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

Re: IQ in military and Fortune 500

Expand Messages
  • Harie Heyligen
    Sure, all groups don t need to have the exact same means in general mental ability. Who said that? I m only saying that I doubt the claims of those who pretend
    Message 1 of 23 , Oct 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Sure, all groups don't need to have the exact same means in general mental ability. Who said that? I'm only saying that I doubt the claims of those who pretend to possess truth on this topic. General mental ability is such a complicated, ill-defined and fuzzy concept, that I prefer to be rather sceptical about any strong claims in this regard.
       
      They remind me somehow of the following statement of Robert Trivers in "The Elements of a Scientific Theory of Self-Deception", Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 907:114-131 (2000):

      "If you ask high school seniors in the United States to rank themselves on leadership ability, fully 80% say they have better than average abilities, but for true feats of self-deception you can hardly beat the academic profession. When you ask professors to rate themselves, an almost unanimous 94% say they are in the top half of the profession! (MELE, D. 1997. Real self-deception. Behav. Brain Sci. 20: 91–136)."

      If such persons are trying to promote their opinions on delicate topics such as general mental ability of races or sexes, allow me to hold a critical view and to counterbalance their claims with those of persons having similar credentials, but offering alternative opinions on the topic.

      So, I intend to read further replies of William Dickens and James Flynn on the Philippe Rushton papers, knowing that final authority in this matter doesn't exist.

       

      Harie

       

      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 2:45 PM
      Subject: IQ in military and Fortune 500


      Harie Heyligen may have spoken to soon in saying people like William Dickens and James Flynn counterbalance my own data. (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060805/fob6.asp) Racial IQ Gap Narrows: Blacks gain 4 to 7 points on Whites showing that four national intelligence tests indicate that the difference in scores between Blacks and Whites decreased by about a third between 1972 and 2002. 
       
      Dickens and Flynn had to cherry pick their four tests to find this result (and also give it a massage). Rushton and Jensen (2006) in the October issue of Psychological Science show Dickens and Flynn ignored several other national tests to arrive at their conclusion and when these are averaged in the gain is at most about 0.20 SDs, which is what Rushton and Jensen (2005) would expect based on their conclusion that the Black-White difference in the US is 80% heritable.
       
      Both Rushton and Jensen papers (2005, 2006) are downloadable from the Publications page from my url, or I can send hardcopy (of the special issue of PPP&L).
       
      Charles Murray has a paper in press at the journal Intelligence analyzing a further test and also concludes "no narrowing."
       
      Ethnic and sex differences are all part of human diversity; its unrealistic to expect that all groups are going to have the exact same means in general mental ability (or personality, or reproductive strategy, or testosterone, or muscle strength, or bone density, or much of anything else). How could that happen from a gene-based evolutionary perspective?


      Professor J. Philippe Rushton, Ph.D., D.Sc.
      Department of Psychology,
      University of Western Ontario,
      London, Ontario, N6A 5C2, Canada
      http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushton_bio.htm
      Tel: 519-661-3685

    • J P Rushton
      Harie Heyligen is clearly no scientist, for who could be happy with such an unscientific conclusion as
      Message 2 of 23 , Oct 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Harie Heyligen is clearly no scientist, for who could be happy with such an unscientific conclusion as
        <<General mental ability is such a complicated, ill-defined and fuzzy concept, that I prefer to be rather sceptical about any strong claims in this regard.>>
         
        Putting a man on the moon is also preety complicated but scientists did that too.
        Nothing wrong with skepticism, so long as it fuels empirical research.
         
        Lionel Tiger too seems to have abandoned the scientific gameplan for poetry (unapologetic, he says). Because scientists were "wrong" (he says) about sex differences in g for 100 years, he implies its all nebulous. But this betrays a lack of understanding of how science advances. One gets real progress in many areas (such as test technology, statistical analysis, neurosceince and behavior genetics -- thaink of all those great twin studies that looked at IQ scores) and then finds an anomaly. Like the fact that brain size correaltes 0.40 with IQ scores using MRI, and yet women have a smaller brain than men and a similar IQ score. (Lynn calls this the Ankney-Rushton anomaly; its good to have at least something named after one!) Then this is resiolved (in part) by finding that when g is extracted from batteries of tests, men (when adults but not below 15-years) have a 4 to 5 IQ point advantage over women.
         
        I'm sure if Charles darwin was on the list he'd find interesting ways to be skeptical about these findings. But, we can't all be Charles darwin, even when we are Darwin Professors!


        Professor J. Philippe Rushton, Ph.D., D.Sc.
        Department of Psychology,
        University of Western Ontario,
        London, Ontario, N6A 5C2, Canada
        http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushton_bio.htm
        Tel: 519-661-3685
      • Alex Gamma
        ... Silverman is obviously right, and I m puzzled how someone like Rushton, who has published extensively on the subject, can fail to see this. It is a basic
        Message 3 of 23 , Oct 5, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          >>Irwin Silverman:
          >>Heritability estimates are not indications of the relative contribution of
          >>heredity and environment to the individual development of intelligence.
          >>
          >J P Rushton:
          >Answer: This isn't true. Any agriculturalist who wanted to breed for a
          >trait will do better with traits that are highly heritable; similarly with
          >molecular >geneticists looking for particualr genes. When they pick
          >measures that show higher heritability they are more likely to be
          >successful.

          Silverman is obviously right, and I'm puzzled how someone like Rushton, who
          has published extensively on the subject, can fail to see this. It is a
          basic fact of biological development that developmental outcomes - traits -
          are always co-constructed by the interaction of many different resources:
          DNA, proteins and other molecules, cell structures, cells, tissues; the
          prenatal chemical and stimulus environment provided by the mother;
          postnatally, the external physical environment including sun light, oxygen
          level, air pressure, humidity etc.; and a host of behavioral and social
          interactions with parents, siblings, conspecifics and other animals. All
          these resources need to be present for a given trait to be formed, none of
          them alone can do the job. It is this simple and basic fact that we need to
          remind ourselves of again and again. Development is a process of mandatory
          interaction between various resources. There is no quantifying the relative
          contribution of DNA to a person's height. When DNA AND proteins AND other
          molecules AND nutrients etc. are all necessary, it is meaningless to ask
          which one of them is more important. Although everybody would regard the
          statement that a naked piece of DNA by iteslf can achieve nothing as
          trivial, statements like the above by Rushton force me to think that it is
          exactly this trivial point that needs to be driven home.

          Another upshot is that all developmental resources contributing to a given
          trait are potential targets for modification if we want to alter the trait.
          The fact that agriculturalists do well by breeding for highly heritable
          traits has no bearing whatsoever on this. In particular, it does not mean
          that a trait can be
          modified in a desired way only by genetic manipulation, or even that it can
          most easily be so modified. It simply means that agriculturalists have found
          one way that works. Maybe other manipulations would work better. This issue
          becomes urgent when we consider not agriculture but human "genetic
          diseases", where an agricultural approach is ill-advised. Here, a research
          strategy that focuses exclusively on genes is misguided. Instead (as the
          simple case of PKU shows), therapeutic research must aim at a comprehensive
          understanding of the *actual developmental causal pathways* leading up to
          the disease phenotype, because a great many links in this pathway are
          potential targets for intervention.

