Posted on 07/05/2017 9:33:46 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Suppose its true.
Suppose that, at the end of the day, people of African descent have lower IQs on average than do other groups of humans, and that this gap is caused, at least in part, by genetic differences.
Of late, since Charles Murray was all but physically assaulted when he tried to speak at Middlebury, the issue as to whether his claim (with Richard J. Herrnstein) in The Bell Curve that blacks on average have lower IQs, and that its highly likely that genes play a role, has entered the public discourse once again, in part through a podcast interview Murray did with Sam Harris. Meanwhile, there has long been discussion of the issue in forums that are rarely sampled by the mainstream media and feature frequent complaints that enlightened people refuse to talk about race and IQ.
There is, however, a question that those claiming black people are genetically predisposed to have lower IQs than others fail to answer: What, precisely, would we gain from discussing this particular issue?
I have often written and spoken over the past few years about the threat to free speech on college campuses and throughout our society that the newly prominent social-justice-warrior philosophy poses. This outlook, most recently wreaking its havoc in the shutdown of Evergreen State College after a white professor refused to comply with a call for all whites to leave the campus for a day to create a fully safe space for other students, dictates that views unsavory to the Left are not alternative perspectives but confirmedly contemptible atavism along the lines of a defense of slavery or genocide.
Indeed, there are views, including such a defense of slavery or genocide, that we can reasonably exempt from discussion at this point human morality may progress slowly, but it does progress. But to treat issues such as affirmative action, cultural appropriation, and the like in the same way is blinkered and facile.
Is the issue of whether IQ differs innately between races as unequivocally settled as that of whether genocide is okay? If not, does it fit into the class of things that ought to be up for discussion? In fact, I suggest that race and IQ is an exceptional topic, in the literal sense. The data are not all in, yet I see no value in including this topic in our liberal-arts discussions. Certainly scientists will research the topic and will share their findings, which will always be available online for those interested. However, those aggrieved that this particular issue is not aired more widely in general discussion need to make their premises clearer upon which, I suggest, those premises will seem less convincing than they are aware.
Many would suppose that we do discuss race and IQ. But the typical discussion consists largely of a culturally entrenched web of observations, some of them erroneous, that qualify less as engagements than as evasions. I must address these before proceeding.
For one, I will proceed on the assumption that there is indeed a general factor of intelligence what researchers usually refer to as g that varies among individuals. Experts of all stripes largely concur on this particular fact.
I will also proceed on the assumption that race is a biologically valid concept. Certainly the lines between races, given the complexity of the human genome and of human interactions, are hazy. However, fuzzy boundaries do not preclude identifiable clusterings; to insist otherwise is anti-empirical and unscientific. Geneticists agree that humanity is divisible into certain broad categories on the basis of the genetic and migrational history of our species.
More to the point, we must beware the popular objection that even if race is real, there is more genetic variation within racial groups than between them. This idea is based on a misreading of the data, overgeneralizing from intra-racial variation on particular traits. To give an analogy, the variety among bats faces is almost confounding, and yet this hardly invalidates the fact that there is a cluster of more general traits that distinguish the category of bat from that of cat. (I suggest On the Reality of Race and the Abhorrence of Racism, by Bo Winegard, Ben Winegard, and Brian Boutwell, for a lucid explanation, or Human Biological and Psychological Diversity, by the same authors, for a more technical treatment.)
There are two other ideas on race and IQ that distract from the issue rather than address it. One is that if racial differences in IQ are real, then they are a matter of tendencies, not absolutes. This is plain but evasive. The question still remains: Are black people on the average inherently lower in IQ than whites? Similarly, no one believes IQ is determined solely by genetics; environments matter too. Again, however, the question remains: Does the heritable portion result in lower average IQs for black people than for other races?
Clearly, even uncontroversial experts on intelligence have not converged on the smackdown kind of consensus on race and IQ that experts on, say, climate change largely have.
This brings us to the heart of the issue. We are often taught, as the enlightened and even scientific verdict, that blacks and whites occupy radically different environments today, and that these differences can explain the entire blackwhite IQ gap. Under this analysis, there may be a heritable part of IQ that differs between the races, but, first, it is small, and second and more important, environmental factors override its effects. This is the main takeaway from a recent article in Vox by the IQ researchers Eric Turkheimer, Kathryn Paige Harden, and Richard Nisbett. Specifically, they point to evidence that environmental changes, such as a childs adoption into a better-off family, can produce IQ gains as big as the average difference between blacks and whites. Poor schooling, plus the general stresses occasioned by a hardscrabble existence, depresses IQ in ways we all intuitively understand. According to this analysis, Murray and his confreres can qualify as charlatans at best, racists at worst, and likely something in between.
