Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [evol-psych] Re: Carmi Turchick's Murray post re Discomfort of Strangers

Expand Messages
  • Roger D. Masters
    Charles: I ve gone back and looked at my own data, and must conclude that a portion of the differential rates of VIOLENT crime by race seem to hold up in
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Charles:

      I've gone back and looked at my own data, and must conclude that a portion of the differential rates of VIOLENT crime by race seem to hold up in multivariate analyses that control for a WIDE variety of demographic and environmental variables. However, the INTERACTION effects that were included in my earlier posting (e.g., Blacks are "vulnerable" to uptake of lead from the environment, controlling for other factors) indicate that the reasons for these "racial" differences are often due to INTERACTIONS of genetics and environment rather than universal biological necessity in a 19th century sense. You say: "Put roughly: Of a hundred black and a hundred white college
      students who have a couple of joints on the weekend, are there
      differential arrest and incarceration rates? Of a hundred black and a
      hundred white drug dealers, dealing in similar drugs and quantities,
      are there differential arrest and incarceration rates? Of a hundred
      black and a hundred white males who beat up their women while high on
      crack or meth, are there differential arrest and incarceration rates?" Measures of differential rates of any behavior that use race without explicitly controlling for other factors are questionable once it appears that there is a good chance of interactive effects of the sort indicated above. If blacks are more vulnerable to uptake of lead than whites AND blacks are more likely to live in old housing with lead paint, then what is the "cause" of a difference in the measures you describe? In short, I think it's time to focus on multivariate analysis EXPLICITLY.

      roger masters

      However this may be, it seems to me that your examples in the following paragraph show an inadequate methodological model to test the hypothesis.--- Charles Murray wrote:
      I should have known better. Of course my post about Carmi Turchick's
      comments on Rushton would provoke an onslaught (I suppose I would have
      done same thing in her place), and now I either spend hours digging up
      citations on topics I haven't followed systematically for many years,
      or remain cravenly silent. A middle ground:

      Regarding underlying racial differences in commission of crime. An
      easily accessible and excellent single source for a review of the data,
      though now 19 years old, is J.Q. Wilson and R.H., Herrnstein (1985)
      Crime and Human Nature, Chapter 18, "Race and Crime." Chapter 1 is
      also relevant with its discussion of the various ways of measuring
      crime, their shortcomings, and ways of compensating for them.
      Wilson/Herrnstein's documentation of the technical literature is
      comprehensive, and the conclusion that the underlying rate is different
      even after allowing for discrimination is unambiguous.

      Does bias explain any significant proportion of this difference? Very
      little, apparently. Regarding arrests, the classic study is Michael
      Hindelang (1978) "Race and Involvement in Common Personal Crimes,"
      American Sociological Review 43: 93­109, demonstrating equivalence of
      arrest rates and victims' reports. Regarding imprisonment, an
      accessible source is S. Klein, J. Petersilia, and S. Turner (1990),
      "Race and Imprisonment Decisions in California," Science 247: 812­816,
      which found no race differences once objective differences in offender
      records were taken into account.

      Have things changed since then? I haven't done a literature search, but
      my impression from regular perusal of the major journals is that
      relatively little new material has been published for much the same
      reason that not much work has been done for the last few decades on
      cultural bias in IQ tests: The interesting questions have been
      answered, and the remaining areas of uncertainly are small. I did
      (rashly) mention the accruing evidence that for certain crimes and in
      certain locations, blacks may be convicted at lower rates than whites.
      I had in mind journalistic accounts about black juries refusing to
      convict explicitly on grounds of race, despite extremely powerful
      evidence, and accounts of police being reluctant to arrest black males
      under a variety of circumstances that would leave them exposed to
      accusations of racism. The racial profiling flap a few years ago
      produced studies (some of them published in technical journals, I
      believe) that inform this issue--profiling being rational, if one is to
      maximize search time. There have also been some studies about the
      disproportionate use of the death penalty for whites, after
      circumstances of the crime have been taken into account. But I don't
      have those cites available. Perhaps someone on the list has done more
      recent work in this area than I have and can help. One final
      observation: the evidence for pre-1990 is solid. How might one argue
      that systemic discrimination against blacks in any area of life got
      worse in the 1990s than it was in previous decades?