          A. G.

          --
          Alex Gamma Ph.D.
          University Hospital of Psychiatry
          Research Department
          Lenggstr. 31
          8032 Zurich
          Switzerland

          Tel: +4144 384 2621
          Fax: +4144 384 2446
          e-mail: gamma@...
        • J.K. Niemelä
          So far, there has been several attempts to manipulate the environmental factors to raise the IQ of test populations. Despite teaching to the test and other
          Message 4 of 23 , Oct 5, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            So far, there has been several attempts to manipulate the
            environmental factors to raise the IQ of test populations. Despite
            "teaching to the test" and other obviously dubious manoeuvres, the
            attempts have failed: the gain hasn't been enduring. There is a
            massive literature on the subject and I have cited it over and over
            again on this list. I wish someone would read it before trying to
            explain away the facts.

            If someone knew how to raise to IQ as massively as the
            environmentalist wish, this would have been done years ago. An
            investigator coming up with the means to equalize the variation in IQ
            would be hailed as the moral hero of the human kind (although I'm not
            sure why, since IMO there's nothing wrong or immoral in the human
            biodiversity). The truth is, as Phil Rushton already mentioned, that
            the 50-50 model of the "hereditarians" fits with both the theory and
            the empirical facts.

            The most preposterous thing in this discussion is the ever-ongoing
            "immoralisation" of the hereditarians by the "moral"
            environmentalists. Why on earth should there be something inherently
            "racist" in accepting scientific facts concerning the genetic
            variation in IQ? I consider this kind of thinking as superstitious
            nonsense.

            This debate seems never-ending and there's nothing new whatsoever in
            the ad hoc claims of the environmentalists. What comes around, goes
            around.

            Best Wishes,
            Jussi
          • Mark Flinn
            Very nicely put. Development, or ontogeny remains the great gap in biology as Waddington stated long ago. The objective now is to move from the simplistic
            Message 5 of 23 , Oct 5, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Very nicely put. Development, or ontogeny remains "the great gap" in
              biology as Waddington stated long ago. The objective now is to move from the
              simplistic demonstration of statistical patterns of the heritability of
              cognitive function (as emphasized in traditional behavioral genetics) to
              understanding the underlying mechanisms.

              --
              Mark V. Flinn
              Associate Professor
              Department of Anthropology
              Department of Psychological Sciences
              University of Missouri
              Columbia, MO 65201
              (573) 882-9404
              Flinnm@...

              >
              > Silverman is obviously right, and I'm puzzled how someone like Rushton, who
              > has published extensively on the subject, can fail to see this. It is a
              > basic fact of biological development that developmental outcomes - traits -
              > are always co-constructed by the interaction of many different resources:
              > DNA, proteins and other molecules, cell structures, cells, tissues; the
              > prenatal chemical and stimulus environment provided by the mother;
              > postnatally, the external physical environment including sun light, oxygen
              > level, air pressure, humidity etc.; and a host of behavioral and social
              > interactions with parents, siblings, conspecifics and other animals. All
              > these resources need to be present for a given trait to be formed, none of
              > them alone can do the job. It is this simple and basic fact that we need to
              > remind ourselves of again and again. Development is a process of mandatory
              > interaction between various resources. There is no quantifying the relative
              > contribution of DNA to a person's height. When DNA AND proteins AND other
              > molecules AND nutrients etc. are all necessary, it is meaningless to ask
              > which one of them is more important. Although everybody would regard the
              > statement that a naked piece of DNA by iteslf can achieve nothing as
              > trivial, statements like the above by Rushton force me to think that it is
              > exactly this trivial point that needs to be driven home.
              >
              > Another upshot is that all developmental resources contributing to a given
              > trait are potential targets for modification if we want to alter the trait.
              > The fact that agriculturalists do well by breeding for highly heritable
              > traits has no bearing whatsoever on this. In particular, it does not mean
              > that a trait can be
              > modified in a desired way only by genetic manipulation, or even that it can
              > most easily be so modified. It simply means that agriculturalists have found
              > one way that works. Maybe other manipulations would work better. This issue
              > becomes urgent when we consider not agriculture but human "genetic
              > diseases", where an agricultural approach is ill-advised. Here, a research
              > strategy that focuses exclusively on genes is misguided. Instead (as the
              > simple case of PKU shows), therapeutic research must aim at a comprehensive
              > understanding of the *actual developmental causal pathways* leading up to
              > the disease phenotype, because a great many links in this pathway are
              > potential targets for intervention.
              >
              > A. G.
              >
              > --
              > Alex Gamma Ph.D.
            • Mark Flinn
              I would like to add the comment to my last note that Phil s post about Micheal Rutter s lecture is the sort of research effort linking genetics and ontogeny
              Message 6 of 23 , Oct 5, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                I would like to add the comment to my last note that Phil's post about
                Micheal Rutter's lecture is the sort of research effort linking genetics and
                ontogeny that needs to be pursued. But with the fourth leg of Tinbergen's
                approach, that is, in light of evolutionary theory. Research in these areas
                needs to be informed by an understanding of the adaptive functions of human
                cognitive processes and the neurological mechanisms.


                --
                Mark V. Flinn
                Associate Professor
                Department of Anthropology
                Department of Psychological Sciences
                University of Missouri
                Columbia, MO 65201
                (573) 882-9404
                Flinnm@...
              • tom merle
                Once again, Jussi, your good sense cuts through all the obfuscation thrown up by those who can t bring themselves to accept that racial groups may differ
                Message 7 of 23 , Oct 5, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Once again, Jussi, your good sense cuts through all the obfuscation
                  thrown up by those who can't bring themselves to accept that racial
                  groups may differ beyond a limited number of physiological traits
                  (one can't argue against the dominant racial make up the National
                  Basketball Association and the backfields of the National Football
                  League or the medal winners in the sprint and distance events of the
                  last eight Olympics). When it comes to intelligence or academic
                  aptitude or whatever terminology one prefers, the differences seem
                  to dissolve into a blank slate.

                  Too many who participate on this list who may have come to terms
                  with the predispositions of "The Female Brain" to use the title of
                  Louann Brizendine's widely praised new book, or the higher IQs of
                  East Asians and Ashkanazi Jews, refuse to consider the other side of
                  the IQ coin.

                  Reading through the responses I would agree that those who challenge
                  Prof. Rushton seem to do so out of white guilt, and scurry to place
                  themselves on the moral high ground. Servitude and oppression is
                  never just historical, it is always lurking in the present. We are
                  stigmatized by the sins of our forebears. Any association, any echo
                  of these past sins, triggers condemnation and the easy reliance on
                  the 'r' word, or at the very least resistance. But the scientific
                  community should reject acting guiltily lest it cloud their main
                  activity of determing the truth. This is what gives social science
                  research legitimacy, not contrition, good intentions, and
                  patronizing sensitivity.

                  Of course 'g' divorced from other behavioral traits as well as
                  context does not lead in and of itself to societal achievement. Like
                  levels of testosterone, it is a necessary but not sufficient
                  component of better performance in the "real world".

                  To address the challenges of the real world, we should be focusing
                  on the public policy implications of group differences and ways to
                  enhance participation in the marketplace in light of this diversity.