The Vox article will stand as our moments gold-standard reference on the issue, but its calm conclusion that the blackwhite IQ gap is wholly environmental in origin is by no means as self-evident as the authors imply. James Lees trenchantly critical review of Nisbetts signature book on the issue is nobodys idea of a partisan or racist screed Lee is a psychologist at Harvard. A handier rundown of the case is The Cherry-Picked Science in Voxs Charles Murray Article, from a Medium user who goes by Elan. Also useful is an article by Murray himself, The Magnitude and Components of Change in the BlackWhite IQ Difference from 1920 to 1991. None of these sources can be rejected as the mere junk science that many try to dismiss them as: All three reference a great many respected scholars of established credentials and engage in the kind of close argumentation associated with serious scientific inquiry.
There have been rejoinders aplenty, of course: Hardens The Science and Ethics of Group Differences in Intelligence is especially cogent and useful. But no unbiased observer could read the vigorous exchange on this topic of late and come away thinking that the objectors are mere cranks. Clearly, even uncontroversial experts on intelligence have not converged on the smackdown kind of consensus on race and IQ that experts on, say, climate change largely have.
My purpose here, however, is not to throw my hat in with those who argue that there is a genetic racial gap in IQ. I have always hoped the blackwhite IQ gap was due to environmental causes. My intuition whatever it is worth given that I am not an expert on the subject is that the lag in performance of African-descended persons on IQ tests is the result of culture. As I have argued for 20 years now, a people are determined not only by external conditions but by the norms passed on in their culture. Many, including most academics, insist that culture is itself determined by external conditions, but this is an oversimplification. Norms and culture, once settled as habit, can persist long after the external causes that originally created them.
Black American culture, for example, grew from implacably oppressive slavery followed by a Jim Crow hegemony that recapitulated slavery in essence. These were people living in what my linguists training reveals as a life bound in orality rather than literacy. To live restricted to casual speech rather than the artifice of writing creates a psychology ill equipped to score highly on the distinctly modern stunt known as the IQ test. Speech emphasizes immediate experience over the athletically hypothetical. In speech, one focuses on a sequence of events one damned thing after another rather than on layered particularities along the lines of If it had . . . , then it would . . . The latter sort of mental work, which is what a psychometric test requires one to perform, can seem irrelevant to an oral culture unless it is absolutely necessary which it rarely is, given the broad generalities that suffice for basic human thriving.
I do question why those calling attention to possible evidence for such a gap feel that it is such an important topic to discuss.
This characteristic of an oral culture is by no means exclusive to African-descended people. Anthropologists discovered similar concretely bound reasoning among Uzbek peasants way back in the 1930s; legions of whites in America have grown up in similar environments (as J. D. Vances Hillbilly Elegy eloquently testifies). The fact nonetheless remains that as a hopelessly nerdy kid, I was told warmly but firmly by older southern black relatives that I needed to stop thinking life was in them books i.e., sources teaching me to look beyond my immediate experiences and ready intuitions. Given that these adults had grown up in an America that largely denied them quality schooling and restricted them to menial labor, it was hardly surprising that my geekiness did not strike them as useful or even congenial.
Make no mistake: My relatives were hardly calling for me or anyone else to drop out of school or get bad grades. These same people swelled with pride to see their children, including me, graduate from high school and even college. However, I find it hard to imagine that performance on an IQ test is not affected even in small children by overtones of a day-to-day stance of alienation from, rather than orientation toward, what Jewish people might refer to as the Book, and the associated ways of thinking. And culture does not march in lockstep with income, or at least not right away: This subtle orientation can persist even among middle-class descendants of the working-class ancestors who instilled it.
So thats how I hope the issue of race and IQ works. But I cannot allow myself to fall into the sadly common pattern in which peoples insistence that something is true is founded as much on their wanting it to be true as on actual evidence. My hunches and predilections do not qualify as conduits to truth. I can responsibly claim neither on my gut sense nor on what I have seen of the research that it has been proven that there is no genetically based racial gap in IQ.
But I do question why those calling attention to possible evidence for such a gap feel that it is such an important topic to discuss. That is, lets suppose that black people actually are, on the average, lower in g than others. Why, exactly, is it so urgent that this be openly acknowledged?
