JRPC wrote:

Jesus Christ, it doesn't matter what the figure is

WorKid wrote:

You haven't said why that would be linked to "race" which is the crux of the matter. The article seems to be about simple parent - child hereditary linkage.

Highlighting the insights of Kurt Lewin more than 70 years after his work, the researchers found that socioeconomic background had a major impact on genetic influences on intelligence: More specifically, when twins were reared in high socioeconomic status environments, genes accounted for approximately 72% of variance in intelligence scores between twins. When reared in low socioeconomic status environments, genes accounted for only about 8% of variance in intelligence within the twin pairs.
The reason for this change in genetic influence based on socioeconomic context? Well, the researchers reasoned that high socioeconomic status environments are enriching, and provide people with the intellectual stimulation necessary to unlock their genetic potential. Low socioeconomic status environments, in contrast, are impoverished, and lack the necessary stimuli to unlock a person's genetic potential. Just like Lewin predicted, the situation shifts how much influence a person's genes have on behavior!

WorKid wrote:

You haven't said why that would be linked to "race" which is the crux of the matter. The article seems to be about simple parent - child hereditary linkage.

Constantin Reliu, 63, fails to overturn his 2003 death certificate because he appealed too late

JRPC wrote:

And just a quick point on how the Bell Curve was funded by nazis. Now I remember hearing or reading that this was a distortion and not actually the case but I can't remember the details. But for the sake or argument even if we accept it as true and that there was a clear nefarious motive behind the work (intention again - very important!) is doesn't necessarily mean that the findings are wrong.

Yes, poverty, crime, low intelligence, and high birth rates occur together. These are the data, and they are not in question, although the authors often present the data in misleading ways. What is in question is the way these authors interpreted the data and the “cure” or public policy recommendations that arise from their interpretation. Their interpretation or explanation of the data is influenced by their belief system, and their explanations and beliefs intervene between the data and the public policy recommendations that are built on the data. There is good reason to believe that their interpretation of the data is “tainted” or not as pure or databased as their academic affiliations, thick statistical appendix, and scientific-sounding language make it seem. Consider this quote from The Bell Curve: “The median earning of…workers in 1992 [was] $41,005 for white male graduates with a bachelor’s degree and only $31,001 for black males with a bachelor’s degree” (p. 324). Most readers would interpret these data as evidence of persistent discrimination in the labor market. After all, how else could you explain the finding that even when African- Americans and Whites have the same education, and other variables like sex are held constant, African-Americans are paid much less? The authors conclude that this disparity in income shows how important the differences in intelligence really are. The bias in their interpretation of these data is too obvious too deserve additional comment.

Either it's true that there is a difference in IQ between different racial groups or it isn't.

 Either it's true that genetics plays a role in this difference or it doesn't. 

Whatever the the answers are to those two questions they remain true regardless of the particular political lens you're looking at them through.

Follow the Money 

This Watergate maxim is a good one to follow here. In deciding whom to believe, it is important to determine if the speaker or writer has an ulterior motive in convincing you that a certain conclusion is valid. For example, if the patent holder on a miracle cream that claims to “melt unsightly fat” told you that it was a wonder product, you would be less likely to believe this claim than if you had heard it from an unbiased scientific source with no potential for financial gain. The authors show a particular bias to cite studies that were funded by the infamous Pioneer Fund, which dispenses about $1 million annually to academics who support the idea that intelligence is genetically determined and that humans should be bred selectively for intelligence. I had a brief run-in with some of the academics whose work they have sponsored. In my book entitled Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities (2nd ed.), I summarized a large body of research on brain size and concluded that although males have, on the average, larger and heavier brains, when these values are adjusted for body size, there is no sex difference. Following the publication of this book, I received an article from Richard Lynn, an Irish researcher, in which he says that his work shows that I am wrong. At first, I gave this rebuke very little thought because it is not unusual for researchers to come up with different findings and different conclusions, although his results were at odds with those reported by virtually all of the other researchers in this field.

