Why do Aborigines score higher than Blacks on IQ tests?
Rushtown
[moderator's note: Oy, vay. Here we go again. - JAH]
Pure Blacks from Africa score 70 on IQ tests. Australian Aborigines
average 85. Yet Aborigines have (and are generally acknowledged
to have) retained the most primitive traits. Their brain sizes range from
900cc to 1300. Homo Erectus had an average 900cc brain. So they
are the most primitive version of mankind (Please no PC protests--you all
know this is true) . So why the higher IQ score relative to Africans
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
Rushtown <rush...@aol.com> wrote ...
> Pure Blacks from Africa score 70 on IQ tests. Australian Aborigines
> average 85. Yet Aborigines have (and are generally acknowledged
> to have) retained the most primitive traits. Their brain sizes range from
> 900cc to 1300. Homo Erectus had an average 900cc brain. So they
> are the most primitive version of mankind (Please no PC protests--you all
> know this is true) . So why the higher IQ score relative to Africans
>
The data is sparse, but it does exist and
assuming the published reports are
accurate I will hazard some explanations.
Be advised that scientific information pertaining
to group averages should never be used to prejudge
or mistreat anyone, and my comments are not intended
to support the agendas of racists or hate mongers.
1) There is great genetic distance between
the Sub-Saharans and Aborigines and although
IQ correlates somewhat with brain size (r = 0.49), other
genetic and environmental factors play a large role
in determining IQ. Australian Aborigines enjoy benefits
provided by the Australian government that result
in levels of nutrition, education, and medical care
that are beyond the reach of most Africans- it is no
surprise that they would score higher as a result.
2) Some Sub-Saharan populations
do average as high as 85 on IQ tests. It may
well be that average Sub-Saharan IQ was much higher
than 70 a few thousand years ago but has declined rapidly due
to the well known dysgenic effects of civilization,
exacerbated by a climate amenable to relatively
easy survival for those with low cognitive ability.
Furthermore, poor environment surely is at least
partly responsible for the low scores in Africa.
3) Australian Aborigines were nearly exterminated
when the white man came to their land- disease,
bullets, famine, harmful policies- an old story. Those who survived
were probably the strongest and the smartest- the top
of the Bell Curve. This may be simply a classic case of
survival of the fittest.
4) There is evidence of extensive past miscegenation in existing
Australian Aboriginal populations, just as there is for American Blacks.
The resulting offspring have an average IQ value somewhere between the
two parent groups. It appears that American Blacks have obtained an
increase of 15 IQ points (to raise their average of 85 as
opposed to Sub-Saharan average IQ of 70) by virtue of
their recently acquired 25 percent average admixture
of Caucasian genes. The Aborigines who score highest
on IQ tests are likely to have larger percentages of
Caucasian genetic admixture.
Garry Jolley-Rogers
In article <6j7ak8$pp8$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, "Dr. Efram E. Goldstein"
<efr...@worldsciuni.com> wrote:
At the risk of repeating already well rehearsed arguements, I wish to
debunk the following thread.
1. there is no statistical relationship between cortical volume
and intelligence. This is well established in a
substantial body of papers in the psych literature. Do a lit search.
Brain size has no relationship to intelligence.
To illustrate, consider the average size of a footballers head -
are they considered einsteins? Brain size is proportional
to body size.
2. the relationship between genetics and intelligence is also
problematic. If it is inheritable, then intelligence is
encoded in too many genes for natural selection to
act directly. More likly, above a threshold intelligence
is epiphenomena (ie a secondary consequence of something else).
IQ scores rise dramatically if school children are fed
a balanced diet! There are many other similiar effects.
How many african americans (BLACKS in your parlance)
are below th breadline?
Again go and read the literature!
3. IQ. Anyone who has studied IQ tests directly knows that
they are culturally based. For instance, immigrants IQ
scores rise dramatically after 5 years in a country.
If it was something intrinsic to the person
then IQ would by its nature be a static quantity.
For goodness sake, go and read the literature.
4. The bell curve. What can I say, its a mess of a
book founded on incomplete understanding of statistics.
A polemic rather than reasoned analysis. If you are
to compare two groups on a measure (IQ), then
all determinants of the measure must be taken into
account before you come to a conclusion. For instance,
below you state "Some Sub-Saharan populations
do average as high as 85 on IQ tests". Have you paused
to consider the effects of prolonged and endemic food
shortages? (see note 2 above)
4. Finally, racism. I live in Australia. Aborigines
are not a homogeneous group. Neither are africans nor
europeans... Of the many aboriginal australians I know...
