Talk:Race and intelligence (explanations)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] nisbett citation

the nisbett paper used in the introduction is "self-published". in other words, it isn't published. it isn't even complete. read through it and there are notes to himself like "more more more" and it ends with "Suppose ". he defines west indians as black, though few indians, european whites, or blacks would agree. some very questionable studies are cited in this paper and misrepresented. blood type/IQ correlation studies in black twins aren't going to find anything unless blood type is related to IQ, which no one has proposed other than japanese pseudoscientists. the writing displays an utter lack of understanding of even the most basic concepts in statistical genetics, which isn't surprising considering nisbett is a professor of social psychology. this citation should be removed altogether and whoever put it in should be ashamed of himself or herself for including this rough draft pontification as if it were respectably published work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Corn

That corn picture is irrelevant. The genetic side of this issue here is whether different genetic backgrounds give rise to different IQs. The corn picture represents corn with similar genetic background placed in different environments.

The genetic case for intelligence is presently weak for all the reasons stated on the various race and intelligence articles, but the corn picture doesn't assist the reader at all. Any layperson understands that if one dog-pound feeds its dogs less than another, it will of course show up in size differences between the dogs, but that doesn't invalidate all the evidence that great danes are a lot bigger than chihuahuas.

Humans have similar genetic backgrounds. To make a fair dog comparison, you'd have to use mutts, not selectively bred great danes or chihuahuas (after all no human population has been selectively bred for as many generations as specific dog breeds). And if you took a bunch of mutts, who were more similar to each other than different (as with humans), and fed one group less, you'd definitely see size differences.
Analysis of the microsatellites of 414 dogs representing 85 different breeds revealed that the degree of genetic differentiation between dog breeds is much higher than that found between human populations on different continents! - [1]
--JereKrischel 07:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
No suprise there, anyone can see the dogs are more diverse than humans. How many millions did it take to come to that conclusion?
If the question is whether different genetics give rise to different intelligences, presupposing that the genetics are similar (as the corn diagram suggests) is an invalid approach. The genetic evidence is weak to absent, no need to pile on misinformation that will cause people to question the article's good faith.
The image is sourced. It explains a difficult to dunderstnd concept. The source was writing on exactly this topic and is well known and oft cited. Jere... you know where this came from, right?futurebird 01:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't mean the image is enlightening or belongs near the top of the article. Everyone already knows that corn doesn't grow well in low-quality soil, and that malnourished kids kept in basement dungeons don't reach their full potential. So why the diagram? It completely misses the point of the entire genetics debate. Maybe if it compared blue corn in good soil with yellow corn in poor soil it would at least present a plausible analogy.
There are all sorts of books out there with shoddy scholarship and incorrect conclusions, we need to choose only the helpful and high-quality information for the intro. The borderline-racial-supremacists and naive-blank-slate-ists can have their paragraphs below.
I don't think that's a fair characterization of the debate. This graph represents the view of the concept of heritable traits just as other images, such as the labeled bell curves represent a view of the concept of gaps. Either image could be misinterpreted. But please tell me, what sort of change do you propose? futurebird 04:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] gould section near top

  1. Gould was not an expert in genetics. He was a paleontologist, and his writings about heritability and IQ are regarded very poorly by experts. Citing him to summarize expert opinion about heritability or IQ is akin to citing Michael Behe to summarize expert opinion about evolution. Summarize heritabilty by citing textbooks on the subject or the review papers of textbook authors like Plomin, Bouchard, etc.
  2. Putting a refutation of the importance of heritability and genetics before the argument at the top of the page while the argument for its importance is at the bottom is not NPOV. --W.R.N. 23:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Murray is a political scientist, and his writings are regarded very poorly by experts. Shall we eliminate his citations as well?
Suggestions on how to place the argument of heritability and its relationship and controversy in its application to BGH would be helpful. --JereKrischel 05:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I already made what I think is the appropriate fix. Forgot to note it here. --W.R.N. 05:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] null hypothesis section factually incorrect

the first paragraph is really really incorrect. unreferenced and factually incorrect and dangerous = remove per WP:V. --W.R.N. 23:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Harrington's view is described by Jensen as being "extreme minority". If this is true, then Harrington's view doesn't belong in WP, per NPOV. --W.R.N. 00:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Harrington said that "The Jensen's 'g model', he writes is not consistent with mainstream twentieth century work in evolution and in genetics." -- this article should reflect both ideas since this question of the null hypothesis is an open one. futurebird 00:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
that doesn't address the problem: if Jensen is correct that Harrigton's view is "extreme minority", then Harrington's views do not belong in WP. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.(WP:NPOV) --W.R.N. 00:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's rewrite!

