More old and new Race/IQ/Etc. papers

I added to my assorted but not sorted collection of “old and new Race/IQ/etc. papers.” Readers might be interested in some of the following newer ones:

Salter, F. & Harpending, H. Rushton’s theory of ethnic nepotism. Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

Hunt, E. (2012). What Makes Nations Intelligent?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(3), 284-306.

Beaver, K. M., Wright, J. P., Boutwell, B. B., Barnes, J. C., DeLisi, M., & Vaughn, M. G. (2012). Exploring the association between the 2-repeat allele of the MAOA gene promoter polymorphism and psychopathic personality traits, arrests, incarceration, and lifetime antisocial behavior. Personality and Individual Differences.

Demetriou, A., Spanoudis, G., Shayer, M., Mouyi, A., Kazi, S., & Platsidou, M. (2013). Cycles in speed-working memory-G relations: Towards a developmental–differential theory of the mind. Intelligence, 41(1), 34-50

Woodley, M. A., & Meisenberg, G. (2013). A Jensen effect on dysgenic fertility: An analysis involving the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Personality and Individual Differences.

Goldammer, C. (2012). Racial Gaps in Cognitive and Noncognitive Skills: The Asian Exception

Tetlock, P. E. (2012). Rational Versus Irrational Prejudices How Problematic Is the Ideological Lopsidedness of Social Psychology?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 519-521.

Cole, E. F., Morand-Ferron, J., Hinks, A. E., & Quinn, J. L. (2012). Cognitive Ability Influences Reproductive Life History Variation in the Wild. Current Biology.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to More old and new Race/IQ/Etc. papers

  1. B.B. says:

    Woodley, M. A., & Meisenberg, G. (2012). A Jensen effect on dysgenic fertility: An analysis involving the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Personality and Individual Differences

    The hyperlink to this article is broken.

  2. WVQ says:

    Has there been much discussion of the fact that the B-W gap in the US is about 1.5X as large as the gap between US blacks and blacks in Sub-Saharan Africa? If I had to characterize the environmental disparities among the groups the gap ratio would be very different, so I always thought this made trouble for the environment-only hypothesis. The hypothesis may still work if there’s some nonlinearity (and a sufficient degree of nonlinearity) in environmental effects on IQ: say, reductions of the same size in something like GDP per capita have successively smaller effects.

    • Chuck says:

      That’s a good point. But environmentalists try to turn it around and argue…

      (1) The White US – Black African score gap is only 1.7 SD
      (2) The environmental difference between the two groups is huge and some of the score difference is likely due to psychometric bias
      (3) Therefore, the whole White US – Black African gap is probably environmental
      (4) Since Black Americans are relatively closely genetically related to Black (West) Africans, as the White US – Black African score gap is probably environmental (by 3), the White US -Black US gap along with the White (South) African -Black (South) African gap and White (Saharan) African and Black (Subsaharan) African gap is probably likewise. Right? This is why I have pressed the point that one needs to look at the scores of Black migrants (e.g., to the Netherlands, France, Italy, the UK, Sweden, China, and so on). The data is out there — just few seem to be interested in digging through it. See:

      Global immigrants

      Black immigrants to the Netherlands

      Black immigrants to the UK

      Black immigrant to the US


      • WVQ says:

        Fair enough, but I’m not sure that addresses the point about the relative sizes of the gaps. There are huge environmental differences between US whites and black Africans (though who knows whether they’re enough to cause a 1.7 SD gap? I don’t have a precise enough sense of how large the env differences are, or how strong the env-IQ relationship is, to be able to tell). The issue is that I’m pretty sure that there are larger environmental differences between US blacks and black Africans than between US whites and US blacks. In that case, why don’t the IQ gaps reflect that? Again, it seems like there’d have to be some nonlinearity in environmental effects on IQ – do you know of any relevant data on this?

        • Chuck says:

          Ok. The point that you’re are making is very similar to one made by Michael Hart in “Understanding Human History.” (The difference is that he focused on the ratio of environmental to IQ differences between Blacks and Whites across time, holding place constant, while you focus on the ratio across country, holding time constant.) See section A2 in my “The facts that need to be explained” post. The best counter point that I have found is the apparent change in the magnitude of the gap in the UK. Refer to:

          I’m not saying that this is a super good counter point, but just that it’s the best that there is. This counter point doesn’t, of course, resolve the problem, as seen from the environmental perspective. (It just presents a problem for the genetic perspective). One still needs to account for why the differences in IQs, between the said groups, are not proportionate to the differences in environment. I, myself, have been unable to come up with a good account (which is why I have resorted to proposing counter cases).

