![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
[This seemed to be rushed to a archive before a long discussion, so I have moved it back]
"Responding to such concerns, Dickens and Flynn 2001 have proposed a solution which rests on genotype-environment correlation, hypothesizing that small initial differences in environment cause feedback effects which magnify into large IQ differences.[73] Such differences would need to develop before age 3, when the Black-White IQ gap can be first detected."
1) I think the 3-year olds IQ difference (reading the Flynn article) is a controversial result.
2) you cannot use a controversial result to make factual statement like : "Such differences would need to develop before age 3, when the Black-White IQ gap can be first detected."
3) where is the citation for this statement: 'Such differences would need to develop before age 3, when the Black-White IQ gap can be first detected.'
The 3-years olds issue feels to me like 'weasel-words'. How many large scale studies have been made on 3-year olds? Taking controversial studies on 3-year olds and then applying their results as truth to other parts of the article. Macgruder 11:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a parent, and can remember life with toddlers. It makes tremendous sense to be that environment has a large effect on on IQ of 3 year olds. I also believe that the child's "genetic" IQ influences the enviroment that then influences the IQ. There are adoption studies that support this idea. Perhaps this only matters with children at both ends of the curve? I think that the "bell curve" is misleading. Kids with twice exceptional (giftedness plus disability) demonstrate that there is a lot going on on the inside to get that one number. What if we drew a curve that asked - "What percent of the population scores in the top 1% on any of several IQ subtests?" That curve would not be bell shaped, but it would be much more useful to groups that were looking to improve productivity for a group.
The question of bias in IQ tests is kind of besides the point. Our whole society is biased, we are soaked in it! The way to fix the tests and close the IQ gap is to fix society - which will and can be done. Is there such a thing as Race anyway? Of course not - there is only one species of Humans on the planet at this time.
Best Wishes
Real life keeps me busy, but I wanted to paste this material here for background reading so that we have context. I don't know how far the hypothesis that the brain size differences are an adaptation to climate is accepted, but it appears to be a theory accepted (in the general) by everyone I've read. Skimming Beals 1984 I find they report a .9 correlation between climate and brain size. How the selective force of climate acted on brain size (theormoregulation versus stability of habitat, etc.) may be a matter of disagreement. Now... I can't imagine that any of that is appropriate material for the sub-sub section of brain size differences in this article which is currently under debate. But, to futher flesh out the matter, here is the abstract and intro block from Templer and Arikawa 2006.
The impetus for our study was the contention of both Lynn [Lynn, R. (1991) Race differences in intelligence: A global perspective. Mankind Quarterly, 31, 255–296] and Rushton (Rushton [Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, evolution and behavior: A life history perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction; Rushton, J. P. (1997). Race, intelligence, and the brain: The errors and omissions of the revised edition of S.J. Gould's the mismeasurement of man. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 169–180; Rushton, J. P. (2000). Race, evolution, and behavior. A life history perspective (3rd edition). Port Huron: Charles Darwin Research Institute] that persons in colder climates tend to have higher IQs than persons in warmer climates. We correlated mean IQ of 129 countries with per capita income, skin color, and winter and summer temperatures, conceptualizing skin color as a multigenerational reflection of climate. The highest correlations were − 0.92 (rho = − 0.91) for skin color, − 0.76 (rho = − 0.76) for mean high winter temperature, − 0.66 (rho = − 0.68) for mean low winter temperature, and 0.63 (rho = 0.74) for real gross domestic product per capita. The correlations with population of country controlled for are almost identical. Our findings provide strong support for the observation of Lynn and of Rushton that persons in colder climates tend to have higher IQs. These findings could also be viewed as congruent with, although not providing unequivocal evidence for, the contention that higher intelligence evolves in colder climates. The finding of higher IQ in Eurasians than Africans could also be viewed as congruent with the position of Diamond (1997) that knowledge and resources are transmitted more readily on the Eurasian west–east axis.