      Regarding Ms. Turchick's long disquisition on drug use. I am in print
      myself using many of the statistics she uses regarding racial
      differences, or lack thereof, in incidence of use. The point with
      regard to the implications for understanding bias in arrest and
      imprisonment rates goes to information not addressed by those
      statistics. Put roughly: Of a hundred black and a hundred white college
      students who have a couple of joints on the weekend, are there
      differential arrest and incarceration rates? Of a hundred black and a
      hundred white drug dealers, dealing in similar drugs and quantities,
      are there differential arrest and incarceration rates? Of a hundred
      black and a hundred white males who beat up their women while high on
      crack or meth, are there differential arrest and incarceration rates? I
      didn't know of any evidence to that effect before my post; I still
      don't.

      Regarding IQ, Ms. Turchick's comments rely on Leon Kamin, Steve Gould,
      Richard Lewontin, and their ilk. Let me return to the analogy with
      creationism I used in my earlier post: Those men, when discussing IQ,
      have precisely the same reputation among specialists in IQ that
      creationists have among evolutionary biologists. I suppose that doesn't
      constitute proof that specialists in evolutionary biology and IQ are
      respectively right vis a vis their opponents, but I can at least assure
      the evolutionary biologists on the list that the analogy is exact--not
      only in the corruption of science committed by the other side, but in
      the open acknowledgment that passionate religious belief in one case,
      and passionate political belief in the other, has motivated their work.

      Regarding testosterone, I haven't a clue.

      Charles Murray



      Human Nature Review http://human-nature.com
      Evolutionary Psychology http://human-nature.com/ep
      Human Nature Daily Review http://human-nature.com/nibbs
      Yahoo! Groups Links





      --- end of quote ---
    • Paul Gross
      As a biologist with some non-trivial interest in evolution, some current acquaintance with creationists (see Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross, Creationism s
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 31, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        As a biologist with some non-trivial interest in evolution, some current acquaintance with creationists (see Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross, Creationism's Trojan Horse" The Wedge eof Ingtelligent Design (Oxford University press, 2003)), and the sometime author of book reviews and articles touching on IQ and other measures of cognitive competence, I am happy to endorse Charles Murray's remarkably civil argumentation in the post of which these lines, below, are a part.

        PRG

        In a message dated 3/31/2004 2:25:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, charlesmurray@... writes:

        Regarding IQ, Ms. Turchick’s comments rely on Leon Kamin, Steve Gould,
        Richard Lewontin, and their ilk. Let me return to the analogy with
        creationism I used in my earlier post: Those men, when discussing IQ,
        have precisely the same reputation among specialists in IQ that
        creationists have among evolutionary biologists. I suppose that doesn’t
        constitute proof that specialists in evolutionary biology and IQ are
        respectively right vis a vis their opponents, but I can at least assure
        the evolutionary biologists on the list that the analogy is exact—not
        only in the corruption of science committed by the other side, but in
        the open acknowledgment that passionate religious belief in one case,
        and passionate political belief in the other, has motivated their work.


      • Charles Murray
        Good points all, but I think we re on two different subjects. You re asking causal questions, and you re obviously right about the need for multivariate
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 31, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Good points all, but I think we're on two different subjects. You're
          asking causal questions, and you're obviously right about the need for
          multivariate analysis--and not of groups, I might add, but using
          individuals as the unit of analysis and employing highly detailed data
          on both individual-level and ecological variables. I'm addressing the
          prior question, is there anything to explain? I.e., are racial rates of
          involvement in crime really different, or are they an artifact of bias?
          I don't reach the point of dealing with causation of racial
          differences. Multivariate analysis for my issue need answer only a much
          simpler question (actually, an Aristotelian question): are likes being
          treated alike by the criminal justice system? So a limited amount of
          information about the nature of the offense and of collateral variables
          associated with the occasion for arrest, decisions on charges filed,
          and disposition are adequate--hence my rough-and-ready illustrations
          about drug use.

          Charles Murray

          On Mar 31, 2004, at 2:57 PM, Roger D. Masters wrote:

          > Charles:
          >
          > I've gone back and looked at my own data, and must conclude that a
          > portion of the differential rates of VIOLENT crime by race seem to
          > hold up in multivariate analyses that control for a WIDE variety of
          > demographic and environmental variables. However, the INTERACTION
          > effects that were included in my earlier posting (e.g., Blacks are
          > "vulnerable" to uptake of lead from the environment, controlling for
          > other factors) indicate that the reasons for these "racial"
          > differences are often due to INTERACTIONS of genetics and environment
          > rather than universal biological necessity in a 19th century sense.
          > You say: "Put roughly: Of a hundred black and a hundred white college
          > students who have a couple of joints on the weekend, are there
          > differential arrest and incarceration rates? Of a hundred black and a
          > hundred white drug dealers, dealing in similar drugs and quantities,
          > are there differential arrest and incarceration rates? Of a hundred
          > black and a hundred white males who beat up their women while high on
          > crack or meth, are there differential arrest and incarceration rates?"
          > Measures of differential rates of any behavior that use race without
          > explicitly controlling for other factors are questionable once it
          > appears that there is a good chance of interactive effects of the sort
          > indicated above. If blacks are more vulnerable to uptake of lead than
          > whites AND blacks are more likely to live in old housing with lead
          > paint, then what is the "cause" of a difference in the measures you
          > describe? In short, I think it's time to focus on multivariate
          > analysis EXPLICITLY.
          >
          > roger masters
          >
        • Mike Miller
          ... What is your source for the notion that there is a black/white difference in sensitivity to the effect of lead exposure? I doubt that we have experimental
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 1, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Roger D. Masters wrote:

            > the INTERACTION effects that were included in my earlier posting (e.g.,
            > Blacks are "vulnerable" to uptake of lead from the environment,
            > controlling for other factors) indicate that the reasons for these
            > "racial" differences are often due to INTERACTIONS of genetics and
            > environment rather than universal biological necessity in a 19th century
            > sense.

            What is your source for the notion that there is a black/white difference
            in sensitivity to the effect of lead exposure? I doubt that we have
            experimental data, so it is probably based on something as dubious as a
            stronger correlation of household lead with IQ score among blacks than
            among whites. If that's what you're talking about, you should know that
            there are much more likely explanations for that correlation. For
            example, black IQ is a stronger predictor of income than is white IQ, and
            income is correlated with the quality of the home and the amount of lead
            exposure. So smarter people are better at buying their ways out of lead
            exposure and this is more true of black people than of white people in the
            United States.

            Sorry that I missed your earlier postings on this topic so my misgivings
            may be misplaced.

            Mike

            --
            Michael B. Miller, Ph.D.
            Assistant Professor
            Division of Epidemiology
            and Institute of Human Genetics
            University of Minnesota
            http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/
          • Mike Miller
            ... I ll second that and I ll add a couple of things. Here is an excellent list of facts about intelligence that was published by a group of top scientists in
            Message 5 of 6 , Apr 1, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Paul Gross wrote:

              > As a biologist with some non-trivial interest in evolution, some current
              > acquaintance with creationists (see Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross,
              > Creationism's Trojan Horse" The Wedge eof Ingtelligent Design (Oxford
              > University press, 2003)), and the sometime author of book reviews and
              > articles touching on IQ and other measures of cognitive competence, I am
              > happy to endorse Charles Murray's remarkably civil argumentation in the
              > post of which these lines, below, are a part.

              I'll second that and I'll add a couple of things. Here is an excellent
              list of facts about intelligence that was published by a group of top
              scientists in The Wall Street Journal on December 13, 1994, with the title
              "Mainstream Science on Intelligence":

              http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/bell-curve/support-bell-curve.html

              Anyone with doubts about the scientific standing of "The Bell Curve"
              should read that article. Here are three critical, scholarly reviews of
              Gould's ridiculous "Mismeasure of Man":

              http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/davis.htm
              http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/jensen.htm
              http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/carroll.txt

              I checked the first one (by Davis) carefully against the original. The
              other two were sent to me and I haven't had time to check them, but I know
              the Carroll review is incomplete - at least missing references. Still,
              those web pages ought to give the reader a good start on what these people
              had to say about Gould's book.

              Of course, some people (like Gould's publisher) think that Gould's
              'Mismeasure' is brilliant and that "The Bell Curve" is racist:

              http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/bgnews/1996/msg00165.html

              To such people I recommend the reviews above and I also recommend that
              they actually read "The Bell Curve." It is not racist and it is
              beautifully written. I was really disappointed with Gould's own review of
              The Bell Curve (called something like "Curve Ball" and published in The
              New Yorker) because Gould had obviously not read the book at all. He
              accused the authors of making claims they hadn't made -- he could have at
              least used the index to check his facts!

              An intellectually honest person will read things that he supposes he
              disagrees with. There is no shame in reading "The Bell Curve" and while
              you're at it, I recommend Frank Miele's "Intelligence, Race, and Genetics:
              Conversations with Arthur R. Jensen" -- you might discover a few things
              about Arthur Jensen that will surprise you. Jensen has been a victim of
              many false rumors over the years. He is not a racist. Here's the
              Amazon.com link for the Jensen book:

              http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/081334008X/

              Mike

              --
              Michael B. Miller, Ph.D.
              Assistant Professor
              Division of Epidemiology
              and Institute of Human Genetics
              University of Minnesota
              http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/


              > In a message dated 3/31/2004 2:25:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
              > charlesmurray@... writes:
              >
              > > Regarding IQ, Ms. Turchick’s comments rely on Leon Kamin, Steve Gould,
              > > Richard Lewontin, and their ilk. Let me return to the analogy with
              > > creationism I used in my earlier post: Those men, when discussing IQ,
              > > have precisely the same reputation among specialists in IQ that
              > > creationists have among evolutionary biologists. I suppose that doesn’t
              > > constitute proof that specialists in evolutionary biology and IQ are
              > > respectively right vis a vis their opponents, but I can at least assure
              > > the evolutionary biologists on the list that the analogy is exact—not
              > > only in the corruption of science committed by the other side, but in
              > > the open acknowledgment that passionate religious belief in one case,
              > > and passionate political belief in the other, has motivated their work.
              > >
              >
              >
            • Herbert Gintis
              There certainly is a lot of political correctness wandering about in the assessment of The Bell Curve. It is also quite true that Gould s Mismeasure of Man is
              Message 6 of 6 , Apr 1, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                         There certainly is a lot of political correctness wandering about in the assessment of The Bell Curve.
                         It is also quite true that Gould's Mismeasure of Man is extremely shoddy and should not have been reissued.
                         However, all parties concerned have assumed, usually implicitly, that IQ has a superordinate effect on wages and socioeconomic status (I do not know about criminality). This is false. IQ explains very little of the wage gap between blacks and whites, and what part is explained is due to differential schooling. Yet the return to schooling is independent of IQ and an only (very) partially due to the effects of education on cognitive attainment.
                         Sam Bowles and I have been saying this for many years---a position solidly based on the data. It is a true now as it ever was. See, for instance, Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, "The Inheritance of Economic Status: Education, Class and Genetics", in N. J. Smelser and Paul Baltes (eds.) International Encyclopedia of the Social and (Oxford: Pergamon, 2001). Samuel Bowles, Herbert Gintis and Melissa Osborne, "Incentive-Enhancing Preferences: Personality, Behavior and Earnings", American Economic Review 91,2 [may] (2001):155-158. Samuel Bowles, Herbert Gintis and Melissa Osborne, "The Determinants of
                Individual Earnings: Skills, Preferences, and Schooling", Journal of Economic Literature 39,4 (2001):1137-1176; and Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, "The Inheritance of Inequality", Journal of conomic Perspectives 16,3 [Summer] (2002):3-30.

                HG



                Herbert Gintis
                External Faculty, Santa Fe Institute 
                Adjunct Professor, Barnard College, Columbia University                                                     
                Emeritus Professor, University of Massachusetts                       
                15 Forbes Avenue, Northampton, MA 01060
                413-586-7756  (Home Office) 206-984-9873 (Fax)
                Recent papers are posted on my web site.
                Get Game Theory Evolving (Princeton, 2000) at Amazon.com
                Look for Moral Sentiments and Material Interests,
                   forthcoming from MIT Press (2004)
                       There is no sorrow so great that does not find
                      its background in joy.
                                                                            Niels Bohr (1938)
                                                            

                                                

              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.