                  TOM

                  --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "J.K. Niemelä"
                  <jussikniemela@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > So far, there has been several attempts to manipulate the
                  > environmental factors to raise the IQ of test populations. Despite
                  > "teaching to the test" and other obviously dubious manoeuvres, the
                  > attempts have failed: the gain hasn't been enduring. There is a
                  > massive literature on the subject and I have cited it over and over
                  > again on this list. I wish someone would read it before trying to
                  > explain away the facts.
                  >
                  > If someone knew how to raise to IQ as massively as the
                  > environmentalist wish, this would have been done years ago. An
                  > investigator coming up with the means to equalize the variation in
                  IQ
                  > would be hailed as the moral hero of the human kind (although I'm
                  not
                  > sure why, since IMO there's nothing wrong or immoral in the human
                  > biodiversity). The truth is, as Phil Rushton already mentioned,
                  that
                  > the 50-50 model of the "hereditarians" fits with both the theory
                  and
                  > the empirical facts.
                  >
                  > The most preposterous thing in this discussion is the ever-ongoing
                  > "immoralisation" of the hereditarians by the "moral"
                  > environmentalists. Why on earth should there be something
                  inherently
                  > "racist" in accepting scientific facts concerning the genetic
                  > variation in IQ? I consider this kind of thinking as superstitious
                  > nonsense.
                  >
                  > This debate seems never-ending and there's nothing new whatsoever
                  in
                  > the ad hoc claims of the environmentalists. What comes around, goes
                  > around.
                  >
                  > Best Wishes,
                  > Jussi
                  >
                • Irwin Silverman
                  ... I assume what you mean is that the environmental suppressant created a floor effect, providing insufficient variance of any kind to make an analysis. But
                  Message 8 of 23 , Oct 5, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Rushton wrote:

                    > Here's how heritabilies could be informative about race and IQ. Sandra Scarr
                    > published a paper on Black and White twins in the 1971 issue of SCIENCE
                    > claiming that whereas the heritability for Whites, even lower class Whites,
                    > was 50% or higher, the heritability for Blacks was virtually zero. Thus the
                    > environment seemed to be having a major suppressant effect on Blacks and so
                    > individual differences even among Blacks had no heritable variance.

                    I assume what you mean is that the environmental suppressant
                    created a floor effect, providing insufficient variance of any kind to
                    make an analysis. But if this is as general finding, shouldn't it give one
                    pause before interpreting the b/w group differences as inherent.
                    As analogy, suppose I drastically tampered in some way with the
                    maze learning ability of a sample of mice, then mixed them with a normal,
                    control sample and tested for heritability of maze learning. I would get
                    the same results as for b/w IQ - a nil heritability estimate for the
                    altered mice, a heritability estimate of 50% or greater for the control
                    sample (maze learning is highly heritable in mice) and a significant
                    difference in performance between samples. But the most parsimoneous
                    explanation, the only one that could explain all the results, would be
                    the tampering.
                  • Rushton
                    Irwin is, I think, right when he says
                    Message 9 of 23 , Oct 5, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Irwin is, I think, right when he says <<As analogy, suppose I drastically
                      tampered in some way with the maze learning ability of a sample of mice,
                      then mixed them with a normal, control sample and tested for heritability of
                      maze learning. I would get the same results as for b/w IQ - a nil
                      heritability estimate for the altered mice, a heritability estimate of 50%
                      or greater for the control sample (maze learning is highly heritable in
                      mice) and a significant difference in performance between samples.>>

                      And he is correct when he says that <<the most parsimoneous explanation, the
                      only one that could explain all the results, would be the tampering.>>

                      HOWEVER, THE DATA SHOW THAT BLACKS AND WHITES HAVE EQUAL HERITABILITIES
                      (Scarr 1971 notwithstanding as her study turned out to be incorrect as she
                      acknowledged; I only put it in as an example of what might have been (but
                      wasn't) found.

                      In Irwin's analogy above, it would be like him finding, in fact, a 50%
                      heritability in the "tampered with " mice as in the non-tampered with mice.
                      If that's what he found it would show that the so-called tampering had not
                      been effective.

                      So the so-called insults to Black IQ scores just cannot be found. There may
                      or may not be injustices of some kind or another, there is just zero
                      evidence that they effect Black IQ scores. If the environmental insults were
                      severe, Black hereitabiliteies would be lower than White or East Asian
                      heritabilities, but they are identical. All model fits show virtual equality
                      for Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, and East Asians as for men and for women.
                      Whatever is causing the differences, it is NOT an environmental suppressant
                      effect or the environmental effect would show more variance in Blacks than
                      in other groups.
                    • Irwin Silverman
                      ... If I feel guilt it is for my colleagues who make sweeping public pronouncements about socially sensitive issues on the basis of data that barely scratch
                      Message 10 of 23 , Oct 5, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, tom merle wrote:

                        > Reading through the responses I would agree that those who challenge
                        > Prof. Rushton seem to do so out of white guilt, and scurry to place
                        > themselves on the moral high ground.

                        If I feel guilt it is for my colleagues who make sweeping public
                        pronouncements about socially sensitive issues on the basis of data that
                        barely scratch the surface of the relevant questions.
                      • Ralph L. Holloway
                        ... Best, Ralph Holloway
                        Message 11 of 23 , Oct 5, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Irwin Silverman wrote:


                          On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, tom merle wrote:

                          > Reading through the responses I would agree that those who challenge
                          > Prof. Rushton seem to do so out of white guilt, and scurry to place
                          > themselves on the moral high ground.

                          If I feel guilt it is for my colleagues who make sweeping public
                          pronouncements about socially sensitive issues on the basis of data that
                          barely scratch the surface of the relevant questions.



                          With all due respect to Irwin and others , which of you has presented any real data in your arguments with Phil? I think I have read perhaps 20-30 posts here, and no one but Phil has presented data. We even had one post that said read Nisbet, without bothering to add that there was a resply to Nisbet.












                          Best,

                          Ralph Holloway



                        • Fred Britton
                          ... This comment reminds me of a remark made in *In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought*, Carl Degler
                          Message 12 of 23 , Oct 6, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 10:20 PM 10/5/06, Ralph L. Holloway wrote:

                            >>With all due respect to Irwin and others , which of you has
                            >>presented any real data in your arguments with Phil? I think I have
                            >>read perhaps 20-30 posts here, and no one but Phil has presented
                            >>data. We even had one post that said read Nisbet, without bothering
                            >>to add that there was a resply to Nisbet.

                            This comment reminds me of a remark made in *In Search of Human
                            Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social
                            Thought*, Carl Degler (1991). Degler comments that during the heyday
                            of extreme enviromentalism in the social sciences the typical
                            position was that *extraordinary evidence* was demanded for any kind
                            of genetic or other biological causation with respect to individual
                            differences, social status, propensity for criminal behavior
                            etc. *No evidence*, however was required (in Degler's view) for the
                            default assumptions of cultural and social determinism and what we've
                            now come to know as the blank-slate view. Of course, there's nothing
                            unusual in this in the history of science, very little or no evidence
                            usually being demanded when one makes claims frimly within the
                            reigning paradigm.

                            It's over 10 years since I read this book, so I'm paraphrasing Degler
                            from memory.

                            At the risk of repeating some explanations already given by others,
                            I'll have a go at trying to clarify some points WRT heritability:

                            1. Hereditability is a joint property of a trait and a population,
                            *not an individual* in that population, and it's a property of that
                            particular population in a particular environment or range of environments.

                            If environmental variance is reduced, then hereditability rises, and
                            heritability falls if environmental variance is increased.

                            2. Hereditability indicates the proportion of phenotypic variance
                            that is the result of genetic factors.

                            3. High hereditability does not necessarily imply immutability or
                            that environmental intervention is always futile. It depends on the
                            type of intervention. Metabolic disorders such as PKU are determined
                            genetically, but can be ameliorated in some cases by diet (PKU
                            entails the inability to metabolize phenylalanince properly - the
                            remedy is a diet free of phenylalanine). Myopia is highly heritable,
                            but easily corrected by glasses.

