randoms

TWCS has a superb post on Afro-Criminality:

Whence Afro criminality?

“As well, Afros who emigrate to countries that never practiced slavery or colonialism still commit more crimes than other groups there…

Disproportionate Afro immigrant crime in France, Switzerland, Australia, London, Canada.”

….

HBD Chick finds that PISA scores in Spain correlated with Latitude… (Apparently, the same holds for Japan: Japanese north–south gradient in IQ predicts differences in stature, skin color, income, and homicide rate)

… and uncovers the church’s biosocial egalitarian engineering project:


thomas aquinas on too much outbreeding

from his Summa Theologica [pg. 2749]:

“The degrees within which consanguinity has been an impediment to marriage have varied according to various times…. [T]he Old Law permitted other degrees of consanguinity, in fact to a certain extent it commanded them, to wit that each man should take a wife from his kindred, in order to avoid confusion of inheritances: because at that time the Divine worship was handed down as the inheritance of the race. But afterwards more degrees were forbidden by the New Law which is the law of the spirit and of love, because the worship of God is no longer handed down and spread abroad by a carnal birth but by a spiritual grace: wherefore it was necessary that men should be yet more withdrawn from carnal things by devoting themselves to things spiritual, and that love should have a yet wider play. Hence in olden time marriage was forbidden even within the more remote degrees of consanguinity, in order that consanguinity and affinity might be the sources of a wider friendship; and this was reasonably extended to the seventh degree, both because beyond this it was difficult to have any recollection of the common stock, and because this was in keeping with the sevenfold grace of the Holy Ghost. Afterwards, however, towards these latter times the prohibition of the Church has been restricted to the fourth degree, because it became useless and dangerous to extend the prohibition to more remote degrees of consanguinity. Useless, because charity waxed cold in many hearts so that they had scarcely a greater bond of friendship with their more remote kindred than with strangers: and it was dangerous because through the prevalence of concupiscence and neglect men took no account of so numerous a kindred, and thus the prohibition of the more remote degrees became for many a snare leading to damnation.”

More insanity about race.

Sane:

Sesardic, N. (2013). Confusions about race: A new installment. Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences.

Spencer, Q. Biological Theory and the Metaphysics of Race: A Reply to Kaplan and Winther. Biological Theory, 1-7.

Spencer, Q. (2012). What ‘biological racial realism’should mean. Philosophical studies, 159(2), 181-204.

Temporarily Sane:


Gannett, L. (2013). Theodosius Dobzhansky and the genetic race concept. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences.

Pierce, J. (2013). Glasgow’s Race Antirealism: Experimental Philosophy and Thought Experiments. Journal of Social Philosophy, 44(2), 146-168.

Insane, mendacious, dishonest, or factually incorrect:

Pigliucci, M. (2013). What are we to make of the concept of race?: Thoughts of a philosopher–scientist. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences.

Templeton, A. R. (2013). Biological races in humans. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences.

Ontology of Species:

Mayr, E. (1987). The ontological status of species: scientific progress and philosophical terminology. Biology and Philosophy, 2(2), 145-66.

Genetic similarity:

Theoretical proof that more ancestrally similar people are more genetically similar in total.

Tal, O. (2012). Two complementary perspectives on inter-individual genetic distance. Biosystems.

….

DT/LH related:

Jonason, P. K., & Kavanagh, P. (2010). The dark side of love: Love styles and the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(6), 606-610.

Dillon, H. M., Adair, L. E., Wang, Z., & Johnson, Z. (2013). Slow and steady wins the race: Life history, mate value, and mate settling. Personality and Individual Differences.

Jonason, P. K., & Buss, D. M. (2012). Avoiding entangling commitments: Tactics for implementing a short-term mating strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(5), 606-610.

Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of Personality: A 10 Year Review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199-216.

Aitken, S. J., Lyons, M., & Jonason, P. K. (2013). Dads or cads? Women’s strategic decisions in the mating game. Personality and Individual Differences.


Martin, R. A., Lastuk, J. M., Jeffery, J., Vernon, P. A., & Veselka, L. (2012). Relationships between the Dark Triad and humor styles: A replication and extension. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(2), 178-182.

Jonason, P. K., Jones, A., & Lyons, M. (2013). Creatures of the night: Chronotypes and the Dark Triad traits. Personality and Individual Differences.

r/k

Boutwell, B. B., Franklin, T. W., Barnes, J. C., Beaver, K. M., Deaton, R., Lewis, R. H., … & Petkovsek, M. A. (2013). County-level IQ and fertility rates: A partial test of Differential-K theory. Personality and Individual Differences.

More iq

Briley, D. A., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2013). Explaining the Increasing Heritability of Cognitive Ability Across Development: A Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Twin and Adoption Studies. Psychological science.

More Flynn Effect:

Liu, J., & Lynn, R. (2013). An increase of intelligence in China 1986–2012. Intelligence, 41(5), 479-481.

Flynn, J. R. (2013). The “Flynn Effect” and Flynn’s paradox. Intelligence.

Flynn, J. R., & Weiss, L. G. (2007). American IQ gains from 1932 to 2002: The WISC subtests and educational progress. International Journal of Testing, 7(2), 209-224.


