« *Chief Culture Officer* | Main | The patronage of Carlos Slim »
"Why Steve Sailer is wrong"
That's a request I received and probably the reader is referring to IQ and race.
Let me first say that I am not the Steve Sailer oracle. On such a sensitive matter I don't wish to misrepresent anyone, so I'll simply tell you what I think of the issues, without suggesting that he or anyone else necessarily disagrees.
There is a belief that progress in genetics will resurrect old, now-unpopular claims about race and IQ, namely that some races are intrinsically inferior in terms of IQ. I very much expect that we will instead learn more about the importance of the individual genome and that variations within "groups" (whether defined in terms of race or not) are where the traction lies. So I don't expect "old style eugenics views" to make a comeback as applied to race, quite the contrary. On that point, here is more.
I also think that IQ will be shown to be more multi-dimensional than we now think. If you wish to understand the role of IQ in human affairs, you would do better to study autism and ADHD than race (by the way, I discuss the importance of neurodiversity in much greater detail in my forthcoming book Create Your Own Economy.)
You may know that some nations -- basically the wealthy ones -- have higher IQs than the poor nations. But IQ is endogenous to environment, as evidenced by the Flynn Effect, namely the general rise in IQ scores with each generation. It is sometimes noted that some racial IQ gaps are not closing but I find it more significant that scores can continue to rise. For instance it is quite possible that groups with higher measured IQs simply have been on an "improvement track" for a longer period of time. More generally I think we should consider the Flynn Effect a bit of a mystery and that suggests an overall tone of caution on these issues rather than polemicism.
Most importantly, there is a critical distinction between hypocritical discourse on race and racism itself. Hypocritical discourse on race is harmful and often Sailer does a very good job skewering it. But racism itself is far, far more harmful, whether in the course of previous history or still today. It is fine if a given individual, for reasons of division of labor, spends his or her time attacking hypocritical discourse about race rather than attacking racism itself. (For instance we shouldn't all focus on condemning Hitler and Stalin, simply because they were among the most evil men; there are other battles to fight.) But I still wish that specified individual to ardently believe that racism is the far greater problem. Insofar as that individual holds such a belief about racism, I am much happier than if not.
The comments section is for discussion of the issues in a mature way; if you want to attack any particular individual, that is for elsewhere.
Addendum: If you are looking for another perspective, here is William Saletan on Steve Sailer.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on May 29, 2009 at 07:06 AM in Science | Permalink
Comments
I'm sorry but it seems for me, the point of your article is just to say "I'm not at ease with that subject"...
You don't say mcuh, if anything.
The only thing I understand is that as "the subject is sensitive" you stay politically correct...
Youcould have, for instance, tackle the fact that even if races appear to have different IQs and even if IQs appear to be the best tool to understand intelligence, each individual is unique. This means that if statistically the most intelligent man has the greatest chances to be from one particlar race, he might not be, thus, as every man is deemed to be free, this pure stateement of fact is making any racist/ racialist/ racially driven (or anyother kind) policies very hard to be justified.
Posted by: raph at May 29, 2009 7:41:15 AM
What surprises me is that so many in the blogosphere (at least in the blogs that I read) pay so much attention to IQ. It seems like it's really on the edge of anything remotely interesting. Maybe it's an ego thing - IQ is one area where loser nerds can be better than other people. (Not calling Sailer a loser nerd; I do read his blog.)
Posted by: Dirk at May 29, 2009 7:43:27 AM
Very insightful remarks on genetics and IQ (I visit your site looking for insights on flows of capital through micro/macroeconomies - so was pleasantly surprised to read this!). Here is a link to address one minor point in your post - that genetic studies will not resurrect old eugenics arguments. It shows how a genetic variant (in this instance, both of its isoforms are rather common across all racial/ethnic groups in humans) influences activity of a part of the brain that is active when individuals carry out various IQ-measuring tasks. Research today seems more aimed at understanding how information flows through the brain's structural elements (synapses & microcircuits) - rather than studies of differences across ethnic/racial groups per se.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=18252743
Very much a fan of your blog!
Posted by: john fossella at May 29, 2009 8:01:39 AM
Free market economics steadily stamps out racism. Race politics generally retards free market advance. Once we have a true meritocracy, individualism will reign, and the factionistas will be screwed.
We'll do better by PREVENTING autism and ADHD than pondering about how it describes IQ, but division of labor, as you say, and that's why I haul in the big bucks.
Posted by: Andrew at May 29, 2009 8:08:04 AM
Analogous to the idea that some long dead economist continues to influence current policy through his writings, Thomas Sowell makes the same point about culture's influence on IQ scores in his book "Black Rednecks and White Liberals". Of particular merit is his essay, with the sames title, on the continued influence of "cracker culture" (known today as indigenous ghetto culture) on black folk.