Some are lawyers.. some are on unemployment benefits
some are painters.. some are still tribal. The only
consistent fact is that opportunity makes the man/woman.
NOT inherent ability. It is an illusion.
This thread has disgustingly racist overtones.
This shortcoming is compounded by incomplete scholarship.
GO AND EDUCATE YOURSELVES. if you want, I'll send
you a reading list...but be warned its very large.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Garry Jolley-Rogers
Dept. of Zoology University of Melbourne
Ph x44846 or x44349 or 98836848 or 93620285
email :G.jolle...@zoology.unimelb.edu.au
-----------------------------------------------------------
CWilson379
In article <199805090433...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, rush...@aol.com
(Rushtown) writes:
>Pure Blacks from Africa score 70 on IQ tests. Australian Aborigines
>average 85. Yet Aborigines have (and are generally acknowledged
>to have) retained the most primitive traits. Their brain sizes range from
>900cc to 1300. Homo Erectus had an average 900cc brain. So they
>are the most primitive version of mankind (Please no PC protests--you all
>know this is true) . So why the higher IQ score relative to Africans
>
>
Whatever the reasons are, the lack of correlation between brain size and tested
IQ in these two groups would militate against accepting your contention that IQ
is related to brain size, wouldn't it? In other words, maybe men of other
races CAN have large phalluses without being dumber than whites, even if their
brains are smaller on average. Makes ya wanna cry in yer beer, doesn't it?
Phil
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein wrote:
>
> Rushtown <rush...@aol.com> wrote ...
> > Pure Blacks from Africa score 70 on IQ tests. Australian Aborigines
> > average 85. Yet Aborigines have (and are generally acknowledged
> > to have) retained the most primitive traits. Their brain sizes range from
> > 900cc to 1300. Homo Erectus had an average 900cc brain. So they
> > are the most primitive version of mankind (Please no PC protests--you all
> > know this is true) . So why the higher IQ score relative to Africans
> >
Doc:
The correlation coefficient sure is small. Is it possible that the
general study is biased statistically by a smaller subgroup comparison.
Rush...@aol.com
In article <G.jolley-rogers-
12059810...@macimagemac.zoology.unimelb.edu.au>,
G.jolle...@zoology.unimelb.edu.au (Garry Jolley-Rogers) wrote:
>
> In article <6j7ak8$pp8$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, "Dr. Efram E. Goldstein"
> <efr...@worldsciuni.com> wrote:
>
> At the risk of repeating already well rehearsed arguements, I wish to
> debunk the following thread.
> 4. Finally, racism. I live in Australia. Aborigines
> are not a homogeneous group. Neither are africans nor
> europeans... Of the many aboriginal australians I know...
> Some are lawyers.. some are on unemployment benefits
> some are painters.. some are still tribal. The only
> consistent fact is that opportunity makes the man/woman.
> NOT inherent ability. It is an illusion.
>
> This thread has disgustingly racist overtones.
> This shortcoming is compounded by incomplete scholarship.
> GO AND EDUCATE YOURSELVES. if you want, I'll send
> you a reading list...but be warned its very large.
>
question about genetically based IQ differences without resorting
to making your point by name calling. Then you ruined it w/the above.
There are two reasonable viewpoints in this debate, both backed up by
data and acadamedicians who support each. Rushtown
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
CWilson379
Thank you for your excellent reply, Mr. Jolley-Rogers. One more idiotic
inconsistency about The Bell Curve reasoning deserves mention, I believe. The
average gap between measured IQ of groups of blacks and whites cited by the
authors is about 15 points, or one standard deviation. The same amount of
variation exists between the average measured IQ of American and European
whites today and their forebears only one generation ago. The rats of NIMH are
probably clever enough to figure out that genetically determined intelligence
doesn't shift that much in one generation. But if you want to buy into the
silly theories of Murray, Hernstein, Rushtown and ilk, then it follows that the
supposedly intellectually inferior races only need one generation to catch up.
In article
<G.jolley-rogers-...@macimagemac.zoology.unimelb.edu.au>,
Per Erik Rønne
Garry Jolley-Rogers <G.jolle...@zoology.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> 2. the relationship between genetics and intelligence is also
> problematic. If it is inheritable, then intelligence is
> encoded in too many genes for natural selection to
> act directly. More likly, above a threshold intelligence
> is epiphenomena (ie a secondary consequence of something else).
