When I read "The Bell Curve" it seemed to have been well thought out and to proper statistical standards, but I have questions and observations about intelligence tests. I have taken them and done well enough, but I've observed that some areas of the test would be helped by education (including the type of education) and the types of exp…
When I read "The Bell Curve" it seemed to have been well thought out and to proper statistical standards, but I have questions and observations about intelligence tests. I have taken them and done well enough, but I've observed that some areas of the test would be helped by education (including the type of education) and the types of experience you have.
My wife, as a child the barefoot little girl on a water buffalo in a rice paddy from old postcard pictures has minimal education and I have no doubt that she would score much lower than me on these tests. Having lived with her for fifty-two years I have no doubt that she is far more intelligent than the test would indicate. We have different aptitudes which supply different outlooks for problem solving. Depending upon the task, sometimes it would be best to listen to her, or let her perform the task. Important factors: genetically inherited tendencies (yes, I'm saying genetics matter), the cultural zeitgeist that we lived in during our formative years, the things we focused on growing up, education (in what?) and cultural bias in what is being measured.
Does my above average capability in abstract reasoning, spatial relations and mechanical problem-solving ability make me more intelligent than someone with less ability in those areas but better capability in other areas? I don't think so, though that may make me more suited for some tasks or careers. And of course, I've done my share of stupid things for someone assumed to be smart enough to have not done them. The average of the various things being measured, weighted against each other in ways unknown to me might be very biased for obtaining a resultant score, and also tell you less than you think about intelligence (for doing what?).
The other issue is the one relating to the subject title of this, "Correlation to Causation" and if there is a cause-and-effect relationship, do we know which is the cause?
DNA. One of my daughters became interested in DNA. Hers says that the is genetically Eurasian, a 50/50 mix of her parents DNA. Looking at her, she got her mother's melanin but not much of the epicanthic fold of her eyes. Her children got grandma's eyes, but not the melanin. That is all appearance which doesn't tell you much. There is a very interesting thing relating to "race." My daughter and granddaughter are good at math, but here's the thing. My granddaughter mentioned the idea that her math ability has to do with her being "oriental". She was not aware that she is not the flavor of oriental that the stereotype is about (East Asians). She believed that she was genetically destined to be good at math, leaving me to wonder if the positive expectation gave her a boost?
That leads to a question, does racial stereotypical expectation have a causal relationship to IQ? Just my opinion without proof, I think it does, which makes racist assumptions especially poisonous. This is the important issue that all that I wrote leads to. Can "racial" expectations harm (in achievement) those that negative ones are aimed at beyond having their feelings hurt? Not only do I suspect that, I think that the people for push those views not only think so, but they do it with bad intentions to hold a group down.
If there is an intelligence differential between "races" that is important (Is there? Is it?), it is essential that we shine a light on racist expectation and put an end to it.
"Depending upon the task, sometimes it would be best to listen to her, or let her perform the task. Important factors: genetically inherited tendencies (yes, I'm saying genetics matter)"
I don't dispute the genetics matter, genetics are responsible for a great many things about s. Although the role of genetics in intelligence is a tough one to tease apart. But I'm not at all convinced that there is such a thing as a "genetically inherited tendency," with regards intelligence or problem solving. Wouldn't any similarities here be infinitely more likely to be environmental?
I didn't say that genetics are most important but I do think it a factor. Please understand that it was not a reference to "race" but something closer to us in our family tree.
Examples would be things like tendencies toward alcoholism even when not raised by the alcoholic parent. Can it be overcome? Yes. Not all of the children and grandchildren of alcoholics become alcoholics, but it seems that the is a disproportionate number of them.
With my frequent reference to life experience I would hope that my opinion of the importance of environmental influence would be visible and clear.
Nature/nurture/environment is a chicken or the egg first question. In Murray's books he claimed to control variables so the only variable not equalized was race and he presented the numbers. As I've said, it "looked good" as in legitimate scholarship and some criticism of his work is probably spawned from not liking his results which clouds the issue. I've started reading "The Mismeasure of Man" where the focus is on the problem with a flawed methodology (factual methods). I am hoping to find a studied analysis of his methods which is more useful than a knee-jerk, "He's a racist" for dispelling notions of intelligence being shackled to "race."
I gave an example of possible expectation for "good at math orientals" from someone genetically linked to a subset (Southeast Asians) who get ranked as low IQ where belief may have been an influence. A positive one in this case, but where I expressed concern about negative influence of such things. My personal disdain for ideas about race based intelligence is something that is not a proof. It just makes it personal.