I can see exactly three rationales as to why we must be honest about the IQ gap, if it exists. None offers anything we could call progressive or constructive.
The first is that the IQ gap delegitimizes policy devoted to redressing the injustices that black people have suffered. That is, one might argue that because black people are on the average less intelligent than other people, our efforts to give a hand to black children in education and point poor black people to employment opportunities are misguided. Rather, society should accept that a disproportionate number of black people will labor at the bottom of the occupational scale and that in general black people will be underrepresented in the higher echelons of society.
If this is what those calling for us to be honest about the data they draw attention to mean, then I suggest they be more overt in their prescription. But the prescription would fare poorly. The chances that there will ever be a brutally open, race-based meritocratic consensus of this kind among Americas ruling and chattering classes are roughly nil. Those who are revolted by the very idea of such a conclusion including me can rest assured that the moral development of the West, halting and imperfect though it has been, has produced a bulwark against complacently accepting racial stratification. As I have written often, educated Americans in particular now harbor nothing less than an anti-racist religion that will never accept such a mode of thinking as anything but antiquated and morally repulsive.
A second purpose of being honest about a racial IQ gap would be the opposite of the first: We might take the gap as a reason for giving not less but more attention to redressing race-based inequities. That is, could we imagine an America in which it was accepted that black people labored on average, of course under an intellectual handicap, and an enlightened, compassionate society responded with a Great Societystyle commitment to the uplift of the people thus burdened?
Much of the reason we step around the issue of race and IQ is that intelligence, shimmering in all of its viscerally resonant glory, is something whose value we do not really question.
I am unaware of any scholar or thinker who has made this argument, perhaps because it, too, is an obvious fantasy. Officially designating black people as a special needs race perpetually requiring compensatory assistance on the basis of their intellectual inferiority would run up against the same implacable resistance as condemning them to menial roles for the same reason. The impulse that rejects the very notion of IQ differences between races will thrive despite any beneficent intentions founded on belief in such differences.
Finally, some advocates of honesty about race and IQ have argued that we must acknowledge that black people have lower IQs but must also progress toward an ability to celebrate individuals for a range of talents beyond intelligence. I consider those making this argument sincere and quixotic.
Smarts, as they drive civilization forward, will always occupy a privileged place in our evaluation of human beings. The Duke Ellingtons and the Michael Jordans will be our kings, but the Albert Einsteins and the Stephen Hawkings will be our gods. As a linguist, I am aware of no human language in which the word for smart does not refer to, well, smarts. No society in the world applies that word as well to those who are good at spearing fish, playing the flute, or making themselves well liked. Much of the reason we step around the issue of race and IQ is that intelligence, shimmering in all of its viscerally resonant glory, is something whose value we do not really question.
The popularity of Howard Gardners schema of multiple intelligences, including the musical, social, and kinesthetic, only illuminates our genuine sentiments toward IQ. This extension of the concept of what it is to be intelligent handily distracts us from a guilty but primal elevation of the particular kind of intelligence Gardner classifies as logical-mathematical i.e., what all of us deep down think of as real intelligence. In real life we will continue to casually designate some people as smart, with the implication that this is an unquestionably superlative attribute, on the basis of math, science, and scholastic performance rather than that of shooting hoops, playing the saxophone, or being popular.
This will not change. Given a choice between historys having produced Beethoven or Ray Charles, or Hamilton and its having produced penicillin, all would choose the latter. That is, neither black Americans nor educated America will ever accept the idea that black people must cherish themselves as something other than smart. The exploratory mind may imagine or wish that black people would and it will do so without influence.
In sum, various thinkers insist, some more publicly than others, that we are at fault in not openly facing that there is a genetic IQ gap between black people and others. Yet there would seem to be no constructive benefit in facing this gap if it exists.
One thing that may undergird these thinkers sense that this issue must be aired is a general resentment of the Lefts censorious policing of race issues in general. As someone who has taken issue with such policing at length, I share these thinkers grievance that on so many topics such as the value of standardized testing, the wisdom of open-ended racial preferences, the definition of cultural appropriation, whether black-on-black crime or the police present the direst threat to poor black communities, and others views other than the Lefts are blithely dismissed as morally repugnant. A more open and honest discussion of such matters has direct implications for the well-being of the black community. But the IQ issue is different. To discuss it would shed not more heat than light, but all heat and no light.
Our valuation of intelligence, combined with black peoples grievous history in America, suggests an eccentric yet logical approach to the issue of race and IQ: As a topic whose discussion will yield injury, fury, and doubletalk with no countervailing benefits in terms of prescriptions for how society ought to operate, it ought be exempted from open discussion.
