« Letting Igons be Igons | Main | Speaking Tour! »

Comments

Laban

Don't know the truth one way or the other, but according to Daniel Vining, Adam Miller's Rolling Stone piece 'Professors of Hate' is 'crammed with errors'.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1965

Lurker

"Home environments are widely known to have little effect on IQ" - Kedar

Eh? This from an anti-hereditarian. You need to get your story straight.

So home environment is null, whats the environment that does all the heavy lifting then?

JohnS

You got uber-pwmned, Gladwell. Best just to move on.

Michael

What does stuff that dead people did and said in the 1920s have to do with whether a currently living scientist is right or wrong?

Shane

Some of the evidence presented in this thread can easily be explained by social effects. On math tests, Asian American women primed to think about gender issues underperform Asian American women primed to think about racial issues - a clear case of where merely thinking about stereotypes makes them a self-fulfilling prophecy. There's a more well-known study that blacks perform more poorly on intelligence tests when explicitly told that they are testing intelligence. What does this type of result in the laboratory mean for society at large? Hereditarian arguments aren't helpful here.

J

First, the Mainstream Science on Intelligence editorial: http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html

And APA's Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns report: http://www.michna.com/intelligence.htm

Gladwell writes: "First, the editorial in question made a number of other arguments that, I think, most observers would agree fall on one end of the nature-nurture continuum: that all IQ tests measure the same thing,"

-People who excel at, say, tests of general information, tend also to excel at arithmetic tests, visual pattern recognition tests, and so on. This finding has been replicated innumerable times, and is completely uncontroversial.

Gladwell continues: "... that heredity is more important that environment in determining it, that group differences are relatively unaffected by schooling or socioeconomic factors."

-Both the editorial and the APA report conclude that among adults heredity is more important than environment in explaining within-group differences. Furthermore, both the editorial and the APA report agree that controlling for SES does not eliminate the black-white IQ differential. So why do you think the editorial reflects a somehow extreme view?

Gladwell: "It also said that the IQs of different races cluster at different points, with the average IQ of blacks falling about a standard deviation lower than that of whites, and that these differences show no sign of converging over time."

-The APA report states that "African-American IQ scores have long averaged about 15 points below those of Whites" and that "it is possible that the IQ-score differential is narrowing as well, but this has not been clearly established". The editorial says that the evidence for the narrowing is "too mixed to reflect a general shift in IQ levels themselves". So, again, the Mainstream Science editorial and the APA report concur.

Gladwell: "Fourth, fifteen of 52 signatories to the Wall Street Journal statement have had their research supported by the Pioneer Fund."

-The criticisms of Pioneer-funded research are purely political. No one has ever been able to find any evidence of scientific misconduct in Pioneer-funded studies. On the contrary, they are widely respected, and have been extensively cited.

-Even if the Pioneer connection somehow made the scientists in question suspect, what about those 37 signatories who had not received Pioneer grants?

Gladwell: "Second, two thirds of the editorial board of the journal Intelligence declined to sign the statement."

- You can read about the background of the statement here: http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf (scroll down). Most of the people who refused to sign the statement nevertheless thought that it represented the mainstream view.

Gladwell: "Fifth, the APA’s own report on the subject, “Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns,” which Pinker suggests is in sympathy with his position, was largely directed against IQ fundamentalism. -- I don’t mean to suggest that Professor Pinker agrees with the more eccentric positions of the some of the 52 signatories. "

-As I detailed above, the APA report is largely in agreement with the Mainstream Science editorial. There's nothing eccentric about the editorial. Gladwell's ideas about intelligence research are, however, highly eccentric.

Stephe Sailer

Tell me Gladwell...

Why do you drudge up Pinker's own words/citations to coalesce his ideological/scientific views/assertions and then use it against him? This is a witch-hunt!

Humph!
*thumps fist on chest*
Guilty by avocation!

A

I think it is important to point out that hereditarianism and IQ differences between races are not mutually inclusive phenomena.

