her first work explicitly on race and intelligence, when she reads her paper "IQ vs. Training: Job Performance and Black-White Occupational Inequality" at an annual meeting of the American Psychological Association.  In "May and November" 1986 she received, through her university, the first of her grants from the Pioneer Fund ($51,000), which was awarded "to researchers at Johns Hopkins University "to conduct a symposium on crime and unemployment.""
--Nectarflowed T 07:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just put up a basic Linda Gottfredson page to help people vector the source of the WSJ editorial. Jokestress 21:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of Gottfredson biography

message: I collected the following notes while surveying it, in case anyone wants a summary (the source is pretty long).
Her grants from the Pioneer Fund, often labelled a funder of scientific racism, drew some attention at one point.  This caused the University of Deleware, where she then worked, to refuse one of the grants (though they later accepted them again):
*[2 July 1990. Letter from Andrew B. Kirkpatrick, Jr. (chairman of the University of  Delaware Board of Trustees) to Harry F Weyher (Pioneer Fund).   He says that the University wants to "enhance the racial and cultural diversity of faculty, staff, and students" and that it is "hampered" in pursuing this goal by the acceptance of Pioneer Fund grants.  The letter is cited in Daniel Seligman, A Question of Intelligence (1992), p. 193.]
*A response to the incident from Robert A Gordon: [30 March 1990.  Letter from Robert A Gordon to University of Delaware administrators, cited in Stefan Kühl, The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism and German National Socialism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994) p. 113n34, and in Roger Pearson, Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe (Washington, DC:  Scott-Townsend, 1991), pp. 13-14.  Gordon writes:   "... it has been difficult for Federal granting agencies, which depend on Congress for their budget allocations, to provide for research in this hotly contested area for some time.  Accordingly private sources play a disproportionately large role, and are essential for maintaining the debate that is so essential to healthy science...having largely succeeded in interdicting Federal support, activists have been after one of the last sources of support that courageously operates at all in this intellectually taboo arena ..."]
Gottfredson explains the significance of the Pioneer Fund in her work:
*Mercer, Joye.  "A Fascination with Genetics:  Pioneer Fund is at Center of Debate Over Research on Race and Development."  Chronicle of Higher Education (December 7, 1994): A28-A29.
**["For scholars like Linda Gottfredson, a professor of educational studies at the University of Delaware who examines I.Q. and employment testing, the Pioneer Fund has been a godsend.  'When I would apply to federal agencies to get funding to study the role of intelligence in the work place, I was simply dismissed,' says Ms. Gottfredson, who has received $335,000 from the Pioneer Fund since 1988 and hasn't sought support from other foundations since then.  'Any proposal that investigates politically incorrect questions with regard to race and gender tends to be blackballed in the peer-review process. For some of us, the Pioneer Fund has been the only option.'  ...  'What annoys me is that questions are asked about the Pioneer Fund that are not asked about other organizations, questions about a political agenda, about its history,' says Jan H. Blits, a professor of educational studies at the University of Delaware who has worked with Ms. Gottfredson."]
From there she published things regarding cognitive ability tests and vocational issues, including a paper titled "The Flight from g in Employment Testing" (here).  She also published more things that dealt with vocation, intelligence, and race.  She wrote articles that were against affirmative action, such as "When Job-Testing 'Fairness' Is Nothing But a Quota."  Wall Street Journal (December 6, 1990), A18.  And also "Racially Gerrymandering the Content of Police Tests to Satisfy U.S. Justice Department:  A Case Study."  Unpublished paper, February 6, 1997.[To appear in the APA journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.] Available here.
Other notable excerpt:
*[17 June 1997.  Robert A. Gordon, "How Smart Are We About What We Broadcast:  An Open Letter to ABC News."  This is available at www.pioneerfund.org/ABCletter.html .   Gordon writes:  "The two American Agenda segments on intelligence, using different reporters, thus cannily excluded from the discussion of scientific issues scientists who were interviewed at length by ABC News, such as Professors Gordon, Linda Gottfredson, and Philippe Rushton, who could have addressed scientific criticisms knowledgeably if afforded an opportunity to do so ... Long interviews recorded with two of these individuals [i.e., Gottfredson and Rushton] were not included at all in either segment ... No notice at all, in fact, was taken of the large amount of material supplied to you by Professor Linda Gottfredson and me of the stature of many Pioneer recipients and their frequent citation in a standard work on intelligence other than The Bell Curve."]
--Nectarflowed T 07:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just put up a basic Linda Gottfredson page to help people vector the source of the WSJ editorial. Jokestress 21:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Further summary

