The second sentence is a straw man. Skimming the text, I see that's much the case throughout. Gladwell, if you look past his charming style, is extremely sloppy. Everybody who has researched IQ has come across the twin studies which amply prove that IQ is not immutable. But the only one ignoring such studies is the actual "fundamentalists" who deny that genetics has anything at all to do with intelligence.
The increase in IQ from nutrition and education is going to experience stark diminishing returns, as has already been seen.
You have to realize who Gladwell's audience is. I think you're severely underestimating the number of people who have done any research into IQ studies. Now, you could argue that he is not rigorous enough in his arguments, and while this is true, he's still exposing many people to new ideas that can help to reduce widespread misconceptions that the general public holds.
Gladwell is not talking about the heritability of IQ on an individual basis; he's talking about IQ differences, or the lack thereof, between races.
It's entirely possible that there is some factor of intelligence that is mostly inherited and that whites, blacks, Asians, etc., on average, possess equal amounts of this factor.
Is there some kind of competition I don't know about to mention the words "straw man" in as many threads as possible? It seems to pop up in just about every thread, along with the words "correlation does not equal causation".
Both logical weaknesses are common among arguments, and people here have a penchant for pointing them out.
I'd rather they point it out than let poor arguments pass for lack of language to describe it. Maybe we need new synonyms. Says something about the state of logical strength of many popular articles, doesn't it?
When I see disingenuous, I assume that you're saying someone is pretending X, despite the fact that they know that X is false. That is, I more-or-less assume malice.
When I see straw man, it often seems to be the case that the author didn't know any better. That is, I assume ignorance until proven otherwise.
Everybody who has researched IQ has come across the twin studies which amply prove that IQ is not immutable.
Yes, there are a number of lines of evidence that IQ is far from immutable at the individual level, even though environmental influences on IQ are very poorly understood. Because such environmental influences are poorly understood, it is not at all clear that societal increases in IQ can't continue.
I've enjoyed hearing from several well known psychologists about this, including some of the doyens of twin research, as I participate in the journal club in individual differences psychology and behavioral genetics
at the university where those researchers are based this fall semester. There is always lively discussion on what the data show, and what the data don't show. Thus far, there are no data to show a hard upper limit on how much individual academic achievement might raise with the best interventions, nor any predictable limit on how much secular increases in societal levels of IQ might continue.
This whole article is a straw man. While differences between intelligence of races are debatable, the way the article goes about it is contentious and extremely one sided.
A much more important argument is whether intelligence is immutable or not. What this article doesn’t do is look at the general intelligence factor – the correct way to measure intelligence. Attacking IQ is just a straw man – IQ isn’t the best measure of intelligence, the g-factor is. IQ tests are subject to boosting (i.e. increased performance by training).
The evidence that intelligence is innate is significant and mounting. The general intelligence factor is found in several studies to be immutable. It is possible to see the effects of the general intelligence factor by looking at fMRI when a person does a test. Intelligence has much more to do with physiology than anyone would like to admit.
It is sad that a lot of people would rather turn science into pseudo science than to acknowledge the fact. These views are subject to a very good book called “The blank slate: modern denial of human nature” (by Steven Pinker).
PS: James Flynn does not have any formal training in psychometrics. He is a political scientist and noted left wing New Zealand political activist. He is also author of “How to Defend Humane Ideals: Substitutes for Objectivity”.
I do not know why his views are continuously brought up when there are 100s of guys in the field that is better educated than him. It is unfortunate that when science and politics collides it is science that loses.
The general intelligence factor is found in several studies to be immutable.
Studies get published if they survive peer review, and publications have citations. Citations, please?
I do not know why his views are continuously brought up when there are 100s of guys in the field that is better educated than him.