          Generally, there are a couple of routes one can go. As you note, one can propose nonlinear environmental effects. Alternatively, one can keep a linear model and make a procrustean attempt to fit the data around it. I discussed one recent such attempt by one Sean Reardon here: Environmentalists have ensured that this last route ends in a cul-de-sac. In attempting to prove that the US White -US Black gap of the early 20th century or the US White -African Black gap of the late 20th century was exaggerated, they have established the possible upper bounds of both of these gaps. For example, Jelte Wicherts and Co. recently exhaustively reviewed the African IQ data to refute Richard Lynn’s claims of an African IQ below 70, relative to a US white IQ of 100 and showed that a better estimate of the African IQ was between 75 and 80 (see also Rindermann (2012). Well this, of course, either rules out a linear environmental model or necessitates that one maintain, as you note, that Blacks in African are environmentally more similar, with respect to cognitive affecting environments, to Blacks in the US than Blacks in the US are to Whites in the US. And this latter possibility is simply untenable given the known differences which vary within and between populations, the amount of integration (e.g., ~20% of Blacks currently have a White spouse), and some psychometric particularities (e.g., the findings of Rowe et. al. 1994 and Lubke, et al. 2003 that there are no unique factors acting between US Black and Whites.) So one seems to need to propose, as you say, non linear environmental effects.

          The problem is that the non-linear models offered to date would if applied to the groups in question worsen the problem which you have identified. These models were created to allow one to environmentally explain the large US Black-White gap despite the low correlation between shared environmental factors and IQ in the US White population. The first model is Jensen’s threshold hypothesis, first proposed in the 1960s, which was, without acknowledgement, recently relabeled and put forth by Eric Turkheimer and others. Eric has (intentionally, I think) misleadingly referred to this model as a “gene-envrionment interaction” model. The idea is that the effects of environmental factors on IQ is higher (and, conversely, the effects of genes is lower) in worse environments than in better. It is argued (or implied) then that the environmentality of IQ in the US Black population is higher than in the US While — and that this allows one to account for the large IQ differences with the not much larger environmental differences. This model is problematic with regards to US Blacks and US Whites because the heritability in the US Black population is, in fact, not much lower than that in the US White population. It’s, of course, even more problematic with regards to the groups you discuss, since by this model the environmental differences between African Blacks and US Blacks would have a more potent effect than the environmental difference between US Blacks and US Whites. The second model is Flynn and Dickens’ CovGE model with social amplifiers. By this model, heritability estimates are confounded with gene-envrionmental correlations and so greatly underestimate the effect that environmental factors have on IQ. AND there are all sorts of social amplifiers that magnify pre-existing differences. Again, this model was proposed to explain the large US B/W gap despite high heritability/low environmentality. The empirical evidence is even less kind to this model than it is to the one discussed above. But regardless, again this model is no help in explaining the problem which you have identified since by it one would expect that the ratio of IQ to environmental gaps should increase with increasing environmental gaps — at very least the ratio wouldn’t decrease.

          Another possible alternative is that the effect of environments on IQ varies by IQ. Perhaps lower IQ individual and groups are less impacted by worse environments. This idea was recently investigated using a large multiracial-US sample. See: “Genetic influences on language, reading, and mathematics skills in a national sample: An analysis using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.” Table 3. There is no evidence in support of this hypothesis.

          So, I haven’t been able to find a non-linear model. But if the gaps are environmental, one probably exists unless I am missing something.

          Anyways, hope that help.

  3. x says:

    what happened to the ” A large Jensen Effect” post? I never saw your reply to my post.

    • Chuck says:

      I started redoing the analysis using a more proper method. While doing it, I figured out the NLSY97 kinship variables and so how to properly redo my within between family color analysis — but while I was doing that I said, “Hey, why don’t I just replicate Rowe’s SEM study since I have kinship data and the requisite test scores and since my wife still has her university account available and I can use the university SEM software?” — but then I burnt out while prepping the data and reading up on SEM and factor analysis. (And that debate over at Peter Frost’s didn’t help). So all the projects have been shelved, indefinitely. As I was telling Jason Malloy, these analyses and others — which could greatly narrow this debate — are doable; they just take time, energy, software, and an IQ above 100, but I’m missing the energy — mitochondrial disease and all — so I haven’t been able to get very far. And why should I kill myself? No one else seems to give a shit at least not enough to do some basic analysis, so why should I, since I literally have the least amount of energy to spend on this. So I have decided, for now, to teach myself how to bake poppyseed rolls and focus on other things. If I feel better in the future maybe I’ll change my mind.

      What was your question?