message: For those who were involved in the arbitration case* regarding June events on this page, here's a process clarification from James F. (talk):
*"The Committee voted to accept the [arbitration] case, not to follow any particular course of action. The comments [given] in opening the RfAr [were] meant to be a guide to whether or not there was something to investigate, not evidence for final decisions. The evidence sub-page is [now] for detailed evidence of specific breeches of policy, etc.."
--Nectarflowed T 10:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RfA process clarification

message: And for balance:
Skeptic: In your book you present a summary of the current evidence on I.Q. on pages 22 and 23. Snyderman and Rothman's on The I.Q. Controversy in 1991 surveyed expert in the field, and just yesterday the Wall Street Journal contained a 25-point statement by experts in intelligence. Based on those it seems your summary represents the consensus of experts in this field, even on the controversial issue of the involvement of genetics and the black-white difference in intelligence. As skeptics, we are skeptics of everything, including psychology. If we get this great a controversy over what looks like consensus, is psychology really a science in the same sense as physics?
Murray: I'm not comfortable with a blanket statement saying yes or no. But I think we can talk specifically about the basis for those statements in the Wall Street Journal and the book, which is certainly based on the kinds of methods that fall under the scientific method-- falsifiable hypotheses, the use of predictions, etc. A test is valid in so far as it predicts something of interest, or criteria measure, to use the jargon of the trade. More than most of the other social sciences, psychologists and psychometricians are prepared to have their results tested against classical statistical criterion of validity, reliability, and reproduceability. 
Skeptic: One of the complaints about the Snyderman and Rothman survey, the Wall Street Journal survey, and your own survey of the literature, is that you are working in that standard psychometric paradigm, but that is yesterday's news. The real forefront is Sternberg's approach to practical intelligence and Gardner's seven intelligences. You are sticking with something that is a very small portion of the discussion, so naturally you are going to get concensus.
Murray: Let me make a couple of other points about intelligence. One, the general mental factor, g, is very robust. You can take all kinds of different ways of creating your factors, and you will always get g. It doesn't matter whether rotate the matrix orthogonally, or obliquely, or whatever else, you always get the same thing. The second major point is that when you try with factor analysis to produce a situation where you do not have a general mental factor g, guess what? All the factors are correlated. Which goes back to Spearman's initial insight, which is why are the different measures of mental ability so consistently correlated with each other? What's going on here? The answer is: there is an underlying general factor. That does not mean that it blocks out a whole territory of human talents or intelligence, and we say so in the book.
Gardner has made a variety of assertions about intelligence which, if true, are falsifiable. He is not only saying there are different talents, which Dick Herrnstein and I would agree with, he is also saying they are independent. With something like kinesthetic talent, which is quite physical, this is easy to say. It gets harder to say when he talks about interpersonal skills, versus verbal skills. If you are going to make that kind of statement, the next logical step is to come up with measures of these different talents and demonstrate that they are, in fact, independent.
Skeptic: So you are saying that some of these disagreements are empirically testable?
Murray: Yes, and Gardner has consistently been unwilling to subject his own work to that kind of empirical defense. He has stood apart from quantitative attempts to describe what he is doing and to enable other researchers to replicate it. Of all the different types of intelligence that Gardner wants to treat as co-equals, there is only one kind that will put you in the retarded class--namely the plain old fashion general mental ability. 
Jokestress 05:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murray on WSJ "consensus" 

message: Does Sternberg still publish on his triarchic theory? The latest paper I know of was this:
:Nathan Brody, Construct validation of the Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test: Comment and reanalysis, Intelligence, Volume 31, Issue 4, July-August 2003, Pages 319-329. This paper presents an alternative theoretical analysis of several analyses presented by Sternberg and his colleagues of studies designed to validate the Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test (STAT). The paper contrasts a triarchic theory analysis of the data with one that emphasizes the relevance of g to an understanding of the results obtained by Sternberg and his colleagues. Three relationships are considered: (1) Relationships between triarchic abilities and other measures of intelligence; (2) Relationships between triarchic abilities and academic achievements; (3) Relationships among triarchic abilities. It is argued that the g theory is required to understand the relationships obtained by Sternberg and his colleagues. 
I don't know the full literature that well. --Rikurzhen 06:36, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
:An ISI search for publications including the term "triarchic" from Sternberg suggests that his most recent paper on it is a 2003 reply to Brody (the above paper) and to Gottfredson (who also published a critique, "Dissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and evidence", Intelligence 31:343-397 (2003)). --DAD T 07:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sternberg's Triarchic Theory