Because Flynn does his homework and makes unassailable research findings that are published in the best journals. Arthur Jensen has written, "Now and then I am asked . . . who, in my opinion, are the most respectable critics of my position on the race-IQ issue? The name James R. Flynn is by far the first that comes to mind." Arthur Jensen, "Differential Psychology: Towards Consensus" in Arthur Jensen: Consensus and Controversy, Sohan Modgil & Celia Modgil ed., p. 379 (1987). N. J. Mackintosh writes about the data Flynn found: "the data are surprising, demolish some long-cherished beliefs, and raise a number of other interesting issues along the way." Mackintosh, N. J. (1998). IQ and Human Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Flynn grapples with the data, analyzes the data carefully, and engages in discussion with scholars from a wide variety of points of view about what the data mean. That's why Flynn's most recent book gains the praise
already mentioned in another reply to this thread.
After edit:
Because I have Pinker's book at hand, I checked his chapter on the issue, and Pinker says, "The Third Law: A substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is not accounted for by the effects of genes or families." The environment in the world at large does matter, and it matters for a lot. Pinker is forced to acknowledge this because that is what the research shows. It is regrettable that Pinker fails to cite the articles that establish the difference between heritability and mutability ("malleability") directly in the text of his book, but I will cite those here. There is a crucial issue here to be curious about, and that is exactly what a calculation of broad heritability definitely predicts. It predicts a lot less than what many readers unfamiliar with genetics might guess. It happens that some of the leading authors on human behavioral genetics just wrote an article about what heritability does and does not mean
Johnson, Wendy; Turkheimer, Eric; Gottesman, Irving I.; Bouchard Jr., Thomas (2009). Beyond Heritability: Twin Studies in Behavioral Research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 4, 217-220.
is now dead. But I have the full text of the article at hand, as I am currently attending a weekly journal club with some of the authors, and one key paragraph from the article must be read by anyone who draws conclusions from heritablity figures:
"Moreover, even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability. For example, height is on the order of 90% heritable, yet North and South Koreans, who come from the same genetic background, presently differ in average height by a full 6 inches (Pak, 2004; Schwekendiek, 2008)."
This simply reemphasizes a point that is familiar to anyone who has studied genetics carefully, namely that the pre-Mendelian concept of heritability says nothing about malleability, the degree to which a trait can be influenced by environmental variables.
Angoff, W. H. (1988). The nature-nurture debate, aptitudes, and group differences. American Psychologist, 43, 713-720.
Mange, A. & Mange, E. J. (1990). Genetics: Human Aspects.
Kaufman, Alan S. (1990). Assessing Adolescent and Adult Intelligence.
So any statement in this thread that heritability somehow constrains the expression of g or of IQ is actually conceptually incorrect.
>"So any statement in this thread that heritability somehow constrains the expression of g or of IQ is actually conceptually incorrect."
Then perhaps you can provide an example in which a rat's g is raised to that of the average Berkley student. About 5% of their DNA is different from ours, but since heritable constraints are "conceptually incorrect", surely the right environment would do it, wouldn't it?
> Studies get published if they survive peer review, and publications have citations. Citations, please?
Not to offend you, but we have had this exact same discussion a few times. If you remember correctly the last time I gave you a bunch of citations which you apparently did not take to heart. We had the discussion 170 and 200 days ago. The same discussion follows the exact same trend with you quoting a bunch of stuff out of Flynn’s books.
Here is the link to the discussion on the same topic that we had 173 days ago with a bunch of citations:
Discussion 170 days ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=566205
> Because Flynn does his homework and makes unassailable research findings that are published in the best journals. Arthur Jensen has written, "Now and then I am asked . . . who, in my opinion, are the most respectable critics of my position on the race-IQ issue? The name James R. Flynn is by far the first that comes to mind."
Yes. And Arthur Jensen also said sarcastically that they have to go all the way to New Zealand to find someone that published papers opposing his with any credibility. Flynn may have noticed some interesting trends in IQ tests – but that doesn’t make him a specialist in psychometrics.
