Steve seems to believe that it has been scientifically proven that differences in average IQ between population groups cannot possibly be genetic, while CAS is asserting a more modest claim that it's a grave scientific mistake to assume that measured IQ differences are primarily due to genetic factors given the well known en…
Steve seems to believe that it has been scientifically proven that differences in average IQ between population groups cannot possibly be genetic, while CAS is asserting a more modest claim that it's a grave scientific mistake to assume that measured IQ differences are primarily due to genetic factors given the well known environmental factors.
**So both are quite critical of any elements of society which "equate IQ differences with genetic differences" (between population groups) in your words.**
It's hard to see any politically relevant differences between Steve and CAS. Neither of the two seems any more racist (or anti-racist) than the other. There might be some quibbling over scientific details, but not politically.
Seems like a tempest in a tea pot. We can pick on details of some phrasing if we enjoy that sort of thing, but the gist of both of their positions seems highly compatible.
(My own quibble: in Steve's excerpts CAS sometimes refers to the facet of cognition which IQ aims to measure correctly as "general intelligence", but is sloppy in just calling it "intelligence" at other times. "General intelligence" is a scientifically defined term, and IQ tests are scientifically accepted as a valid (though not perfect) measure of it. "Intelligence" however is an English word with no scientific meaning, any more than "smart" or "clever" and which in common language may or may not refer to aspects of cognition beyond general intelligence. So CAS should have been more consistent in terminology to avoid that confusion. Nevertheless, from the context, this appears to just be undisciplined writing, as CAS does correctly reference "general intelligence" when speaking carefully).
"Steve seems to believe that it has been scientifically proven that differences in average IQ between population groups cannot possibly be genetic,"
No, I don't believe this. My issue is with the assignation of population groups based on skin colour. As I've said countless times, this makes as little sense as assigning population groups based on hair colour or head shape. I make this point, albeit in different words, in the conversation itself:
"I'm not genetically or culturally similar to a black person living in Kenya. Or Namibia. Or Zimbabwe. They aren't similar to each other. Using this superficial similarity to categorise billions of people is silly whether it's Asians or black people or white people."
My skin is the same colour as somebody from Kenya. But the distance between my ancestors (from Sierra Leone) and Kenya is greater than the distance between my ancestors and Sweden! So what is the value of categorising us both as "black" for the purposes of IQ? We are not particularly similar genetically or culturally.
I think the question of whether IQ differences are genetic is an interesting one, but there's not nearly enough consensus to say one way or another. The point I'm trying to make (I feel as if a significant portion of my writing career has been spent trying to make this point😅) is that a genetic factor in IQ or any other measure wouldn't mean that black people would all be similar in how they tested for this measure.
A few notes tho. American descendants of slavery do not represent the genetic diversity of the continent of Africa. They came overwhelmingly from a few tribes in Western Africa. Likewise other "racial" or ethnic groups in the US are not statistically valid representations of Europe or China or anywhere else.
Today, about 10-12% of African-Americans did not descend from slaves (at least not slaves imported to the territories which became the US) - their families migrated more recently, and largely from different parts of Africa than the imported slave did. And their aggregate statistics differ as well. I have no objection to treating them as different population group, rather than lumping just by skin color and ignoring cultural differences, for example.
Most of the population group measurements of g in the United States cannot be extrapolated to conclude anything about whole continents which differ from US population groups, both genetically and culturally and socio-economically. But no scientist would pretend that they do so generalize; there's nobody here arguing that they do. So making points about the genetic diversity within Africa or Asia are entirely a distraction in a discussion of measurements of US population groups, as self identified.
The only value that such population group measurements may have, is in analyzing similar statistics in other areas, using the same self-identified population groups. Doing to in no way implies how much the population groups are genetically definable! Basically we are comparing, say, how people who check the "Asian-American" box differ from people who check the "Latino/Hispanic" box. Or Americans who self identify as "Catholic" versus "Protestant" or "Atheist". Let's not pretend that those categories of self identification are meaningless, and thus that any statistics gathered using those categories are completely meaningless, unless we can genetically distinguish every Catholic from every Protestant, or every Asian from every Latino. And invoking the world-wide genetic differences among Catholics does not inform such a discussion specifically limited to American Catholics and American Protestants (who are not being asserted to be indistinguishable from Catholics and Protestants in other parts of the world.
