RoR: Forum

Excellent points, Steve.

Post 22

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 8:42pm

Steve, culture is an important factor, but from where does culture come? Culture is an expression of some aspects of the nature of the people who create it. Do black cultural expressions such as mob attacks have at least some genetic precursors? I think so.

Do males exhibit more aggression than females because male behavior is cultural or innate? The options aren't mutually exclusive. What about teenagers? Are they impulsive and rebellious because of culture or something inherent in being a teenager? The law (rightly) presumes that 18-year old men can choose not to engage in crime just as absolutely as 40-year old women can. But that doesn't entail any belief that the crime rates in those groups will ever be equal. Choice is exercised within an individual's own context, and that context includes innate and environmental inputs.

Blacks everywhere, from South Africa to Britain to Brazil to the U.S., exhibit high rates of violent crime relative to other races in those same countries. Different cultures around the world don't seem to produce different results -- at least not different enough to make racial crime disparities go away.

But the strongest evidence for black crime being partly explainable by genetics are actual physiological characteristics associated with blacks. They include differences in skull shape and size which correspond to differences in brain structure, which help explain why blacks have an average IQ of about 80, compared to 100 for whites and 105 for East Asians. Lower IQ is correlated with less rational, more impulsive behavior. Also, blacks tend to have higher testosterone levels, which correlates positively with aggressiveness.

The premise of innate racial differences predicts the persistency and consistency of racial disparities across time, culture, politics, geography. The premise of innate racial equality has zero predictive value and no scientific basis. It is a pre-Darwinian notion that supposes heritable human traits appeared suddenly from some source other than the adaptive process which gave different human populations in different parts of the world different traits, some of which pertain to cognitive abilities and behavioral tendencies.

Post 23

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 9:32pm

Brad,

I asked you this before in another thread but you refrained from answering. Please answer the following:

***********************************
Intelligence is:

a) 100% environmental (0% genetic)
b) 1-33% genetic (but not more than 33% genetic)
c) 34-67% genetic (but not less than 34%, and not more than 67%)
d) 68-99% genetic (but not less than 68% genetic)
e) 100% genetic
***********************************

There is a correct answer to this question, it is one of the options above, and I know which one it is. Do you know which one is the correct answer?

Ed

Post 24

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 10:16pm

Ed, it depends on your definition of intelligence and how you'd measure the relative importance of genetics vs. environment. I've seen it estimated by sources considered credible at anywhere from 20% to 80% genetic. There are even environmental determinists who put it at 0% genetic, but this is more of a philosophical issue with them -- they're not engaging seriously in the debate. I'd probably put it on the high end, because I think the overwhelming ideological bias in social sciences is to downplay genetic causation. If I had to pick one of your answers, I guess it would be "d".

Post 25

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 10:20pm

Brad your last post is pure racism. When I think about men whose writings I so look forward to reading... black men like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele... I have to say, that what you've written leaves me disgusted. There have been too many deaths, too much suffering, to much pain, for too many centuries, caused by people going down the road you are choosing.

I don't want to communicate any further with you.
--------------------------

"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man�s genetic lineage�the notion that a man�s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man�s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man�s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman�s version of the doctrine of innate ideas�or of inherited knowledge�which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man�s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination." [emphasis mine]
...

"A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same race�and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share his racial origin."

Both quotes from Ayn Rand, �Racism,� The Virtue of Selfishness.

Post 26

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 11:32pm

Brad Trun,

You are attacking free will, and hence you have free will supporters attacking you. Unfortunately they are attacking your character, not your points.

Its not that I hate black people, or that they deserve different treatment by government just because they are black. I have a generally lower expectation of work performance and trust-worthiness of blacks vs whites. I do not think this is a crime, nor even despicable, I think it is clearly induct-able and reasonable to make such a generalization.

72.4% of americans are white
12.6% of americans are black
6.2% hispanic
4.8% asian
2.9% native american
source: wikipedia

45.8% of american homicide committed by white
52.2% of american homicide committed by black
source: wikipedia

67.4% of undergraduate engineers are white
7.0% of undergraduate engineers are black
source: www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf03312/c2/c2s7.htm "Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities" Undergraduate Enrollment in Engineering

31% democrat, 28% independent, 41% republican (whites)
75% democrat, 18% independent, 7% republican (blacks)

32% democrat, 31% independent, 37% republican (men)
43% democrat, 23% independent, 34% republican (women)
source: washington post, year-by-year party identification (from exit polls)

(52.2/12.6) / (45.8/72.4) = 6.55. If you thought an american was white, but then are told is black, you now know that person is 6.55 times more likely to have committed homicide.