While it seems that significant heritability of IQ would need to exist in order for innate IQ differences to exist between races (whatever that means biologically), it does NOT follow that IQ differences between races must exist just because IQ is strongly heritable.

One can accept hereditarianism while rejecting any race based differences in IQ.

At any rate, the in group variation is likely to be many times larger than any differences between groups. We see this in other factors such as height.

Also like height, it is not unrealistic to assume that the child of two geniuses may end up with an IQ higher than the child of two idiots. (Of course even assuming significant heritability, no one is arguing that IQ is even remotely entirely divorced from environmental factors).

As for differences in IQ between groups, it does seem unlikely that all groups separated for tens of thousands years would exhibit exactly zero innate IQ differences. However, having said that, 60 or 70 thousand years is not very significant in evolutionary terms, so I would be surprised if any differences were (if there was any way to truly eliminate all environmental and cultural factors) anything other than very, very small.

So other than for the purest intellectual curiosity, that is why this topic is distasteful to most people. It simply doesn't matter which racial groups may have a higher innate IQ because as individuals we all, regardless of our racial makeup, can be genius or idiots. The variation between individuals far exceeds any differences in mean IQ.

And while some small group differences may possibly exist, I'm not convinced that there are adequate ways of quantifying any such differences given the potential tiny differences we are looking for and the huge amount of noise in the data.

A

I think it is important to point out that hereditarianism and IQ differences between races are not mutually inclusive phenomena.

While it seems that significant heritability of IQ would need to exist in order for innate IQ differences to exist between races (whatever that means biologically), it does NOT follow that IQ differences between races must exist just because IQ is strongly heritable.

One can accept hereditarianism while rejecting any race based differences in IQ.

At any rate, the in group variation is likely to be many times larger than any differences between groups. We see this in other factors such as height.

Also like height, it is not unrealistic to assume that the child of two geniuses may end up with an IQ higher than the child of two idiots. (Of course even assuming significant heritability, no one is arguing that IQ is even remotely entirely divorced from environmental factors).

As for differences in IQ between groups, it does seem unlikely that all groups separated for tens of thousands years would exhibit exactly zero innate IQ differences. However, having said that, 60 or 70 thousand years is not very significant in evolutionary terms, so I would be surprised if any differences were (if there was any way to truly eliminate all environmental and cultural factors) anything other than very, very small.

So other than for the purest intellectual curiosity, that is why this topic is distasteful to most people. It simply doesn't matter which racial groups may have a higher innate IQ because as individuals we all, regardless of our racial makeup, can be genius or idiots. The variation between individuals far exceeds any differences in mean IQ.

And while some small group differences may possibly exist, I'm not convinced that there are adequate ways of quantifying them given the potential tiny differences we are looking for and the huge amount of noise in the data.

gregory christainsen

"There is ample evidence from economics and psychology that cognitive ability is a powerful predictor of economic and social outcomes. It is intuitively obvious that cognition is essential in processing information, learning, and in decision making."
--Nobel laureate James Heckman, adviser to Barack Obama

Another man on the lonely ice floe? Malcolm, you are SERIOUSLY in error on this matter.

Kedar

I'm really amazed at the amount of flak I've gotten for what I've posted. You people are so vested in your worship of hereditarian writers that you seem to think anything that admits even any component of heredity goes in your direction. But, what can I expect of a bunch of typical Steve Sailer trolls?

I mean, I got abit of a spotlight from commenter Sideways in Sailer's thread:

"High comedy in that comment thread when Kedar sets about proving himself wrong. I've never seen someone so thoroughly debunk their own claims without realizing that they were wrong (or is he just trolling?)"
GS:

"If you can't see that groups have different average IQs then you have simply used your mind to fool yourself and you are not a thinking person."

That's obviously a foolish belief, but how heritable you believe these differences are, and how much they matter is an entirely different matter. This criticism only focuses on extreme egalitarians. It's a strawman for any opponents of hereditarianism.