The frustrating part is making an carefully qualified and modest assertion specific to one context, and having people broaden it into some global assertion about the entire human race, which I would dispute myself, and then proceed to dispute that unqualified assertion as if that (accidental strawman) thereby invalidates my more modest one. I'm willing to defend, refine, or withdraw the assertions I actually make, based on new evidence and reasoning. But I cannot be held responsible for things I do not believe but which others imagine I might be saying.
"American descendants of slavery do not represent the genetic diversity of the continent of Africa."
True. But now, in 2022, "black people" in America do represent a meaningful portion of the genetic diversity of Africa. And, of course, black people have also mixed with other ethnicities but are still considered "black" for the census purposes.
>>>"But no scientist would pretend that they do so generalize;"
Yes, they do! I pointed this out during the conversation. Here's a report about Nicholas Wade doing precisely that (https://www.science.org/content/article/geneticists-decry-book-race-and-evolution)! Charles Murray does too. Albeit less overtly. Nobody *here* is arguing it, I haven't claimed they are. But that's very different to saying that *nobody* is arguing it.
I don't need to talk about the genetic diversity in Asia or Africa to make my point. I do so just because it's easier for some people to grasp when I talk about the diversity of entire continents. But sticking with the U.S., many self-identified African Americans have less than 50% African ancestry. Some have less than 2% (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289685/bin/mmc1.pdf). The one drop rule was a trip. So even if we're talking exclusively about the U.S., I don't think talking about genetic diversity is a distraction.
But yes, I find the categories broadly meaningless. I'm a little lost on the point you're trying to make about Protestants and Atheists, but would you consider IQ research based on religion to be meaningful? What should we do if we found that Atheists had higher IQ, on average, than Protestants?
I'm generalising out the point Cas is making because doing so makes it easier to see the flaws in it. And because the people who make racist arguments based on these ideas about "race" and genetics certainly aren't being nuanced about population groups. But as I've hopefully demonstrated, those same flaws exist even if you're specific about America.
So I'm guess I'm just not clear about what qualified and modest assertion you're trying to make.
"What should we do if we found that Atheists had higher IQ, on average, than Protestants?"
I would be very, very surprised to learn otherwise.
We grow up under intense pressure to accept religion and until very recently the same was true almost everywhere in the world. Faith is expected to be exempt from analysis and logic (especially logic) and many a child has been beaten for even making a joke about church, much less expressing actual skepticism. And we are led to believe that we are under continual divine surveillance, even of our thoughts, by a vengeful god with his hand on a trapdoor lever.
To tunnel one's way out of believing this nonsense requires extreme intellectual independence, one that is not even exhibited by all very intelligent people, much less by average people.
Steve, let's examine this step by step to avoid accidental memory lapses. I said:
PGBR> "Most of the population group measurements of g in the United States cannot be extrapolated to conclude anything about whole continents which differ from US population groups, both genetically and culturally and socio-economically. But no scientist would pretend that they do so generalize"
I followed that link and read every word, and was not able to find where Nicolas Wade does "precisely that", ie: generalize American IQ measurements to characterize continental populations.
Could you quote where Wade generalized from US tests to global conclusions? If not, it would appear that your citation does not actually support the assertion you made, but perhaps you meant to cite something else.
What I did find, in Wade's own words, from your link, was:
NW> "They charge me with saying that "recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results." I say no such thing. What I do say (p. 193) is that "It may be hazardous to compare the IQ scores of different races if allowance is not made for differences in wealth, nutrition and other factors that influence IQ."
I am quite willing to change my assertion (quoted at the beginning above) if you can cite a scientist who does what I say no scientist does (generalize from US IQ data to global conclusions), but so far I've seen no example at all, much less one where a scientist "does precisely that".
PS: Wade is a journalist, not a scientist. But I'd still be interested in anything you can actually quote from him which does what I assert that no scientist does.
"Could you quote where Wade generalized from US tests to global conclusions?"
I'm not sure what to make of this. Is the only thing that will satisfy you a direct quote from Wade saying, "I think differences in IQ in racial groups in America can be generalised out to population groups from other continents?" Is your point that no scientist is literally saying the exact thing you're saying, not by implication and context, but verbatim?
In that case, no, I can't provide a quote to support that. But given that Wade's central claim is that racial differences are based on evolutionary differences between the "races," that's inescapably a genetic argument as far as I can see. Which then means that the differences aren't specific to the US (indeed, Wade is British) but are about "population groups," "races" in this case, across the world.
Wade identifies 3-5 "races" by misinterpreting research from one of the scientists quoted in the article. Not only is this counter to common knowledge (and common sense) about genetics, it again suggests, if you take him seriously, that the fact that one of the "races" happens to be in America would have no bearing on anything else.
And lastly, from the quote that you shared, what Wade is arguing here is that it "may be dangerous to compare the IQ scores of different 'races'"(there's a specific critique of his ideas on race here - https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-troublesome-response-ni_b_5419505) when you control for income, health etc. I'm curious, what do you think he's implying here?
To be clear, I'm not calling Wade a racist or a white supremacist or anything of the sort. I'm saying that people do so generalise. Fair point about Wade being a writer and not a scientist, but he's presenting his ideas as if they're supported by scientific research. Again, Murray does the same thing. And while I'm confident that you are personally intelligent enough to nuance the specifics of these points, people like Peyton Gendron aren't. That's why these inaccuracies matter.
Also, just a quick aside: I'm sure this isn't intentional, but phrases like "to avoid any accidental memory lapses" sound incredibly condescending. Similarly, repeatedly talking about the inability of "some readers" to talk about racial issues objectively (while assuring me that you aren't referring to me necessarily) still feels very much directed at me.
After all, I don't see how it's helpful to inform me what other readers might do. And I talk about race and racism quite reguarly without getting emotional. So unless I start sobbing and calling you a white supremacist, can we assume that no further caveats about the potential emotionality of racial topics are required?
> "Is your point that no scientist is literally saying the exact thing you're saying, not by implication and context, but verbatim?"
You asserted that Wade did "precisely that". I am merely asking for you to quote the section of the article you linked as supporting your point, the words which you interpret as generalizing US tests to the world, whether precisely or fuzzily. I did not ask for verbatim, just show whatever words he said which you thing translate to the belief you attribute to him.
About your latter points If you and I were communicating privately, I would write differently. I always assume when writing on Substack (or public comments) that there will be more unknown readers than known ones, much less the direct person I am replying to. Taking it as if I must be talking about you or I wouldn't mention it, will lead to ongoing misunderstanding.
If I say I am not talking about you, then trust that. Exactly like I take you at your word when you say "And while I'm confident that you are personally intelligent enough to nuance the specifics of these points, people like Peyton Gendron aren't." I do NOT assume that you really are attributing lack of nuance to me, despite your explicit disclaimer otherwise; if I did, we'd needlessly go back and forth over my imagining that you were disingenuously insulting me. Instead I trust that you are speaking honestly and not indirectly trying to link me to someone else. If you give me the same trust, we'll avoid some miscommunication.
> "What should we do if we found that Atheists had higher IQ, on average, than Protestants?"
Same as any other population group:
(1) Assess each individual as an individual without pre-judgement based on group membership; remember that individuals may be typical or atypical of every population group of which they are a member
(2) Use group level statistics ONLY for context with other group level statistics using the same categories (comparing like with like). So if there were also population group level statistics about Protestants and Atheists differing in some social or material trait which might influence, or be influenced by, IQ, then examining for correlations or even cautious causations would be on the table. Such awareness could lead to alternative hypotheses which can be examined with evidence and reasoning. This "like with like" statistical group level analysis MUST be kept separate from assessing individuals!
(3) Take general intelligence (as measured by IQ) as only one of many factors which affect people's success and satisfaction in life; a significant one which should not be ignored or unduly discounted, but also not dominant in itself. True at both the individual and group levels.
I use such an example because some population groupings have such emotional charge that many readers may have trouble looking at them objectively - in part because they don't read what one is writing, but instead "hear echos" of some past thing that other people have written and are unable to emotionally separate the two. (Not saying you personally, just some humans in general).
The only thing I would be quick to add to your statements (which I think I have heard Steve say in the past):
-1- The genetic make up of those with dark skin is incredible diverse, often having much more common genetic material with a non-black than with another black. Thus even if IQ has an inherited aspect to it. We DO have scientific evidence that this would be very unlikely to coorelate with skin color, since GENES themselves don't coorelate with skin color.
-2- Whatever intelligence is, it seems to have a very very complex relationship with our genes. we have looked hard for any connections between brain function and genes and we mostly have come up empty handed. There are connections between many brain disfunctions and specific genes, but when it comes to brain function, there seem to not be strong connections (not considering race, just genes in general.) So we have a second piece of scientific evidence that IQ very unlikely to connect to race.
Still I agree with you. I don't think CAS as trying to make any claim on this.
There's some new stuff out by behavioral geneticist Paige Harden exploring the links and limits to genetic explanations for intelligence. Freddie DeBoer's book, The Cult of Smart, also delves into this quite a bit (and argues persuasively that race is irrelevant). My sense is that the unsatisfying reality is that we just simply don't have this all figured out yet -- the field is in its infancy and, like everything, is politicized. Whatever the truth is, I believe strongly in disentangling people's quality of life from any measure (valid or invalid) of intelligence, talent or ability. https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/disentangling-race-from-intelligence-and-genetics
To be honest, I was looking forward to Freddie's essay, and I came away quite disappointed. It has logical problem after problem, and is largely a muddled mess semantically.
He shoots down strawmen rather than trying to honestly address the hard issues. He mixes scientific assertions with morality assertions in ways that do not serve clear thinking.
Example. He makes two statements at the beginning. One is pretty scientific and falsifiable:
FdB> "Genetics play a substantial role in essentially all human outcomes, including what we define as "intelligence" or academic ability."
The other is a mess.
FdB> "Bigoted ideas about fundamental intellectual inequalities between demographic groups are wrong."
Is that an assertion about morality or about factual science? Which ideas on the subject fall under "bigoted" and which do not? What does "fundamental" mean in this context?
I sometimes like to "steelman" an argument - rather than rephrase it to an easily dismissed misimputation (strawmanning), rephrase it to make the best case. I cannot even steelman the above assertion, because I honestly don't know what he's trying to say.
FdB> "Black people aren't less intelligent than white, women aren't bad at science, Asian people do not have natural facility for math, etc."
This sounds like a profession of faith, not an attempt at clear meaningful statements. Let's try to state something more precise tho.
Here would be some actual falsifiable hypotheses which *might* underlie his assertion:
(1) "self-identified Americans of all racial and ethnic groups show the same average IQ at the group level when properly tested"
(2) "statistics about trained scientists show that women and men are equally successful in all fields of science"
(3) "as a population group, Asian-Americans have the same mathematics scores as any other racial or ethnic group"
I don't think that's what he's driving it. I think he may be trying to imply something about genetics, while trying to avoid using the word. Perhaps more like:
(1) "differing IQ results between American population groups have 0% genetic influence"
(2) "human females have genetically equal interest and ability to do science, so they would be equally represented in all sciences absent the effects of culture"
(3) "Asian-Americans' higher average math scores are completely due to cultural factors, with no genetic contribution."
But maybe not. Maybe he means:
(1) IQ varies within each racial/ethnic group, and the ranges highly overlap
(2) There are many good female scientists so it's a good option for interested young women
(3) If we all studied as hard as Asian students do, every group would achieve the same results
Overall, again I ask, is this meant to be a scientifically testable assertion, or a statement of political orthodoxy? The framing is much more suitable for the latter.
Alas, this kind of ambiguous and misleading framing just keeps occurring in Freddy's essay. I don't find much intellectual coherence to it; it's not as much that I dispute something so much as it's stated so clumsily that one often cannot even know whether they agree or disagree. Some of the above possible interpretations I would agree with, some I would not - based on my assessment of the cumulative evidence. But which did he mean?
My overall impression is that he's trying (1) to use science based arguments to defend genetics as very important to human traits (including intelligence) and also (2) to use morality based arguments and emotional terminology to distance himself from any population level issues. Thus the uneven tone. In discussing science based propositions, one can dispute their truth using evidence; one does not use labels like "bigoted" as scientific evidence for or against a hypothesis - that's injecting overt emotional and subjective biases which are the bane of real science. If one can prove a scientific hypothesis wrong, there is no need to impute evil motives to the hypothesizer - evidence over emotional manipulation.
Good questions that, alas, only Freddie can answer. He goes into more detail in his book if you're interested in digging deeper but his substack is paywalled (and he's not as inclined to engage with readers as our friend Steve QJ though sometimes he does).
I wish we could all just set the genetic aspect aside as not very relevant. I suspect that nobody frequenting Steve's substack has ever made, and will not be making, any argument which depends on IQ being substantially dependent on genetics.
I think the real discussions we need to have would be just as valid whether general intelligence was 0% genetic and 100% environmental, or vice versa, or something in between. That might be a valid science question for specialists to explore (even within the same race, or example using twin studies), but for our discussions, it's a distracting side track, yielding more heat than illumination.
Roughly about as often as they give birth to an equivalently less intelligent than average child? Assuming that "average intelligence" means somewhere close to the center of a reasonably normal distribution ("bell curve").
Could you say more about where you are going with that, what point you are exploring?
Dan, I agree.
Steve seems to believe that it has been scientifically proven that differences in average IQ between population groups cannot possibly be genetic, while CAS is asserting a more modest claim that it's a grave scientific mistake to assume that measured IQ differences are primarily due to genetic factors given the well known environmental factors.