That is: Intelligence researchers, writing in dense, obscure academic journals, will continue to quietly present data that show that race influences the heritability of IQ to certain degrees; others will present data in disagreement. I hope they ultimately settle on a verdict that environment really does entirely trump the heritable portion of the IQ difference; possibly they will not. However, in the wider world, I see no reason that this research should be faced and subject to ongoing debate. For example, undergraduates should not feel comfortable bringing up these data in class discussions unrelated to genetic research; society would gain nothing from their doing so. Our mainstream media organs, while remiss in their current tendency to insist the issue is settled, will not be remiss in declining to program articles and symposia exploring it out of some kind of curiosity.
Those who continue to follow this research and decry in the blogosphere that America refuses to face its implications need to consider what they are actually calling for. None of the three hypothetical scenarios I have considered would serve any purpose in the real-world America we live in. What, then, would be the purpose of dwelling on the race-and-IQ issue at all? If these objectors did somehow make America openly and ongoingly designate black people as, on the average, less intelligent than others, upon what constructive grounds could they congratulate themselves for having succeeded?
Back to hunches and predilections. I surmise that in a future America, if ever fewer black people are poor and when, as part of its eternal transformation, black culture moves ever farther from its roots in the oral mindset forged in a rural, preliterate context inequities between black people and others will decrease to the point that if it turns out that there really is an inherited IQ deficit, it will qualify as a peculiar fact ultimately of little interest, seeming unconnected to anything about black people in the moment. The IQ difference will be about as interesting as African-descended peoples genetic predisposition to lactose intolerance or lesser amounts of bodily hair.
Thats hypothetical, of course but what isnt hypothetical is that, in our times, there is no apparent benefit to dwelling on the IQ gap. The burden is on those who claim otherwise to make their case.
John McWhorter teaches linguistics, philosophy, and music history at Columbia University. His latest books are Words on the Move and Talking Back, Talking Black.
So it can be used as an excuse, for either bigotry or behavior, Nr. McWhorter.
I think this is sort of begging the question.
Charles Murray, and many others, established the fact that -- on average -- Whites have an IQ of 100 and Blacks have an IQ of 85. I believe this is established as fact.
Simultaneously, however, American culture has accepted ghetto culture as wonderful and dominant. Rap, twerking, swearing, poor impulse control, lack of work ethic, no respect for education, breakdown of the nuclear family, and so much more. It's very Black and very Cool, and, heck, now everybody's doing it.
So ... is black culture moving "ever farther from its roots in the oral mindset forged in a rural, preliterate context"? I don't see it. I think it's like Gresham's Law -- bad culture drives out good culture, and Western Civilization is being dragged further and further into the jungle.
I think there is value in saying: "That culture comes from people with low IQs and bad social habits". We should openly and proudly avoid anything to do with it. Glossing over the IQ factor because it is irrelevant is a conclusion based on the starting premise that IQ is irrelevant.
Who would want a dumbass operating on your brain?
Fifty years of affirmative action and still can’t cut it.
Except that the expectation is that if a person isn’t smart enough to do X, it is because of racism. Or maybe a poor teacher.
If we accept IQ as another attribute, we can help individuals work to maximize their value. I will never play pro basketball or football, my talents lie elsewhere. If I was told as kid that not only could I play pro, if I don’t make the team it is because of who my ancestors were, that would have hurt my outlook on life.
Telling a kid with an IQ of 89 that they can be a doctor only hurts them in the long run. It hurts others in the long run if you make that person a doctor to check off some box on the survey, and they kill people.
It’s interesting that he speaks about blacks and their lower IQ averages and uses Evergreen College as a reference point.
He should have expounded and explained that example a little better.
Could it possibly be that giving a voice to lower IQ’s were the reason why black racism and bigotry resulted in violence and chaos at Evergreen?
In the sub groups labeled as “white”, quite a few have lower IQ.
Many have similar time preferences as the stereo typical black inner city dweller. I should know, I grew up in a area with many lower class whites who had the issues as inner cities blacks.
What Murray talked about in “Coming Apart” is also at work. Kids with high IQ and potential have been getting scholarships for years, and moving away from their “home” areas. This brain drain is causing many of those neighborhoods, cities, and in cases, states, to spiral down.
I see it in my hometown. All the people with higher IQ in my high school class (above a 3.0 GPA) left. Some only to Omaha, many out of state. My home town is pretty sad now.