                            4. Imagine that you have plots of different varieties of some
                            species of agricultural plant. Experiments determine that the height
                            of the plants is a joint function of nurture (amounts of sunlight,
                            nutrients and water) and genotype, and that within the range of
                            environments experimented with (perhaps with some approximation of
                            the range actually likely to be experienced from a practical POV),
                            the heritability of plant height turns out to be 80%. This doesn't
                            mean that it's not possible to increase the mean height of all the
                            plants by some considerable amount by giving them more sunlight,
                            fertilizer and water (assuming that the optimal amounts of these
                            nutrients were not given in the experimental conditions). Note that
                            this is a rising-tide-lifts-all boats scenario, and doesn't apply to
                            the different problem of narrowing gaps. If environmental
                            interventions are to narrow phenotypic gaps, then environmental
                            factors *affecting different population subgroups differently, either
                            because those groups receive different amounts of those factors, or
                            because the same amounts of those variables have different effects on
                            the different subgroups* need to be identified and the appropriate
                            interventions designed.

                            Good introductions to hereditability here:

                            http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/hgss/hgssapplets/heritability/heritability.intro.html

                            http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc431/quantgen/qgen5.htm

                            For an interesting example of geneotypes reacting to different
                            environments, see:

                            http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year3/psyc364evolutionary_psychobiology/psy364_genotype_phenotype/psy364_genotype_phenotype.htm#genotype_phenotype

                            and scroll down to "genotype and phenotype" for the achillea example.

                            The next section on the norm of reaction is also useful.

                            Final comment, I see some sort of fusion of EP with behavior genetics
                            and with evo-devo approaches as being the most fruitful way forward
                            in trying to understand human nature. EP is quite a bit about why
                            and how we are similar to one another (common human nature), while BG
                            is mostly about how and why we are different from one another. If
                            there are weaknesses in current EP, perhaps an important one is not
                            paying enough attention to BG and individual differences.

                            Fred Britton
                          • Rick O'Gorman
                            This is a bit fuzzy, but I ll throw it out there anyway: Even though the same level of heritability for g (or IQ?) is being found for blacks and whites, isn t
                            Message 13 of 23 , Oct 6, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              This is a bit fuzzy, but I'll throw it out there anyway:

                              Even though the same level of heritability for g (or IQ?) is being found
                              for blacks and whites, isn't it possible that different environmental
                              effects could be interacting differently with the underlying genetic
                              component in g ontogeny? By its nature g seems to be a trait that is
                              going to have environmental impact, as there has to be an experiential
                              component--I may be a good problem-solver but if I never actually solve
                              problems my performance will be lower. If I have no familiarity with the
                              problem domain, my performance will be lower. And of course motivational
                              factors come into play, both personally derived ones (can I be bothered)
                              and extrapersonal (because of my colour I'll be worse at this than
                              others). Thus, even though similar levels of heritability show up, isn't
                              it necessary to scratch away at the numbers? I realise this is
                              empirically challenging but can it really be claimed, a priori, that
                              just because heritability values are similar that that means that
                              environments are similar?

                              --
                              Rick O'Gorman, PhD
                              Research Associate
                              Department of Psychology
                              Keynes College
                              University of Kent
                              Canterbury CT2 7NP
                              UK

                              Phone: 01227 827374
                              Fax: 01227 827030

                              http://www.kent.ac.uk/psychology/department/people/o%27gormanr/

                              The carbon emissions from air-freighting one small punnet
                              of out-of-season strawberries from New Zealand to the UK
                              are equivalent to 11 school runs in the car.
                              UK National Consumer Council

                              Rushton wrote:
                              > Irwin is, I think, right when he says <<As analogy, suppose I drastically
                              > tampered in some way with the maze learning ability of a sample of mice,
                              > then mixed them with a normal, control sample and tested for heritability of
                              > maze learning. I would get the same results as for b/w IQ - a nil
                              > heritability estimate for the altered mice, a heritability estimate of 50%
                              > or greater for the control sample (maze learning is highly heritable in
                              > mice) and a significant difference in performance between samples.>>
                              >
                              > And he is correct when he says that <<the most parsimoneous explanation, the
                              > only one that could explain all the results, would be the tampering.>>
                              >
                              > HOWEVER, THE DATA SHOW THAT BLACKS AND WHITES HAVE EQUAL HERITABILITIES
                              > (Scarr 1971 notwithstanding as her study turned out to be incorrect as she
                              > acknowledged; I only put it in as an example of what might have been (but
                              > wasn't) found.
                              >
                              > In Irwin's analogy above, it would be like him finding, in fact, a 50%
                              > heritability in the "tampered with " mice as in the non-tampered with mice.
                              > If that's what he found it would show that the so-called tampering had not
                              > been effective.
                              >
                              > So the so-called insults to Black IQ scores just cannot be found. There may
                              > or may not be injustices of some kind or another, there is just zero
                              > evidence that they effect Black IQ scores. If the environmental insults were
                              > severe, Black hereitabiliteies would be lower than White or East Asian
                              > heritabilities, but they are identical. All model fits show virtual equality
                              > for Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, and East Asians as for men and for women.
                              > Whatever is causing the differences, it is NOT an environmental suppressant
                              > effect or the environmental effect would show more variance in Blacks than
                              > in other groups.
                              >
                            • Rick O'Gorman
                              There are ways to get an idea of relative importance of contributions of DNA versus environment, though less easily done with humans. One can develop a norm of
                              Message 14 of 23 , Oct 6, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                There are ways to get an idea of relative importance of contributions of
                                DNA versus environment, though less easily done with humans. One can
                                develop a norm of reactance, a plot of a trait for same DNA across
                                different environments. You can then see for a particular allele how
                                robust it is as environment changes. This doesn't remove the importance
                                of all components but it does begin to show how flexible one can be
                                versus the other.

                                --
                                Rick O'Gorman, PhD
                                Research Associate
                                Department of Psychology
                                Keynes College
                                University of Kent
                                Canterbury CT2 7NP
                                UK

                                Phone: 01227 827374
                                Fax: 01227 827030

                                http://www.kent.ac.uk/psychology/department/people/o%27gormanr/

                                The carbon emissions from air-freighting one small punnet
                                of out-of-season strawberries from New Zealand to the UK
                                are equivalent to 11 school runs in the car.
                                UK National Consumer Council

                                Alex Gamma wrote:
                                >>> Irwin Silverman:
                                >>> Heritability estimates are not indications of the relative contribution of
                                >>> heredity and environment to the individual development of intelligence.
                                >>>
                                >> J P Rushton:
                                >> Answer: This isn't true. Any agriculturalist who wanted to breed for a
                                >> trait will do better with traits that are highly heritable; similarly with
                                >> molecular >geneticists looking for particualr genes. When they pick
                                >> measures that show higher heritability they are more likely to be
                                >> successful.
                                >
                                > Silverman is obviously right, and I'm puzzled how someone like Rushton, who
                                > has published extensively on the subject, can fail to see this. It is a
                                > basic fact of biological development that developmental outcomes - traits -
                                > are always co-constructed by the interaction of many different resources:
                                > DNA, proteins and other molecules, cell structures, cells, tissues; the
                                > prenatal chemical and stimulus environment provided by the mother;
                                > postnatally, the external physical environment including sun light, oxygen
                                > level, air pressure, humidity etc.; and a host of behavioral and social
                                > interactions with parents, siblings, conspecifics and other animals. All
                                > these resources need to be present for a given trait to be formed, none of
                                > them alone can do the job. It is this simple and basic fact that we need to
                                > remind ourselves of again and again. Development is a process of mandatory
                                > interaction between various resources. There is no quantifying the relative
                                > contribution of DNA to a person's height. When DNA AND proteins AND other
                                > molecules AND nutrients etc. are all necessary, it is meaningless to ask
                                > which one of them is more important. Although everybody would regard the
                                > statement that a naked piece of DNA by iteslf can achieve nothing as
                                > trivial, statements like the above by Rushton force me to think that it is
                                > exactly this trivial point that needs to be driven home.
                                >
                                > Another upshot is that all developmental resources contributing to a given
                                > trait are potential targets for modification if we want to alter the trait.
                                > The fact that agriculturalists do well by breeding for highly heritable
                                > traits has no bearing whatsoever on this. In particular, it does not mean
                                > that a trait can be
                                > modified in a desired way only by genetic manipulation, or even that it can
                                > most easily be so modified. It simply means that agriculturalists have found
                                > one way that works. Maybe other manipulations would work better. This issue
                                > becomes urgent when we consider not agriculture but human "genetic
                                > diseases", where an agricultural approach is ill-advised. Here, a research
                                > strategy that focuses exclusively on genes is misguided. Instead (as the
                                > simple case of PKU shows), therapeutic research must aim at a comprehensive
                                > understanding of the *actual developmental causal pathways* leading up to
                                > the disease phenotype, because a great many links in this pathway are
                                > potential targets for intervention.
                                >
                                > A. G.
                                >
                                > --
                                > Alex Gamma Ph.D.
                                > University Hospital of Psychiatry
                                > Research Department
                                > Lenggstr. 31
                                > 8032 Zurich
                                > Switzerland
                                >
                                > Tel: +4144 384 2621
                                > Fax: +4144 384 2446
                                > e-mail: gamma@...
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                              • Irwin Silverman
                                ... Ralph - My own problem is not with the data of behavior genetics, which I read, teach and respect for what it is. My problem is with the logic of the
                                Message 15 of 23 , Oct 6, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Ralph L. Holloway wrote:

                                  > > With all due respect to Irwin and others , which of you has presented
                                  > > any real data in your arguments with Phil? I think I have read perhaps
                                  > > 20-30 posts here, and no one but Phil has presented data. We even had
                                  > > one post that said read Nisbet, without bothering to add that there
                                  > > was a resply to Nisbet.

                                  Ralph - My own problem is not with the data of behavior genetics,
                                  which I read, teach and respect for what it is. My problem is with the
                                  logic of the assumption that heritability percentages mirror the percentage
                                  contributions made by heredity and environment in the ontogeny of a trait.
                                  Arguments based on logic do not readily lend themselves to data.
                                  I will, however, cite Piaget, the only documented theory of the
                                  ontogeny of intelligence, to illustrate my point. In Piaget's theory the
                                  role of genetics is to lay down the critical periods during which the
                                  organism is most receptive to environmental supports. Obviously, it is
                                  impossible to assign percentage weights to heredity and environment in this
                                  model, and I am confident that any theory that emerges on the ontogeny of
                                  intelligence will be similarly based on some form of interaction of genetic
                                  and environmental factors.
                                  My best
                                  Irwin
                                • Rushton
                                  Rick O Gorman writes
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Oct 6, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Rick O'Gorman writes <<Even though the same level of heritability for g (or
                                    IQ?) is being found for blacks and whites, isn't it possible that different
                                    environmental effects could be interacting differently with the underlying
                                    genetic component in g ontogeny?>>

                                    He further writes <<I realise this is empirically challenging but can it
                                    really be claimed, a priori, that just because heritability values are
                                    similar that that means that environments are similar?>>

                                    You guys! I don't know! Why don't you read the Rushton and Jensen (2005)
                                    article in PPP&L? Well I guess its easier for you to make me do the work for
                                    you. OK, guess I don't mind for one more day. You know, some people really
                                    do look at the huge numbers required using sophisticated technologies and so
                                    go beyond the 120 undergrads in the typical lab study. The late David Rowe
                                    at the University of Arizona did some exemplary studies.

                                    Here is a cut and paste of three paragraphs from my article.

                                    Another way of answering the question is to compare their psychometric
                                    factor structures of kinship patterns, background variables, and subtest
                                    correlations. If there are minority-specific developmental processes arising
                                    from cultural background differences between the races at work, they should
                                    be reflected in the correlations between the background variables and the
                                    outcome measures. Rowe (1994; Rowe, Vazsonyi, & Flannery, 1994, 1995)
                                    examined this hypothesis in a series of studies using structural equation
                                    models. One study of six data sources compared cross-sectional correlational
                                    matrices (about 10 x 10) for a total of 8,528 Whites, 3,392 Blacks, 1,766
                                    Hispanics, and 906 Asians (Rowe et al., 1994). These matrices contained both
                                    independent variables (e.g., home environment, peer characteristics) and
                                    developmental outcomes (e.g., achievement, delinquency). A LISREL
                                    goodness-of-fit test found each ethnic group's covariance matrix equal to
                                    the matrix of the other groups. Not only were the Black and White matrices
                                    nearly identical, they were as alike as the covariance matrices computed
                                    from random halves within either group. There were no distortions in the
                                    correlations between the background variables and the outcome measures that
                                    suggested any minority-specific developmental factor.

                                    Another study examined longitudinal data on academic achievement
                                    (Rowe et al., 1995). Again, any minority-specific cultural processes
                                    affecting achievement should have produced different covariance structures
                                    among ethnic and racial groups. Correlations were computed between academic
                                    achievement and family environment measures in 565 full-sibling pairs from
                                    the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, each tested at ages 6.6 and 9.0
                                    years (White N = 296 pairs; Black N = 149 pairs; Hispanic N = 120 pairs).
                                    Each racial group was treated separately, yielding three 8 x 8 correlation
                                    matrices, which included age as a variable. Since LISREL analysis showed the
                                    matrices were equal across the three groups, there was no evidence of any
                                    special minority-specific developmental process affecting either base rates
                                    in academic achievement or any changes therein over time.

                                    A nearly identical statistical structure on intellectual variables across
                                    ethnic and racial groups has been reported in large-scale studies of
                                    military samples. Ree and Carretta (1995) examined a nationally
                                    representative sample of young Black, White, and Hispanic men and women who
                                    took the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB; N = 9,173). The
                                    ASVAB, which is used to select applicants for all military enlistments and
                                    assign them to first jobs, consists of 10 separately scored subtests
                                    (General Science, Arithmetic Reasoning, Word Knowledge, Paragraph
                                    Comprehension, Numerical Operations, Coding Speed, Auto and Shop
                                    Information, Mathematics Knowledge, Mechanical Comprehension, Electronics
                                    Information). Despite the especially wide variety of subtests, Ree and
                                    Carretta found the hierarchical factor structure of ASVAB subtest scores was
                                    virtually identical across the three groups. Similarly, Carretta and Ree
                                    (1995) examined the more specialized and diverse Air Force Officer
                                    Qualifying Test (AFOQT), a multiple-aptitude battery that had been given to
                                    269,968 applicants (212,238 Whites, 32,798 Blacks, 12,647 Hispanics, 9,460
                                    Asian Americans, and 2,551 Native Americans). The g factor accounted for the
                                    greatest amount of variance in all groups and its loadings differed little
                                    by ethnicity. Thus, the factor structure of cognitive ability is nearly
                                    identical for Blacks and for Whites, as was found in the studies by Owen
                                    (1992) and Rushton and Skuy (2000, 2002, 2003) comparing Africans, East
                                    Indians, and Whites on the item structures of tests described in Section 3.
                                    There was no "Factor X" specific to race.
                                  • H.M. Hubey
                                    ... Which science ? Did physics do this? Pretentions of science? ... Do you mean philosophy and literature? ... There are two containers of gas A and B.
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Oct 7, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Fred Britton wrote:
                                      >
                                      > This comment reminds me of a remark made in *In Search of Human
                                      > Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social
                                      > Thought*, Carl Degler (1991). Degler comments that during the heyday
                                      > of extreme enviromentalism in the social sciences the typical
                                      > position was that *extraordinary evidence* was demanded for any kind
                                      > of genetic or other biological causation with respect to individual
                                      > differences, social status, propensity for criminal behavior
                                      > etc. *No evidence*, however was required (in Degler's view) for the
                                      > default assumptions of cultural and social determinism and what we've
                                      > now come to know as the blank-slate view. Of course, there's nothing
                                      > unusual in this in the history of science,
                                      Which "science"? Did physics do this?

                                      Pretentions of science?


                                      > very little or no evidence
                                      > usually being demanded when one makes claims frimly within the
                                      > reigning paradigm.
                                      >
                                      Do you mean philosophy and literature?


                                      >
                                      > 1. Hereditability is a joint property of a trait and a population,
                                      > *not an individual* in that population, and it's a property of that
                                      > particular population in a particular environment or range of environments.
                                      >

                                      There are two containers of gas A and B. Pressure in A is greater than
                                      B. This concept pressure
                                      is a macroscopic property e.g. only ensembles of gas atoms have
                                      pressure. A individual gas
                                      atom does not have pressure.

                                      Pick a random atom from A and one from B. The one from A will have
                                      greater speed.


                                      > If environmental variance is reduced, then hereditability rises, and
                                      > heritability falls if environmental variance is increased.
                                      >
                                      This is a simple and simplistic recounting of the equation for
                                      computation of heritability
                                      and says nothing more. It is like writing the ideal gas equation.

                                      > 2. Hereditability indicates the proportion of phenotypic variance
                                      > that is the result of genetic factors.
                                      >
                                      Pressure indicates something about the speeds of the atoms in a gas
                                      ensemble.

                                      > 3. High hereditability does not necessarily imply immutability or
                                      > that environmental intervention is always futile.
                                      What is futile? If we have to spend $100 billion to increase the
                                      heritability of 1,000
                                      children 0.1 points in IQ is that futile? How about 1 point? Is that
                                      futile?

                                      How about $10 billion to raise the IQ of 100 students 5 points? Is that
                                      futile?


                                      > It depends on the
                                      > type of intervention. Metabolic disorders such as PKU are determined
                                      > genetically, but can be ameliorated in some cases by diet (PKU
                                      > entails the inability to metabolize phenylalanince properly - the
                                      > remedy is a diet free of phenylalanine). Myopia is highly heritable,
                                      > but easily corrected by glasses.
                                      >
                                      Myopia is not corrected by glasses. The person remains myopic. Do you
                                      have a gizmo
                                      you can have people wear around their collars that can make them
                                      feel/act smarter?



                                      --
                                      Regards,

                                      M. Hubey
                                    • Fred Britton
                                      ... Some examples of false trails or claims from the physical sciences: 1. The theory of the ether in physics. 2. Phlogiston in chemistry. 3. The initial
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Oct 7, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        At 08:59 PM 10/7/06, H.M. Hubey wrote:

                                        >Fred Britton wrote:
                                        >>
                                        >>This comment reminds me of a remark made in *In Search of Human
                                        >>Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social
                                        >>Thought*, Carl Degler (1991). Degler comments that during the
                                        >>heyday of extreme enviromentalism in the social sciences the
                                        >>typical position was that *extraordinary evidence* was demanded for
                                        >>any kind of genetic or other biological causation with respect to
                                        >>individual differences, social status, propensity for criminal
                                        >>behavior etc. *No evidence*, however was required (in Degler's
                                        >>view) for the default assumptions of cultural and social
                                        >>determinism and what we've now come to know as the blank-slate
                                        >>view. Of course, there's nothing unusual in this in the history of science,


                                        >Which "science"? Did physics do this?

                                        Some examples of false trails or claims from the physical sciences:

                                        1. The theory of the ether in physics.

                                        2. Phlogiston in chemistry.

                                        3. The initial rejection of plate techtonics by geophysicists and geologists.

                                        4. The claims by some physicists that heavier-than-air flight was impossible.

                                        5. Claims by physicists and astronomers that space travel was
                                        impossible (I well remember this last one from my youth, when my
                                        father triumphantly quoted to me the then Astronomer Royal of the
                                        U.K., "Space travel is utter bilge!"

                                        http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v35n5/aas203/380.htm

                                        I don't really have time at the moment to document thoroughly the
                                        various instances in which bucking the reigning paradigm in the
                                        physical sciences results in being rebuffed.

                                        While not strictly relevant to the present exhange, I ran across the
                                        following site on scientific revolutions and pathological science:

                                        http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.4/turro.html

                                        It's quite interesting, though I haven't vetted all the links.

                                        >Pretentions of science?

                                        Science is about the *methods* of investigation used, not about the
                                        topic of the investigation.


                                        >>very little or no evidence usually being demanded when one makes
                                        >>claims frimly within the reigning paradigm.
                                        >>
                                        >Do you mean philosophy and literature?

                                        No, I'm talking about science here. Philosophy and literature are
                                        different topics, and have different approches to their endeavors
                                        than do the sciences.


                                        >>1. Hereditability is a joint property of a trait and a population,
                                        >>*not an individual* in that population, and it's a property of that
                                        >>particular population in a particular environment or range of environments.
                                        >>
                                        >
                                        >There are two containers of gas A and B. Pressure in A is greater
                                        >than B. This concept pressure
                                        >is a macroscopic property e.g. only ensembles of gas atoms have
                                        >pressure. A individual gas
                                        >atom does not have pressure.
                                        >
                                        >Pick a random atom from A and one from B. The one from A will have
                                        >greater speed.

                                        An interesting analogy. Population parameters are indeed macroscopic
                                        properties. This was my point actually, because I'd seen some
                                        remarks which indicated some confusion about this, with the writer
                                        asking questions about the partitioning of variance as though the
                                        assumption was that this could be done *for an individual*.

                                        >>If environmental variance is reduced, then hereditability rises,
                                        >>and heritability falls if environmental variance is increased.
                                        >>
                                        >This is a simple and simplistic recounting of the equation for
                                        >computation of heritability
                                        >and says nothing more. It is like writing the ideal gas equation.

                                        I know this, and someone had already given the equation in this
                                        discussion. But you must realize that it's sometimes (often
                                        actually) very useful to have the consequences of mathematic
                                        expressions rendered into English (or whatever natural language is
                                        appropriate). You're not the first person with a mathematical
                                        background who seems to have trouble appreciating this. The reason I
                                        know this tactic is useful is that I've often seen misunderstanding
                                        *persist* in everyday language *after* the mathematical equations
                                        have been presented. BTW, I had some brief experience quite some
                                        years ago in teaching mathematics at the high school level, and I can
                                        vouch for the usefulness of translating math into English from that experience.

                                        >>2. Hereditability indicates the proportion of phenotypic variance
                                        >>that is the result of genetic factors.
                                        >>
                                        >Pressure indicates something about the speeds of the atoms in a gas ensemble.

                                        Agreed.

                                        >>3. High hereditability does not necessarily imply immutability or
                                        >>that environmental intervention is always futile.

                                        All I meant by "futile" was that high hereditability did imply
                                        immutability of the trait in question.


                                        >>
                                        >What is futile? If we have to spend $100 billion to increase the
                                        >heritability of 1,000
                                        >children 0.1 points in IQ is that futile? How about 1 point? Is that futile?
                                        >
                                        >How about $10 billion to raise the IQ of 100 students 5 points? Is
                                        >that futile?