Both Rushton, 1995, Rushton, 1997 and Rushton, 2000 and Lynn (1991) have pointed out that ethnic groups in colder climates score higher on intelligence tests than ethnic groups in warmer climates. They contend that greater intelligence is needed to adapt to a colder climate so that, over many generations, the more intelligent members of a population are more likely to survive and reproduce. Their temperature and IQ analyses have been descriptive rather than quantitative, however. In the present quantitative study, we predicted a negative correlation between IQ and temperature. We hypothesized that correlations would be higher for mean winter temperatures (January in the Northern Hemisphere and July in the Southern Hemisphere) than for mean summer temperatures. Skin color was conceptualized as a variable closely related to temperature. It is viewed by the present authors as a multigenerational reflection of the climates one's ancestors have lived in for thousands of years. Another reason to predict correlations of IQ with temperature and skin color is the product–moment correlation reported by Beals, Smith, and Dodd (1984) of 0.62 between cranial capacity and distance from the equator. Beals et al. based their finding on 20,000 individual crania from every continent and representing 122 ethnically distinguishable populations. Jensen (1998) reasoned that natural selection would favor a smaller head with a less spherical shape because of better heat dissipation in hot climates. Natural selection in colder climates would favor a more spherical head to accommodate a larger brain and to have better heat conservation. [paragraph] We used an index of per capita income-real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita to compare the correlations of income with IQ to those of temperature and skin color with IQ. There is a strong rationale for predicting a positive relationship between IQ and real GDP per capita. Common sense dictates that more intelligent populations can achieve greater scientific, technological, and organizational advancement. Furthermore, it is well established that conditions associated with poverty, such as malnutrition and inadequate prenatal/perinatal and other health care, can prevent the attainment of genetic potential. Lynn and Vanhanen (2002) did indeed find positive correlations between adjusted IQ and real GDP per capita of nations throughout the world. Their scatter plots vividly show that countries south of the Sahara Desert have both the lowest real GDPs per capita in the world and the lowest mean IQs in the world (in the 60s and 70s). The real GDP per capita in high-IQ countries is much more variable. For example, China and Korea have very high mean IQs but rather low real GDPs per capita. In this study, we considered only countries (N = 129) with primarily indigenous people—those with populations that have persisted since before the voyages of Christopher Columbus. It is acknowledged that there have been many migrations both before and after Columbus. However, the year 1492 has previously been used to define indigenous populations (Cavalli-Sforza, Menzoni, & Piazza, 1994).
-- Rikurzhen 18:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
And here's what others had to say about this research [1]: (Response by Earl Hunt and Robert J Sternberg)
We argue that the report by Templer and Arikawa contains misleading conclusions and is based upon faulty collection and analysis of data. The report fails to hold up for quality of data, statistical analysis, and the logic of science.
-- Ramdrake 19:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The Hunt and Sternberg paper draws these conclusions from their analysis of Templer and Arikawa 2006
For those without access to Science Direct Templer and Arikawa compiled their measure of predominant skin color by asking three graduate students to rate it, hence the comment about social stereotypes, at best the correlations with regard to skin color are correlations between Lynn and Vanhanen estimates of national IQ and the estimates of skin color given by three graduate students who have never visited the countries. The technical inadequacies of the Lynn and Vanhanen data should perhaps be expanded upon in the relevant section.
-- JonathanE 08:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Their results were not the material of interest, rather their background section which summarizes the literature. However, since you brought it up, I will point out that Sternberg and Hunt appears to have greatly misunderstood what was done with skin color. First, this
Hunt and Sternberg placed much more emphasis on the skin color correlations than the temperature correlations. This obscures the fact that the Templer and Arikawa study was primarily designed to test the contention of Rushton and Lynn that people in colder climates tend to have higher intelligence. Skin color and IQ were the two principal variables in the design of the study. The negative correlations between temperature and IQ strongly support the position of Rushton and Lynn. Skin color was conceptualized as a climatic variable, a multigenerational reflection of the climate one's ancestors have lived in for thousands of years. The very high correlation of IQ and skin color provides “frosting on the cake.”
Thus, Hunt and Sternberg need to explain what's conceptually wrong with an average termperature of a country. Second,
The raters used only two things—the skin color map of the world that does not have delineated national boundaries and maps of their choice that do show national boundaries.
Hunt and Sternberg appear to think that the students filled in a map of global skin color by guessing. Instead, the students were taking an anthropological data set without country boundaries and overlaying countrying boundaries from another dataset (of their choosing) in order to get an average. The high reliability between the 3 students demonstrates that their translation from the unlabeled skin-color map to country averages was done similiarly to one another. -- Rikurzhen 16:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
No myopia detected; I accept that further genetic adaptations may have occurred, without compromising my point. My purpose here is not to argue for a particular hypothesis, but rather to show that Ramdrake is engaging in original research by positing claims for which he (it?) has provided no support. Within this thread, I think original research is acceptable -- this is a talk page, after all -- but at least the original research can be held to a certain standard. Please understand that "Algebraic theory" is to be understood as nothing more nor less than is logically necessary given the claims of Rushton and Lynn, in this instance. I claim, by example, that Ramdrake is mistaken in its interpolation, and nothing more.
As for a placement for the criticism...feel free to add both the original study and the counterpoint to the article. Be bold! -- Algebraic 04:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)