  4. x says:

    oh don’t worry, it was just a sidetrack prompting discussion of that stupid IQ paper. i understand your frustration, though. a lot of so caleld HBD bloggers have even given up the game entirely; half-sigma is gone for example (not that he blogged much about ‘HBD’ in recent years).

    here’s the issue with ‘lazy hbd’ imo. a lot of hbders merely mirror image their inverses- they, being natural contrarians, treat hbd as flammarion woodcut gnostic knowledge and accept it whole cloth without necessarily being substantially informed by the data, or even having much of a casual grasp of the scientific particulars that this discourse contains. i highly doubt many except maybe a handful in the hbd blogosphere are capable of actually carrying out such an analysis, nor would they want to even if they could. i’m not saying i could nor am i the most well versed individual myself (though i do feel i get a lot of the things quite well; i understand most of the things said on this blog as an example), but i get this impression with a lot of them. but in all honesty most ‘hbd’ bloggers dont even blog about hbd anymore and seem to prefer talking about evopsych inspired heuristics to getting laid, status, current events, etc. talking about some black woman sticking a baby in the microwave in milwaukee isn’t ‘hbd’ imo.

    • Chuck says:

      That sounds about right. Except the point about the analyses. The ones which I am talking about are very doable, if not individually than in groups. Most of the work is on the Mickey Mouse level:. Recoding variables and computing means. If you can work with excel, you can work with SPSS or SAS. Aptitude can’t be blamed. Some problems, as I see the situation:

      (1) HBDers generally refuse to work on collaborative projects. They expect the work to be shouldered by HBD supermen.
      (2) Many HBDers are not personally invested in the project. .
      (3) Many HBDers are fatalistic. They assume that they can have no influence on the system — despite it being clear that they have the power to intellectually shame the other side into silence — as I think we have both shown in our many debates with anti-racists. This fatalism undercuts their willingness to invest in HBD and work on projects.
      (4) HBDers, as you say, treat HBD as flammarion woodcut gnostic knowledge. On that: they treat it as “flammarion woodcut” or as established and set in stone and as “gnostic” or as something that needs not be demonstrated, proved, or elucidated. The latter, leads them to not rigorously defend their position against critiques, which reinforces the other side’s opinion — and leads them to not win many converts. The former reinforces their fatalism — as if the truth of HBD is already manifest, and most don’t believe, then no amount of additional evidence of the truth can alter the situation.

  5. x says:

    i use the term flammarion woodcut to describe my interpretation of that famous woodcut; a man sticking his head through an invisible barrier between one reality and another and seeing that other reality, the ‘true’ reality. hbd is a form of this type of thinking imo.

    it is not hard to understand hbd fatalism/pessimism. for starters hbders primarily derive from conservative and right wing orientations which have an intrinsic and inbuilt pessimism to begin with, but at the same time what they are arguing is the most evil and lamented type of thinking to exist in our totalitarian humanist society. i have at times found myself feeling somewhat upset and guilty when i have argued it due to the insults and character assassinations i have recieved from people who ordinarily i would have considered my friends. even condescending “you need to be fixed” attitudes as if i am subscribing to the doctrine of a destructive cult. rarely, no matter how well i am arguing and how much i am trying to avoid moving into and avoiding the more speculative/less well replicated areas of hbd in my arguments, have i recieved much beyond derision and condescenion. perhaps your experiences are different and i am just associating with the wrong types of people, however..

    anti-racists are generally very easy to argue with though. they tend to know even less about popular environmentalists arguments than hbders tend to know about popular hereditarian arguments. presumably, they rarely ever see their arguments challenged except from the occasional fuddy duddy ‘blacks up by their bootstraps’ mainstream conservative who might point to the anomoly of asian success. personally i feel these conservatives are the people hbders must reach if they wish for their ideas to be accepted or at least more widely entertained (and by your or my more skeptical and empirically minded perspective, concluded), but they too are obstinate anti-racists by and large, sometimes even more so than their left wing counterparts. the situation is tough and we have few friends out there, so the corrupting miasma of pessimism and fatalism may prove overwhelmingly difficult to dispel.

    the truly scary thing to consider is it not just the belief in the validity of hbd that is thought criminality, but the mere acceptance of its potentiality.

  6. J1000 says:

    A more practical problem with HBD is how it is argued in the first place. Blog interfaces are annoying because in a post some points are made, some data shown and then the post gets hidden and nobody reads it again afterwards. This means that nothing gets concluded. Academic arguments though go back and forth and there’s a continual rehashing of what the other guy said.

    If HBD could be done in a Wiki, I think that’d be better. That way you can have all the for and against arguments and all the sources in one place. All 3 things would be continually updated (better than making sequential blog posts). If you can lay it ALL out there then things would be concluded more easily.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s