> IQ scores rise dramatically if school children are fed
> a balanced diet! There are many other similiar effects.
Well, a Danish brain researcher, professor Helmut Nyborg [=C5rhus
University] thinks he has discovered a link between gender hormones in
human fetuses.
Boy fetuses with low levels of androgenes tend to be more intelligent,
to be less violent, mature slower - be better leaders and have a greater
incidence of homosexuality than do boy fetuses with high levels of
androgenes.
Girl fetuses with low levels of ostrogenes tend to be more intelligent,
to be less "girlish", mature slower - be better leaders and have a
greater incidence of homosexuality than do girl fetuses with high levels
of ostrogenes.
And of course he adds that the gender hormones are determined by the
genes - although the mother's condition during the pregnancy is
important too.
Of course genetics and intelligence is linked. Otherwise we would not
see a difference in the abilities between different species.
Otherwise intelligence had not been important selectively - had there
not been genetically defined intelligence differences between individual
hominids, Homo sapiens had never evolved from our ape ancestors.
--=20
Per Erik R=F8nne
E-mail: xer...@diku.edu.dk
Homepage with pgp public key: http://www.diku.dk/students/xerxes
Remove '.edu' before e-mail [anti-spam]
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
Garry Jolley-Rogers wrote ...
> 1. [..]
> Brain size has no relationship to intelligence.
> [..]
>
> 2. the relationship between genetics and intelligence is also
> problematic. If it is inheritable, then intelligence is
> encoded in too many genes for natural selection to
> act directly. [..]
>
> 3. IQ. Anyone who has studied IQ tests directly knows that
> they are culturally based. [..]
>
> 4. The bell curve. What can I say, its a mess of a
> book founded on incomplete understanding of statistics.
>
> 4. Finally, racism. I live in Australia. [..]
> The only consistent fact is that opportunity makes the man/woman.
> NOT inherent ability. It is an illusion.
>
> GO AND EDUCATE YOURSELVES.[..]
> Garry Jolley-Rogers
> Dept. of Zoology University of Melbourne
>
Your statements are made with passion and sincerity,
you are repeating what you have been taught and what you
in turn teach to others- but every statement you
have made above is scientifically incorrect.
I will address them in order:
1. Brain size correlates fairly well with IQ in humans
in every study done over the past ten years.
For a review see Rushton and Ankney (Psychometric
Bulletin and Review, 3, p21-36; 1996).
They report that by using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans
to measure brain size in 8 new separate studies with a total of 381
adults a correlation of r = 0.44 was found with IQ. MRI seems the
best way to accurately measure brain size, but even the least accurate
way (by external measurement of head size) shows a trend (studies
done this way of 45,056 humans yielded a correlation with IQ of r = 0.21).
Jensen has published studies showing head size/IQ correlation
occurs both within and among families (Intelligence, 18, p309-33; 1994).
If brain size is unrelated to intelligence,
why has hominid brain size increased from
350cc to 1400cc over just the past 3 million years?
2. Saying that genetics has no influence on intelligence
and that natural selection has not acted on intelligence
denies the of the sciences of genetics and evolution.
Intelligence evolved. Genes were involved in the process.
Your statement is exactly what a Creationist would say.
3. Old IQ tests were biased, but modern tests and
testing procedure are quite sophisticated- expert
psychologists who devise and conduct these
tests are not ignorant fools. Bias free "culture-fair"
tests and many other methods are used to avoid
testing bias. Dr. Arthur Jensen's "Bias
in Mental Testing" is the best review.
4. "The Bell Curve" does not discuss any of the
issues previously raised in this thread- clearly you have not
read the book. It was a mild 850 page literature review done
by a highly respected Harvard psychologist with a strong
understanding of statistics- there is nothing wrong
with the statistics presented in the book.
5. Opportunity is important, but your assertion
that human ability is "an illusion" is a typical
feel-good statement that has absolutely no
scientific validity.
Lastly, you have implied that anyone who disagrees
with you on any of your points is a racist.
I am not a racist yet I find no credence in your assertions.
It is more accurate to say that your statements
reveal that you have some things to learn before
you may call yourself a scientist. When I graduated
from University I would have agreed with each of
your statements- it was what I had been taught-
but I had never been exposed to any information
the argued the opposite points. Study both sides of
the issue before you pronounce yourself sole guardian of
"the truth".