**So both are quite critical of any elements of society which "equate IQ differences with genetic differences" (between population groups) in your words.**
It's hard to see any politically relevant differences between Steve and CAS. Neither of the two seems any more racist (or anti-racist) than the other. There might be some quibbling over scientific details, but not politically.
Seems like a tempest in a tea pot. We can pick on details of some phrasing if we enjoy that sort of thing, but the gist of both of their positions seems highly compatible.
(My own quibble: in Steve's excerpts CAS sometimes refers to the facet of cognition which IQ aims to measure correctly as "general intelligence", but is sloppy in just calling it "intelligence" at other times. "General intelligence" is a scientifically defined term, and IQ tests are scientifically accepted as a valid (though not perfect) measure of it. "Intelligence" however is an English word with no scientific meaning, any more than "smart" or "clever" and which in common language may or may not refer to aspects of cognition beyond general intelligence. So CAS should have been more consistent in terminology to avoid that confusion. Nevertheless, from the context, this appears to just be undisciplined writing, as CAS does correctly reference "general intelligence" when speaking carefully).
"Steve seems to believe that it has been scientifically proven that differences in average IQ between population groups cannot possibly be genetic,"
No, I don't believe this. My issue is with the assignation of population groups based on skin colour. As I've said countless times, this makes as little sense as assigning population groups based on hair colour or head shape. I make this point, albeit in different words, in the conversation itself:
"I'm not genetically or culturally similar to a black person living in Kenya. Or Namibia. Or Zimbabwe. They aren't similar to each other. Using this superficial similarity to categorise billions of people is silly whether it's Asians or black people or white people."
My skin is the same colour as somebody from Kenya. But the distance between my ancestors (from Sierra Leone) and Kenya is greater than the distance between my ancestors and Sweden! So what is the value of categorising us both as "black" for the purposes of IQ? We are not particularly similar genetically or culturally.
I think the question of whether IQ differences are genetic is an interesting one, but there's not nearly enough consensus to say one way or another. The point I'm trying to make (I feel as if a significant portion of my writing career has been spent trying to make this point😅) is that a genetic factor in IQ or any other measure wouldn't mean that black people would all be similar in how they tested for this measure.
Compare the number of misspelled words on signs at Trump rallies with signs in gatherings of the other side.
Also the mixing of uppercase and lowercase.
We fundamentally agree on the key points.
A few notes tho. American descendants of slavery do not represent the genetic diversity of the continent of Africa. They came overwhelmingly from a few tribes in Western Africa. Likewise other "racial" or ethnic groups in the US are not statistically valid representations of Europe or China or anywhere else.
Today, about 10-12% of African-Americans did not descend from slaves (at least not slaves imported to the territories which became the US) - their families migrated more recently, and largely from different parts of Africa than the imported slave did. And their aggregate statistics differ as well. I have no objection to treating them as different population group, rather than lumping just by skin color and ignoring cultural differences, for example.
Most of the population group measurements of g in the United States cannot be extrapolated to conclude anything about whole continents which differ from US population groups, both genetically and culturally and socio-economically. But no scientist would pretend that they do so generalize; there's nobody here arguing that they do. So making points about the genetic diversity within Africa or Asia are entirely a distraction in a discussion of measurements of US population groups, as self identified.
The only value that such population group measurements may have, is in analyzing similar statistics in other areas, using the same self-identified population groups. Doing to in no way implies how much the population groups are genetically definable! Basically we are comparing, say, how people who check the "Asian-American" box differ from people who check the "Latino/Hispanic" box. Or Americans who self identify as "Catholic" versus "Protestant" or "Atheist". Let's not pretend that those categories of self identification are meaningless, and thus that any statistics gathered using those categories are completely meaningless, unless we can genetically distinguish every Catholic from every Protestant, or every Asian from every Latino. And invoking the world-wide genetic differences among Catholics does not inform such a discussion specifically limited to American Catholics and American Protestants (who are not being asserted to be indistinguishable from Catholics and Protestants in other parts of the world.
The frustrating part is making an carefully qualified and modest assertion specific to one context, and having people broaden it into some global assertion about the entire human race, which I would dispute myself, and then proceed to dispute that unqualified assertion as if that (accidental strawman) thereby invalidates my more modest one. I'm willing to defend, refine, or withdraw the assertions I actually make, based on new evidence and reasoning. But I cannot be held responsible for things I do not believe but which others imagine I might be saying.
