Apparently James Flynn and Charles Murray have had another public debate about black/white IQ. Flynn is the only Leftist who is capable of sustaining an informed debate on the matter (people like
Gardner and
Sternberg are off with the fairies). There was another debate between Flynn and Murray
a year ago. The report of the latest debate is by
John Derbyshire, who is as cautious and polite as ever.
It is really sad to hear that Flynn is still leaning heavily on the Eyferth study. Flynn himself knows the problems of generalizing from that study and I point them out with my usual brutal frankness
here. Flynn is a perfectly competent IQ researcher so why he clings to something so unhelpful to his case is quite a mystery. It must just be that curious Leftist inability to cope with the world as it is. In Flynn's case it is denial on a pathological scale.
If anything, the Eyferth study shows the central role of genetics in IQ. The study found that the children of black American GIs and white women had similar IQs to whites. But blacks at the time had to pass the same IQ test as whites to get into the army. So what the study shows is that what IQ tests test for is genetically transmitted! And it shows that it was genetically transmitted AMONG BLACKS! Nasty! Putting it another way, it shows that only a subset of blacks especially selected by IQ tests will get results similar to whites. Why Flynn thinks that study helps his case is rather a mystery. It does make him look like some sort of mental case.
The other study mentioned by Derb is the Ogbu ("Shaker Heights") study. Black researcher Ogbu found that the children of middle class blacks did not do as well at school as the children of middle class whites. Ogbu himself attributed that to an anti-intellectual culture among blacks and there is no doubt that such a culture exists. A more straightforward explanation of his findings, however, is that affirmative action makes it easy for blacks of only average ability to rise into the middle class whereas whites have to be above-average to get there. So the children simply reflect the genetic endowment of their parents.
There is also a statistical effect known as regression to the mean that could be at work in the Ogbu study. The effect says that parents who are exceptional within their group will IN GENERAL have less exceptional children. That regression to the mean effect has always been a bit of a teeth-grinder for me, in fact. It has always had me wondering about how bright my son would turn out to be. His
recent achievements in mathematics have allayed such doubts rather convincingly, however.
(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 and EYE ON BRITAIN. 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.