(67.4/72.4) / (7.0/12.6) = 1.68. If you thought an american was black, but then are told is white, you now know that person is 1.68 times more likely to have been enrolled in engineering.

75/31 = 2.42. If you thought an american was white, but then are told black, you now know that person is 2.42 times more likely to be a democratic voter.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 8/27, 11:33pm)

Post 27

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 11:39pm

Brad Trun,

Steve Wolfer: "I don't want to communicate any further with you."

Welcome to the club! :)

===================

Steve Wolfer,

:p

Post 28

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 9:57pm

The answer is most likely d), maybe c).
Which anyone would know you has looked into the matter.

Hey all.

Post 29

Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 7:03am

Dean -

If you think in terms of groups, rather than individuals, then a heuristic gained by your stat data makes sense, but still cuts you off from life serving values, in my opinion.

Post 30

Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 7:45am

You have it in a nutshell, Teresa - the difference of seeing life as aggregates of individuals vs. seeing life as tribal.......

Post 31

Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 10:21am

Brad and David,

You both answered D (Intelligence is ... 68-99% genetic) as the best answer and indicated that the actual answer might be C.

The question involves explaining variation/variability in measured intelligence. If a factor explained all of the variability in IQ scores, it would get 100%. If, however, a factor was found that explained say, 5%, of the variability, then no other factor could be said to explain 100% of the variability. At best, this other factor could be said to explain 95%. This is critical. Once you show that other factors explain a given percentage of variability in outcome, that given percentage is forever lost (out of a total of 100) and you are left with a remainder to be explained.

The variability in measured IQ scores among about 98% of all humans is somewhere around 60 points (extreme outliers, such as those with physical brain damage or congenital defects, are omitted due to irrelevance). Folks scoring 70 on the Wechlser are 2 standard deviations below the mean and folks scoring 130 on the Wechsler are 2 standard deviations above the mean. That leaves a 60-point range in which 98% of us will fall. What that means is that we have a 60-point range of variation to explain. Let's start:

100% of this 60-point variation might be explained by genetics, but ...

Lead exposure -- a strictly environmental factor -- accounts for about a 17-point difference in measured IQ scores. So that leaves 43 points out of the 60 points (or 72%), which may possibly be explained by genetics. Because the variation in lead exposure explains 28% of the variation in IQ scores, it is not possible that genetics explains more than 72% of the variation.

Maternal breastfeeding -- another environmental factor -- accounts for about a 4-point difference in measured IQ scores. So that leaves 37 points out of the 60 points (or 62%), which may possibly be explained by genetics. Because the variation in lead exposure, when added to the variable of maternal breastfeeding, explains 38% of the variation in IQ scores, it is not possible that genetics explains more than 62% of the variation.

Side note: I have only gotten to 2 environmental variables, and you both have already been proven wrong, regarding what your best answer was (D).

Manganese exposure -- another environmental factor -- accounts for a substantial portion of the variability in IQ scores (as measured by Raven's Progressive Matrices).

Maternal fish intake -- another environmental factor -- accounts for a substantial portion of the variability in IQ scores.

That's just 4 environmental factors that happen to already explain about half of all of the variability in the IQ scores of humans. There may be dozens more environment factors, each chipping away at the residual scope of the total variability possibly explained by genetics.

Ed

Links
Lead exposure (1.0 IQ point drop for every 12 mcg/L increase in blood lead levels)
Low-level environmental lead exposure and intellectual impairment in children--the current concepts of risk assessment.

Long-term breastfeeding (6+ months = 3.8 IQ point rise in offspring)
Effect of exclusive breastfeeding on the development of children's cognitive function in the Krakow prospective birth cohort study.

Manganese exposure (beta-coefficient for mcg/g of hair manganese was -2.69)
Elevated manganese and cognitive performance in school-aged children and their mothers.

Maternal fish intake (maternal fish avoidance = 48% increased risk of offspring being in lowest quartile for verbal intelligence)
Maternal seafood consumption in pregnancy and neurodevelopmental outcomes in childhood (ALSPAC study): an observational cohort study.

