Metcalf on Saletan and black IQ

Vitriolic and anti-conservative cultural commentator Stephen Metcalf has apparently put a bit of work into his recent article in Slate in which he attempts to rebut Saletan's article on IQ research. Metcalf actually appears to have read stuff on the subject! Predictably for a Leftist, though, most of what he says is ad hominem -- attempted character assassination of those with whom he disagrees. Vdare has however highlighted the shallowness of Metcalf's claims in that department rather well so I will just focus on a few of the substantive points that Metcalf raises.

I should perhaps point out initially, however, that I have never received one cent from the Pioneer Fund nor do I know anything about it. For all I know it is just a Leftist boogeyman. They certainly seem to treat it that way. They claim that any association with the Pioneer Fund renders anyone outside the pale of discourse. But putting those they disagree with outside the pale of discourse is a common Leftist strategy, of course. It sure beats having to deal with inconvenient facts and arguments! My interest in this debate springs from the fact that I am a psychometrician (specialist in the measurement of psychological variables) by trade. See here.

I think it is about time that I pointed out the obvious about the "seed" analogy to black/white IQ differences. Metcalf puts it as follows:

Imagine two wheat fields. Now imagine two genetically identical sets of seeds. (The analogy was first made famous by the Harvard evolutionary biologist and geneticist Richard Lewontin.) Now imagine each field is planted with these two identical seed stocks. Field No. 1 is given the best possible inputs: sunshine intensity, rain, soil nitrates, etc. Field No. 2 is given much less of all of the above. Within each field, inputs are kept uniform. Inevitably, the first field grows a healthier supply of grain than the second. But here is the rub: Within each field, the variation in outcomes is entirely hereditary. Between the two fields, the variation in outcomes in entirely environmental.

The argument simply assumes what it has to prove. It assumes that the two lots of seeds (genetic inheritance) are identical to start with. So the argument comes back immediately to the problem of sorting out whether black and white IQ is genetically different. And it is precisely that question which has been the subject of decades of research. Environmental differences do have SOME effect on IQ so it is perfectly possible that the UNDERLYING differences between blacks and whites are nil. But there is NOTHING that has ever been found which suggests that -- only a lot of wishful thinking. I am not for a minute going to try to summarize the research concerned but Gottfredson and Malloy are good starting points for those who want to delve further.

Much of the research, however, has focused on examining alternative explanations for the perennial black disadvantage. Is it due to poor nutrition or biased tests, for instance? But no matter what you allow for, a substantial gap remains.

One might also note that if the environment were the cause of racial differences in IQ then we would expect impoverished and poorly nourished Chinese living in hovels to score lower on IQ tests than blacks. The reverse is of course true. The Chinese score about the same as whites, in fact. Also: East Asian immigrants to America labour under much greater disadvantages than do blacks -- not speaking English well, for a start -- but they do well generally and their children fill the universities (over 40% of students at the University of California are Asian). Environment doesn't seem to hold Asians back. How come blacks do not make such a huge leap when given the opportunity? Simple answer: Blacks don't have the genetic endowment the Chinese do. Even if we argue that America's Chinese immigrants have a better genetic endowment than other Chinese, the argument still is in terms of the genetic given rather than in terms of the environment.

And the "No child left behind" initiative has put huge pressure on schools to lift black educational attainment -- with effectively zero results. We read in fact, "The disparity between blacks' and whites' SAT scores is larger now than it was 10 years ago". NOTHING can bring average black scores up to average white scores. If Metcalf knows a way he will make a fortune. The Chinese advantage is sometimes attributed to a superior Chinese culture. Maybe Metcalf can tell us how to give blacks a Chinese-style culture! It's quite inconceivable, isn't it? Chinese culture reflects what Chinese are to begin with (See Kagan's research) - and the same is true for black culture.

Blacks as a group in disparate cultural environments worldwide are prone to high-violence, high-criminality, and low achieving (as group) - just as they are as a group in America; culture alone cannot explain this. Misguided social policies based on a bad understanding of the causes for certain group differences can't work. PC policies which ignore certain underlying factors that create a diathesis for certain problems to predominate among certain groups will not have a high probability of success. This is why we must be dedicated to the truth.[This paragraph edited by Reliapundit.]