Posted by: Mike Doherty at May 29, 2009 8:42:17 AM
Saletan's piece says even less. Between these two, I so far see no argument against Sailer.
Posted by: Tom at May 29, 2009 8:54:34 AM
I very much expect that we will instead learn more about the importance of the individual genome and that variations within "groups" (whether defined in terms of race or not) are where the traction lies.
Here's an analogy about differences within groups. "Races" are basically defined in terms of skin color, which suggests that which "race" a person falls into is largely determined by a small set of genes - there's a lot more going on under the hood, so to speak, that requires genetic attention. In the same way, you wouldn't expect two cars with the same paint job and general chassis shape to have nearly identical schematics - the designs have a lot more to say about what goes on under the hood than about what meets the eye.
Posted by: Neal at May 29, 2009 8:56:20 AM
Flynn effect implies groups will converge? It stopped around 1980, and the Black-white mean difference is about the same as it was when people took the test for WW1. Sailer is actually examining it's implications, and reviewing the evidence. The subject is truly a taboo, and other journalists cannot discuss theses issues and remain employed, so he is often very interesting.
People like yourself and Saletan tie yourselves in knots trying to accommodate the facts without saying the B-W gap is real, thinking that accepting this fact is a not merely a scientific mistake, but a moral failing, and either state directly or indirectly that Sailer's emphasis is a moral failing.
Think about the implications for the Ricci case if there is a 1 standard deviation difference in IQs between races. What would a test that takes the top 20% of the entire sample imply for differential pass rates?
If you think facts matter, you should encourage people to specialize on the facts, and he actually reviews the cogitative research on a regular basis. Ought does not imply is.
Posted by: eric at May 29, 2009 8:57:05 AM
I think you grievously underestimate the damage done by racial hypocrisy, especially in areas like education policy. Such policies as heterogeneous classes and group learning are all ineffective, and especially damaging to less able students, but are in the ascendance because they serve to disguise between-group differences. I would take as given that while racism is, in principle, capable of causing far greater harm than hypocrisy about racism, racism under current circumstances is not as significant a factor in determining educational policy as hypocrisy is. But the broader point is that in the absence of between-group differences, there would be no perceived need leading policy-makers to adopt hypocrisy.
Posted by: linda seebach at May 29, 2009 9:10:36 AM
If I can push the discussion in one direction, I'd try to get everyone to keep alive our sense that IQ is just a medicalized, mathematized, sciencey-sounding measurement that takes for granted a loose, intersubjective agreement among our contemporaries about the relative importance of different dimensions of our cognitive endowments. Let's keep some perspective and humility, high-iq folks.
Dyslexics stick out in the post-Gutenberg West, but reading is just another contingent historical hoop we're asking kiddos to jump through. Similarly mathematical abilities after the rise of bureaucratic states, actuary, and accounting. Both important skills nowadays, but elsewhere and elsewhen a facility for calculus would have been worthless.
And if I could push the discussion in a second direction, I'd like to make people aware of all of Mark Liberman's wonderful posts on Language Log about the childish ways we grope to translate claims about statistical distributions into dumbed-down claims about "typical members" of groups and other such ire-earning pre-statistical talk. Discussions about race and iq are littered with that kind of trash.
Final thoughts: It's strange that so many libertarians give such undue attention to estimated parameters of the groups that individuals happen to have been born into. History-of-ideas question: How much is this due to the strain of free-marketeerism that was wedded to social-Darwinisim? How much to verbal pyrotechnics of H.L. Mencken specifically?
Posted by: Lee at May 29, 2009 9:12:26 AM
Look what we've done with dogs in a relatively short period of time. From a common ancestor, we've made some huge, some fast, some mean, some tiny, etc. If you take two dogs of the same breed and mate them, and two dogs from another breed and mate them, you will have an excellent idea about the relative differences between the two sets of pups.
So it should come as no surprise at all that if there are significant cultural barriers between groups (which there certainly are), and if these groups prize different characteristics in their mating habits (which is debatable but plausible), various differences between the groups will emerge and be measurable.
I think it is important to document these differences if/as they emerge. My hope is that such documentation will influence leaders within groups to attack cultural weaknesses that are encouraging measurably negative outcomes, and reduce segmentation in society. Of course, the fear is that such documentation could have the reverse effect, and lead advantaged groups to shun disadvantaged groups. But I'm an optimist.
Posted by: Sean at May 29, 2009 9:16:31 AM
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php
I am disappointed in Tyler. This is a weird statement: "There is a belief that progress in genetics will resurrect old, now-unpopular claims about race and IQ, namely that some races are intrinsically inferior in terms of IQ." They may be unpopular, but they are scientific fact and your statement seems to deny this.
What is better, to deny the truth and pretend the world is other than it is? Or to accept the truth and to use that truth to help make the best decisions to increase everyone's welfare? It makes me sick when the mobs come out to attack and tear down someone whose only crime was to admit an inconvenient truth.
Posted by: Cliff at May 29, 2009 9:29:03 AM
Regarding the Flynn effect, from the link I provided:
"An additional popular argument is that the Flynn Effect, the observed rise in IQ scores over time, is evidence that African-Americans or African countries will eventually reach parity with white norms. This typically includes the premise that white intelligence in the recent past was even lower than modern black intelligence. A typical example:
US Blacks, with an average IQ today of 85, have the same IQ as US Whites with an IQ of 100 in 1957. If 1957 US Whites were not stupid, then neither are US Blacks today. It's time to shut up about the "low Black IQ", since by any reasonable standard, it is not really low at all.
These arguments are wrong for the simple fact that the Flynn Effect is not a gain in real g factor intelligence, while the differences between nations and ethnic groups are differences in g factor intelligence. These findings led a 2004 team to state:
It appears therefore that the nature of the Flynn effect is qualitatively different from the nature of B-W [Black-White] differences in the United States... [so] implications of the Flynn effect for B-W differences appear small...
James Flynn, namesake of the secular increase, reiterates (DOC) these points:
Factor analysis is a way of measuring this tendency of some people to do better or worse than average across the board; and it yields something called g (a sort of super-correlation coefficient), which psychologists call the general intelligence factor...
When you analyze IQ gains over time, you often find that they do not constitute enhancement of these latent traits -- they do not seem to be general intelligence gains, or quantitative factor gains, or verbal factor gains (Wicherts et al, in press). In the language of factor analysis, this means that IQ gains over time tend to display 'measurement artifacts or cultural bias'. For a second time, we are driven to the conclusion that massive IQ gains are not intelligence gains or, indeed, any kind of significant cognitive gains. (pp 27-28)
Flynn believes the secular increase represents important changes in specific narrow aspects of developed cognitive style, but not a rise in g intelligence.
It is therefore incorrect that 1945 US whites were less intelligent than 2007 US blacks. The Flynn Effect has little apparent bearing on racial intelligence gaps."
Posted by: Cliff at May 29, 2009 9:30:10 AM
You know how one of the arguments people use against global warming is that not too long ago scientists were wrong about important things with regard to global climate change? Maybe this sort of thinking can be applied to the results of 'race realists' science doesn't have a particularly good record when it comes to evaluating cognitive differences in racial groups so that we should probably be more skeptical of science dealing with the issue than we would otherwise be.
Posted by: Michael Foody at May 29, 2009 9:32:58 AM
It's rather odd to discuss a scientific investigation in terms of what you suppose the results will be. Perhaps it's a matter of what you hope they will be?
As for Sailer, I find him more interesting than any other journalist I've read lately. He avoids the taboos that make so much of journalism deadly dull, and shows much more quantitative grasp than most journalists. Of course, there is the problem that he reinforces the widespread and baleful stereotype of Swiss-Americans as stimulating company.
Posted by: dearieme at May 29, 2009 9:37:54 AM
Also, Tyler, I liked your post---in particular your Lewontin-like emphasis on within-group variability is a laudable example of rising above impoverished discussions about group means. But can't we do even more to play down this entire line of discussion? Or will we invite counterproductive charges of "political correctness" that will only draw more attention to a vicious discussion and allow our opponents to style themselves hard-nosed truth-seekers? Better to bring the discussion to such a level of sophistication that it bores the crypto-racists out there?
Also, I think Matthew Yglesias has done a good job lately of describing the Right's strange interest in fighting perceived discrimination against whites, while neglecting to ever draw attention to even the worst instances of anti-black racism. I think you are too charitable regarding the value of division of labor in that area. Marginal gains were exhausted long ago.
Posted by: Lee at May 29, 2009 9:39:39 AM
Also, Tyler, I liked your post---in particular your Lewontin-like emphasis on within-group variability is a laudable example of rising above impoverished discussions about group means. But can't we do even more to play down this entire line of discussion? Or will we invite counterproductive charges of "political correctness" that will only draw more attention to a vicious discussion and allow our opponents to style themselves hard-nosed truth-seekers? Better to bring the discussion to such a level of sophistication that it bores the crypto-racists out there?
Also, I think Matthew Yglesias has done a good job lately of describing the Right's strange interest in fighting perceived discrimination against whites, while neglecting to ever draw attention to even the worst instances of anti-black racism. I think you are too charitable regarding the value of division of labor in that area. Marginal gains were exhausted long ago.
Posted by: Lee at May 29, 2009 9:40:07 AM
The problem with the race and IQ people in particular is, I think, a consequence of the Murray thing. We (the rational people of the world) hit back on that too hard -- on the bogus statistics and all the rest. Now the race-and-IQ people think they're being oppressed, and the response of people who think they're being oppressed is to close ranks and start shouting louder.
With Sailer in particular? (And I deny that there is a contrast between "in a mature way" and "attack[ing] any particular individual" so long as that attack is based in facts and evidence.) He just randomly inserts racist assertions to places without even doing them the dignity of argument. here's one shining example. That linked post goes something like this.
Post title making reference to Andrews's wife's nationality for no visible reason.
Normal rant about Andrews
Normal rant about Andrews
Normal rant about Andrews
Random remark about "fiesta culture!" No explanation of what "fiesta culture" is or why it should (evidently) be associated with Andrews's Argentine wife.
end of post.
Posted by: Paul Gowder at May 29, 2009 10:03:41 AM
I had hoped for some comments on Sailer's view of Mexican immigration.
Posted by: Floccina at May 29, 2009 10:11:21 AM
Tyler is too kind to Sailer. To me, it is patently obvious that Sailer is an essentialist simpleton with an idee fixe.
Posted by: pedro at May 29, 2009 10:30:33 AM
Weak critique. I'm reminded of your blogging headings discussion with Robin Hansen. This post is indeed an example of how becoming popular has made you boring!
That said, I agree with Paul re: Sailor's racism. Sailor's post on Michele Obama was another example:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/11/first-lady-omarosa.html
I'm a white male, and there's no way in hell I'd have gone to work in BigLaw. I guess that means my white self would have validated the Angry Black Woman stereotype? It's Sailor's bizarre posts that detract from his credibility.
In general, he makes some good points. Let's discuss race honestly. If there are differences, let's discuss them.
Your counter-point seems to be: "If there are differences, then people will misuse them. So let's pretend like there aren't differences!" That, indeed, seems to be the implicit point of your paragraph discussing race hypocrisy and racism.
If that is your point, make it. The average person is indeed stupid. So it might be a social good to continue the lie about racial differences. Whites with sub-100 IQs (iow, half of whites) won't be able to grasp that you can't judge a given black based on the group IQ of blacks. So let's just keep saying there is no IQ gap.
The downside to that is you create a lot of anger and resentment. Which might be more destructive to racial relations and lead to more racism in the long term.
Posted by: Mike at May 29, 2009 10:32:03 AM
The right question for Tyler:
Would you say it if you thought that there were group differences? You would probably lose your NYT column. You would probably be protested on campus. You would probably be called a racist by young bloggers and liberal bloggers to whom you frequently link. Publishers of the type that put out your books would recoil.
I am not saying that you are incorrect. I am saying that you could not realistically answer the other way and keep your life the same as it is now.
Can you answer my question? Would you say if you thought Sailer was right?
Posted by: tom at May 29, 2009 10:33:57 AM
Tyler, you are right that all things being equal, racism is worse than race hypocrisy. But as an economist you should realize that on the current margins, race hypocrisy is by far more prevalent than racism. The Ricci case, and a large part of the failure of our education system, stems from race hypocrisy; the worst racism has done of late is a few isolated antidiscrimination cases.
Posted by: a_c at May 29, 2009 10:41:56 AM
Or, to quote Sailer's recent post: "Another way of putting it is that there isn't much actual discrimination going on anymore. What there is a lot of these days, however, is below average performance by non-Asian minorities [that white liberals would prefer to ignore]."
Posted by: a_c at May 29, 2009 10:42:58 AM
I don't think 'honest' discussion is possible.
If we face reality, the vast majority of people use IQ as a standing for "worth as a human being", barring any other information. It's wrong and unpleasant, but it seems roughly true. If you murder mentally handicapped individual, you're probably going to jail for a lot less time than if you murdered a generally acknowledged genius.
Since the ramifications of finding one easily identified segment of society as inferior are pretty wide-spread, we're going to find few, if any, uninterested people doing the science, nor should we.
After all, would you trust someone who spent time trying to figure out how to engineer a disease to specifically kill white people just to find out 'if it could be done'?
This is exacerbated by the fact that any such research will be in its infancy and easily subject to later revision or even reversal, and yet will be used to try and influence policy right now. What sort of reputable scientist would be willing to work under such conditions?
So, no, we're not going to see any 'honest' discussion here.
[Preparing for an onslaught of people who claim that "science must advance regardless of the outcome", and yes, we must adapt any findings as policy immediately.]
Posted by: Tom West at May 29, 2009 11:12:56 AM