I'm not advocate of political correctness but "oriental" has been deprecated more than for any other reason because it sounds like "ornamental." Yer me pal and I'm not trying to shape your speech but yours is the first use of this word for Asians I've encountered in a quarter century (I'm not clear why we call them "Asians" even when their ancestors came to the USA in the 1840s to build railroads ... nine generations later they still speak Toisan at home).
I had forgotten the extent to which Gould's book is a rebuttal to Murray's. I read it a long time ago. Patience. It gets better. Gould was brilliant, pity he isn't still with us, he died at 61 looking quite elderly.
In the USA we went to visit some friends of my partner. Saturday night and the kids, grade and middle school, are all at the dining room table studying. Not at the mall, not on the computer. And not being forced. Here in Vietnam high school ("secondary" here) goes through integral calculus. But a lot of them leave early to work for their families or start drinking beer.
Ralphie May, may he rest in peace, was able to use humor like is no longer acceptable to go to the heart of the matter. Not PC, but his routine fits right here.
I just saw this in a Medium comment: "𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘉𝘠 𝘍𝘈𝘙 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘕𝘰𝘯-𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘈𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 (𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦, 𝘑𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦, 𝘝𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘴𝘦, 𝘦𝘵𝘤). 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘏𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘤 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥."
The "𝗡𝗼𝗻-𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻" jumped out at me. That's what my wife is thinking of when she says "oriental", and I suspect that it is what most people are thinking of when they think of Asians, including me. I retired from a corporation that was big on globalization. Factory to Malasia, software to India, joint venture with China. I worked with many people from India and early in the globalization I was a mentor. I never thought of them as Asians and never have heard anyone refer to the Indians as Asians. Cultural quirks can be meaningful but if you are a non-immigrant, you are more vanilla American than an ethnicity.
The reason the whole thing jumped out at me is birds of a feather often flock together and many/most of my friends match the quoted statement. Black men with white women and white men with non-Indian Asian women. I've never seen fit to discuss it with any of them since it had nothing to do with my choice. It was her, not where I found her. I assume the same for my friends.
I actually changed Asian to oriental as I wrote that, with purpose. My wife uses that word. When she first heard DWO (Driving While Oriental) she laughed as hard as she did the day that she discovered The Three Stooges slapstick comedy. I think it is her way of differentiating the round hair follicled, high cheek boned, epicanthic fold eyes subset of the Asian grouping (appearance) from those who don't have that look. When she first came to America, she looked for people who looked like her. They didn't have to be Thai or dark in what she called the land of the blue eyed blond, it was all in a specific set of observable features. I think it is also a distinction in the minds of many Americans when they think of "Asians" which is the word I normally use. "Oriental" served my purpose in that it led to this thought.
As a side note, my daughters, born in the USA, heard lots of "Where are you from?" coming up. Asians have been in America for a long time but are probably subjected to an attitude of foreignness to a greater extent than any other ethnic tribe.
We have friends (Vietnamese) who have 3rd generation in America children who speak English with a hint of a Vietnamese accent because they seem more resistant to giving up the mother tongue that other immigrant groups. My wife chatters away on the phone in Thai with her Thai friends daily. They all can speak English.
When we adopted my wife's niece after her mother (wife's half-sister) was brutally beaten to death in a drunken brawl we brought her to America at the age of 10 with no English. I gave her an ABC Elmo doll to play with on the plane since they don't share our alphabet. She got together with neighborhood friends who "looked like her" (Filipina and Chinese) to study after she reached functional communication level English. And yes, people in countries ranked as lower IQ have plenty of smart high achievers. Another reason to dampen ideas of race-based intelligence.
Alcoholism is genetic. Without the gene(s) anyone can have an alcohol problem but can recover from it without the syndrome.
Important point: the gene attenuates over time. The Chinese have had alcohol for 5000 years and almost no alcoholics. Societies most recently introduced to alcohol e.g. native Americans have very high levels.
Alcoholics have fewer kids.
My family has no alcoholics; we don't have the gene and nobody married into it. I started to realize growing up how lucky I am for that, seeing kids with belt-buckle scars because daddy likes his whiskey too much.
The role of environment is distantly second to the role of heredity in intelligence. Average people never bear genius children.
But behavior genetics is some seriously weird stuff. The predilection to putting sugar in coffee is not transmitted to offspring, but the predilection to putting sugar in tea IS.
We see the same picture (that genetic differences might exist, but are tiny, and cultural differences can be significant in IQ outcome) but draw different lessons from this.
I agree stereotyped expectations can be poisonous. But they can also be empowering if we determine (which we have not yet) certain groups differ because of their internal culture. Such a thing can be changed within one generation (as your family shows).
The idea that is poisonous is that the differences are genetically driven, since this cannot be altered.
When I read "The Bell Curve" it seemed to have been well thought out and to proper statistical standards, but I have questions and observations about intelligence tests. I have taken them and done well enough, but I've observed that some areas of the test would be helped by education (including the type of education) and the types of experience you have.
My wife, as a child the barefoot little girl on a water buffalo in a rice paddy from old postcard pictures has minimal education and I have no doubt that she would score much lower than me on these tests. Having lived with her for fifty-two years I have no doubt that she is far more intelligent than the test would indicate. We have different aptitudes which supply different outlooks for problem solving. Depending upon the task, sometimes it would be best to listen to her, or let her perform the task. Important factors: genetically inherited tendencies (yes, I'm saying genetics matter), the cultural zeitgeist that we lived in during our formative years, the things we focused on growing up, education (in what?) and cultural bias in what is being measured.
Does my above average capability in abstract reasoning, spatial relations and mechanical problem-solving ability make me more intelligent than someone with less ability in those areas but better capability in other areas? I don't think so, though that may make me more suited for some tasks or careers. And of course, I've done my share of stupid things for someone assumed to be smart enough to have not done them. The average of the various things being measured, weighted against each other in ways unknown to me might be very biased for obtaining a resultant score, and also tell you less than you think about intelligence (for doing what?).
The other issue is the one relating to the subject title of this, "Correlation to Causation" and if there is a cause-and-effect relationship, do we know which is the cause?
DNA. One of my daughters became interested in DNA. Hers says that the is genetically Eurasian, a 50/50 mix of her parents DNA. Looking at her, she got her mother's melanin but not much of the epicanthic fold of her eyes. Her children got grandma's eyes, but not the melanin. That is all appearance which doesn't tell you much. There is a very interesting thing relating to "race." My daughter and granddaughter are good at math, but here's the thing. My granddaughter mentioned the idea that her math ability has to do with her being "oriental". She was not aware that she is not the flavor of oriental that the stereotype is about (East Asians). She believed that she was genetically destined to be good at math, leaving me to wonder if the positive expectation gave her a boost?
That leads to a question, does racial stereotypical expectation have a causal relationship to IQ? Just my opinion without proof, I think it does, which makes racist assumptions especially poisonous. This is the important issue that all that I wrote leads to. Can "racial" expectations harm (in achievement) those that negative ones are aimed at beyond having their feelings hurt? Not only do I suspect that, I think that the people for push those views not only think so, but they do it with bad intentions to hold a group down.
If there is an intelligence differential between "races" that is important (Is there? Is it?), it is essential that we shine a light on racist expectation and put an end to it.
"Depending upon the task, sometimes it would be best to listen to her, or let her perform the task. Important factors: genetically inherited tendencies (yes, I'm saying genetics matter)"
I don't dispute the genetics matter, genetics are responsible for a great many things about s. Although the role of genetics in intelligence is a tough one to tease apart. But I'm not at all convinced that there is such a thing as a "genetically inherited tendency," with regards intelligence or problem solving. Wouldn't any similarities here be infinitely more likely to be environmental?
I didn't say that genetics are most important but I do think it a factor. Please understand that it was not a reference to "race" but something closer to us in our family tree.
Examples would be things like tendencies toward alcoholism even when not raised by the alcoholic parent. Can it be overcome? Yes. Not all of the children and grandchildren of alcoholics become alcoholics, but it seems that the is a disproportionate number of them.
With my frequent reference to life experience I would hope that my opinion of the importance of environmental influence would be visible and clear.
Nature/nurture/environment is a chicken or the egg first question. In Murray's books he claimed to control variables so the only variable not equalized was race and he presented the numbers. As I've said, it "looked good" as in legitimate scholarship and some criticism of his work is probably spawned from not liking his results which clouds the issue. I've started reading "The Mismeasure of Man" where the focus is on the problem with a flawed methodology (factual methods). I am hoping to find a studied analysis of his methods which is more useful than a knee-jerk, "He's a racist" for dispelling notions of intelligence being shackled to "race."
I gave an example of possible expectation for "good at math orientals" from someone genetically linked to a subset (Southeast Asians) who get ranked as low IQ where belief may have been an influence. A positive one in this case, but where I expressed concern about negative influence of such things. My personal disdain for ideas about race based intelligence is something that is not a proof. It just makes it personal.
I'm not advocate of political correctness but "oriental" has been deprecated more than for any other reason because it sounds like "ornamental." Yer me pal and I'm not trying to shape your speech but yours is the first use of this word for Asians I've encountered in a quarter century (I'm not clear why we call them "Asians" even when their ancestors came to the USA in the 1840s to build railroads ... nine generations later they still speak Toisan at home).
I had forgotten the extent to which Gould's book is a rebuttal to Murray's. I read it a long time ago. Patience. It gets better. Gould was brilliant, pity he isn't still with us, he died at 61 looking quite elderly.
In the USA we went to visit some friends of my partner. Saturday night and the kids, grade and middle school, are all at the dining room table studying. Not at the mall, not on the computer. And not being forced. Here in Vietnam high school ("secondary" here) goes through integral calculus. But a lot of them leave early to work for their families or start drinking beer.
Ralphie May, may he rest in peace, was able to use humor like is no longer acceptable to go to the heart of the matter. Not PC, but his routine fits right here.
https://fb.watch/eXXEqv2mCl/
I just saw this in a Medium comment: "𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘉𝘠 𝘍𝘈𝘙 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘕𝘰𝘯-𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘈𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 (𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦, 𝘑𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦, 𝘝𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘴𝘦, 𝘦𝘵𝘤). 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘏𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘤 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥."
The "𝗡𝗼𝗻-𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻" jumped out at me. That's what my wife is thinking of when she says "oriental", and I suspect that it is what most people are thinking of when they think of Asians, including me. I retired from a corporation that was big on globalization. Factory to Malasia, software to India, joint venture with China. I worked with many people from India and early in the globalization I was a mentor. I never thought of them as Asians and never have heard anyone refer to the Indians as Asians. Cultural quirks can be meaningful but if you are a non-immigrant, you are more vanilla American than an ethnicity.
The reason the whole thing jumped out at me is birds of a feather often flock together and many/most of my friends match the quoted statement. Black men with white women and white men with non-Indian Asian women. I've never seen fit to discuss it with any of them since it had nothing to do with my choice. It was her, not where I found her. I assume the same for my friends.
Indians are ususally distinguished as “south Asians.” I’ve found working with them to often be a real challenge.
I actually changed Asian to oriental as I wrote that, with purpose. My wife uses that word. When she first heard DWO (Driving While Oriental) she laughed as hard as she did the day that she discovered The Three Stooges slapstick comedy. I think it is her way of differentiating the round hair follicled, high cheek boned, epicanthic fold eyes subset of the Asian grouping (appearance) from those who don't have that look. When she first came to America, she looked for people who looked like her. They didn't have to be Thai or dark in what she called the land of the blue eyed blond, it was all in a specific set of observable features. I think it is also a distinction in the minds of many Americans when they think of "Asians" which is the word I normally use. "Oriental" served my purpose in that it led to this thought.
As a side note, my daughters, born in the USA, heard lots of "Where are you from?" coming up. Asians have been in America for a long time but are probably subjected to an attitude of foreignness to a greater extent than any other ethnic tribe.
We have friends (Vietnamese) who have 3rd generation in America children who speak English with a hint of a Vietnamese accent because they seem more resistant to giving up the mother tongue that other immigrant groups. My wife chatters away on the phone in Thai with her Thai friends daily. They all can speak English.
When we adopted my wife's niece after her mother (wife's half-sister) was brutally beaten to death in a drunken brawl we brought her to America at the age of 10 with no English. I gave her an ABC Elmo doll to play with on the plane since they don't share our alphabet. She got together with neighborhood friends who "looked like her" (Filipina and Chinese) to study after she reached functional communication level English. And yes, people in countries ranked as lower IQ have plenty of smart high achievers. Another reason to dampen ideas of race-based intelligence.
Alcoholism is genetic. Without the gene(s) anyone can have an alcohol problem but can recover from it without the syndrome.
Important point: the gene attenuates over time. The Chinese have had alcohol for 5000 years and almost no alcoholics. Societies most recently introduced to alcohol e.g. native Americans have very high levels.
Alcoholics have fewer kids.
My family has no alcoholics; we don't have the gene and nobody married into it. I started to realize growing up how lucky I am for that, seeing kids with belt-buckle scars because daddy likes his whiskey too much.
The role of environment is distantly second to the role of heredity in intelligence. Average people never bear genius children.
But behavior genetics is some seriously weird stuff. The predilection to putting sugar in coffee is not transmitted to offspring, but the predilection to putting sugar in tea IS.
I am not making this up.
We see the same picture (that genetic differences might exist, but are tiny, and cultural differences can be significant in IQ outcome) but draw different lessons from this.
I agree stereotyped expectations can be poisonous. But they can also be empowering if we determine (which we have not yet) certain groups differ because of their internal culture. Such a thing can be changed within one generation (as your family shows).
The idea that is poisonous is that the differences are genetically driven, since this cannot be altered.