I suggest that you actually read Herrnstein's
"The Bell Curve" (1997) and J.P. Rushton's "Race,
Evolution, and Behavior" (1997) just as a matter
of gaining a wider perspective.
EEG
Charles Paxton
Sighted people consistently score an average of 100 in standard read IQ
tests, blind people score zero.
Hmmm, clearly blindness causes severe mental retardation.
Similar results are obtained if anglophones and francophones both take an
IQ test in english.
Obviously, francophones are inheritantly stupid.
Charles Paxton
sue lennen
Our perceptive but tolerant moderator
had it exactly right: Oy vay, he lamented,
here we go again. He appears to have
anticipated my sentiments. We both
support free expression of opinion, but I
hope he agrees with me that when
discussants make it clear that they
fundamentally disagree, not only about the
meaning of the data, but about the
evidence itself, one must eventually draw
a merciful curtain to prevent perpetual
repetition. Ciao, Mort Gilbert
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
Charles Paxton <p...@ife.ac.uk> wrote ...
> Sighted people consistently score an average of 100 in standard read IQ
> tests, blind people score zero.[..]
> Hmmm, clearly blindness causes severe mental retardation.
> Charles Paxton
>
Although this has little to do with evolution, I must
point out that blind people can read as fast in
Braille as can the rest of us with our eyes and they
do not have lower IQs.
IQ tests have often been administered to people
who have been blind since birth- and they score the
same as sighted people on average. This result
is actually somewhat of a puzzle- everyone agrees
that environment plays a substantial role in IQ
development, and researchers like Ulric Neisser
have concluded that visual stimulation is probably
the most important component of early IQ building
experience. People blind since birth should have
depressed IQs, but they do not.
This finding has been used to belittle the importance
of environment in IQ development, but another
explanation is that being blind creates both positive and
negative environmental influences in IQ building
which cancel each other out.
EEG
Rushtown
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Why do sighted people score higher on IQ tests than blind
>people?
>From: "Charles Paxton" <p...@ife.ac.uk>
>Date: Fri, May 15, 1998 12:51 EDT
>Message-id: <6jhrqo$104e$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>
>
>
>Sighted people consistently score an average of 100 in standard read IQ
>tests, blind people score zero.
>
>
>IQ test in english.
>
>Obviously, francophones are inheritantly stupid.
>
>Charles Paxton
Blind people score 100 on Braille IQ tests.
A totally French speaking person can get over 100 on an
English IQ test because of the similarity of the languages.
And English speaking person can "read" about 10% of French
text.
But what I'm wondering---were you trying to start up the
good ole race IQ debate again with such a stupid post? Rushtown
[moderator's note: Pot. Kettle. Bang. - JAH]
Rushtown
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Why do sighted people score higher on IQ tests than
>blind people?
>From: rush...@aol.com (Rushtown)
>Date: Sun, May 17, 1998 14:00 EDT
>Message-id: <199805160124...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
I'm not accusing the poster of trying to start up the race-IQ debate
---I'm for such a debate. And I've tried to start it up myself--with
limited success in this NG, though.
But, oh well, here goes again. The following explains why
racial differences in IQ should be expected.
The races on the average differ in the frequency of genes for
almost every polymorphic (ie more than one gene controls) trait
which can vary between siblings. The recent genetic survey of
the world by Cavilli-Sforza found different frequencies in all
variable traits between races--usually in the range found between siblings. If
this is true on physical traits---why isn't it true on mental traits?.
Siblings differ by about 17 IQ points on average. Why shouldn't
it be expected that there'd be two races that also differed on this
trait to about the same extent? Andrew Smyth PS A NG called
sci.bio.evolution just about demands a discussion of this subject.
[moderator's opinion: I disagree. The topic at hand is, if I read
you correctly, genetic-based differences in cognitive abilities
among distinct human populations. If that's not anthropology, I
don't know what is (human evolution, after all, is the bedrock of
anthropology) -- and guess what? There are SEVERAL groups devoted
to anthropology. A person with expertise in, say, the evolution of
predator-prey systems (like me) has absolutely no interest in this
specialized sort of discussion, which centers on only one species
out of the whole panoply of life.
Not to mention that the argument above is entirely specious: simply
because populations differ for gene frequencies known to code for
observable physical traits (e.g. blood typing) there is no reason
to assume that "mental traits" are also coded for genetically, or
that only one, or a few, genes are responsible for "mental traits".
