"Should the Obama Generation Drop Out?" (New York Times)

Parents Forum
241

<p>
[quote]
"Statistical distribution" here is kind of odd. What are the parameters? What do you mean?

[/quote]
This is a much better explanation than something i could come up with:</p>

<p>"Metric on the space of genomes and the scientific basis for race" </p>

<p>
[quote]
Why is it "fallacious?" We know from evolutionary biology that changes in large vs. small populations can be very different.

[/quote]
My point is that due to evolutionary pressure (and pure randomness, really) there are significant group differences. Height, weight, bone structure, body fat, musculature, skin color, etc. Whether we need a term like "race" to describe these physical differences or some sort of politically correct diverso-speak, whatever. They are there.</p>

242

<p>
[quote]
My point is that due to evolutionary pressure (and pure randomness, really) there are significant group differences.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, you are mistaken. Group differences could only be significant if there is selection pressure, especially because of the known very recent population bottleneck that humankind passed through in the Pleistocene period. The best-informed evolutionary psychologists </p>

<p>Evolutionary</a> Psychology Primer by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby </p>

<p>are quite sure that there is no reason to suppose there is any difference among human geographic population groups for selection pressure on "general intelligence," because if it's generally, it's generally useful in all environments and favored by selection pressure everywhere. </p>

<p>Mr Payne, did you ever take a statistics course at your undergraduate university? Did you ever take biology, or more particularly human genetics? </p>

<p>P.S. After edit of your post and this one of mine. I don't know why in the world you would cite an informal blog post (I have left the title in your post, but have removed the link to enforce the Terms of Service </p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item&lt;/a> </p>

<p>here) by a PHYSICIST as an authoritative statement of human genetics. He doesn't know what he's talking about, because he doesn't consider the role of selection pressure. Simply put, he is not thinking like a biologist who knows the science of evolution.</p>

243

<p>"are quite sure that there is no reason to suppose there is any difference among human geographic population groups for selection pressure on "general intelligence," because if it's generally, it's generally useful in all environments and favored by selection pressure everywhere." (tokenadult) </p>

<p>And that 'general intelligence' has been obvious in the recent past when groups have had to survive other bottlenecks. For example, the survivors of the 1348 plague. The predominant numbers of that population would have been people who would not have fit the standards of success for their time-not being amongst the aristocracy or clergy. And so if they could be magically brought to our time, they'd probably score low on such limited measures as IQ tests. But those who did survive did so in a hellishly difficult set of conditions. The same could be said of the epidemics which afflicted the populations of Native Americans, especially the Aztec and later smallpox and cholera epidemics. And the series of plagues which afflicted China. In all these populations obviously this general intelligence was instrumental in their survival. So attempts to place some mysterious enhanced quality unique to some population would seem to be largely wasted efforts. In pandemics survival cannot be necessarily attributed to some special attribute of some unique class or group, because often they did not survive whilst others did. De Comte in his poem made that very clear and its distressing that we cannot understand what he knew 661 some years ago. And especially since he was part of an incredibly hierarchical society which made no pretense of egalitarian motives.</p>

244

<p>"What a crock. Feynman's verbal skills were exceptional. The man was known as a fantastic orator and many of his most important discoveries were communicated VERBALLY long before they were communicated through journals (which he did not enjoy writing.)" - are you sure about this?? How about Einstein - how were his verbal skills? Both did poorly in school in non - math, science courses.</p>

245

<p>
[quote]
Actually, you are mistaken. Group differences could only be significant if there is selection pressure, especially because of the known very recent population bottleneck that humankind passed through in the Pleistocene period.

[/quote]
Yep. I believe selection pressures are quick acting.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The best-informed evolutionary psychologists</p>

<p>Evolutionary Psychology Primer by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby</p>

<p>are quite sure that there is no reason to suppose there is any difference among human geographic population groups for selection pressure on "general intelligence," because if it's generally, it's generally useful in all environments and favored by selection pressure everywhere.

[/quote]
There is going to be a point in the near future when every intelligence gene has been identified. I highly doubt that these genes will have the <em>exact same</em> frequency between populations that evolved in different geographically isolated environments.</p>

<p>This is good though. You acknowledge that:
1) Intelligence exists.
2) Selection pressure can be applied to it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Mr Payne, did you ever take a statistics course at your undergraduate university? Did you ever take biology, or more particularly human genetics?

[/quote]
Yes.</p>

<p>
[quote]
P.S. After edit of your post and this one of mine. I don't know why in the world you would cite an informal blog post (I have left the title in your post, but have removed the link to enforce the Terms of Service</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...q_new_faq_item%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...q_new_faq_item&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>here) by a PHYSICIST as an authoritative statement of human genetics. He doesn't know what he's talking about, because he doesn't consider the role of selection pressure. Simply put, he is not thinking like a biologist who knows the science of evolution.

[/quote]
Ummm, I posted that link to respond to UCLAri's question about what I meant about "statistical distribution". Are you disagreeing with that portion!?!?!</p>

246

<p>This is absurd and quite a few misconceptions about IQ abound in this thread.</p>

<p>First, IQ tests do not change significantly throughout one's life until around your 50s or so, when mental decline kicks in. Anecdotally, my IQ was professionally tested at age 11 to measure up for a gifted and talented program, five years ago for a volunteer study, and once more for fun last year. Three separate and different tests at different ages. The percentile remained virtually unchanged. Note that raw IQ scores don't matter quite as much as the percentile given IQ scores can vary slightly between test types (example, RAPM vs. WISC vs. Cattell Culture Fair III)</p>

<p>IQ, genius, and creativity are not the same concepts, although some too blinded by IQ imagine this to be the case. Upon confrontation with Feynman’s "low" IQ or Shockley's "low" IQ desperate rationalizations of poor test taking, “lousy test”, ensue like clockwork. That's all nonsense given that IQ tests correlate very well amongst each other. If they did not, IQ testing would have serious issues. </p>

<p>"Creativity and genius are unrelated to g except that a person's level of g acts as a threshold variable below which socially significant forms of creativity are highly improbable" - The G Factor, Arthur R. Jensen, 1998, p 577.</p>

<p>Lewis Terman (a hardcore eugenicist) launched a massive study that ultimately revealed that none of the very high IQ children in his study grew to become great geniuses or innovators. Nor do record holding IQ individuals like Marilyn vos Savant necessarily revolutionize like Shockley, Einstein, Darwin, Newton, etc. Conversely, Shockley was rejected from the Terman Study because his IQ didn't meet the 135 threshold. Obviously, you can disagree with Shockley's social beliefs but without him Silicon Valley wouldn't exist today. Stanford might own even more land though. Anyone holding a Nobel Prize in Physics and a major inventor is a genius—damn the IQ. Nobel Prize winning physicist Luis Alvarez did not make the Terman study either.</p>

<p>As far as IQ and SAT test goes … Charles Murray suggests abolishing the SAT.</p>

<p>Abolish</a> the SAT — The American, A Magazine of Ideas </p>

<p>Oh, and don't worry about those internet IQ tests. They're bullsht; they're too easy. Feeling curious? Man up and take a real one given by a real psychologist.</p>

<p>I'm not trying to downplay the importance of IQ but understand IQ measures probably only one faucet of mental ability and chances only one side of having a happy, productive, possibly even brilliant life. We’ve all heard mastermind musicians, and we all know of authors so imaginative with 26 letters he or she literally cast a spell. But stop, what is his or her IQ? </p>

<p>Who cares.</p>

<p>Let's study mental abilities beyond just correlating IQ with everything under the sun. That road of research ran worn over the past 70 years. And by “study” I mean funding and our own personal abilities. Certainly our parents and older CC posters know this intuitively.</p>

247

<p>"My point is that due to evolutionary pressure (and pure randomness, really) there are significant group differences. Height, weight, bone structure, body fat, musculature, skin color, etc. Whether we need a term like "race" to describe these physical differences or some sort of politically correct diverso-speak, whatever. They are there." </p>

<p>Does that mean we can consider the steam ship, and train evolutionary pressure? Many of the attributes that are applied to most modern populations were heavily influenced by the changes in marriage patterns brought about by these technologies. As such with the development and spread of these technologies it becomes much harder to defend significant group differences as anything defensibly specific. </p>

<p>And even prior to the development of these technologies, large movements of cultures tended to change group traits. Examples would be the migratory era in early European history, the expansion of Islam, the astarte movement in the medieval period, the Mongol expansion, the Age of discovery and the attendant expansion of European populations into new areas and etc. With those considerations it becomes very difficult to defend a clear line of demarcation for group differences. Some wandering Mongol, Saxon invader, Aztec pochteca, Dutch trader and etc made the whole concept a bit of a joke the first time they had a little involvement along with their other more obvious activities.</p>

248

<p>
[quote]
IQ tests do not change significantly throughout one's life until around your 50s or so, when mental decline kicks in.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Alas, this statement is not as correct as most of the other statements in your post. I welcome you to look up the citations I have already provided in an earlier post in this thread. There are many examples of many individuals with significant changes in IQ scores at a variety of ages, including many who were found in the course of the Terman study, which you mention. </p>

<p>
[quote]
IQ, genius, and creativity are not the same concepts, although some too blinded by IQ imagine this to be the case.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>True, and this is well known among psychologists. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Lewis Terman (a hardcore eugenicist) launched a massive study that ultimately revealed that none of the very high IQ children in his study grew to become great geniuses or innovators. Nor do record holding IQ individuals like Marilyn vos Savant necessarily revolutionize like Shockley, Einstein, Darwin, Newton, etc.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>True. By the way, I have severe doubts about the accuracy of the claim that Marilyn Vos Savant has a record-breaking IQ score, although that is her claim. </p>

<p>
[quote]
As far as IQ and SAT test goes … Charles Murray suggests abolishing the SAT.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Abolish</a> the SAT — The American, A Magazine of Ideas </p>

<p>Yes, that is an interesting policy position on his part, especially because he believes that taking the SAT is what provided him the opportunity to go from a small town in Iowa, without college-educated parents (as I recall), and attend some elite institutions of higher education. But today Murray thinks his more recent policy proposals will provide more opportunity for more young people, and I think those ideas are worth discussing (which is why I opened this thread). </p>

<p>
[quote]
understand IQ measures probably only one faucet of mental ability and chances only one side of having a happy, productive, possibly even brilliant life.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Correct. Even Lewis Terman said so. "There are, however, certain characteristics of age scores with which the reader should be familiar. For one thing, it is necessary to bear in mind that the true mental age as we have used it refers to the mental age on a particular intelligence test. A subject's mental age in this sense may not coincide with the age score he would make in tests of musical ability, mechanical ability, social adjustment, etc. A subject has, strictly speaking, a number of mental ages; we are here concerned only with that which depends on the abilities tested by the new Stanford-Binet scales." (Terman & Merrill 1937, p. 25)</p>

249

<p>
[quote]
Does that mean we can consider the steam ship, and train evolutionary pressure? Many of the attributes that are applied to most modern populations were heavily influenced by the changes in marriage patterns brought about by these technologies. As such with the development and spread of these technologies it becomes much harder to defend significant group differences as anything defensibly specific.</p>

<p>And even prior to the development of these technologies, large movements of cultures tended to change group traits. Examples would be the migratory era in early European history, the expansion of Islam, the astarte movement in the medieval period, the Mongol expansion, the Age of discovery and the attendant expansion of European populations into new areas and etc. With those considerations it becomes very difficult to defend a clear line of demarcation for group differences. Some wandering Mongol, Saxon invader, Aztec pochteca, Dutch trader and etc made the whole concept a bit of a joke the first time they had a little involvement along with their other more obvious activities.

[/quote]
I have no idea what you are babbling about. Environment provides selection pressure, yes. I have no idea how you think this negates group differences.</p>

<p>A simple look at the Olympics makes this abundantly clear.</p>

250

<p>Mr Payne,</p>

<p>I understand what a statistical distribution is. I just don't believe that you're being clear with how you define the parameters for your argument. </p>

<p>The point is not that every group will necessarily have the exact same distribution, but that we cannot know. µ and σ are unknowable. We can know µ<em>hat and σ</em>hat, but then we still don't know for certain what the actual distribution is.</p>

<p>And since we cannot know the most important parameters of a distribution, how can we make such strong statements?</p>

<p>
[quote]
A simple look at the Olympics makes this abundantly clear.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, it does not. We can actually say very little because we are dealing with so many variables that we cannot statistically control for.</p>

251

<p>Yes, again I will ask Mr Payne if he ever took a statistics class in college. There isn't any study with the proper design in existence to show that there are "significant" differences between "race" groups in any genetically determined characteristic that can properly be labeled "intelligence."</p>

252

<p>
[quote]
Yes, again I will ask Mr Payne if he ever took a statistics class in college.

[/quote]
I will not answer it again though.</p>

<p>
[quote]
There isn't any study with the proper design in existence to show that there are "significant" differences between "race" groups in any genetically determined characteristic that can properly be labeled "intelligence."

[/quote]
I agree. There is also no study in existence that shows that there are no "significant" differences between "race" groups in any genetically determined characteristic that can be properly labeled "intelligence".</p>

253

<p>
[quote]
No, it does not. We can actually say very little because we are dealing with so many variables that we cannot statistically control for.

[/quote]
Lol, not a big believer in "White Man Can't Jump."?</p>

254

<p>Mr Payne,</p>

<p>No, I'm not. Haven't done fairly beefy pooled OLS work, I can say that even systems where we have some degree of control over unobserved heterogeneity are messy. This is messy beyond belief. I can't even begin to think how we would control for unobservable variables.</p>

<p>Also, because we've seen no studies either way means that we remain agnostic! That's my point! </p>

<p>It's more honest to say, "I don't know" than to say, "I know this for certain" in this case.</p>

255

<p>To me, it's enough to note that NOBODY who promotes a view of genetic racial differences in intelligence is a person with sound training in genetics. That shows well enough what the scientific consensus is. James R. Flynn, a researcher well respected by Arthur Jensen, writes in a book praised by Charles Murray </p>

<p>Amazon.com:</a> What Is Intelligence?: Beyond the Flynn Effect: James R. Flynn: Books </p>

<p>about many reasons to pay closer attention to environmental factors in the development of intelligence, with meticulous citations to the research literature on the subject. I invite all of you to read the book; it is quite educational.</p>

256

<p>
[quote]
Also, because we've seen no studies either way means that we remain agnostic! That's my point!

[/quote]
I understand your point. Just because something hasn't been proven or disproven yet is no reason not to have an opinion though (for me, at least).</p>

<p>
[quote]
To me, it's enough to note that NOBODY who promotes a view of genetic racial differences in intelligence is a person with sound training in genetics.

[/quote]
They do, just anonymously (GNXP, etc.). The political backlash on this is impossibly heavy. Hard to do in a field which requires funding.</p>

<p>Really, only a few things need to happen.
1) Find the genes which predict IQ.
2) Find the distributions of genes between populations (this is already being done by HapMap, etc).</p>

257

<p>You forgot the step "find a gene that reliably identifies 'race' in the sense indicated here." So far, most of the armchair speculation is all an epic fail, when there is plenty of real-world observation to confirm the view that environmental factors are powerful in the expression of IQ.</p>

258

<p>
[quote]
You forgot the step "find a gene that reliably identifies 'race' in the sense indicated here."

[/quote]
Race isn't a gene. It's a collection of genes which identifies someone as coming from a certain geographic ancestry. Is that difficult to understand?</p>

259

<p>I think it's bull because honestly, if you're an excellent student and you don't have a lot of money, you can go to your state school with lots and lots of merit money.
I'm not even that good of a student and I get a free ride to UMass Amherst.</p>

260

<p>"Race isn't a gene. It's a collection of genes which identifies someone as coming from a certain geographic ancestry. Is that difficult to understand?" </p>

<p>Ok geographic ancestry, which has already been diffused by the movement of peoples and technology. And has been for some time. Using the general term and commonly understood meaning of Anglo Saxon...is that those descended from the Celts and if so which group Iberian, Gallic, Briton, Breton?, or from Roman antecedents with all the genetic variation that implies (there is good evidence of Roman auxiliaries in Britain who were often drawn from the fringes of empire), the Saxons and Angles (some of whom ended up as auxiliaries for the Byzantine Emperor after the Norman conquest. And its improbable they stayed stalwartly celibate whilst on the Byzantine frontiers) , or the Vikings especially the Rus (who had contacts in Byzantium and into Russian central Asia with all that also implies), or Normans? Virtually all these groups had contacts with peoples well outside of their geographic ancestry and that contact wasn't limited to trading and warfare it did involve more intimate contacts...is that difficult to understand?</p>