> Because I have Pinker's book at hand, I checked his chapter on the issue, and Pinker says, "The Third Law: A substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is not accounted for by the effects of genes or families." The environment in the world at large does matter, and it matters for a lot. Pinker is forced to acknowledge this because that is what the research shows. It is regrettable that Pinker fails to cite the articles that establish the difference between heritability and mutability ("malleability") directly in the text of his book, but I will cite those here.
I did not refer to Pinker’s book about the whole intelligence debate, but to the debate that certain social scientists wants to warp science because they are scared of the truth (the is instead of the ought to). As for Pinker’s personal views on intelligence – he is not a specialist in the field.
> "Moreover, even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability. For example, height is on the order of 90% heritable, yet North and South Koreans, who come from the same genetic background, presently differ in average height by a full 6 inches (Pak, 2004; Schwekendiek, 2008)."
In all fairness, I don’t think that to measure the difference in height between a first world country and a country with yearly hunger and severe malnutrition is fair. This will be at a huge peak in differences between heights because there was a severe famine in 1995. So, what you are saying is that it is surprising that people who suffered malnutrition and disease as children do not have the same height? Is this really news?
I would really love to have this debate again with you (since you are clearly interested in the field). Unfortunately I have a big deadline coming up and I can’t waste 6 hours reading papers.
Maybe post the article again in two months and we can have a proper debate? ;)
If you remember correctly the last time I gave you a bunch of citations which you apparently did not take to heart.
I remembered the earlier screen name better than the more recent screen name that you are using here, but thanks for pointing out that you are the same person in both threads.
and I enjoy having what diplomats call a "frank exchange of views" with anyone else who enjoys reading about this subject. What I'm not seeing thus far is any experimentally verified proof that IQ/g/academic achievement/whatever is of interest is surely not malleable in the individual case. Rather, what I see repeatedly in the literature are surprising examples of environmental variables having much more power than they were expected to have, both across whole societies over time and in particular individual cases even with haphazard rather than planned environmental variation. But too often there is a leap from the statement that a trait is heritable to the incorrect and invalid conclusion that the trait is not malleable. I have seen that happen often in online discussion since 1992. What discordant identical twins, comparisons between neighboring countries, and other lines of evidence show is what the twin researchers say those lines of evidence show in their new 2009 paper: "even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability."
Johnson, Wendy; Turkheimer, Eric; Gottesman, Irving I.; Bouchard Jr., Thomas (2009). Beyond Heritability: Twin Studies in Behavioral Research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 4, 218.
I lost any interest in what Malcolm Gladwell has to say about race after he argued that East Asian children have better math skills because their ancestors cultivated rice and not wheat.
The only connection between rice and math listed in that article is that cultivating rice encouraged a stronger work ethic because it is a year-round task.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that education has long been a cornerstone of Chinese society, going as far back as standardized tests during the Han dynasty.
Drawing heavily on the work of J. Philippe Rushton—a psychologist who specializes in comparing the circumference of what he calls the Negroid brain with the length of the Negroid penis—Saletan took the fundamentalist position to its logical conclusion.
This essay doesn't attempt to accurately and fairly summarize opposing arguments.
Education isn't supposed to improve IQ related skills. Test designers take great pains to make up questions that should be largely universal and almost entirely unaffected by amount of education.
Test designers take great pains to make up questions that should be largely universal and almost entirely unaffected by amount of education.
Test designers purport to do that, but it's a generally replicated research finding that increased exposure to schooling, cross-culturally and across different brands of IQ tests, improves IQ test scores. See
Ceci, Stephen J. (1991). How Much Does Schooling Influence General Intelligence and Its Cognitive Components?
A Reassessment of the Evidence. Developmental Psychology
1991, Vol. 27, No. 5, 703-722
The fact that education has little or no effect on IQ happens to be true, but it's not guaranteed by definition or design. I.e., it's logically possible (and, in fact, popularly believed) that education makes your brain work better in general, and that learning French will improve your chess rating and your grades in calculus class. It was discovered that education doesn't help general intelligence much through tests designed on more fundamental principles like elimination of group factors and improving test-retest reliability.