You have begged the question: you assume that intelligence is
genetically based and therefore that genetic explanations for
differences must be sought (and other explanations, by inference,
should be discarded a priori). But intelligence is not objectively
measurable, unlike physical traits like height, weight, hair color,
and skin color. Restrict yourself to IQ and you are talking about
a completely artificial measure with no measurable relevance to
anything except ability to take IQ tests.
I suppose I shouldn't comment for more words than the original
post included. So, 'nuff said: there are more appropriate forums
for this discussion than s.b.e. - JAH]
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
Just a note about the
May 1998 Scientific American
article about genetics and intelligence:
THE GENETICS OF COGNITIVE ABILITIES AND DISABILITIES
Robert Plomin and John C. DeFries.
"Studies of twins and adoptees suggest that
about half the variation seen in verbal
and spatial ability is genetically based.
The authors are searching for the genes
responsible and for genes involved in such
cognitive disabilities as dyslexia."
The authors imply that learning disabilities like
dyslexia are probably simply the lower end of
the bell curve distribution of learning abilities,
indeed they may be simply the lower end of
the spectrum of "g", or intelligence, or IQ-
whatever term you prefer.
The authors are trying to bring an honest scientific
perspective back to subjects long dominated by
unscientific politically correct edicts- it is an
article worth reading by anyone interested
in evolutionary biology because of the overall
implications.
EEG
Cluster User
On 13 May 1998 16:17:02 GMT, xer...@diku.edu.dk
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_Erik_R=F8nne?=) wrote:
>Garry Jolley-Rogers <G.jolle...@zoology.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>Of course genetics and intelligence is linked. Otherwise we would not
>see a difference in the abilities between different species.
That is right, an ape solving a human problem does very
poorly, and in turn exhibits a very low IQ. But have
studies been done on how well humans do on Ape tests?
It is natural to think that we are some "higher" form
of creature, since we find our own intelligence so
attractive- it is, after all, one of our main sexual
selectors. But in reality, right now we seem to be one
of the worst pests on the planet, in terms of
out-of-control population, resource use, and waste
output.
Put it another way- nematodes may be the greater
biomass, but geeze... who bugs you more on the freeway?
>Otherwise intelligence had not been important selectively - had there
>not been genetically defined intelligence differences between individual
>hominids, Homo sapiens had never evolved from our ape ancestors.
Might have been a nice direction. I often think how if
we could just have held off another 20 or 30 million
years, some line of Orca-likes might have happened upon
the standard technological-creature's combination of
hands/vocal ability/abstract reasoning first. The main
problem with Orca- while they are smart, they just
aren't challenged. Goddam things went in the water, and
then just had it too easy. Maybe it was a "smart" move.
Charles Paxton
Just for clarification for the irony impaired, *sigh*: my post about blind
people scoring lower in read IQ tests than sighted people was a sarcastic
comment on the usefulness of comparing different groups (animals and
people) from different environmental backgrounds and then asserting said
differences are genetic.
Please could someone thus provide a single reference for clines or discrete
differences in human IQ (ignoring for a moment the problems of such a one
dimensional measure of intelligence) across widespread geographic area
where all cultural and environmental factors have been UNEQUIVOCALLY
removed. I doubt it for the simple reason you cannot bring humans in the
lab and rear them in a common garden, the only way to remove confounded
environmental effects (to pre-empt anybody, transracial adoption does not
necessarily get around the problem).
Further points on the thread:
1. Dr. Efram E. Goldstein <efr...@worldsciuni.com> wrote in article
<6js7l0$hj4$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
> Just a note about the
> May 1998 Scientific American
> article about genetics and intelligence:
>
> THE GENETICS OF COGNITIVE ABILITIES AND DISABILITIES
> Robert Plomin and John C. DeFries.
>
>
> The authors imply that learning disabilities like
> dyslexia are probably simply the lower end of
> the bell curve distribution of learning abilities,
> indeed they may be simply the lower end of
> the spectrum of "g", or intelligence, or IQ-
> whatever term you prefer.
>
But there is abundant evidence of individuals with dyslexia who have
manifestly high intelligence (not IQ or g or whatever), For example, I
believe a former government minister in the UK, Michael Heseltine was
dyslexic I believe. (OK, you may think his politics render him an idiot but
that is another matter). In fact I suspect ol' Dr Goldstein may be
misinterpreting here I would have thought Promin and De Fries too good a
behavioural geneticists to claim that but it is awhile since I read the
literature.
2. The original poster referred to australian aboringines as the "most
primitive version" human beings. What does primitive mean in this context?
The outgroup for the rest of humanity? Retained a lot of ancestral
characters? Lack a lot of derived characters? Or is this comment made on
the basis of one trait, brain size? In short if the poster wants (fairly
IMO) rational discussion of this issue in sci.bio.evolution then lets see
ambiguous terms defined early on in an evolutionary context.
3. Is the IQ comparison between the two groups meaningful, how (on earth!)
did the experimenters involved manage to compare such culturally distinct
groups? How were the IQ tests administered. When did the subject groups
learn to read etc. Convince me that the results were meaningful and then
I'll ponder the biological implications but until then...
Charles Paxton
Per Erik Ronne
Cluster User <cluste...@yale.edu> wrote:
> Might have been a nice direction. I often think how if
> we could just have held off another 20 or 30 million
> years, some line of Orca-likes might have happened upon
> the standard technological-creature's combination of
> hands/vocal ability/abstract reasoning first. The main
> problem with Orca- while they are smart, they just
> aren't challenged. Goddam things went in the water, and
> then just had it too easy. Maybe it was a "smart" move.
I simply don't belive in the possibility of whales developing
intelligence. After all, the haven't got any hands.
And civilization without fire?
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
Charles Paxton <p...@ife.ac.uk> wrote...
> [..]
> Please could someone thus provide a single reference for clines or discrete
> differences in human IQ (ignoring for a moment the problems of such a one
> dimensional measure of intelligence) across widespread geographic area
> where all cultural and environmental factors have been UNEQUIVOCALLY
> removed.[..]
> (to pre-empt anybody, transracial adoption does not
> necessarily get around the problem).
>
As a matter of scientific method, you will probably never find
any issue or data pertaining to it that is beyond some sort of
equivocation. It is important to look objectively at both sides
of a question and evaluate all the evidence with continual skepticism.
You have no doubt read Gould's "Mismeasure of Man" and had
other exposure to similar views, but it would do you some good
to familiarize yourself with different scientific opinions on the
subject as well. Herrnstein and Murray's "The Bell Curve" is well worth
reading, as is J.P. Rushton's "Race , Evolution, and Behavior".
Remember that scientific detachment is essential when evaluating
emotionally charged issues. We all want a world of equality and fairness,
but good science requires that we not let our emotions
or politics influence our scientific judgement.
>
> Further points on the thread:
>
> 1. Dr. Efram E. Goldstein <efr...@worldsciuni.com> wrote in article
> <6js7l0$hj4$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
> > Just a note about the
> > May 1998 Scientific American
> > article about genetics and intelligence:
> >
> > THE GENETICS OF COGNITIVE ABILITIES AND DISABILITIES
> > Robert Plomin and John C. DeFries.
> > [..]
> > The authors imply that learning disabilities like
> > dyslexia are probably simply the lower end of
> > the bell curve distribution of learning abilities,
> > indeed they may be simply the lower end of
> > the spectrum of "g", or intelligence, or IQ-
> > whatever term you prefer.
> >
> But there is abundant evidence of individuals with dyslexia who have
> manifestly high intelligence (not IQ or g or whatever), For example, I
> believe a former government minister in the UK, Michael Heseltine was
> dyslexic I believe. (OK, you may think his politics render him an idiot but
> that is another matter). In fact I suspect ol' Dr Goldstein may be
> misinterpreting here I would have thought Promin and De Fries too good a
> behavioural geneticists to claim that but it is awhile since I read the
> literature.
Anecdotes aside,
lately the trend has been to declare anyone
with below average intelligence as "learning disabled" in the US,
which provides the "disabled" person with great benefits-
including legally mandated unlimited time to take standardized tests
and legally forbids any professor from failing them in any course.
Last year over 3,000,000 students took advantage of the
law and declared themselves "learning disabled"- as proof all they
really have to do is show that they have scored lower than average
in their school work or on a standardized test. Lawmakers and
parents have redefined "below average" as abnormal. The practice is
spreading rapidly and represents a threat to the entire system
of intellectual competition in higher education.
> 3. Is the IQ comparison between the two groups meaningful, how (on earth!)
> did the experimenters involved manage to compare such culturally distinct
> groups? How were the IQ tests administered. When did the subject groups
> learn to read etc. [..]