                                        I don't disagree with this, but am having trouble seeing the
                                        relevance to my point.


                                        >>It depends on the type of intervention. Metabolic disorders such as
                                        >>PKU are determined genetically, but can be ameliorated in some
                                        >>cases by diet (PKU entails the inability to metabolize
                                        >>phenylalanince properly - the remedy is a diet free of
                                        >>phenylalanine). Myopia is highly heritable, but easily corrected by glasses.
                                        >>
                                        >Myopia is not corrected by glasses. The person remains myopic.

                                        You're playing with semantics here, all that's meant is that the
                                        effects of myopia (not being able to see distant objects clearly) are
                                        remedied by glasses. I thought you didn't like philosophy and
                                        philosophers, yet you make an *essentially philosophical point*.

                                        I've noticed over the years that often it's the case that even people
                                        who claim to eschew philosophy don't proceed very far in serious
                                        discussions before they're actually *doing philosophy*, albeit
                                        unwittingly. This isn't really their fault. It stems from the fact
                                        that it's almost impossible to have a serious discussion about
                                        anything worthwhile without philosophical questions arising.

                                        >Do you have a gizmo
                                        >you can have people wear around their collars that can make them
                                        >feel/act smarter?

                                        No, but I'm not sure how that question arises from what I wrote. I
                                        was merely trying clarify some technical questions about
                                        heritability, a concept which seems to be abundantly and persistently
                                        misunderstood, and so IMO, there's rarely an excess of clarification.

                                        Fred Britton
                                      • H.M. Hubey
                                        ... We are not talking about bucking the reigning paradigm, are we? We are talking about going back and forth based on somebody s fantasy (e.g,. extreme
                                        Message 19 of 23 , Oct 8, 2006
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Fred Britton wrote:
                                          > At 08:59 PM 10/7/06, H.M. Hubey wrote:
                                          >
                                          >> Fred Britton wrote:
                                          >>>
                                          >>> This comment reminds me of a remark made in *In Search of Human
                                          >>> Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social
                                          >>> Thought*, Carl Degler (1991). Degler comments that during the
                                          >>> heyday of extreme enviromentalism in the social sciences the typical
                                          >>> position was that *extraordinary evidence* was demanded for any kind
                                          >>> of genetic or other biological causation with respect to individual
                                          >>> differences, social status, propensity for criminal behavior etc.
                                          >>> *No evidence*, however was required (in Degler's view) for the
                                          >>> default assumptions of cultural and social determinism and what
                                          >>> we've now come to know as the blank-slate view. Of course, there's
                                          >>> nothing unusual in this in the history of science,
                                          >
                                          We are not talking about bucking the reigning paradigm, are we? We are
                                          talking about going back and forth based on somebody's fantasy (e.g,.
                                          extreme environmentalism
                                          and extreme genetic determinism). It is only now that genetic data is
                                          being used.

                                          In the same way (to pick a specific example) the fact that some people
                                          claimed that air is not a "pure substance" (as in air, fire, earth..)
                                          and that there is
                                          something else in air is not an example of going back and forth.After
                                          all,what the ancient Greeks did was hardly science. Physics (and modern
                                          science)
                                          starts with Isaac Newton. Where did they go back and forth?


                                          >
                                          >> Which "science"? Did physics do this?
                                          >
                                          > Some examples of false trails or claims from the physical sciences:
                                          >
                                          > 1. The theory of the ether in physics.
                                          >
                                          > 2. Phlogiston in chemistry.
                                          >
                                          > 3. The initial rejection of plate techtonics by geophysicists and
                                          > geologists.
                                          >
                                          <Snip>
                                        • Rick O'Gorman
                                          ... g (or ... different ... underlying ... work for ... really ... and so ... Rowe ... Thanks. I guess we didn t work you *too* hard there? ;) What you
                                          Message 20 of 23 , Oct 10, 2006
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Rushton wrote:
                                            > Rick O'Gorman writes <<Even though the same level of heritability for
                                            g (or
                                            > IQ?) is being found for blacks and whites, isn't it possible that
                                            different
                                            > environmental effects could be interacting differently with the
                                            underlying
                                            > genetic component in g ontogeny?>>
                                            >
                                            > He further writes <<I realise this is empirically challenging but can it
                                            > really be claimed, a priori, that just because heritability values are
                                            > similar that that means that environments are similar?>>
                                            >
                                            > You guys! I don't know! Why don't you read the Rushton and Jensen (2005)
                                            > article in PPP&L? Well I guess its easier for you to make me do the
                                            work for
                                            > you. OK, guess I don't mind for one more day. You know, some people
                                            really
                                            > do look at the huge numbers required using sophisticated technologies
                                            and so
                                            > go beyond the 120 undergrads in the typical lab study. The late David
                                            Rowe
                                            > at the University of Arizona did some exemplary studies.
                                            >
                                            > Here is a cut and paste of three paragraphs from my article.

                                            Thanks. I guess we didn't work you *too* hard there? ;)

                                            What you provided does seem to begin to address what I was suggesting
                                            though, biased by my less than 120 Ps experimental research, I was
                                            expecting a slightly different set of variables.

                                            Specifically, when I suggested different environmental effects, I had
                                            things in mind like black v white students perceptions of themselves and
                                            their aptitudes, driven by social experiences (e.g., researchers saying
                                            blacks have lower IQs than whites on average), and how their
                                            self-perceptions might affect IQ. For example, there is research showing
                                            that people's attitudes to the test affects their performance (don't
                                            remember the ref offhand, possibly could dig it out). Tell females that
                                            a math test is measuring something else (plausible) and they do better
                                            than if you tell them it's a math test. A bit more in-depth than just
                                            measuring achievement or delinquency. Hence the comment about it
                                            possibly being a challenge!

                                            Feel free to simply tell me if your paper with Jensen examines such
                                            detailed psychometric and social variables--no expectation for you to
                                            cut-and-paste.

                                            --
                                            Rick O'Gorman, PhD
                                            Research Associate
                                            Department of Psychology
                                            Keynes College
                                            University of Kent
                                            Canterbury CT2 7NP
                                            UK

                                            Phone: 01227 827374
                                            Fax: 01227 827030

                                            http://www.kent.ac.uk/psychology/department/people/o%27gormanr/

                                            The carbon emissions from air-freighting one small punnet
                                            of out-of-season strawberries from New Zealand to the UK
                                            are equivalent to 11 school runs in the car.
                                            UK National Consumer Council
                                          • tom merle
                                            ... , Rick O Gorman wrote: ... and ... saying ... showing ... that ... See On
                                            Message 21 of 23 , Oct 10, 2006
                                            • 0 Attachment

                                              --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Rick O'Gorman <rogorman@...> wrote:

                                              <snip>
                                               
                                              > Specifically, when I suggested different environmental effects, I had
                                              > things in mind like black v white students perceptions of themselves and
                                              > their aptitudes, driven by social experiences (e.g., researchers saying
                                              > blacks have lower IQs than whites on average), and how their
                                              > self-perceptions might affect IQ. For example, there is research showing
                                              > that people's attitudes to the test affects their performance (don't
                                              > remember the ref offhand, possibly could dig it out). Tell females that
                                              > a math test is measuring something else (plausible) and they do better
                                              > than if you tell them it's a math test. A bit more in-depth than just
                                              > measuring achievement or delinquency. Hence the comment about it
                                              > possibly being a challenge!