An interesting review of a very worthwhile book. Here are some more comments on the same book:
"It is not just the fascinating effect that makes the book special. It's also Flynn's style. There's an unusual combination of clarity, wit, apposite allusion, and farsightedness in making connections and exploring unexpected consequences. The Flynn effect, in Flynn's hands, makes a good, gripping, puzzling, and not-quite-finished story..."
--Ian Deary, Edinburgh University
"This book is a gold mine of pointers to interesting work, much of which was new to me. All of us who wrestle with the extraordinarily difficult questions about intelligence that Flynn discusses are in his debt.."
--Charles Murray, American Enterprise Institute & co-author of The Bell Curve
"This highly engaging, and very readable, book takes forward the Dickens/Flynn model of intelligence in the form of asking yet more provocative questions. . . A most unusual book, one that holds the reader's attention and leaves behind concepts and ideas that force us to rethink all sorts of issues.."
--Sir Michael Rutter, Kings College London
"Flynn provides the first satisfying explanation of the massive rise in IQ test scores. He avoids both the absurd conclusion that our great grandparents were all mentally retarded and the equally unsatisfactory suggestion that the rise has just been in performance on IQ tests without any wider implications.."
--N. J. Mackintosh, University of Cambridge
"Citing many scholarly works, Flynn paints a dynamic picture of what intelligence is and the role of a person's genetic background, physiology and neurology, immediate environment and broader social factors...he has produced an impressively multidimensional and often wise look at the elusive topic of human intelligence."
--Publisher's Weekly
"In What is Intelligence? James R. Flynn...suggests that we should not faciley equate IQ gains with intelligence gains. He says that it's necessary to 'dissect intelligence' into its component parts: 'solving mathematical problems, interpreteing the great works of literature, finding on the spot solutions, assimilating the scientific worldview, critical acumen and wisdom.' When this dissection is carried out, several paradoxes emerge, which Flynn in this engaging book attempts to reconcile."
--Richard Restak, American Scholar
"The 20th century saw the "Flynn Effect" - massive gains in IQ from one generation to another."
--Scientific American Mind
"In a brilliant interweaving of data and argument, Flynn calls into question fundamental assumptions about the nature of intelligence that have driven the field for the past century. There is something here for everyone to lose sleep over. His solution to the perplexing issues revolving around IQ gains over time will give the IQ Ayatollahs fits!."
--S. J. Ceci, Cornell University
"What Is Intelligence? is one of the best books I have read on intelligence-ever...This is a brilliant book because, first, it helps resolve paradoxes that, in the past, seemed not to lend themselves to any sensible solutions...one of the best things about the book is Flynn's sense of humility...this is a masterful book that will influence thinking about intelligence for many years to come. It is one of those few books for which one can truly say that it is must reading for anyone."
--Robert J. Sternberg, PsycCRITIQUES
"...In this thoughtful, well-written book, Flynn offers an account of why the so-called Flynn effect occurs and what it means (and does not mean)....This is the clearest, most engaging work on intelligence....All will learn from the author's nuanced arguments. Some may quibble with Flynn's observations, but their work is cut for them: one cannot fault his clarity or ingenuity. Essential."
--D.S. Dunn, Moravian College, CHOICE
"...James Flynn is best known for having discovered a stubborn fact...he established that in every country where consistent IQ tests have been given to large numbers of people over time, scores have been rising as far back as the records go, in some cases to the early 20th century. What Is Intelligence? is Flynn's attempt to explain this phenomenon, now known as the Flynn effect... an important take on what we have made of ourselves over the past few centuries and might yet make of ourselves in the future."
--Cosma Shalizi, Assistant Professor in the Statistics Department at Carnegie Mellon University and an external professor at the Santa Fe Institute, American Scientist
Link to description of the book (whence those reviews came):
> These days, when talk turns to the supposed genetic differences in the intelligence of certain races, Southern Italians have disappeared from the discussion.
The increase in IQ from nutrition and education is going to experience stark diminishing returns, as has already been seen.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordD...