Monday, December 10, 2007

Whack! (Whinny!) Whack! (Whinny!) Whack! Whack! Whack!

Because I know my loyal readers just can't get enough of this topic, here's the latest volley in the battle over the extent to which genes influence intelligence. Some choice excerpts:

Flynn points out that scores in some of the categories—those measuring general knowledge, say, or vocabulary or the ability to do basic arithmetic—have risen only modestly over time. The big gains on the WISC are largely in the category known as “similarities,” where you get questions such as “In what way are ‘dogs’ and ‘rabbits’ alike?” Today, we tend to give what, for the purposes of I.Q. tests, is the right answer: dogs and rabbits are both mammals. A nineteenth-century American would have said that “you use dogs to hunt rabbits.”

“If the everyday world is your cognitive home, it is not natural to detach abstractions and logic and the hypothetical from their concrete referents,” Flynn writes. Our great-grandparents may have been perfectly intelligent. But they would have done poorly on I.Q. tests because they did not participate in the twentieth century’s great cognitive revolution, in which we learned to sort experience according to a new set of abstract categories. In Flynn’s phrase, we have now had to put on “scientific spectacles,” which enable us to make sense of the WISC questions about similarities. To say that Dutch I.Q. scores rose substantially between 1952 and 1982 was another way of saying that the Netherlands in 1982 was, in at least certain respects, much more cognitively demanding than the Netherlands in 1952. An I.Q., in other words, measures not so much how smart we are as how modern we are.

...

[Flynn] looked first at [Richard] Lynn’s data, and realized that the comparison was skewed. Lynn was comparing American I.Q. estimates based on a representative sample of schoolchildren with Japanese estimates based on an upper-income, heavily urban sample. Recalculated, the Japanese average came in not at 106.6 but at 99.2. Then Flynn turned his attention to the Chinese-American estimates. They turned out to be based on a 1975 study in San Francisco’s Chinatown using something called the Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test. But the Lorge-Thorndike test was normed in the nineteen-fifties. For children in the nineteen-seventies, it would have been a piece of cake. When the Chinese-American scores were reassessed using up-to-date intelligence metrics, Flynn found, they came in at 97 verbal and 100 nonverbal. Chinese-Americans had slightly lower I.Q.s than white Americans.

...

Flynn took a different approach. The black-white gap, he pointed out, differs dramatically by age. He noted that the tests we have for measuring the cognitive functioning of infants, though admittedly crude, show the races to be almost the same. By age four, the average black I.Q. is 95.4—only four and a half points behind the average white I.Q. Then the real gap emerges: from age four through twenty-four, blacks lose six-tenths of a point a year, until their scores settle at 83.4.

That steady decline, Flynn said, did not resemble the usual pattern of genetic influence. Instead, it was exactly what you would expect, given the disparate cognitive environments that whites and blacks encounter as they grow older.

...

Flynn then talked about what we’ve learned from studies of adoption and mixed-race children—and that evidence didn’t fit a genetic model, either. If I.Q. is innate, it shouldn’t make a difference whether it’s a mixed-race child’s mother or father who is black. But it does: children with a white mother and a black father have an eight-point I.Q. advantage over those with a black mother and a white father. And it shouldn’t make much of a difference where a mixed-race child is born. But, again, it does: the children fathered by black American G.I.s in postwar Germany and brought up by their German mothers have the same I.Q.s as the children of white American G.I.s and German mothers.

7 comments:

Ross said...

I've almost finished Flynn's "What is Intelligence" (the book that appears to be reviewed by this article). It's an interesting and cogent explanation of how measurement errors exaggerated the statistical curiosity called the Flynn Effect.

However, almost everything that was explained was time-based and culture-based measurement bias in IQ testing. There are still statistically significant differences in performance between population groups after those variables are isolated. They're just smaller than the original Flynn Effect stats.

He also implies an excellent case for the minimal utility of IQ testing and in his opinion, achievement is a much better metric for comparing individuals and groups, since achievement almost always requires hard work in addition to native ability.

Ed said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ron said...

Ed -- I've deleted your comment because it's off-topic. If you want to communicate about the film just send me an email. Contact info is on the web site.

momndadmac said...

My apologies, I posted here because I couldn't find a Web site. Can you post the address?

Ron said...

http://www.butforthegraceofgodmovie.com/

Don Geddis said...

Since Ron enjoys this race/IQ topic, perhaps he'd like this recent .

Don Geddis said...

Hmm. Published comment didn't match the preview. Strange. It should have been Tom the Dancing Bug, at http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2007/12/29/

Let's try a link again.