"American descendants of slavery do not represent the genetic diversity of the continent of Africa."
True. But now, in 2022, "black people" in America do represent a meaningful portion of the genetic diversity of Africa. And, of course, black people have also mixed with other ethnicities but are still considered "black" for the census purposes.
>>>"But no scientist would pretend that they do so generalize;"
Yes, they do! I pointed this out during the conversation. Here's a report about Nicholas Wade doing precisely that (https://www.science.org/content/article/geneticists-decry-book-race-and-evolution)! Charles Murray does too. Albeit less overtly. Nobody *here* is arguing it, I haven't claimed they are. But that's very different to saying that *nobody* is arguing it.
I don't need to talk about the genetic diversity in Asia or Africa to make my point. I do so just because it's easier for some people to grasp when I talk about the diversity of entire continents. But sticking with the U.S., many self-identified African Americans have less than 50% African ancestry. Some have less than 2% (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289685/bin/mmc1.pdf). The one drop rule was a trip. So even if we're talking exclusively about the U.S., I don't think talking about genetic diversity is a distraction.
But yes, I find the categories broadly meaningless. I'm a little lost on the point you're trying to make about Protestants and Atheists, but would you consider IQ research based on religion to be meaningful? What should we do if we found that Atheists had higher IQ, on average, than Protestants?
I'm generalising out the point Cas is making because doing so makes it easier to see the flaws in it. And because the people who make racist arguments based on these ideas about "race" and genetics certainly aren't being nuanced about population groups. But as I've hopefully demonstrated, those same flaws exist even if you're specific about America.
So I'm guess I'm just not clear about what qualified and modest assertion you're trying to make.
"What should we do if we found that Atheists had higher IQ, on average, than Protestants?"
I would be very, very surprised to learn otherwise.
We grow up under intense pressure to accept religion and until very recently the same was true almost everywhere in the world. Faith is expected to be exempt from analysis and logic (especially logic) and many a child has been beaten for even making a joke about church, much less expressing actual skepticism. And we are led to believe that we are under continual divine surveillance, even of our thoughts, by a vengeful god with his hand on a trapdoor lever.
To tunnel one's way out of believing this nonsense requires extreme intellectual independence, one that is not even exhibited by all very intelligent people, much less by average people.
Steve, let's examine this step by step to avoid accidental memory lapses. I said:
PGBR> "Most of the population group measurements of g in the United States cannot be extrapolated to conclude anything about whole continents which differ from US population groups, both genetically and culturally and socio-economically. But no scientist would pretend that they do so generalize"
SQ> "Yes, they do! I pointed this out during the conversation. Here's a report about Nicholas Wade doing precisely that (https://www.science.org/content/article/geneticists-decry-book-race-and-evolution)!"
I followed that link and read every word, and was not able to find where Nicolas Wade does "precisely that", ie: generalize American IQ measurements to characterize continental populations.
Could you quote where Wade generalized from US tests to global conclusions? If not, it would appear that your citation does not actually support the assertion you made, but perhaps you meant to cite something else.
What I did find, in Wade's own words, from your link, was:
NW> "They charge me with saying that "recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results." I say no such thing. What I do say (p. 193) is that "It may be hazardous to compare the IQ scores of different races if allowance is not made for differences in wealth, nutrition and other factors that influence IQ."
I am quite willing to change my assertion (quoted at the beginning above) if you can cite a scientist who does what I say no scientist does (generalize from US IQ data to global conclusions), but so far I've seen no example at all, much less one where a scientist "does precisely that".
PS: Wade is a journalist, not a scientist. But I'd still be interested in anything you can actually quote from him which does what I assert that no scientist does.
"Could you quote where Wade generalized from US tests to global conclusions?"
I'm not sure what to make of this. Is the only thing that will satisfy you a direct quote from Wade saying, "I think differences in IQ in racial groups in America can be generalised out to population groups from other continents?" Is your point that no scientist is literally saying the exact thing you're saying, not by implication and context, but verbatim?
In that case, no, I can't provide a quote to support that. But given that Wade's central claim is that racial differences are based on evolutionary differences between the "races," that's inescapably a genetic argument as far as I can see. Which then means that the differences aren't specific to the US (indeed, Wade is British) but are about "population groups," "races" in this case, across the world.
Wade identifies 3-5 "races" by misinterpreting research from one of the scientists quoted in the article. Not only is this counter to common knowledge (and common sense) about genetics, it again suggests, if you take him seriously, that the fact that one of the "races" happens to be in America would have no bearing on anything else.