"Note that in every single country in the world the same pattern emerges:

East Asians are over represented in cognitively demanding professions.
Whites do pretty well.
Blacks do poorly.

Just open your eyes people. Blacks do poorly in every single country in the entire world."

This is a lie, and betrays the sort of "averages" hereditarians/racialists often wave around as a way of avoiding criticism. You accept that *alot* of blacks have IQ's equalling or exceeding the white average, right? You accept the fact *alot* of blacks are wholly law-abiding and altrusitic people, right?

Then why can't you find the idea of some black majority communities or states not being hellholes so inconcievable? Well, there actually are some. See, an interesting tidbit over-looked by the vast majority of racialists/hereditarians is that nearly all black majority countries, or ones with significant black populations, in the carribean, are of either first or second world status. It's only Haiti that does so poorly and racialists seem to fetishize. The next worse is Jamaica, but has an HDI typical of second world countries. The rest are usually considerably more developed, with high to low or moderate crime rates.

But do I believe this is an example of the dominance of environment? Not really. The slave trade was incredibly complex, and could have introduced a vast array of selection or culling processes that could have allowed such nations to exist from a hereditarian perspective.

The point I'm trying to make here is that many of your beliefs completely betray to the so-called "bigoted" principles you desperately seek to avoid. For people like you, blacks pretty much ALWAYS must be destitue wherever they go, and opposite patterns holding true for whites and east asians, this being due to some inane, ad-hoc, myopic evolutionary explanations that have persisted for millenia, to the exclusion of every other variable imaginable. It's not just a matter of their qualities today- you genuinely believe these held true for the vast majority of pre-modern times. Even though the most cursory glance at human history would blow this away. But you'll prefer to run off to people who grotesquely distort such a historical record, like Rushton or Hart or the vast majority of other racialists who touch this subject. While at the same time buttressing the works of H&M, who say that intelligence mattered considerably less even in early 20th century america, and the further you go back, it would matter less and less and less. While at the same time beliving things like the successes of medieval europe and east asia in comparison to other parts of the world was strongly reflective of their general intellects as seen now.

I'm genuinely amazed at how little intellectual diversity exists among the hereditarian camp, with so many of them prone to worshipping these ridiculous racial evolutionary hierarchies. You're essentially drumming up differences observed among racial groups within the past few centuries as saying something substantial about them. And of course, the ones now being largely due to genetic factors- IE, SS africa is poor because SS africans are mentally retarded.

Timothy Black:

"@Kedar: 55% is enormous. It also happens to be what the so-called hereditarians claim: _The Bell Curve_ says 40-80% (median again at 60%) and A. Jensen, if memory serves, cites a similar figure. If 55% of the variance in IQ is explained by genes, then the racial IQ differences are very unlikely to be entirely environmental. (And that's in addition to prima facie evidence: what are the chances that every distinct subpopulation of human being has an identical mean IQ???) I image Dr. Pinker would likewise agree with 55%. Ask Mr. Gladwell what his figure is."

First off, I specifically said AROUND 50%, not EXACTLY 50% OR 55%. Is a 50% genetic contribution to IQ huge? Yes, but then that leaves a 50% environmental component, which is also huge. Just how is that a hereditarian position, in that genes and environment contribute roughly equal roles? A hereditarian position would be that genetics constitue the MAJORITY of the variance. Jensen only took the 50% figure as the lowest possible one. To assert he's of a middleground position is hilarious. 60% also isn't considerably removed from 50%, and you seem to be ignoring that one twin study that found a 40% genetinc contribution.

I also never took the position that all racial groups have identical IQ's- is this just some kind of gut reaction for you to anybody that questions hereditarianism?

By the way: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1288305/

“Dozens of studies, including >8,000 parent-offspring pairs, >25,000 pairs of siblings, >10,000 twin pairs, and 100s of adoptive families, all converge on the conclusion that the heritability of g is ~50% (Bouchard and McGue 1981).”

The paper actually says IQ- g is somewhat more heritable than IQ, overall, but what matters is how much of an effect g's heritability has on the heritability of performance on other tests downstream.

Evan Mclaren: Virtually everybody in this debate has their own political reservations. People of the environmentalist outlook are especially tinged by ultra-liberal and outright marxist outlooks. The hereditarian outlook, however, is also often tinged by people with nationalist and racialist politics.

Those political beliefs are widespread among Pioneer Fund grantees. People like Rushton and Lynn are basically white nationalists. It's kind of blatant with how Rushton writes in favor of ethnic altruism theories or how they both frequently attend the conferences of the white nationalist magazine american renaissance. For the sake of fairness, mention them as well.

Couch scientist: "So if a study showed that East Asians adopted by whites had higher IQs than whites or blacks raised by whites, why would that be so? The simplest explanation is that Asians are naturally smarter than the other two groups. Other explanations may be possible, but are based on attenuated social theories."

If the study was simply looking at non-twin adoptees and little else, this wouldn't say much for heritability, because you have absolutely nothing to compare them to, and you're looking at an invalid variable. If this was an actual twin study, then it would say what you're saying.

What you quote aren't twin studies.

TGGP: Does it just fly by you at what many Pioneer Fund grantees engage in? Now, do their political slants make their research wholly invalid? No. Bare in mind I'm not speaking for Gladwell, or necessarily for him- I just came into this discussion.

But does that make their research significantly more questionable? Yes, it does.

Jim: "This "debate" such as it is, is essentially between a "blank slate", nuture (left-wing, Franz Boas, communist, Lysenko theory, "we can remake man", "fully fund head start!", "deprived environment", etc. etc. etc.) view, and a view that says "hey a lot of this -- "human nature" in general, IQ, personality for individuals -- is sorta locked-in, in the genes."

Oh my god. You genuinely can't be serious. No, this is really what you're saying. The nature-nurture debate is divided between hardcore environmentalists with boasian, communist, and lysenkoist (really) leanings and people who think IQ and personality are largely genetic. (you have no problem with painting your opponents with all sorts of extreme leftist labels, but really hate it when people call your side nazis and racists.)

Did it ever occur to you that there are people who don't fall closely to those extremities? I'm gonna be blunt here- are you fucking stupid? I really dont' care about being painted with "ad hominems" when you said something that unbelievably stupid.

"Of course, parents know this -- whether they draw the big picture or not. I just told third child, that she needs to get to bed by say 11 o'clock. For some reason she shares a *lot* of personality traits (goofiness, feistiness ...) with me -- including "owl" tendencies -- unlike her (better behaved) older siblings who are a bit more like mom. All this was obvious when she was one year old."

Your family applies to all of humanity, I'm sure. Bare in mind the development of similar personalities is facilitated by people gravitating towards people similar to themselves. But hereditarian theories on personality are unbelievably less substantiated than ones for IQ.

"No one -- that i know of -- claims that heredity counts for 100% or even 90% of IQ variation. 55% is ... huge! Insane. (Social science correlations of .7 and up are extremely rare.)"

I've seen people try to argue for it being 90-100%. Even Jensen. He once tried to argue that prenatal conditions for twins, which are much common among twin births, atleast, could overestimate heritabilities- but for what it's worth, many have argued it's underestimated heritabilities. It's simply too unstable to argue in favor of either position.

"Compare to the result in the APA paper you quote for adoption -- which is the most extreme form of social intervention possible. (Even the left does not -- yet -- advocate pulling underpriviledged kids out of their homes to "fix" them.) "

Note I said "typically has little effect". It's not a universtal trend. What matters is environmental influences outside the home.

"But thanks for pointing out what the middle of the road, mainstream position is."

If you're desperate enough to believe "around 50%" means "locked into the genes", then no problem.

The rest of your post delves into more extreme egalitarian strawmen. Every single one of your opponents must be a "liberal boasian marxist lysenkoist" gould, lewontin, rose, kamin etc. etc. type in your eyes. Wow, humans are still evolving! But just how heritable are these differences?

J: "-What the hell are you talking about? First you describe the hereditarian view as the majority consensus, yet in the next sentence you claim it's a fringe view. Or are you suggesting that, for example, the Bell Curve is an anti-hereditarian work?"

A middleground view isn't a hereditarian view. You people are amazing.

Lurker: "Eh? This from an anti-hereditarian. You need to get your story straight.
So home environment is null, whats the environment that does all the heavy lifting then?"

You're obviously rather familiar with the hereditarian literature. So haven't you heard of where the dominant consensus on where environmental influences comes from is?

http://www.amazon.com/Nurture-Assumption-Children-Revised-Updated/dp/1439101655/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259784997&sr=8-1

Like I said, home environment typically has little effect on IQ and personality, and usually has appreciable effects in extreme environments. The majority of the variance comes from outside of the home- non-shared environmental influences. Are you going to argue Judith Rich Harris is a hereditarian now?

J: "-Both the editorial and the APA report conclude that among adults heredity is more important than environment in explaining within-group differences. Furthermore, both the editorial and the APA report agree that controlling for SES does not eliminate the black-white IQ differential. So why do you think the editorial reflects a somehow extreme view?"

The rising heritability of age is one of the most widely misintepreted aspects in this debate nowadays. It's on the level of implicating correlation coefficients as percentage variants.

This simply refers to the fact that environment has less of an effect on someone's IQ as they age. This isn't surprising since people's brains stop growing in their mid 20's- IE, their brains, and intellects, become fully mature.

In my closing remarks for now, I'll say a few other things:

-Heritability studies largley look at the experiences of twins and the like in typical first world environments, simply due to ethical constraints. The heritability of IQ within a typical first world setting, IE, the sort of experiences people typically experience in such an environment, aren't applicable to extreme environments, such as intervention programs that are at the heart of this debate.

-Heritability studies simply look at the AVERAGE variance within a sample. There can be considerable spread in such samples, but finding out the exact diffrentiation is very hard to come by.

-The APA statement lays out many common-sense views on IQ. IQ's role in certain life outcomes, however, is highly debatable, and I can say firmly that IQ, overall, has little to do with wealth, income, SES status and the like. (I'll wait to see what the Sailer fans have to trot out in this regard.)

Schwartz

The idea that Jews tested poorly is actually based on a misrepresentation of a paper authored by Henry Goddard in 1917.

Goddard gave IQ tests to people suspected of being mentally handicapped. He found the tests identified a number of such people from various immigrant groups, including Ashkenazi Jews. Leon Kamin in 1974 reported that Goddard had found Jews had low IQ scores. However, Goddard never found that Jews or other groups as a general population had low scores. There is other information that contradicts the idea that Jews did poorly on IQ tests around this time. In 1900, in London, Jews took a disproportionate number of academic prizes in spite of their poverty (C Russell & H.S. Lewis 'The Jew in London' Harper Collins 1900). Also, note that by 1922 Jewish students made up more than a fifth of Harvard undergraduates & the Ivy League was already instituting policies aimed at limiting Jewish admissions (the infamous 'Jewish quotas'). Also, a 1920's a survey of IQ scores in three London schools with mixed Jewish & non-Jewish student bodies - one prosperous, one poor and one very poor - showed that Jewish students, on average, had higher IQ's than their schoolmates in each of the groups (A Hughes 1928).

- see also: G. Cochran, J. Hardy, H. Harpending, Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence, Journal of Biosocial Science 38 (5), pp. 659-693 (2006).

The other misconception is that this contributed to the 1924 Immigration Act. However, Herrnstein & Snyderman found this was not the case (Intelligence Tests and the Immigration Act of 1924' American Psychologist 38, September 1983).

Schwartz

Gladwell overlooks that funding for anything that might show biological causes of human diversity was pretty hard to come by for a while. Even twin studies had difficulty getting funding.

This was because the Boasian/blank slate model was dominant. Witness the hysterical reaction of Gould, Lewontin & other Marxist scientists to EO Wilson's 'Sociobiology' book.

Here's the challenge to Gladwell: You don’t like what a century of psychometricians have come up with? Fine, but what have you come up with? You don’t think I.Q. tests are valid as a way to quantify smartness? Then what do you think is valid? What methodology would you suggest? Where is your data? What hypotheses have you generated? Where did you publish your results? What do your results say about group differences?

In science you have to walk the walk. I.Q. deniers are like the Intelligent Design folk: long on critique, pitifully short on research.

Schwartz

Ultimately, these arguments will be rendered moot anyway:

"Human geneticists have reached a private crisis of conscience, and it will become public knowledge in 2010. The crisis has depressing health implications and alarming political ones. In a nutshell: the new genetics will reveal much less than hoped about how to cure disease, and much more than feared about human evolution and inequality, including genetic differences between classes, ethnicities and races...

We will also identify the many genes that create physical and mental differences across populations, and we will be able to estimate when those genes arose. Some of those differences probably occurred very recently, within recorded history. Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending argued in “The 10,000 Year Explosion” that some human groups experienced a vastly accelerated rate of evolutionary change within the past few thousand years, benefiting from the new genetic diversity created within far larger populations, and in response to the new survival, social and reproductive challenges of agriculture, cities, divisions of labour and social classes. Others did not experience these changes until the past few hundred years when they were subject to contact, colonisation and, all too often, extermination.

If the shift from GWAS to sequencing studies finds evidence of such politically awkward and morally perplexing facts, we can expect the usual range of ideological reactions, including nationalistic retro-racism from conservatives and outraged denial from blank-slate liberals. The few who really understand the genetics will gain a more enlightened, live-and-let-live recognition of the biodiversity within our extraordinary species—including a clearer view of likely comparative advantages between the world’s different economies."

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14742737

Karl K

Malcolm, I've read all your books.

Basically, you're a sloppy thinker quite often in them, and you're a sloppy thinker here.

Nice prose though. The editors at the New Yorker have trained you well. Maybe your IQ is high?

Alas, Pinker has nailed you. . . and all your ad hominem attacks and guilt-by-association impugning doesn't change that incontrovertible fact.

Bulbousbrain

Many people might seriously consider the option of auto-darwination if they were presented with the benefits of doing so to humanity. You know, they could feel some pride in having contributed to the improvement of the human condition. I mean, if you only manage to screw up, what the point of making more screw-ups? That's not really nice of you. There's nothing to be ashamed about dropping dead before spreading your selfish genes... Not that people should, but I'm just sayin'. It's an option that could be taught at schools.

Oh by the way, humans, generally, suck. Aliens FTW!

Gabriel Hanna

Wehrner von Braun's initial rocketry work was funded by Nazis, therefore we should not believe that rockets work, or else we are giving aid and comfort to Nazi ideas.

strawman

Laban,

Indeed. If Gladwell doesn't think that that information is relevant, then he spends quite a bit of time rambling on to little effect.

I think what also confuses me is that Pinkner makes two broad points at the end of his reply: 1)That the methodology used to determine quarterback effectiveness is faulty, as it omits later-round draft picks, and 2) the correlation between teacher and QB performance is weak.

Gladwell doesn't answer either of these. Instead, we get this splendid argument:

1) People who agree with Pinkner hold other nasty views.
2) These views are wrong
3) Pinkner is wrong.

In logical terms, this is akin to "A=C, therefore B=C." Not exactly convincing.

D

I'd like to see Gladwell actually argue the facts with the likes of Pinker or Sailer on this topic without the "but the Pioneer Fund" escape clause.

I doubt we'll ever see that, however.

The findings simply don't line up the way he'd like.

Schwartz

Gabriel Hanna, good point. The Nazis lead the first public anti-smoking campaign in modern history.

Perhaps Gladwell is going to say that discredits the tobacco-lung cancer research?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany

CrypticGuise

Dear Malcolm,

I've read your first three books and found them interesting and enjoyable reading. My favorite is "Outliers". My personal experience in life regarding IQ or ability to learn difficult material, besides reading The Bell Curve, is of course anecdotal.

