The Bell Curve

[_EAllusion]

Just because a trait has a heritable and environmental component, it does not at all follow that the variance of that trait between groups has a genetic and environmental component. The variance in a particular direction could have nothing to do with genetics or environment depending on the trait. To illustrate that, imagine for a moment that West African cohorts actually have superior genetic predisposition towards high IQ in comparison to Northern Europeans, but environmental factors wash this out and produce a variance that puts them in the negative. There's no reason a priori why this couldn't be the case, but nonetheless there's an assumption here that the negative variance must be at least somewhat genetic. Intuitive as that may seem, it's false and a freshman mistake.

[_EAllusion]

Sam Harris continues to dig himself deeper into a hole for reasons that are baffling.

[_DrW]

Just because a trait has a heritable and environmental component, it does not at all follow that the variance of that trait between groups has a genetic and environmental component. The variance in a particular direction could have nothing to do with genetics or environment depending on the trait. To illustrate that, imagine for a moment that West African cohorts actually have superior genetic predisposition towards high IQ in comparison to Northern Europeans, but environmental factors wash this out and produce a variance that puts them in the negative. There's no reason a priori why this couldn't be the case, but nonetheless there's an assumption here that the negative variance must be at least somewhat genetic. Intuitive as that may seem, it's false and a freshman mistake.

As I see it, my statement upthread on this issue is not in conflict with your observation. Whether the differences in cognitive / intellectual performance are genetic or not, the differences are there on a population basis. People who choose to ignore the differences are going to have a hard time when working to train up those in certain other cultures to an acceptable level of competence in technical tasks.

My position was, and is, that these differences need to be taken into consideration when (in our case, for example) trying to train up locals as competent technicians for data gathering and lab work related to marine spill damage assessments.

The incident that eventually prompted this initiative was the collision between the Seki and the Baynunah off the coast of Fujairah. See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X98000551.

We were in country at the time (1994) and responded to the spill with support from our stateside labs. The delay in mobilization from the US cost time and money. The goal was to develop a local capability in this area.

We were eventually successful in this endeavor by identifying and recruiting locals with some experience in the US or UK (or in one case, an individual who had training as a diver).

We brought these selected individuals on board (full time or part time) and concentrated our efforts on training them. We then depended mainly on them to help fill out the remaining positions and recommend to us what training or experience was needed, on a case by case basis, for these "next tier" individuals.

[_Analytics]

Just because a trait has a heritable and environmental component, it does not at all follow that the variance of that trait between groups has a genetic and environmental component. The variance in a particular direction could have nothing to do with genetics or environment depending on the trait. To illustrate that, imagine for a moment that West African cohorts actually have superior genetic predisposition towards high IQ in comparison to Northern Europeans, but environmental factors wash this out and produce a variance that puts them in the negative. There's no reason a priori why this couldn't be the case, but nonetheless there's an assumption here that the negative variance must be at least somewhat genetic. Intuitive as that may seem, it's false and a freshman mistake.

Hundreds of studies have been done about the relationship between IQ, race, and socioeconomic conditions. For the sake of argument, are we pretending that this body of research doesn't exist?

[_EAllusion]

Hundreds of studies have been done about the relationship between IQ, race, and socioeconomic conditions. For the sake of argument, are we pretending that this body of research doesn't exist?

No, we're not. All I'm doing is noting that the logic of "we know a trait is the result of a mixture of genetics and environment, therefore the variance between two groups in a trait must least be partially genetic or environmental," while intuitive to some people, is simply false. This is implied in DrW's phrasing, "The topic was discussed between us on and off for several days. He found the very thesis of the book offensive. My position was that it would not hurt to take the data into consideration when setting expectations and social policy. Fact is that IQ is determined by both nature (genetics) and nurture (social environment), just like other physical attributes and abilities." Once you square away this confusion, the comment doesn't carry weight in the context of arguing for the genetic intellectual inferiority of traditionally subordinate racial categories, which is what his commentary sets up prior to making that comment.

It seems that you think that the bulk of research supports the notion that testing gaps in IQ between racial categories is well explained, in part, by heredity, but that's not really the case, nor is it the point of my response. One of the things that's most annoying about Harris's comments, repeated several times even recently, is the implication that Murray's just reflecting settled science and any controversy he generates is caused by the scientifically ignorant dismissing him out of misguided political correctness. This is so very, very obnoxious in the context of actual dispute within the field. A lot of the people commenting on the reddit thread repeat this point, but I Harris seems well past the point of self-reflection.

The Sam Harris flap has snowballed further and brought every "race realist" type - notably Andrew Sullivan - out of the woodwork to weigh in.

[_DrW]

"The topic was discussed between us on and off for several days. He found the very thesis of the book offensive. My position was that it would not hurt to take the data into consideration when setting expectations and social policy. Fact is that IQ is determined by both nature (genetics) and nurture (social environment), just like other physical attributes and abilities."

Once you square away this confusion, the comment doesn't carry weight in the context of arguing for the genetic intellectual inferiority of traditionally subordinate racial categories, which is what his commentary sets up prior to making that comment.

My comments upthread were intended to make two main points.

First is that IQ is influenced by genetics and social environment. This statement is not (I trust) in dispute.

The second was that there are cognitive / intellectual capability differences among cultural groups, and that one would do well to acknowledge such differences - and design social policy to address them - when trying to introduce technology to improve quality of life on a population basis.

My summary comment was that the social stratification as a correlate of IQ, as described in the book in 1994, has only become more apparent in the intervening 20 years.

It matters not whether the differences in cognitive / intellectual capability are more influenced by nature or nurture. I did not indicate, or even imply, that I believed there was a decisive genetic difference in IQ that underlies the social stratification described in the book.

[_EAllusion]

On a exact opposite anecdote, I remember watching a speech on from James Watson of Watson and Crick fame in which he argued the overall thesis of the Bell Curve as it relates to race. Then a little later he made some comments in an interview that also carried the same theme. This was about 10 years after I had read and studied it and about 10 years before the present.

This foray of Watson's ended up ruining what was left of his already damaged reputation at that point. He became a hero of racist pseudoscience types like Arthur Jensen, but was essentially shunned from academia. At the time, I assumed without thought that this was the dying gasps of this long, long tradition of people attempting to use science to demonstrate that racially disfavored groups are intellectually inferior and that social policy should be shaped in light of that fact. I forgot about it. The Bell Curve was destined to be an artifact of the early 90's. That was that.

It's only recently with the explosion of the alt-right that his came back to the forefront of social commentary and it left me caught off guard. I thought we were passed this, but that was naïve. It only takes a few public figures to keep this burning in a willing audience. I still haven't quite wrapped my head around this being resurrected. It's no secret that Murray is heavily reliant on a who's who of earlier academic racists in his work, and Murray's more cautious approach was supposed to represent the final puff of air of this movement. But I think it's increasingly clear he's passing the torch on to a new generation.

[_Analytics]

Hundreds of studies have been done about the relationship between IQ, race, and socioeconomic conditions. For the sake of argument, are we pretending that this body of research doesn't exist?

No, we're not. All I'm doing is noting that the logic of "we know a trait is the result of a mixture of genetics and environment, therefore the variance between two groups in a trait must least be partially genetic or environmental," while intuitive to some people, is simply false. This is implied in DrW's phrasing, "The topic was discussed between us on and off for several days. He found the very thesis of the book offensive. My position was that it would not hurt to take the data into consideration when setting expectations and social policy. Fact is that IQ is determined by both nature (genetics) and nurture (social environment), just like other physical attributes and abilities." Once you square away this confusion, the comment doesn't carry weight....

The claim that IQ is determined by both nature and nurture isn't a logical fallacy. It is a conclusion you can't avoid when looking at the data. There have been dozens and dozens of studies on this.

[_EAllusion]

The claim that IQ is determined by both nature and nurture isn't a logical fallacy. It is a conclusion you can't avoid when looking at the data. There have been dozens and dozens of studies on this.

The claim that a particular difference in IQ averages between populations are necessarily determined by a combination of nature and nurture because IQ itself is determined by nature and nurture is a fallacy.

We can take DrW at his word on his clarification, but his original post talks specifically about differences between racial groups then leads into the observation that of course those differences are at least in part hereditary.

Take IQ out of it if you need to. Imagine we have population A and B. A is 2 inches taller than B on average. We know that height is both a consequence of hereditary and environmental factors like nutrition. Does this mean that the 2 inch gap is at least partially the result of A's genetic predisposition for being taller? No, not necessarily. In fact, it's possible that B is genetically predisposed to be taller, but because of environmental factors like nutrition their height average is lower. You can't infer what explains the variance from the trite observation that all biological traits result from an interaction between hereditary and environmental factors.

[_Analytics]

The claim that IQ is determined by both nature and nurture isn't a logical fallacy. It is a conclusion you can't avoid when looking at the data. There have been dozens and dozens of studies on this.

The claim that a particular difference in IQ averages between populations are necessarily determined by a combination of nature and nurture because IQ itself is determined by nature and nurture is a fallacy.

We can take DrW at his word on his clarification, but his original post talks specifically about differences between racial groups then leads into the observation that of course those differences are at least in part hereditary.

Take IQ out of it if you need to. Imagine we have population A and B. A is 2 inches taller than B on average. We know that height is both a consequence of hereditary and environmental factors like nutrition. Does this mean that the 2 inch gap is at least partially the result of A's genetic predisposition for being taller? No, not necessarily. In fact, it's possible that B is genetically predisposed to be taller, but because of environmental factors like nutrition their height average is lower. You can't infer what explains the variance from the trite observation that all biological traits result from an interaction between hereditary and environmental factors.

I get your point. All I'm saying is then when DrW prefaced his remark with, "My position was that it would not hurt to take the data into consideration ..." I understood that to mean his remark was referring to what the data tell us, not to a "freshman mistake" in logic that in this particular incidence happens to give us the correct answer anyway.