Raven's Progressive Matrices
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices

Standard Deviation of IQ
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/28, 8:39pm)

Post 32

Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 1:35pm

Ed,

Excellent post!
-----------------

Some thoughts on IQ:

IQ is a single measure of intelligence and one that I have a lot of problems with. You showed the expected variation away from an estimated, genetic IQ score due to environmental factors. But there are factors that effect the application of intelligence, and aspects of intelligence that simply aren't adequately measured.

1.) For example, lets suppose that you created a test that measured the ease with which individuals worked with abstractions where they received a set of exercise where they manipulated abstractions with each being being more abstract than the one before it. Over a large population you would expect to see a strong correlation with IQ, but there would also be a variation.

2.) What if you created yet another test, one designed to measure creativity - the capacity to initiate new ideas. That might or might not correlate very closely with IQ. There would be a variation.

3) What if you measured the degree to which individuals were able to apply whatever intelligence they had as opposed to those who found their intelligence drove them to foolish places like floating abstractions, denials, emotionalism, etc. This is a measure of applied horse-power taken at the wheels, as opposed to a measure of engine horse-power which may get lost through a slipping transmission. There would be variation.

My point is that IQ is an oversimplified and inaccurate measure of something more complex, with more dimensions, than the !Q test can address. There is a wide range of creativity within the same IQ score, yet creativity is a vital function of human intelligence. The broader the abstractions that a person can easily handle is clearly a measure of intelligence, yet it is under weighted in the IQ tests. Some of the dumbest people I've met have been highly educated individuals that are capable of juggling complex, broad abstractions, yet are tied in emotional knots that leave them living their intellectual lives in an unreal world of floating abstractions - they are like people in a car with a massively powerful engine and a slipping clutch. They go nowhere while making lots of noise.

You showed the variability on IQ with those four environmental factors. Assume that the variation of some measured capacity to work with abstractions is say 20% around a given IQ score, and that the level of measured creativity varies by say 30% around a given IQ score, and the measured capacity to reason effectively in real life as opposed to emotionalism, defensiveness, denial, clinging to floating abstractions, etc. and the measure varies by say 60% around a given IQ score. Then what would the variation in Real Intelligence (I'll call this RI) be? And there are far more real intelligence capacities or dimensions that IQ scores don't address.

And this little post doesn't even begin to address the weighting of the different elements or the range of variation in things like creativity as IQ or RIQ vary. Nor does it address age-related changes, average intensity of focus, intensity of valuation of logic and reason, effects of short and long term moods, or the effects of variation in blood chemistry due to activity levels, disease, etc.

One of the largest of the variables, not yet mentioned, is the accuracy and consistency of integration of concepts. For example, if a person starts off with faith as a key mechanism by which the they formulate beliefs such that things are integrated at fairly fundamental levels with this faulty mechanism, you would expect a far less effective intelligence than if they only used faith at a highly compartmentalized and less fundamental level of their personal knowledge structure.

Last word: To attempt to grasp a meaningful concept of intelligence as an applicable force, without considering the fundamental beliefs and psycho-epistemology doesn't make much sense, does it? Now, where does that leave those people who think they can use statistics based on aggregate IQ scores to make meaningful statements?

Post 33

Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 5:21pm

Steve,

Great post.

... highly educated individuals that are capable of juggling complex, broad abstractions, yet are tied in emotional knots that leave them living their intellectual lives in an unreal world of floating abstractions - they are like people in a car with a massively powerful engine and a slipping clutch. They go nowhere while making lots of noise.

Hahahahaaaaaa! I personally know some of these people! Excellent way to express it, Steve.

Assume that the variation of some measured capacity to work with abstractions is say 20% around a given IQ score, and that the level of measured creativity varies by say 30% around a given IQ score, and the measured capacity to reason effectively in real life as opposed to emotionalism, defensiveness, denial, clinging to floating abstractions, etc. and the measure varies by say 60% around a given IQ score. Then what would the variation in Real Intelligence (I'll call this RI) be?

Great points. I was using Spearman's concept of general intelligence (g) in my argument, and that is somewhat sloppy. In the future, there may be a computer program that can ascertain and integrate -- along with Spearman's g -- these 3 other things you mention above: "abstract-ability", creativity, and emotional intelligence. That way, we would have a better overall measure of intelligence. In the meantime, there may still be some value in using whatever intelligence tests that we do have in order to uncover whatever relations (to those tests) things have. It's sloppy, but it's the best we've got until something better comes along.