> Charles Paxton
>
Arthur Jensen's "Bias in Mental Testing" is a good review of
IQ testing methods and the problem of accounting for bias.
On most modern IQ tests the various questions are ranked
in order of difficulty (by how often they are answered incorrectly).
When the difficulty ranking of the questions is exactly the same for
different groups of people taking the test, it is a good indication
that no individual question is biased with respect to those groups.
Psychologists who are experts in testing have an array
of other interesting analytical techniques in their arsenal.
No one has ever been able to devise a test which does
not reveal a black-white difference in intelligence- and many
people have tried. There are over 300 studies in the
literature. In fact, when very large samples are compared
no one has been able to formulate even one question on any
IQ test where the black-white difference does not manifest itself, including
verbal and pictorial questions. Not one question, ever.
I point this out only in the interest of dispelling the myth
of test bias- that often invoked explanation simply does not hold up
to scientific scrutiny.
EEG
Steven Koch (Economics)
> Please could someone thus provide a single reference for clines or discrete
> differences in human IQ (ignoring for a moment the problems of such a one
> dimensional measure of intelligence) across widespread geographic area
> where all cultural and environmental factors have been UNEQUIVOCALLY
> lab and rear them in a common garden, the only way to remove confounded
> necessarily get around the problem).
>
It is not necessary to raise them in a common garden (lab or what have
you). The only thing necessary is to collect reasonable data which can
proxy for as many of these factors as possible (preferably over a
lengthy epoch)....Whether or not the aforementioned (and snipped)
references had good data or not is always an important question. Is
there alternative data?
Furthermore, UNEQUIVOCAL *proof* as you seem to require, can I say,
reminds me of a religious debate (either believe it or don't). A better
measure would be does a particular hypothesis *seem* to *pass the test
of time*, the old scientific method approach...The bottom line is that
we will NEVER have UNEQUIVOCAL PROOF of ANYTHING. We do have some damn
good statistical regularities, however.
--
Steven F. Koch, Ph.D.
Department of Economics
University of South Florida
4202 E. Fowler Ave.
Tampa, FL 33620-5500
Office: (813) 974-6532
Fax: (813) 974-6510
Home: (813) 908-9411
To Respond to Me, Remove "no.spam" from the e-mail address.
David Johnson
>
> Otherwise intelligence had not been important selectively - had there
> not been genetically defined intelligence differences between individual
> hominids, Homo sapiens had never evolved from our ape ancestors.
The selective importance of a trait need not be constant throughout the
course history. I do not accept that intelligence has been the overiding
selective trait in recent human evolution. Although one would think a more
intelligent individual would have a high probability of surival than his
less intelligent counterpart, under particular diseased and cultural
(hardest gets the ladies) conditions, being more intelligent (if such a
discrete trait exists) would not make an individual (trait) more
selectable. Is intelligent an selectice advantage today, I don't think
so somehow.
David Johnson
David Johnson
...... 3. Old IQ tests were biased, but modern tests and testing procedure
are quite sophisticated- expert psychologists who devise and conduct these
tests are not ignorant fools. Bias free "culture-fair" tests and many
other methods are used to avoid testing bias. Dr. Arthur Jensen's "Bias
in Mental Testing" is the best review.....
I know it may be a shock. But not every individual strives to prove how
intelligent he/she is . It is impossible to know how hard any individual
is trying in any one test. It is impossible to know how hard an individual
has tried to get his/herself educated. You can improve you thinking
processing. How can you compare for instance, a child that has been pushed
heavily by a parent into schoolwork, to a child whose parent is
more relaxed. Two such children would perform very differently if given a
test, the economic or racial background would be irrelevant. Each
individual has its own culture even within a race (which I feel is an
useless grouping). Each personal culture composes of a totally different
set of priorities to each individual. What an individual strives towards
mentally is constrained by his/her own person culture.
Does is it take more brain power to chat up a partner or to get above
average on an I.Q test.
Why are there less true casnova's than truly intelligent persons.
David
Per Erik Ronne
David Johnson <d...@sanger.ac.uk> wrote:
> The selective importance of a trait need not be constant throughout the
> course history.
Certainly not.
> I do not accept that intelligence has been the overiding selective trai=
t
> in recent human evolution. Although one would think a more intelligent
> individual would have a high probability of surival than his less
> intelligent counterpart, under particular diseased and cultural (hardes=
t
> gets the ladies) conditions, being more intelligent (if such a discrete
> trait exists) would not make an individual (trait) more selectable.
I don't know whether it has been the case. I do however know that until
this century it was quite common to have 12 children. Also, I know that
most children died before puberty. It is furthermore well-known that
people with higher social status have always had a longer life-span -
mainly because they had better sanitary conditions. If. however,
professor Helmuth Nyborg's discoveries are correct [read 'Hormones, sex
and Society', Praeger Publishers 1994. I've got the Danish edition from
1997 on my desk so I can't give the English edition isbn-number] in
saying that low andregene boy fetuses and low ostrogene girl fetuses
mature slower than high androgene/ostrogene fetuses, and if we assume
high intelligence is a factor in social climbing in city civilizations,
the possibility of evolution of intelligence en city civilizations
certainly can't be ruled out.
BTW, social studies show that homosexuals tend to be good 'social
climbers'. Since Nyborg's studies also show that the probability of
getting a homosexual child increases if the fetuse is low
androgene/ostrogene, the fact of gay climbers might be the the result of
low androgene / ostrogene fetuses [higher intelligence] - not a result
of their homosexuality as such. And of course, homosexuals don't usually
get children [consider Richard the Lionhearted, Frederick the Great,
Hans Christian Andersen and Alan Turing], but their bi- and heterosexual
siblings do.
In short. The present Scandinavian people with more than a millenium of
city civilization [oldest Danish town foundet around 700 AD, Copenhagen
probably around 1000 AD] might very well be more intelligent than our
iron age ancestors due to a selective pressure towards higher
intelligence in towns. The same might be said about iron age people
versus bronze age, bronze age versus neolithic, neolithic versus
mesolithic.
I emphasize that it is speculation. Of course a selective pressure in
that direction might had stopped earlier. And I won't discuss the Bell
Curve now!
> Is intelligent an selectice advantage today, I don't think so somehow.
I agree.
I welfare states where children are not allowed to die of stavation or
disease, this selective pressure has stopped. Since males also tend to
be allowed to have fewer mistresses than earlier [remember 'the right to
the first night' and except US presidents!]. And since the poor get more
children to-day than the rich - and remember that mutations are most
likely to be to the worse, the present direction tends to be towards
lower intelligence amongst Europeans and their American descendants.
I have read that in China, college graduates are allowed to get more
than one children. In Singepore the level of child benefit increases for
each child born with university education - it drops for children of
other people. You will thus have a selective pressure towards higher
intelligence in these East Asian countries.
But of course, genetic engineering of gamets might solve the problem ...
SDRodrian
blah, blah, blah....
Pressure FOR intelligence?!? I always thought all the pressure
in modern civilization was for dumbing-down (and that
intelligence was something which has always risen in spite of
rather than because of so-called higher civilization).
But, seriously, what in modern human society could
possibly exert more pressure for the evolution of
intelligence than those factors which have done so
throughout the evolution of higher apes--? Certainly
it cannot be Gilligan's Island (or Bill Clinton's speeches).
S. D. Rodrian
SDRo...@aol.com
Per Erik Ronne
SDRodrian <sdro...@aol.com> wrote:
> Pressure FOR intelligence?!? I always thought all the pressure=20
> in modern civilization was for dumbing-down (and that
> intelligence was something which has always risen in spite of
> rather than because of so-called higher civilization).
If you had read _all_ that I had written you had seen that the pressur
FOR intelligence does no longer exist in modern welfare states.
This was the reason for Denmark to forcibly sterilizing imbeciles [and
others]. Right up till around 1970. All Western European countries did
so, and I think a country like Austria still does.
JanetC300
The sterilisation programs in the developed nations are nothing to be proud of
(not that you said you were, my Danish friend!). They are a part of history we
should all be ashamed of, and I think it has been stopped everywhere, even
Austria, but frighteningly recently. However, that is not the point I wanted to
discuss. It might be tedious (I haven't been here before), but surely all IQ
tests are culturally biased? I remember the original studies when Aboriginals
were found to be very low-scoring, then the tests were changed to account for
spacial-recognition, and Aboriginals became top scorers. Now, in this world of
overdose-information-availability, a spacial memory of where to find the info.
you need is far more likely to be useful than trying to store it all yourself
(Western rote-learning techniques, in use when the first studies were done). So
where does that leave "intelligence as an evolutionary advantage"?
Just wondering...