I would not want to discourage Black Children from getting the very best education they can and having great lives based on their education, ability and opportunity.

Black Children born into the circumstances that exist in fatherless families today make it nearly impossible for them to succeed. White children also are at a tremendous disadvantage without fathers in the home or a male mentor.

Children are programmed from birth and unfortunately they are subject to constant negative input in the inner cities and they are "lost" to us before they have an opportunity to see that they can succeed. I loved your example of "K" schools and the success inner city kids have there.

But I think you are attributing racism where there may be none. All men and/or women are not created equally in all aspects of their natures - physical, emotional or intellectual. Some children are brighter than other children in that they have the ability to learn "faster" and grasp certain concepts easier. I agree with what you've said in "Outliers" regarding "practice, practice, practice" but no matter how much I practice I am never going to be a brilliant Physicist or Mathematician even though I have a lot of ability.

Keep on asking questions. You're a terrific person with a wonderful life story. I'll be reading your new book soon.

michael

How very sly- Gladwell doesn't "mean to suggest that Professor Pinker agrees with the more eccentric positions"- but in so doing, still manages to imply it. Then there's that clever invocation of Jensen- the classic "Hitler was a vegetarian, too" argument.

Pinker may not be on the bleeding edge of IQ research, but he does know a lot more than Gladwell about psychology, and it certainly shows here. Quoting articles from a field you're barely acquainted with hardly amounts to scholarship. Gladwell is a good writer, and a good reporter- right up until the point where he formulates his conclusions.

EZstar

That's it? Pinker's criticisms of your work are incorrect because a 1997 journal editorial featured the scientific consensus they represent alongside a racist belief about IQ clustering? You say it's not meant to be a criticism of what he says, but imply that it illustrates he's on a proverbial ice-flow. How about some evidence that the mainstream scientific consensus is on your side, or at least a denial that the mainstream is correct?

Schwartz

***Among the fifteen Pioneer Fund-sponsored signatories were Arthur R. Jensen (who has cited the heritability of IQ to argue against interventions to boost academic performance of minorities)***

Here is Jensen's famous 1969 Harvard Educational Review paper. He appears to be arguing for more individualised or diverse approaches to education which recognise individual abilities. He has written about that subsequently too & I don't see the problem with that.

http://reference.kfupm.edu.sa/content/h/o/how_much_can_we_boost_iq_and_scholastic__92162.pdf

Observer

Rushton's observation was actually that any important difference (be it physical, mental, developmental, temperamental,or behavioral) that can be found between Asians and Europeans, a similar relationship will most likely be found between Europeans and Africans. Regardless of the correctness of Rushton's theory for explaining this consistent relationship, the data he uses to verify the relationship itself is, to quote Frank Miele of Skeptic Magazine, "...replicable".

To see what the guy himself actually says, you can read this recent review here in International Journal of Neuroscience:

Rushton, J. P., & Ankney, C. D. (2009). Whole-brain size and general mental ability: A review. International Journal of Neuroscience, 119, 691-731.

http://www.psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2009%20IJN.pdf

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Bio

  • I'm a writer for the New Yorker magazine, and the author of four books, "The Tipping Point: How Little Things Make a Big Difference", "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking" and "Outliers: The Story of Success." My latest book, "What the Dog Saw" is a compilation of stories published in The New Yorker. I was born in England, and raised in southwestern Ontario in Canada. Now I live in New York City.

    My great claim to fame is that I'm from the town where they invented the BlackBerry. My family also believes (with some justification) that we are distantly related to Colin Powell. I invite you to look closely at the photograph above and draw your own conclusions.

My Website

Books

  • What the Dog Saw

    buy from amazon

    Outliers

    buy from amazon

    buy from amazon UK

    Blink

    buy from amazon

    buy from amazon UK

    Tipping Point

    buy from amazon

Recent Articles

Blog powered by Typepad