Dutton, E., & Lynn, R. (2013). A negative Flynn effect in Finland, 1997–2009. Intelligence.

More SH:

Kane, H., & Brand, C. (2008). Spearman’s Hypothesis: Support from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. Mankind quarterly, 49(1), 3-22.

More iq & religion:

Cribari-Neto, F., & Souza, T. C. (2013). Religious belief and intelligence: Worldwide evidence. Intelligence, 41(5), 482-489.

More iq & PO:

Dutton, E. (2013). The cultural mediation hypothesis: A critical examination. Intelligence, 41(5), 321-327.

More gapology:


Cohen, D. J., White, S., & Cohen, S. B. (2012). Mind the Gap The Black-White Literacy Gap in the National Assessment of Adult Literacy and Its Implications. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(2), 123-148.

More MI with respect to the BW gap:

Keith, T. Z., Fugate, M. H., DeGraff, M., Diamond, C. M., Shadrach, E. A., & Stevens, M. L. (1995). Using multi-sample confirmatory factor analysis to test for construct bias: An example using the K-ABC. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13(4), 347-364.

Fan, X., Willson, V. L., & Reynolds, C. R. (1995). Assessing the similarity of the factor structure of the K-ABC for African-American and White children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13(2), 120-131.

Vietnamese IQ (not low):


Rindermann, H., Hoang, Q. S. N., & Baumeister, A. E. (2013). Cognitive ability, parenting and instruction in Vietnam and Germany. Intelligence, 41(5), 366-377
.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to randoms

  1. B.B. says:

    I’ve been thinking about how to push the Overton window on discourse about group differences in psychological traits in the right direction. What I think needs to be done first of all is to clarify in the publics mind the complete scientific untenability of absolute equality between groups. I believe we are at the point where there is nobody of note who specialises in the differential psychology and behavioural genetics of cognitive ability who would seriously hold to such a position. Of course we have individuals like Flynn and Nisbett who think that environmental influence is relatively greater than the likes of Jensen and Rushton, but once pushed into a corner I think they too will have to admit that there are innate group differences to some degree. The current scientific debate should be fundamentally understood as a matter of of soft hereditarianism vs. hard hereditarianism and various shades in between, as opposed to a current popular perception of a marginal hereditarian position vs. a dominant environmentalist position.

    Whenever there is a periodic flare-up about the race and intelligence issue after some controversy, like Richwine was recently at the centre of, the progressive commentariat jumps into action and looks for some scientific authority to point out as proof how wrong-headed scientific racism is. I noticed in progressive outlets like the Think Progress blog that Nisbett, et al’s paper Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments was assigned the role of respectable scientific opinion which is apparently at variance with the “racist” “junk science” hereditarian position of the likes of Richwine. What strikes me as most interesting about Nisbett, et al’s paper was the frank acknowledgement that Asian-Americans are genotypically more intelligent than European-Americans. I cannot help but think that such a claim would be considered racist junk science amongst the progressive commentariat if it wasn’t for the fact that the paper was situated in a context of pushing back against a stronger hereditarian position within differential psychology. Of course we get no acknowledgement of the specific claim in such articles, but if they want to cite Nisbett, et al as respectable mainstream opinion, we should demand to know from the commentator if he has come to accept Nisbett, et al’s position of innate differences between Asian-Americans and European-Americans. One might also wonder if such a position should be labelled “racist” like Richwine apparently is, or is a more moderate hereditarian position non-racist, and if so can we quantify at what degree of hereditarianism does someone become a racist?

    I’d also like to hold some of those soft hereditarian scholars feet to the fire and force them to further explicitly acknowledge their hereditarianism through some creative lines of questioning. I think one under-appreciated line of questioning is inbreeding depression. Schull & Neel’s 1965 study of Japanese children showed that children of cousins had a depressed IQ by about 8 points. Flynn himself cited this study in What is Intelligence and doesn’t seem to dispute the relationship between inbreeding and a depressed genotypic IQ. Of course regional rates of cousin marriage differ a great deal and is especially common in predominantly Muslim regions of the world. Any ethnic group that engages in cousin marriage at higher rates should have a lower genotypic IQ than those ethnic groups who don’t, all else being equal. Feed this line of reasoning to the soft hereditarian scholars and hopefully you will get such a concession of it’s validity, then trumpet this concession to the political progressives who have traditionally deferred to these soft hereditarian authorities under the misapprehension that they are fellow absolute environmentalists about group differences.

    Due to the complete pathologization of racism created through a powerful historical narrative that paints it as the major force for evil in history, it must be a tremendous psychological leap for a well-socialized individual to accept it’s central aspect (i.e. belief in innate group differences). Putting them in a position whereby they’ll be forced to concede a moderate hereditarian position at first might be relatively easier. Once that psychological barrier is broken, it may be a much shorter leap to making them face the reality of a stronger hereditarian position.