                                              See

                                              On Interpreting Stereotype Threat as Accounting for
                                              African American–White Differences on Cognitive Tests


                                              Paul R. Sackett, Chaitra M. Hardison, and Michael J. Cullen
                                              University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus

                                              http://www2.uni-jena.de/svw/igc/studies/ss03/sackitt_hardison_cullen_2004.pdf#search=%22stereo%20threat%20steele%22 .

                                              Abstract


                                              C. M. Steele and J. Aronson (1995) showed that making
                                              race salient when taking a difficult test affected the performance
                                              of high-ability African American students, a phenomenon
                                              they termed stereotype threat. The authors document
                                              that this research is widely misinterpreted in both
                                              popular and scholarly publications as showing that eliminating
                                              stereotype threat eliminates the African American–
                                              White difference in test performance. In fact, scores were
                                              statistically adjusted for differences in students' prior SAT
                                              performance, and thus, Steele and Aronson's findings actually
                                              showed that absent stereotype threat, the two groups
                                              differ to the degree that would be expected based on
                                              differences in prior SAT scores. The authors caution
                                              against interpreting the Steele and Aronson experiment as
                                              evidence that stereotype threat is the primary cause of
                                              African American–White differences in test performance.

                                              Conclusion:

                                              We suspect that many readers may react with disappoint-ment to our showing that the Steele and Aronson (1995)research does not show that eliminating stereotype threateliminates African American–White test differences. Sub-group differences in performance on high-stakes tests rep-resent one of American society's most pressing socialproblems, and mechanisms for reducing or eliminatingdifferences are of enormous interest. Yet, given the impor-tance of the problem, proposed explanatory mechanismsmerit careful scrutiny and clear understanding.

                                              Our concern about the misinterpretation that removingthreat from a testing setting eliminates African American–White differences is that such misinterpretation has thepotential to wrongly lead to the belief that there is less needfor research and intervention aimed at a broad range ofpotential contributing factors, such as differences in edu-cational and economic opportunities of African Americanand White youth. If group differences in scores on the SATand other tests were largely explainable by the mind-setwith which examinees approach the testing situation, itwould then follow that differences in factors such as qualityof instruction or per-pupil educational expenditure do notmatter much in terms of achievement in the domains measured by high-stakes tests. Hence, caution in interpretationof threat research is warranted.

                                              We wish to address several issues raised by readers ofearly drafts of this article. One is that misinterpretation ofresearch is regrettably all too common and thus that documenting misinterpretations in one single domain is oflimited interest. Our response is that we are singling outthis domain because the issue at stake is of such importanceand because the interpretive errors are so rampant and sosystematic. A second issue raised by readers is that al-though we offer evidence of misinterpretation, we do notshow evidence of any serious consequences of this (e.g.,decision makers misled by misstatements of research findings). One response is that heading off future interpretiveerrors is justification enough for the article. A second responseis that in our applied work with organizations using tests forpersonnel decisions, we have frequently encountered individ-uals responsible for decisions about test use who repeated themisinterpretations that we document here.

                                              We reiterate that nothing we report here is intended as criticism of Steele and Aronson's (1995) original researchor as a challenge to the concept of stereotype threat as animportant phenomenon with relevance to testing settings. Steele and Aronson clearly showed that imposing andeliminating stereotype threat can, in laboratory settings,affect the test performance of both African American andWhite students, and other researchers have extended this toother groups (e.g., gender, age). This is important in that ithighlights the fact that test scores can be influenced byfactors other than the examinee's true level of skill andachievement. At one level, this is well known: The wholenotion of standardized testing is based on controlling extraneous features of the testing environment. What is novel,though, is the demonstration that a standardized feature oftest administration (e.g., the description of what the testmeasures) can have a different effect on one group of examinees than on another. Thus, continued attention to stereotype threat is certainly warranted. What we do here iscaution against misinterpreting the findings as a complete explanation for the African American–White differences observed in Steele and Aronson's research and against prematurely generalizing the laboratory findings to high-stakes testing environments.

                                            • Rick O'Gorman
                                              Thanks for digging that out Tom. What is amusing in the piece cited below from Sackett et al. is that while they point out that removing stereotype threat did
                                              Message 22 of 23 , Oct 11, 2006
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Thanks for digging that out Tom. What is amusing in the piece cited
                                                below from Sackett et al. is that while they point out that removing
                                                stereotype threat did not alleviate differences without adjusting for
                                                SAT scores, SAT scores themselves are a test-derived variable and
                                                presumably potentially susceptible to stereotype threat! I'd like to now
                                                know whether anyone has looked at whether stereotype threat impacts SAT
                                                scores.

                                                --
                                                Rick O'Gorman, PhD
                                                Research Associate
                                                Department of Psychology
                                                Keynes College
                                                University of Kent
                                                Canterbury CT2 7NP
                                                UK

                                                Phone: 01227 827374
                                                Fax: 01227 827030

                                                http://www.kent.ac.uk/psychology/department/people/o%27gormanr/

                                                The carbon emissions from air-freighting one small punnet
                                                of out-of-season strawberries from New Zealand to the UK
                                                are equivalent to 11 school runs in the car.
                                                UK National Consumer Council

                                                tom merle wrote:
                                                > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                                > <mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com> , Rick O'Gorman
                                                > <rogorman@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > <snip>
                                                >
                                                >> Specifically, when I suggested different environmental effects, I had
                                                >> things in mind like black v white students perceptions of themselves
                                                > and
                                                >> their aptitudes, driven by social experiences (e.g., researchers
                                                > saying
                                                >> blacks have lower IQs than whites on average), and how their
                                                >> self-perceptions might affect IQ. For example, there is research
                                                > showing
                                                >> that people's attitudes to the test affects their performance (don't
                                                >> remember the ref offhand, possibly could dig it out). Tell females
                                                > that
                                                >> a math test is measuring something else (plausible) and they do better
                                                >> than if you tell them it's a math test. A bit more in-depth than just
                                                >> measuring achievement or delinquency. Hence the comment about it
                                                >> possibly being a challenge!
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > See
                                                >
                                                > On Interpreting Stereotype Threat as Accounting for
                                                > African American–White Differences on Cognitive Tests
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Paul R. Sackett, Chaitra M. Hardison, and Michael J. Cullen
                                                > University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus
                                                >
                                                > http://www2.uni-jena.de/svw/igc/studies/ss03/sackitt_hardison_cullen_200\
                                                > 4.pdf#search=%22stereo%20threat%20steele%22
                                                > <http://www2.uni-jena.de/svw/igc/studies/ss03/sackitt_hardison_cullen_20\
                                                > 04.pdf#search=%22stereo%20threat%20steele%22> .
                                                >
                                                > Abstract
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > C. M. Steele and J. Aronson (1995) showed that making
                                                > race salient when taking a difficult test affected the performance
                                                > of high-ability African American students, a phenomenon
                                                > they termed stereotype threat. The authors document
                                                > that this research is widely misinterpreted in both
                                                > popular and scholarly publications as showing that eliminating
                                                > stereotype threat eliminates the African American–
                                                > White difference in test performance. In fact, scores were
                                                > statistically adjusted for differences in students' prior SAT
                                                > performance, and thus, Steele and Aronson's findings actually
                                                > showed that absent stereotype threat, the two groups
                                                > differ to the degree that would be expected based on
                                                > differences in prior SAT scores. The authors caution
                                                > against interpreting the Steele and Aronson experiment as
                                                > evidence that stereotype threat is the primary cause of
                                                > African American–White differences in test performance.
                                                >
                                                > Conclusion:
                                                >
                                                <Snip>
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.