I then received a copy of the Lynn article with a letter from a psychologist whom I know, Philippe Rushton, who is notable for his theory that intelligence is inversely related to penis size. He posits that those males with the largest penises have the lowest intelligence, and furthermore, there are racial differences in both penis size and intelligence. According to Rushton, the racial line-up in descending order of intelligence is Asians, Caucasians, and Africans, with the reverse order for penis size. (No, I don’t know how he collected his data, nor do I know how other ethnic groups fare in this linear array.) This sort of theory is reminiscent of the penis-centered theories of Freud which posited a universal stage of development for boys and girls that he named the phallic stage. The word “phallic” means “penis,” and Freud saw no reason why this stage should have a different name when it referred to female development. Rushton’s penis-centric theory of intelligence suggests that some things never change since he proposes that we can learn about the intelligence of both females and males in an ethnic group by reference to the male anatomy. Much of the contemporary research funded by the Pioneer fund is both racist and sexist. In fact, the founding fathers of this fund were also anti-Semitic with strong ties to the Nazi movement and its goal to rid the world of Jews. There are 23 separate references to Lynn in the bibliography of The Bell Curve and 11 to Rushton. Both of these critics of my work received high praise by Herrnstein and Murray, and, like other frequently cited researchers in The Bell Curve, received large amounts of money from the Pioneer Fund.

The parallels between sexist and racist theories became more apparent to me when I received a copy of Rushton’s latest research, which was published after The Bell Curve went to press. Based on a study of helmet sizes used by the military, he concluded that African-Americans have smaller heads and therefore smaller brains than Caucasians—a result that mirrors the one by Lynn that compared male and female brains. There are many problems with these studies. Most importantly, brain size, weight, and neural structures depend upon life experiences. That is, our brains respond to our environment, so that we cannot know whether larger and heavier brains caused different life experiences or the experiences caused differences in brain size and weight. Many of the correlates of poverty such as inadequate nutrition, alcohol and other drug use, lack of prenatal and pediatric health care, ingestion of lead-based paint and other toxins, all have negative effects on brain development during the critical prenatal and infancy periods when the brain is most vulnerable. I do not know if the brain weight data are valid, but even if they are, lower brain weight is more likely a consequence of poverty than the reverse. In addition, there is absolutely no evidence that heavy brains are found in smarter people or that skull size is a good measure of brain size. The leaps from the actual data to the conclusions are irresponsible.

Soon after The Bell Curve was published, I received a FAX and phone call from Linda Gottfredson, a professor at the University of Delaware, who summarized what she believed was the dominant professional view on intelligence. She asked me to sign her summary statement to indicate my support. She explained that this was important so that the media and the public had a single summary statement on intelligence to guide their understanding of the points raised by Herrnstein and Murray. I found her summary troubling as it essentially agreed with Herrnstein and Murray’s conclusions. In fact, I agree with many of the statements made in The Bell Curve, but there are many others that I believe are wrong. I did not sign the statement that appeared in The Wall Street Journal, although 52 other psychologists did. I later learned that she is also supported by the Pioneer Fund. Although there is nothing morally wrong with being financed by people who share an author’s ideological point of view, it is troubling when all of the research that is funded in this manner happens to support the ideology of the funding agency. If you understand the social and political agenda that has financed this work, the next conclusion made by Herrnstein and Murray should not surprise you.

JRPC wrote:

[ I think as a full stop to my contribution on IQ and race, and given that people seem to think we’re joined at the hip, here’s a short clip of Sam Harris speaking very sensibly about race and IQ.

Facewon wrote:

]I'm also asking you to admit that the onus is on you to explain how pioneer fund isn't basically what he SPLC said it was, and given the reference situation and that they funded the direct research for the book you'll need to retract "I seem to remember it was a distortion." I mean I know you've given yourself an out, ie hazy memory, and that's fair. We all get hazy on details and this isn't an academic setting. However, downplaying this just adds to the look you're willing to give the findings of Murray and Harris a freer pass than the alternatives.

All the word "race" means is different characteristics in different groups. There are not actually different races. There is only one human race. 

This isn't a controversial thing to say. 

Do you think that the Bell Curve, a book published 20 years ago, is the last time intelligence has been studied at a genetic level? The genetic basis of intelligence again is not a controversial subject, and a high-school understanding of genetics should tell you that like height, like skin colour, like blood pressure, and like a whole bunch of other characteristics, there's going to be some level of inter-group variation. None of this is controversial. 

I agree and have said multiple times already that this kind of information can be appropriated by the bad guys or even brought about through bad ethical intentions or methods. But this is precisely why we cannot stick our heads in the sand on this and must deal with the evidence honestly.