    • Chuck says:

      Unfortunately, I have been rather ill so I haven’t been able to work much on this larger project. I was originally hoping to find strong, difficult to dispute, evidence for a B/W hereditarian hypothesis — and use this to convert more researchers to the dark side, which needs to be done to move the post. According to Connor Dolan, per personal communication, such evidence can potentially come from SEM studies such as that conducted by Rowe et al. which additionally explore the many alternative though somewhat outlandish hypotheses proposed to explain the typical results. As one of Dolan’s colleagues noted to me, such a study could move the debate to “a higher level than ever before”. I was hoping to do one or commission one — and I started studying up on the topic — but my condition has progressed to the point were future work is impossible. The thing is, all it would take is AMOS, time, and an IQ above 115. (I no longer the latter two, owing to my progressing encephalitis.) What is disturbing, though, is that no one is even considering this. I simply don’t understand. Maybe they don’t appreciate the dynamics of the situation. The cost of being wrong on this subject has been raised such that few in academia, who would be willing to, will dare defend the hypothesis. Or research it. The only way forward, bizarrely, is to virtually prove the hereditarian hypothesis, to make defending its veracity not insane for those who have something to lose. I suspect that most hereditarains do not see the fragility of their own position. I spent a lot of time constructively and destructively criticizing the position in the hope of encouraging more investigation and with it evidence finding. That project, of course, failed dismally. So the answer is more research. Specifically biometric modeling to start — since this can readily be done.

      • B.B. says:

        Sorry to hear about your deteriorating health.

        What I like about my inbreeding depression example is the simplicity of the causal chain to inferring genotypic group differences which side-steps many of the technical statistical issues (like structural equation modeling) that plague the debate amongst the more sophisticated thinkers on this matter. As long as you acknowledge that (a) cousin marriage depresses genotypic IQ & (b) cousin marriage rate differs between groups, it seems inescapable that there are group differences in genotypic IQ, and as far as I am aware both claims a & b aren’t seriously disputed. If there is some technical excuse for dismissing this line of reasoning, I’d love to hear it. Sure, this little example isn’t directly relevant to B/W differences in the U.S, which is the gap that has primarily been animating the hereditarian debate for the last century, but it is a great easy to explain example that clarifies the absurdity of the position of absolute innate equality between groups. A perfect gateway point for getting the average lay-man to take that psychological leap and accept at least a soft hereditarian position on group differences.

  2. Alexander Stanislaw says:

    This blog convinced to abandon the idea that all men are created equal for which I thank you.

    What do you think of the following criticism of IQ testing? It was written by a statistician so it is not as bone headed as the usual “but intelligence isn’t just one trait!”:

    http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html

      • Alexander Stanislaw says:

        Thank you. The most frustrating thing about HBD/IQ denialism (which usually go hand in hand), is that the deniers seem to think they’ve won the intellectual war – that makes it worse than creationism in my mind. I am not optimistic about the future of the HBD movement, but this knowledge is so desperately needed.

        • Chuck says:

          Alex — More frustrating for me are HBD/IQ realists, as they often don’t bother to show up for the fight — which is largely why the knowledge you speak of is unavailable. Out of that frustration, I have mostly divorced myself from these issues, which is, in turn, why I don’t post much. If you have any question, though, feel free to ask — I have probably answered most here or there. Or, if, on the off chance, you are interested in contributing yourself, e.g., to Human Varieties, let me know. If you have a specific topic that you would like to explore — I could probably find you data to work with.

          • Alexander Stanislaw says:

            I think the reason we don’t show up for the fight is that the fight is practically over, HBD lost, and anyone who says otherwise risks their career. Actually I do think that HBD will eventually make a comeback – after the field of human genomics has blossomed HBD/IQ denialism will become untenable. As for me, I am in the process of trying to become a doctor and I have no training in statistics or anything related (which might change in the future). Thanks again for putting together all of this information.

          • Alexander Stanislaw says:

            Do you still think that the global hereditarian hypothesis is probably false? In particular that there is a genetic black-white intelligence gap in the US, but the gaps in other parts of the world and between countries may be mostly environmental?

            If that’s true then IQ doesn’t sound so good as an explanation for why some countries are rich and others are poor.

          • Chuck says:

            Sorry,

            I’ve been rather busy with a project. This is a really complex issue. But I can give a simple reply to your last statement. No. Small individual level differences can amplify to produce large population level ones. See the second explanation in the conclusion here: https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/beaver-and-wright-2011-school-level-genetic-variation-predicts-school-level-verbal-iq-scores-results.pdf
            Also, check out: Gordon, R. A. (1997). Everyday life as an intelligence test: Effects of intelligence and intelligence context. Intelligence, 24(1), 203-320. and Dickens, W. T., & Flynn, J. R. (2001). Heritability estimates versus large environmental effects: the IQ paradox resolved. Psychological review, 108(2), 346.

            Flynn and Dickens developed their model to explain away the US B-W gap — by saying that small initial differences could amplify. But the same logic could account for large international gaps in the presence of modest genotypic ones. When some researchers pointed this out, Flynn and Dickens basically called them racists:

            “Woodley and Meisenberg (2012, this issue) argued that the genetic inferiority of people in developing countries places a limit on how much gain there can be for adults.”

            Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012). Group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin.

            I’ll have to think this through some, though. I’m not sure how plausible these social amplifier models are.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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