That leads me to two of Metcalf's assertions: "Since the late '60s-i.e., since the heyday of civil rights and the inception of such "compensatory education" programs as Head Start-blacks have made huge gains vis-.-vis whites on a wide range of standardized tests. Evidence? Metcalf gives none. I think that must be one bit that he did not look up. He is just winging it on the basis of what they say in his own little social bubble. Head Start has in fact made just about no discernible difference to anything. See also here. That Congress continues to fund Head Start rather proves what Ronald Reagan said -- that a government program is the nearest thing to everlasting life. It may be worth noting that a similar program in Britain has also failed to achieve anything.

Metcalf also says: "Absent a national random sample for IQ data and race, researchers have looked at a range of tests that highly correlate with IQ, and extrapolated from them that the black-white IQ gap has likely been cut by a third." References? Metcalf gives none. Charles Murray, however, has noted that the black/white IQ score gap did close somewhat during the 20th century, but that the data show that the narrowing stalled sometime in the 1970s.

Finally Metcalf points to the big study of black/white IQ by the corporate body of America's psychologists, the American Psychological Association. The report of course acknowledges the 15 point IQ disadvadvantage usually found for blacks but goes on to say that the question is still not settled. In a way reminiscent of the way Greenies rely on the heavily politicised IPCC as authority for their belief in global warming, Metcalf uses the APA conclusion as authority for his belief that the question is not settled. But the APA is as politicized as the IPCC. It is heavily Left-leaning. So it is their evidence you have to look at, not their opinions, and the evidence is very consistent in showing a black white IQ gap no matter what.

And the APA report is not even a comprehensive survey of the literature. You will find no metion of him in the APA bibliography but Tanser (1939), for instance, found a large black/white IQ gap even though the children in his study had attended the same schools since 1890! It is particularly regrettable that the APA slighted older studies in its report as the great black cultural and family breakdown since the 60s does superficially look like a reasonable cause for black intellectual failure. Studies prior to the 60s, however, show much the same result as more recent studies. Whether the environment is permissive or vigilant, or anything else, that IQ gap never budges significantly. It is hard-wired.

The refusal of the APA to draw conclusions in their report on the grounds that the evidence is not yet good enough is a good example of what is called "intellectual dishonesty" -- judging a matter not on the balance of the evidence for and against it but rather on whether or not the conclusions suit the speaker. If the conclusions don't suit, NO evidence will ever be good enough, of course. I commented on that dishonesty in discussions about IQ long ago

I could go on and if no-one else takes up the cudgels maybe I will. There is, for a start, a lot more fun to be had from the Eyferth study. In his comments on both the Eyferth study and the Minnesota adoption study, Metcalf seems to assume what he is trying to disprove!

References:
Eyferth, K. (1961). Leistungenverchiedener Gruppen von Besatzungskindern im Hamburg Wechsler Intelligenztest fuer Kinder (HAWIK). Archiv fuer die gesamte Psychologie, 1 13, 222 241.
Tanser, H. A. 1939. The Settlement of Negroes in Kent County, Ontario. Chatham, Ontario: Shephard Publishing Co.

(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and TELSTRA/BIGPOND. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)

RELIAPUNDIT ADDS:

We've run some controversial posts on race in the last few weeks. On IQ and race.

All were based on facts.

All were intended to demolish leftist political use of race, groupism and collectivism, and to reinforce why we must all regard each other as individuals and not members of any group or class.

Here's a quote from one of the posts which perfectly sums up this position:

All people deserve equal treatment.

But that is not quite the same as saying they are all equal.

The error comes in taking a group difference, which may or may not be real, and using it to judge the worth of individuals.

That is racism.

That's a quote from Nigel Hawkes, the Chief Health Editor of the London Times.

He is 100% correct. And no racist. Quite the opposite.

Group differences are real.

They are reasons to do away with groupist quotas, set-asides and with affirmative action, and to re-invigorate the marketplace with meritocratic practices which correctly judge individuals as individuals with NO attention paid to their membership in any group, race or class.