And lastly, from the quote that you shared, what Wade is arguing here is that it "may be dangerous to compare the IQ scores of different 'races'"(there's a specific critique of his ideas on race here - https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-troublesome-response-ni_b_5419505) when you control for income, health etc. I'm curious, what do you think he's implying here?
To be clear, I'm not calling Wade a racist or a white supremacist or anything of the sort. I'm saying that people do so generalise. Fair point about Wade being a writer and not a scientist, but he's presenting his ideas as if they're supported by scientific research. Again, Murray does the same thing. And while I'm confident that you are personally intelligent enough to nuance the specifics of these points, people like Peyton Gendron aren't. That's why these inaccuracies matter.
Also, just a quick aside: I'm sure this isn't intentional, but phrases like "to avoid any accidental memory lapses" sound incredibly condescending. Similarly, repeatedly talking about the inability of "some readers" to talk about racial issues objectively (while assuring me that you aren't referring to me necessarily) still feels very much directed at me.
After all, I don't see how it's helpful to inform me what other readers might do. And I talk about race and racism quite reguarly without getting emotional. So unless I start sobbing and calling you a white supremacist, can we assume that no further caveats about the potential emotionality of racial topics are required?
> "Is your point that no scientist is literally saying the exact thing you're saying, not by implication and context, but verbatim?"
You asserted that Wade did "precisely that". I am merely asking for you to quote the section of the article you linked as supporting your point, the words which you interpret as generalizing US tests to the world, whether precisely or fuzzily. I did not ask for verbatim, just show whatever words he said which you thing translate to the belief you attribute to him.
About your latter points If you and I were communicating privately, I would write differently. I always assume when writing on Substack (or public comments) that there will be more unknown readers than known ones, much less the direct person I am replying to. Taking it as if I must be talking about you or I wouldn't mention it, will lead to ongoing misunderstanding.
If I say I am not talking about you, then trust that. Exactly like I take you at your word when you say "And while I'm confident that you are personally intelligent enough to nuance the specifics of these points, people like Peyton Gendron aren't." I do NOT assume that you really are attributing lack of nuance to me, despite your explicit disclaimer otherwise; if I did, we'd needlessly go back and forth over my imagining that you were disingenuously insulting me. Instead I trust that you are speaking honestly and not indirectly trying to link me to someone else. If you give me the same trust, we'll avoid some miscommunication.
> "What should we do if we found that Atheists had higher IQ, on average, than Protestants?"
Same as any other population group:
(1) Assess each individual as an individual without pre-judgement based on group membership; remember that individuals may be typical or atypical of every population group of which they are a member
(2) Use group level statistics ONLY for context with other group level statistics using the same categories (comparing like with like). So if there were also population group level statistics about Protestants and Atheists differing in some social or material trait which might influence, or be influenced by, IQ, then examining for correlations or even cautious causations would be on the table. Such awareness could lead to alternative hypotheses which can be examined with evidence and reasoning. This "like with like" statistical group level analysis MUST be kept separate from assessing individuals!
(3) Take general intelligence (as measured by IQ) as only one of many factors which affect people's success and satisfaction in life; a significant one which should not be ignored or unduly discounted, but also not dominant in itself. True at both the individual and group levels.
I use such an example because some population groupings have such emotional charge that many readers may have trouble looking at them objectively - in part because they don't read what one is writing, but instead "hear echos" of some past thing that other people have written and are unable to emotionally separate the two. (Not saying you personally, just some humans in general).
Thanks PGBR:
The only thing I would be quick to add to your statements (which I think I have heard Steve say in the past):
-1- The genetic make up of those with dark skin is incredible diverse, often having much more common genetic material with a non-black than with another black. Thus even if IQ has an inherited aspect to it. We DO have scientific evidence that this would be very unlikely to coorelate with skin color, since GENES themselves don't coorelate with skin color.
-2- Whatever intelligence is, it seems to have a very very complex relationship with our genes. we have looked hard for any connections between brain function and genes and we mostly have come up empty handed. There are connections between many brain disfunctions and specific genes, but when it comes to brain function, there seem to not be strong connections (not considering race, just genes in general.) So we have a second piece of scientific evidence that IQ very unlikely to connect to race.
Still I agree with you. I don't think CAS as trying to make any claim on this.
A beautiful summary of two of my main points about race, genetics and IQ. Thanks Dan.