To attempt to grasp a meaningful concept of intelligence as an applicable force, without considering the fundamental beliefs and psycho-epistemology doesn't make much sense, does it? Now, where does that leave those people who think they can use statistics based on aggregate IQ scores to make meaningful statements?

Good point but, like I just said above -- you have to start somewhere.

:-)

Ed

Post 34

Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 6:31pm

Ed,

You wrote, "...there may still be some value in using whatever intelligence tests that we do have..."

I agree, but there is considerable danger in using them without understanding how very limited they are. Intelligence Quotient is a measure of an aspect of intelligence, but not intelligence itself. The better our understanding of the IQ tests limitations, the more effectively we could use the results without drawing bad conclusions.

Post 35

Monday, August 29, 2011 - 9:06am

Steve quoted Rand as follows: "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man�s genetic lineage�the notion that a man�s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors."

Brad, do you disagree with this, and if so, why?

Rand continues, "Racism claims that the content of a man�s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man�s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman�s version of the doctrine of innate ideas�or of inherited knowledge�which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science."

Do you disagree with this? And if so, why?

Post 36

Monday, August 29, 2011 - 12:39pm

William, I disagree with Rand's effort to package a lot of disparate content into her concept of racism. The identification of heritable racial traits and their social significance does not necessarily entail a belief in innate knowledge or an evaluation of an individuals' character based on the behavior of ancestors.

"Lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism"? Well, religious and economic ideologies that explicitly deny the primacy of human nature are arguably lower, more primitive, and more deadly than ideologies that hold human nature exhibits socially significant variations based on race (which was the view of Thomas Jefferson, a moral individualist; Charles Darwin; and James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA). Acknowledgement of racial realities gives rise to Hitler in the same way that atheism gives rise to Stalin. Twisted moralities may borrow from, but cannot be blamed on, objective truths.

I will write an entire article on Rand's views on human nature and genetic influences on human behavior. (Not even Peikoff fully bought into her blank slate theory.)

Post 37

Monday, August 29, 2011 - 2:10pm

Brad,

Acknowledgement of racial realities gives rise to Hitler in the same way that atheism gives rise to Stalin.

That's not quite right. Hitler utilized the idea of racial supremacy in order to justify the concentration and centralization of all power (into his hands). Stalin did not utilize the idea of atheism, but that of altruism, in order to do the same as Hitler.

(Not even Peikoff fully bought into her blank slate theory.)

Really? Here's Rand on her "blank slate theory":

[Philosophers came to be divided] into two camps: those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge of the world by deducing it exclusively from concepts, which come from inside his head and are not derived from the perception of physical facts (the Rationalists)�and those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge from experience, which was held to mean: by direct perception of immediate facts, with no recourse to concepts (the Empiricists). To put it more simply: those who joined the [mystics] by abandoning reality�and those who clung to reality, by abandoning their mind.

For the New Intellectual, p 30

Recap:
Concepts are always (ultimately) derived from perception, and they are not situated somewhere on the inside of your head (concepts aren't what we know, they are how we know). Folks who tell you different are Rationalists, mystics, and wrong.

Did Peikoff fully buy into that?

Ed

Post 38

Monday, August 29, 2011 - 4:02pm

Ed, my view is that concepts are mental integrations that do indeed describe what we know. They are not arrived at through rationalism, but they do reside in the mind (a posteriori). The nature of the mind itself is determined by the physiology of the brain. How we perceive and react to experiences in reality is largely hard wired. Knowledge itself isn't.

How is it that of two literate adults who read the same book, one may recall/know more about it than another? Unless they are identical twins, one person probably has, to some extent at least, innately better ability to comprehend and retain information than the other (human genetic variation isn't limited to outward appearances). Rand would say that one person chose to focus his mind more than the other, because she rejected innate mental ability as being important. Peikoff believed Rand had to possess at least some special innate talent to write Atlas Shrugged. Rand insisted she didn't. She seemed to veer into idealism with her monistic conception of free will.

She could have benefited from a better biological/evolutionary understanding of the brain, which tells us mind and body are not only integrated, but that the mind was produced by and subject to the same forces that made every other part of our body. Variation in minds is just as real as variation in height, nose length, skin color, and other phenotypes.

Post 39

Monday, August 29, 2011 - 5:08pm