WRN, I noticed that the "Null" section seems to bother you. So rather than me writing it, I think it'd be a good idea for you to write a brief summary of how this idea works with respect to the research. This will help address the NPOV problem that we have now. I'm talking about re-wording this part:

Since the science of genetics has not yet found a gene that determines intelligence[94] much of the research that supports the genetic explanation of race and intelligence difference is based on a statistical method called "Null hypothesis." To use a null hypothesis one first sets up a 'false' hypothesis then disproves it using statical analysis of the data. The null hypothesis for the genetic explanation of race and intelligence differences is that none of the other non-genetic factors such as the existence of caste-like minorities, socio-economic factors, culture, the effort gap, pidgin language barriers, quality of education, health, racism, exposure to violence, the Flynn effect stereotype threat, and none of the possible combinations of these factors can fully explain the gap between tests scores of people of different races. To disprove this null hypothesis (and thereby prove the genetic hypothesis) researches who support the genetic explanation must show that all of the other possible causes for the gap, alone or together in any combination cannot eliminate the gap from testing scores.

I was just doing my best to explain how it works for the reader who is not familiar with the concept. Without it the section is just jargon ... futurebird 00:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

this is not a good explanation of the "null hypothesis" -- it is incorrect and is also original research, which is probably why it is mangled. you are confusing confounding factors with the null hypothesis, have left off the part about "significant" differences, and have mis-stated the how confounding factors should be weighed. they can't be taken alone or in any combination, they need to be combined appropriately. some of the confounding factors you state may have genetic roots, health is significantly genetic and i don't think anyone has shown the "effort gap" isn't genetic. the effort (and willingness to seek compromise) is appreciated though, there are so many articles with jargon in them.


I can do that, but a section about "null hypothesis" probably belongs somewhere outside of the two major sections ("environment" and "genetics") either above or below them. --W.R.N. 00:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


The sentence from Harrington: The usual logic of hypothesis testing is to frame the hypothesis of interest against the null hypothesis. Rejecting the null confirms the substantive. Factor analysis reverses this logic by interpreting acceptance of the null as confirmation of the substantive hypothesis. is not directly related to the paragraph you copied above. Although both discuss the concept of a null hypothesis, Harrington is trying to critique the method of factor analysis (not the overall question of genetic versus environmental causes of race differences). Is there some other source which discusses the general question in terms of a "null hypothesis"? I can write it from logic alone, but that would be OR.

The alternative statistical framework to the "frequentist" model of the null hypothesis is the Bayesian model of statistics/hypothesis tests. I know of one account of the general question in terms of Bayesian probabilities, which I could reference for such a discussion. --W.R.N. 01:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI - Bayesian_probability#Bayesian_probability_and_frequency_probability --W.R.N. 01:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to explain this is great detail, but we also need to make the description balanced. Can you suggest alternative wording? futurebird 05:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I can write the Bayesian thing by citing Rowe, but we need a source that talks about the general question in terms of a "null hypothesis". Harrington isn't doing that. I'll search for one, but you look too. --W.R.N. 05:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

WRN, health ain't genetic if we're talkin about things like breast feeding, lead exposure, and all of that. Now I suppose we could break it down for them, but that might be too much. You know?

It seems that we need to be talking about how 'g' works in this article. Not many people take a critical view of 'g' but we got to note those who do. Just becuse Jensen is coming up with 'g' to avoid the null hypothesis, it don't mean we need to go all in to 'g' in this section. Right? Hope I helped here, FB.

WRN, I'm lookin for a source too. But see it's hard cus all these writers who use it in papers just assume you know what it is, and those sites that explain it don't bother to mention the R & I aspects. JJJamal 05:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

ok, I'll write something, but keep the OR tag on because I'll essentially be doing OR when I write it. --W.R.N. 05:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

the first sentence isn't correct. the first half is false and/or POV. many scholars have claimed to have found "genes for IQ", and at least a few have been replicated multiple times. the 2nd half is really odd, but literally false. i don't know how to fix it ATM. --W.R.N. 06:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Are the studies about genes or heritability? futurebird 20:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] just putting this here

To use a null hypothesis one first sets up a 'false' hypothesis then disproves it using statical analysis of the data. The null hypothesis for the genetic explanation of race and intelligence differences is that none of the other non-genetic factors such as the existence of caste-like minorities, socio-economic factors, culture, the effort gap, pidgin language barriers, quality of education, health, racism, exposure to violence, the Flynn effect stereotype threat, and none of the possible combinations of these factors can fully explain the gap between tests scores of people of different races. To disprove this null hypothesis (and thereby prove the genetic hypothesis) researches who support the genetic explanation must show that all of the other possible causes for the gap, alone or together in any combination cannot eliminate the gap from testing scores.

I think we should put it back. JJJamal 06:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bell curve is not a good source for a neutral section

ultramarine removed a useful quote from TBC about heritability -- it even included talk about seeds to go with FB's image. UL's objection wasn't about the content but the source. the choice of TBC was intentional -- because the content was part of an argument that limits the applicability of heritability to genetic explanations, coming from TBC essentially proves that "even they" agree with the limitation. --W.R.N. 05:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you make a good point here. If I knew how I'd put it back. I'm still getting used to this place. JJJamal 05:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Herrnstein and Murray explain a limitation of within-group heritability in The Bell Curve:

As we discussed in Chapter 4, scholars accept that IQ is substantially heritable, somewhere between 40 and 80 percent, meaning that much of the observed variation in IQ is genetic. And yet this tells us nothing for sure about the origin of the differences between races in measured intelligence. This point is so basic, and so commonly misunderstood, that it deserves emphasis: That a trait is genetically transmitted in individuals does not mean that group differences in that trait are also genetic in origin. Anyone who doubts this assertion may take two handfuls of genetically identical seed corn and plant one handful in Iowa, the other in the Mojave Desert, and let nature (i.e., the environment) take its course. The seeds will grow in Iowa, not in the Mojave, and the result will have nothing to do with genetic differences. (Herrnstein and Murray 1994, p. 298.)


Is this what you mean? I think this is fine. But, could we mention the name of Ned Block too?

Ultra! what do you think about this???? futurebird 06:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As you please. --W.R.N. 06:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok.Ultramarine 06:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Wait. The quote contains some dubious material regarding the extent of heritability. Later studies have questioned these results, like for impoverished families.Ultramarine 06:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
you're talking about Capron and Duyme (1989). think "exceptions to the rule" -- it implies there is a rule. If you pick up a textbook on intelligence, you'll read about h^2 being 40-80% heritable (in the west). those exceptions have received counter-claims and the net result has not been adjudicated by scholarly opinion AFAIK. --W.R.N. 06:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Heritability is just a stat, it's not the same as genetics. The 40-80 is reasonable among those who accept the whole psychometric ball game, inculing the likes of Steele and Ogbu... The point here is IQ test scores can be even 100 percent heritable and there may still be gaps between groups. futurebird 06:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
yes, that is H&M's point. --W.R.N. 06:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Restored.Ultramarine 06:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Default hypothesis and detailed lines of argument

Jensen's assertion that by accepting his version of null hypothesis, you must believe in his genetic explanation, is not a genetic explanation - it belongs in the null hypothesis section, where the basic fundamentals of the question are being discussed.

Furthermore, diving into the fine-grained details of only one side of an argument here seems inappropriate. There is undue weight being placed on Jensen's line of reasoning, without proper counter balance. If you want to add in 4 paragraphs regarding Jensen's "default" and his line of reasoning, you should also add 4 paragraphs regarding critiques to Jensen's line of reasoning. --JereKrischel 19:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jere, originally, this was a sub-section of genetic explanations... WRN removed it and revised it. I admit, that it needs work, but the point here was to explain how Null works in the context of pro-gentic research and then to point out that it has a few critics. It should also make it clear that Jensen has found a way to work around it... a work-around that also has critics. What we have now is a confusing section at the top of the article...

This is all rather new to me, but due to trust issues we've had with the editing here I feel the need to take the time to study this in depth myself, rather than just assuming that WRNs edits make sense. (WRN I don't mean that in a mean, way I'm just being open about the reasons for my actions here) JJJamal knows a lot more about this than me. So, I'll see if I can get him to help. futurebird 19:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that arguments that are meta-arguments, really should be in separate sections...I think they belong at the top, but maybe we need a sub-section for them, like "Common arguments" or "Frequently debated points". Explanations should pretty much be limited to the statement of the hypothesis, and perhaps some relevant study directly testing that hypothesis. Arguments over the interpretations of a study (based on debating the fundamental questions or null hypothesis to be used), seem like they need a different section. I get the feeling that these arguments pop up in sections right now and aren't very well organized...with arguments in every section, on every reference, we lose some clarity. The idea of a null hypothesis can be used to promote either a genetic or an environmental explanation, but it doesn't seem to fit in one or the other. Anyway, my $0.02. --JereKrischel 08:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Finding a better organization for the entire article is a great goal, but the material in question need not wait on the side-lines until we resolve that difficult issue. --W.R.N. 05:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I moved the material, and added a response to the "Factor X" critique. It seems better to have that argument outside of the "genetic explanation" section. --JereKrischel 08:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Null Hypothesis

Since the science of genetics has not yet found a gene that determines intelligence[1] much of the research that supports the genetic explanation of race and intelligence difference is based on a statistical method called "Null hypothesis." To use a null hypothesis one first sets up a 'false' hypothesis then disproves it using statical analysis of the data. The null hypothesis for the genetic explanation of race and intelligence differences is that none of the other non-genetic factors such as the existence of caste-like minorities, socio-economic factors, culture, the effort gap, pidgin language barriers, quality of education, health, racism, exposure to violence, the Flynn effect stereotype threat, and none of the possible combinations of these factors can fully explain the gap between tests scores of people of different races. To disprove this null hypothesis (and thereby prove the genetic hypothesis) researches who support the genetic explanation must show that all of the other possible causes for the gap, alone or together in any combination cannot eliminate the gap from testing scores.

Jensen, however, has labelled the 'null hypothesis' the 'egalitarian fallacy,' adding that it is 'gratuitous' and 'scientifically unwarranted' (Jensen, 1980:370).[2]Gordon M. Harrington writes that factor analysis reverses the normal logic used for the null hypothesis by interpreting acceptance of the null as confirmation of the substantive hypothesis. The Jensen's 'g model', he writes is not consistent with mainstream twentieth century work in evolution and in genetics.[3]

[edit] genetic intelligence

Since the science of genetics has not yet found a gene that determines intelligence

this just isn't true. there are many genes known to be involved in intelligence. just think of a gene involved in severe mental retardation ; flip the coin and you have a gene that determines intelligence. IGF2R, CTSD, Msx1 also play roles in intelligence (and the list grows longer every year).

this is a different question than whether race determines intelligence.

Mental retardation due to a specific genetic defect, AFAIK, doesn't have any "flip-side" - nobody has identified a gene which confers upon its holder genius IQ. The range of normal intelligence has not been found to be a function of any specific genes. One day, it may be found that specific combinations of genes found that play "roles" in intelligence form a formula that predicts IQ, but we are well far away from any sort of road map like that. At best, we have some idea that there are some genes related to intelligence - what their specific relation is has not been discovered. --JereKrischel 07:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there have been a number of reports of genetic linkage or associations with IQ (e.g. doi:10.1007/s10519-005-9009-8, doi:10.1007/s10519-006-9131-2). How replicated and believable these reports are is not something I know. --W.R.N. 19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rushton's r-K theory

The material regarding this should be removed from the article. It is not evidence for racial genetic differences in IQ. Rather, assuming that there are such differences, then this is just one possible explanation for how this evolved. There are numerous other possible explanations. Objections? Ultramarine 12:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reorganized the article in order to avoid confusion, so the problem may be solved. Regardless, most of the rK-material should be moved to already existing article regarding that topic in order to avoid duplication.Ultramarine 12:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it was a good move to distinguish proximal and distal causal explanations. --W.R.N. 23:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] YOU must archive

This page is about three times longer than it should be. that means it is time to archive. I will do it but I cannot decide on my own how much because I have not been following this discussion. We should archive material that is no longer actively being discussed, and I think it is up to active contributors to make that decision. For the sake of convenience, I ask four people to tell me up to what topic # they think we can safely archive. Please put the highest number you feel comfortable with, and I will archive the lowest number of the four:

  • Futurebird: Up to 19, per ultra. futurebird 17:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • JereKreschel:
  • Ultramarine:Up to and including "tags", that is topic 19. Older material refer to an old verion. Current is much changed.Ultramarine 15:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • W.R.N.:

Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

that's fine. we'll dig out anything we're missing. --W.R.N. 22:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, three out of four - I'll archive. JK, I suggest you check what I archive to make sure there is nothing there you do not want to re-introduce. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed schizophrenia

Estimates of the significance of genetics vs. environment are dependent on the strength of environmental factors. For example, schizophrenia, regarded as being highly heritable,[4][5] has seen increased rates in second and third generation immigrants to Western European countries which do not seem to be the result of increased genetic susceptibility, but other, as yet unidentified, environmental factors that seem to have become more influential.[who?]

Seems a bit off topic. futurebird 21:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --W.R.N. 23:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] respones of critics section(s)

FB seems to have created a response of critics section for environmental explanations. the section is called "Arguements against environmental explanations". If this is to be maintained, then it will need to be applied to the genetic explanations section as well. --W.R.N. 22:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair. I hope this will reduce the "debate like" nature of the article. Let's roll with it for a bit and see if it makes sense. futurebird 23:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure. I have no problem with the use of a "response of critics" section if it actually works. The main article sections were once built that way. --W.R.N. 23:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The scientific community vs. Aurthur Jenson?

Why is he the only available source which suggests a partly genetic reason? Isn't it astounding that most people disagree with this one guy, but for the sake of argument he's all over this wikipedia page even though no one agree with him? Is this just for the sake of having an alternate view? I know a lot about Jenson and imo he's a racist. If that's all there is out there for evidence suggesting a genetic correlation with IQ then I'm confident that there is no partly genetic reason. His arguments seem weak to me also. Just my two cents.Taharqa 04:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. How many people are publishing papers in support of this guy? (papers in the Mankind quarterly don't count.) You would not believe this but when I first saw this article it was all about Jensen and most of the other stuff has only been added in the last two months. futurebird 05:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
simple answer: people are afraid to speak out. look at what happened to larry summers, he was thrown out of his job. if he said what he said about black people and not women, the reaction would have been swifter. suggesting a difference between races is a career killer.
Rather like suggesting the universe is made of ether... Jensen isn't even at a university anymore. How is he publishing these papers? futurebird 05:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
or maybe like suggesting the universe isn't made of ether....in the year 1885. the case for genetic differences is extremely weak, but i don't think any modern experiments have been performed. there are enough people that wonder about this and there isn't enough data to provide an answer that the research would be interesting. just look at the attention this page gets. but it would be impossible to find funding and would be a career killer. the politically-correct real-world-pov pushers would be out demanding heads.

Are you kidding? --W.R.N. 19:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

He's retired. I wonder why... futurebird 06:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
FB, he's really old (84) and has a degenerative disease of old age. --W.R.N. 07:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you happen to know when he retired? I can't find any sources on that. futurebird 15:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, but "retired" professors are often not really "retired". Often they stop taking pay but they keep their titles -- tenure is a life-time position. see Emeritus --W.R.N. 19:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] genetic intelligence redux

Mental retardation due to a specific genetic defect, AFAIK, doesn't have any "flip-side"... --JereKrischel 07:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"gene G causes retardation", which is the kind of nonsense you might read in the newspapers means that one allele of G is linked to low IQ. and another allele is linked to higher IQ. there's a "flip-side" that causes higher IQ for you.

[edit] Flynn's "factor x"

So now we seemed to have a solution. The present generation has some potent environmental advantage absent from the last generation that explains its higher average IQ. Let us call it Factor X. Factor X will simply not register in twin studies. After all, the two members of a twin pair are by definition of the same generation. Since Factor X was completely missing within the last generation, no one benefited from it at all and therefore, it can hardly explain any IQ differences within the last generation. It will not dilute the dominance of genes. Since Factor X is completely uniform within the present generation, everyone benefits from it to the same degree and it cannot explain IQ differences within the present generation. Once again, the dominance of genes will be unchallenged. Therefore, twin studies could show that genes explain 100% of IQ differences within generations and yet, environment might explain 100% of the average IQ difference between generations. However, Lewontin offers us a poisoned apple. History has not experimented with the last two generations as we might experiment with plants in a laboratory. Consider the kind of factors that might explain massive IQ gains, such as better nutrition, more education, more liberal parenting, the slow spread of the scientific ethos. It is quite unreal to imagine any of these affecting two generations with uniformity. Certainly, everyone was not badly nourished in the last generation, everyone well nourished at present; everyone without secondary school in the last generation, everyone a graduate at present; everyone raised traditionally in the last generation, everyone raised liberally at present; everyone bereft of the scientific ethos in the last generation, everyone permeated with it at present. If the only solution to our paradox is to posit a Factor X or a collection of such, it seems even more baffling than before. We should shut this particular door as follows: A solution is plausible only if it does not posit a Factor X. Seven years ago, William Dickens of the Brookings Institution, decided to do some modeling of his own and asked my help in applying it to real-world situations (Dickens & Flynn, 2001a; 2001b). We believe that it solves the identical twins paradox without positing a Factor X. It makes an assumption that may seem commonplace but which has profound implications, namely: that those who have an advantage for a particular trait will become matched with superior environments for that trait.

http://www.thepsychometricscentre.co.uk/publications/BeyondTheFlynnEffect.asp#Enhanced

Flynn is talking about group difference between generations. He's not talking about race. I mean unless you have a quote where he discounts factor x with respect to race you can't say he "agrees" with Jensen. futurebird 06:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Flynn's theory is that between generation effects informs us about within generation effects (i.e. race differences) -- note how he switches between the two in the paper. See this article for an explanation of Flynn's views on this or Flynn and Dickens (2001) for the technical paper. --W.R.N. 07:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Flynn suggests that racism acts as a social multiplier rather than as a simple factor X. This makes a lot of sense in light of the findings of Steele on things such as small changes in the testing environment that make race salient. I think it was a little dishonest to say that "Flynn agrees with Jensen about factor X" when what Flynn is saying "we don't even need to use factor X, we can explain this with less"
I wonder if there is any work on the social nature of human being that helps explain why people are susceptible to stereotypes. I think that this kind of conformity to expectations probably works in positive ways much of time without people knowing it. We expect old people to be wise, we expect young people to need extra guidance and often give them 2nd changes when they make mistakes. We expect "leaders" to lead us in the right direction. Trust in this kind and willingness to let others take over depending on status help keep the world working. We couldn't fight all of the time over every little thing.
But what happens when a society permanently degrades an entire group of individuals to lower status on the basis of superficial features? Some of the time it will work, but at other times it causes a lot of anger and resistance. That alone is one of many signs that there is something wrong. futurebird 15:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if there is any work on the social nature of human being that helps explain why people are susceptible to stereotypes. -- This is the major theoretical head-scratcher about the stereotype threat question. If stereotype threat is simply about "motivation", then it's not too hard to understand. But if it's something more substantial, as some suggest, it seems counterintuitive that humans would be susceptible to having their performance degraded in that way. (It doesn't make evolutionary sense.) --W.R.N. 19:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The nice thing with evolutionary explanations is that one can alwyas, with a little imagination, find lots of arguments for every imaginable position. Thus, one can argue that it will often be a good response to "freeze" at least initally in a threatening/unfamiliar situations, so that predators/enemies do not notice one's presence, so that one does not say something stupid or reveal something with body language, or make an impulsive decision.Ultramarine 00:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] flynn describes Factor X

excerpted here for others to read because it comes from a lengthy source [2] --W.R.N. 19:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Most psychologists agree in the interpretation of these studies. For example, Jensen (1998) concludes that while environment may have some potency at earlier ages, IQ differences between adults are overwhelmingly determined by genetic differences.

And yet, how is this possible? As we have seen, there are massive IQ differences between one generation and another. No one has been selectively breeding human beings for high IQ, so it looks as if genetic differences between the generations would be trivial (we will evidence that assumption a few pages hence). If that is so, environmental factors must cause IQ gains over time and given the size of those gains, those environmental factors must have enormous potency. How can solid evidence show both that environment is feeble (kinship studies) and potent (IQ gains) at the same time?

Jensen (1973a, 1973b) made the paradox all the more acute by using a mathematical model. He plugged in two pieces of data: a 15-point IQ difference between two groups; and a low estimate of the influence of environment on IQ (a correlation between environment and IQ of about 0.33). These implied that for environment to explain the IQ gap between those groups, the environmental gap between them would have to be immense. One group would have to have an average environment so bad as to be worse than 99% of the environments among the other group. Dutch males of 1982 were 20 IQ points above the previous generation. According to Jensen's mathematics, the average environment of the previous generation would have to be worse than 99.99% of the 1982 environments. Jensen assumed that no one could make a case for something apparently so implausible.

Lewontin (1976a, 1976b) tried to solve the paradox. He distinguished the role of genes within groups from the role of genes between groups. He imagined a sack of seed corn with plenty of genetic variation randomly divided into two batches, each of which would therefore be equal for overall genetic quality. Batch A is grown in a uniform and optimal environment, so within that group all height differences at maturity are due to genetic variation; batch B is grown in a uniform environment which lacks enough nitrates, so within that group all height differences are also genetic. However, the difference in average height between the two groups will, of course, be due entirely to the unequal quality of their two environments.

So now we seemed to have a solution. The present generation has some potent environmental advantage absent from the last generation that explains its higher average IQ. Let us call it Factor X. Factor X will simply not register in twin studies. After all, the two members of a twin pair are by definition of the same generation. Since Factor X was completely missing within the last generation, no one benefited from it at all and therefore, it can hardly explain any IQ differences within the last generation. It will not dilute the dominance of genes. Since Factor X is completely uniform within the present generation, everyone benefits from it to the same degree and it cannot explain IQ differences within the present generation. Once again, the dominance of genes will be unchallenged. Therefore, twin studies could show that genes explain 100% of IQ differences within generations and yet, environment might explain 100% of the average IQ difference between generations.

However, Lewontin offers us a poisoned apple. History has not experimented with the last two generations as we might experiment with plants in a laboratory. Consider the kind of factors that might explain massive IQ gains, such as better nutrition, more education, more liberal parenting, the slow spread of the scientific ethos. It is quite unreal to imagine any of these affecting two generations with uniformity. Certainly, everyone was not badly nourished in the last generation, everyone well nourished at present; everyone without secondary school in the last generation, everyone a graduate at present; everyone raised traditionally in the last generation, everyone raised liberally at present; everyone bereft of the scientific ethos in the last generation, everyone permeated with it at present. If the only solution to our paradox is to posit a Factor X or a collection of such, it seems even more baffling than before. We should shut this particular door as follows: A solution is plausible only if it does not posit a Factor X.

Seven years ago, William Dickens of the Brookings Institution, decided to do some modeling of his own and asked my help in applying it to real-world situations (Dickens & Flynn, 2001a; 2001b). We believe that it solves the identical twins paradox without positing a Factor X. It makes an assumption that may seem commonplace but which has profound implications, namely: that those who have an advantage for a particular trait will become matched with superior environments for that trait.