+1
There's some new stuff out by behavioral geneticist Paige Harden exploring the links and limits to genetic explanations for intelligence. Freddie DeBoer's book, The Cult of Smart, also delves into this quite a bit (and argues persuasively that race is irrelevant). My sense is that the unsatisfying reality is that we just simply don't have this all figured out yet -- the field is in its infancy and, like everything, is politicized. Whatever the truth is, I believe strongly in disentangling people's quality of life from any measure (valid or invalid) of intelligence, talent or ability. https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/disentangling-race-from-intelligence-and-genetics
To be honest, I was looking forward to Freddie's essay, and I came away quite disappointed. It has logical problem after problem, and is largely a muddled mess semantically.
He shoots down strawmen rather than trying to honestly address the hard issues. He mixes scientific assertions with morality assertions in ways that do not serve clear thinking.
Example. He makes two statements at the beginning. One is pretty scientific and falsifiable:
FdB> "Genetics play a substantial role in essentially all human outcomes, including what we define as "intelligence" or academic ability."
The other is a mess.
FdB> "Bigoted ideas about fundamental intellectual inequalities between demographic groups are wrong."
Is that an assertion about morality or about factual science? Which ideas on the subject fall under "bigoted" and which do not? What does "fundamental" mean in this context?
I sometimes like to "steelman" an argument - rather than rephrase it to an easily dismissed misimputation (strawmanning), rephrase it to make the best case. I cannot even steelman the above assertion, because I honestly don't know what he's trying to say.
FdB> "Black people aren't less intelligent than white, women aren't bad at science, Asian people do not have natural facility for math, etc."
This sounds like a profession of faith, not an attempt at clear meaningful statements. Let's try to state something more precise tho.
Here would be some actual falsifiable hypotheses which *might* underlie his assertion:
(1) "self-identified Americans of all racial and ethnic groups show the same average IQ at the group level when properly tested"
(2) "statistics about trained scientists show that women and men are equally successful in all fields of science"
(3) "as a population group, Asian-Americans have the same mathematics scores as any other racial or ethnic group"
I don't think that's what he's driving it. I think he may be trying to imply something about genetics, while trying to avoid using the word. Perhaps more like:
(1) "differing IQ results between American population groups have 0% genetic influence"
(2) "human females have genetically equal interest and ability to do science, so they would be equally represented in all sciences absent the effects of culture"
(3) "Asian-Americans' higher average math scores are completely due to cultural factors, with no genetic contribution."
But maybe not. Maybe he means:
(1) IQ varies within each racial/ethnic group, and the ranges highly overlap
(2) There are many good female scientists so it's a good option for interested young women
(3) If we all studied as hard as Asian students do, every group would achieve the same results
Overall, again I ask, is this meant to be a scientifically testable assertion, or a statement of political orthodoxy? The framing is much more suitable for the latter.
Alas, this kind of ambiguous and misleading framing just keeps occurring in Freddy's essay. I don't find much intellectual coherence to it; it's not as much that I dispute something so much as it's stated so clumsily that one often cannot even know whether they agree or disagree. Some of the above possible interpretations I would agree with, some I would not - based on my assessment of the cumulative evidence. But which did he mean?
My overall impression is that he's trying (1) to use science based arguments to defend genetics as very important to human traits (including intelligence) and also (2) to use morality based arguments and emotional terminology to distance himself from any population level issues. Thus the uneven tone. In discussing science based propositions, one can dispute their truth using evidence; one does not use labels like "bigoted" as scientific evidence for or against a hypothesis - that's injecting overt emotional and subjective biases which are the bane of real science. If one can prove a scientific hypothesis wrong, there is no need to impute evil motives to the hypothesizer - evidence over emotional manipulation.
Good questions that, alas, only Freddie can answer. He goes into more detail in his book if you're interested in digging deeper but his substack is paywalled (and he's not as inclined to engage with readers as our friend Steve QJ though sometimes he does).
I wish we could all just set the genetic aspect aside as not very relevant. I suspect that nobody frequenting Steve's substack has ever made, and will not be making, any argument which depends on IQ being substantially dependent on genetics.
I think the real discussions we need to have would be just as valid whether general intelligence was 0% genetic and 100% environmental, or vice versa, or something in between. That might be a valid science question for specialists to explore (even within the same race, or example using twin studies), but for our discussions, it's a distracting side track, yielding more heat than illumination.
How often does a pair of average-intelligence parents give birth to a very intelligent child?
Roughly about as often as they give birth to an equivalently less intelligent than average child? Assuming that "average intelligence" means somewhere close to the center of a reasonably normal distribution ("bell curve").
Could you say more about where you are going with that, what point you are exploring?