“...there is no apparent benefit to dwelling on the IQ gap.”
That was my reaction when that Shockley article came out ages ago. But lately it’s been argued that any selection process that doesn’t mirror national demographics must be racist or sexist or phobic this or phobic that. So we’re forced to examine whether it’s true that any arbitrary grouping of people is going to have the identical abilities of any other one.
I’ll give you a creditable reason for the IQ debate.
Who do you want studying in Harvard medical?
The ones who have a good mathematical-logical IQ, or someone who has a good bedside manner IQ?
You get your choice as your doctor when you get sick.
Having to survive brutal winters and catch sparse game has made Europeans and Asians ability to figure out the best solutions and the best thinkers survive to breed. Picking coconuts and bananas requires much less thought. Surviving lions and rhino charges was about the same for ancient peoples. Those in the north solved the problem by extermination of the more aggressive and competing species. And what they didn’t exterminate, they domesticated.
The northern man also have a percentage of Neanderthal DNA. An often maligned early man with great survival skills and actually a larger brain than modern Homo Sapiens.
That is pretty sad.
In a real market economy without government intervention and without welfare, individuals and groups that are lower IQ will do better in the aggregate by far than they do in a controlled minimum wage affirmative action welfare system. Fewer will rise nominally in status but will rise to their abilities and all will benefit thereby. In a welfare and hampered market system groups are kept out of the market and many have talents and abilities that are wasted because unused or they are promoted way beyond their abilities in order to make a show. It drags the whole economy down and the bottom sinks right along with the middle. The very top continues to rise because it makes its money off the controls.
Also very interesting how many times he uses the word ‘culture’ here.
And as I understand it - culture does indeed factor into the intelligence.
It’s the old question of hereditary or environment.
But generations of blacks growing up with a third world subculture ingrained into them can’t help but have a negative impact on IQ scores.
A person with an IQ of 89 “can’t be a doctor?”
The Bell Curve is a Darwinist, pro-birth control book. And now we've got people posting on FR that Africans living longer thanks to vaccines is a bad thing. What in the world is happening to us?
I've always known that the coalition that makes up the Left is a freak show that theoretically shouldn't be able to hold together for five minutes, yet somehow seems to have an unbreakable bond. I now say that the combination of the fear of G-d and Biblicism with pagan ancestor worship and Darwinistic racialism makes the Right a similar freak show. How do lovers and fearers of G-d wind up in a coalition with people like the late, unlamented racialist atheist Sam Francis (yimach shemo vezikhro!). The alliance of people like that with poor white Fundamentalists makes no more sense than the alliance of atheist Marxists and poor Black Fundamentalists.
I hope it is understood by all that I am not attacking nationalism or endogamy per se . . . merely the nationalism or endogamy that tries to replace the One True G-d and the one objectively Chosen People. G-d has never directly addressed the entirety of every other nation, so everyone else is a pretender.
I also hope it is understood that I am not excusing the fanatical mystical nationalisms of the Left. That's one of the many reasons they're so wrong. Why would any sane person want to reduce a conflict of objective good and evil, of submission to G-d and rebellion against Him, to a war of chromosomes???
I am one of the noisiest opponents and critics of "minority" politics on this site, and I say terrible things about them because they have sold out G-d--just as many "nationalists" on the Right now want to do. My caustic comments about hypocrites who worship like toothless snake-handling West Virginia hillbillies and vote like wealthy atheist intellectuals are strewn throughout my posts here.
And finally, I want to make one more point: as hard as it may be to believe, everything angry white conservatives say about Blacks is what the Left says about poor rural Southern whites. Don't believe me? You think Blacks are lazy? They think rednecks are lazy. Think Blacks are violent? They think rednecks are violent. Think Blacks are uneducated and stupid? They think rednecks are uneducated and stupid. Think Blacks are unthinking and driven by emotion? Well guess what, sunshine!!! Think they trash the places they live? Think they don't care? Think they have an impulse control problem? Think they are sexual degenerates with out-of-control libidos? Every one of these accusations is made against poor rural Southern whites as well. The fact that some don't want to believe it doesn't change a thing.
The "minorities" are going to be punished by G-d for turning against Him. Do you really want the same thing to happen to you?
Q: What do you call the guy who graduated at the bottom of his class in medical school?
A: Doctor.
I’d challenge McWhorter to explain Chicago and its murder/shooting rate without using race and IQ.
So . . . you don't believe in Adam and Eve. Is that it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.