Why IQ?

[Just a Thought]

Hey everyone!

 

I am new here and I am looking to learn as much as I can. I am interested in intelligence and IQ. My main question is "Why does this blog hold the IQ intelligence theory to be true rather than some other ones?" 

 

I have been researching this topic for a while and there are a lot of options out there. I can flesh some out if you guys want. Just let me know.

 

[A4E]

Please do. You have caught my interest.

[EclecticIdealist]

I think a large reason is that Stefan has had a number of podcasts and youtube videos where he talks about IQ and how it relates to morality, criminality, propensity for violence, birth-rates, etc., particularly by racial classification.

[Will Torbald]

Hey everyone!

 

I am new here and I am looking to learn as much as I can. I am interested in intelligence and IQ. My main question is "Why does this blog hold the IQ intelligence theory to be true rather than some other ones?" 

 

I have been researching this topic for a while and there are a lot of options out there. I can flesh some out if you guys want. Just let me know.

 

When IQ correlates almost identically to test scores, when IQ can be traced through heredity, when adopted children have the IQ range of their biological parents and not their adopted ones, when IQ correlates to the economic success of a country, when IQ correlates with criminality patterns, when - you get the idea - that's when IQ becomes a crucial measure for populations. Individually it is also helpful as most geniuses can be shown to be several standard deviations above average, and it also has consequences socially when low IQ and high IQ people meet and have incompatibilities.

[Just a Thought]

Alright here we go haha.

 

I understand where Will Torbald is coning from, but what he is referencing can be said about most intelligence theories. Just about all theories hold that a large part of intelligence is hereditary.

 

A lot of people have problems with the IQ theory. IQ is suppose to give a total view of ones intelligence, but it really doesn't. The two main things that are measured are reasoning and problem-solving skills, and the test taking speed is also taken into account. Now while these things are important, I believe it doesn't capture the whole spectrum and complexity of human intelligence and is ultimately just as snapshot of one part of the brain. It doesn't measure things such as creativity, curiosity, and emotional readiness and stability. Not to mention, IQ has been shown to change overtime and may be different the next day. This of course is hard to measure but there are some studies on it. One study showed that after four years, 33 applicants' scores varied up to 20 points in either direction. that is a pretty big disparity. Environment and culture also has an effect on IQ, but that is a completely other can of worms.

 

I also think that the IQ theory benefits people with good test taking skills. So it may be lopsided in this respect.

 

There are lots of other theories out there. However, since they try to take into account thins such as curiosity, creativity, emotional stability, empathy, musicianship and artistic skills; it becomes kind of muddled. It is hard to measure these things in concrete terms and many argue that there might be spiritual implications for those who they are important to. After all, how can you measure ones ability to understand and know themselves? 

 

Do I think that the tends that IQ studies are totally debunked in these lights? No. Especially the ability of intelligence people and non-intelligent people to get along. I just think it is dangerous to put something as complex and vast as human intelligence into little boxes and label them nicely. Life isn't as neat and organized as that.

[Will Torbald]

Nobody is saying IQ is all a person's mind is. The number is like the speed of a computer (I know it's not the same, just an analogy). It tells you how fast or far you can go, but not where you should go or what you can achieve. You can have success with something creative and a lot of hard work. You can can high IQ and be lazy or depressed, or traumatized. It doesn't mean IQ isn't true, which is what you asked in the OP.

[Just a Thought]

Ok. So if we still use the computer analogy, IQ is like the processing power of a computer. You can still make amazing things on a slow computer if you have the right software. On the other hand, a really good computer is useless if it doesn't run any software or is never used. Is that were we are? And if so, does this still correlate with IQ findings between groups of people?

 

I would like to clear this part up before possibly going back to other things such as changing IQ or environmental factors. However, that might possibly be another thread.

 

Also another possible thread: Does IQ have a direct relationship with with willingness to listen to reason and fact based arguments. This one I know nothing about. Let me know if you are interested in starting that conversation. Or if you have the answer just tell me.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I understand where Will Torbald is coning from, but what he is referencing can be said about most intelligence theories. Just about all theories hold that a large part of intelligence is hereditary.

 

 

As far as I'm aware, there is no predictive measure of intelligence that is as broadly encompassing and reliable in its findings as IQ. I recommend the interviews with various experts on the show to hear the data behind this claim. 

 

To the extent there are differences that can be scientifically established by IQ tests, and to the extent these tests predict various outcomes better than other tests, then it doesn't really matter what IQ tests fail to capture. The standard is not perfection because that would be impossible with something as complex as intelligence, but rather the standard is how predictive and reliable IQ tests are in measuring such things as job performance, school performance, crime rates, differences in income, and probably a few other things I'm forgetting to mention, compared to other tests of intelligence.

 

It is also important and useful that if you equalize the differences in IQ among the races (compare 100 IQ black to 100 IQ white), then most if not all of the differences among races disappear in terms of income, school performance, and crime.

 

Even if there was nothing that could be done at the present to change IQ, there is still a tremendous potential benefit for society to acknowledge differences in IQ, because then it could be used as the basis to eliminate a lot of extremely harmful government programs in education, and especially among the many detrimental programs and rhetoric which mistake differences in IQ for "white racism."

 

If IQ is a mostly genetic difference, then it is becomes a very hard case to make that white people are responsible for that difference, when it's most likely whites were not even in contact with blacks when they developed these differences).

[Guest Gee]

Whats your IQ OP? You must of taken a test.

[Just a Thought]

I don't see how this pertains to this conversation but ok. I have never actually taken an IQ test. I didn't think it was relevant to my life before is started researching intelligence. I have started looking around but a lot of them don't look to reliable. Got any suggestions?

[rosencrantz]

Society is an emergent propery of IQ distribution, trust, guilt / shame, and mode of family relationships. You cannot tell how a person with a low IQ or high IQ will do in life. But you can predict how a low IQ society will look like. 

[Thus_Spake_the_Nightspirit]

 

 

A lot of people have problems with the IQ theory. IQ is suppose to give a total view of ones intelligence, but it really doesn't. The two main things that are measured are reasoning and problem-solving skills, and the test taking speed is also taken into account. Now while these things are important, I believe it doesn't capture the whole spectrum and complexity of human intelligence and is ultimately just as snapshot of one part of the brain. It doesn't measure things such as creativity, curiosity, and emotional readiness and stability. Not to mention, IQ has been shown to change overtime and may be different the next day. This of course is hard to measure but there are some studies on it. One study showed that after four years, 33 applicants' scores varied up to 20 points in either direction. that is a pretty big disparity. Environment and culture also has an effect on IQ, but that is a completely other can of worms.

 

 

Suppose a person has a lot of creativity, curiosity, emotional readiness and stability, but low IQ. How far do you think such a person will go in life, if they don't have the IQ to put their talents to productive use? 

[Guest Gee]

I don't see how this pertains to this conversation but ok. I have never actually taken an IQ test. I didn't think it was relevant to my life before is started researching intelligence. I have started looking around but a lot of them don't look to reliable. Got any suggestions?

 

IQ goes with reaction time and SAT scores. You can follow these instructions to get a pretty good idea of your IQ.

 

The reason I ask is as follows. Should one take an IQ test and discover that one is cognitively unspectacular then that might well negatively impact ones (false) ego. When confronted with such an impact one might react to preserve the ego by working so as to undermine the efficacy or acceptance of IQ (see here blacks, mestizos and women).

 

So given that IQ is really quight spectacular in its predictive powers my first question in any discussion pertaining to IQ is, what is your IQ? Though I am really asking do you have something to gain by undermining the efficacy or acceptance of IQ.

 

w.r.t. computer analogies, are you familiar with information theory? Specifically Landauer's principle?

[Eh Steve]

 

 

 One study showed that after four years, 33 applicants' scores varied up to 20 points in either direction. that is a pretty big disparity.

 

 

Could you link that for me?  That would be a pretty big deal and unexpected from everything I've read before.

[Mister Mister]

Ok. So if we still use the computer analogy, IQ is like the processing power of a computer. You can still make amazing things on a slow computer if you have the right software. On the other hand, a really good computer is useless if it doesn't run any software or is never used. Is that were we are? And if so, does this still correlate with IQ findings between groups of people?

Yes that is my primitive understanding of it.  Another comparison Stef uses that is helpful is height:  height is mostly genetic, though environmental factors can negatively affect it.  If you feed a kid more, he won't grow taller, just fatter, but if you don't feed him enough he may not be as tall as he would otherwise.  Similarly, circumcision, lack of breastfeeding, spanking, and neglect can negatively impact a child's IQ, but there isn't anything we know of that boosts their IQ that much.

 

  IQ tends to correlate to certain life outcomes such as criminality, income, divorce, life expectancy, and so on.  In the same way, height tends to correlate to success on the basketball court.  However, a short person can work hard and become a decent basketball player.  Similarly, a person with average or lower IQ can still do great things, be productive, be virtuous, and loved in their community and family.  However, the lies we have put out in society over the last 50 or 60 years make it nearly impossible to do so.  The Cultural Marxist drug of Victimology gives a release to the frustrations of the simpleton, and denies him the facts, the arguments for virtue, the skills and motivation, to overcome his mental deficiency. 

 

Another way of saying it, is that less intelligent people need clear cues from society about what kind of choices they should make to have a happy, healthy, and productive life.  In a funny way, it is less intelligent people who benefit from philosophy the most!  This would be the Software, or Operating System, in your computer analogy.  Art, in particular, I believe, is a way for more intelligent people to impress values and virtues on less intelligent people.  In the past, I think religion did a decent job of serving this function, but that has largely fallen away in the West.

[Just a Thought]

Could you link that for me?  That would be a pretty big deal and unexpected from everything I've read before.

I went back and looked at it and it's references. It was a slightly different topic that what we are discussing. My bad. The article talks about how, as the brain is developing and growing, IQ can fluctuate. As one grows older, it will become more and more stable. Similar but not the same, and it makes sense I guess. The hardware is still building itself for maximum efficiency. 

 

You can look at it and see if there is anything that I missed. I am dyslexic and reading small print is really hard for me. It is very possible I missed something.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7371/full/nature10514.html

RoseCodex, that makes a lot of sense thanks for explaining. I definitely want to research this more. I find this topic really interesting. But I can't help thinking that something might be off. It just rubs my moral compass the wrong way. That may be a cultural thing, but what ever. I can't help feeling like stuff like this will be used in bad ways. Everything can of course, but it feels like an excuse for intelligent people to rule less intelligent people. It feels very collectivist by splitting people into categories of intelligence. I would rather be more individualist in my assessment of peoples intelligence. Thoughts?

[rosencrantz]

It feels very collectivist by splitting people into categories of intelligence.

 

How so? There are stats for height, weight and what not. In addition, knowing your IQ means you can avoid making mistakes by studying something that is over your head, like science. If your IQ is around 100, don't study STEM, pick some humanities fluff.

[Eh Steve]

Thanks for the link Robert

 

I didn't see the 20 point metric, so I can't say for sure how much IQ varies from that study.  Dunno if its behind the paywall or not.  But that's pretty neat, I thought IQ was basically set in stone from a pretty young age.

 

I think your line of thought is pretty interesting.  I don't personally have a great answer to it, there is a podcast out there where Stef gives his review of EQ you might like.  Since you found a link for me I'll give one for you  https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43349-lacking-empathy-what-now/?hl=%2Bemotional+%2Bintelligence#entry435872

www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/3228/why-emotional-intelligence-is-nonsense-call-in-show-march-11th-2016

 

I did some looking into IQ tests online for a while, there was a really nice one from the high IQ society but it got paywalled a few years ago.  This is the best one I am familiar with at the moment:  http://www.iqtest.dk  It is a standard ravens progressive matricies test.

 

The last time I talked about IQ with a good friend of mine he brought up Miller's Aptitude Tests.  http://www.pearsonassessments.com/postsecondaryeducation/graduate_admissions/mat.html

 

He was of the same impression that IQ tests, particularly Ravens Progressive, only really give responses for spatial reasoning and pattern recognition.  And that creativity and even virtues may be more important to a personality and may not correlate directly with IQ.  

 

I have the same issue as you with IQ to some extent.  I'm wary of anything that frees up the ability to feel vain or spray contempt at people.  It doesn't mean the studies of IQ aren't accurate or relevant for people, buuuuuut I wouldn't want IQ to become a reason to despise other people.  Coming up with a good answer for what is worth hating people / feeling contempt over can be pretty tricky.  And division lines like intelligence, social status, race, whatever, can be pretty tempting to be used as an excuse for self-aggrandizement and hatred of people who are different.  Intelligence might have very little to do with how much you like someone and may not be a factor in someone being a good person.  So I may understand your reservations around IQ if has to do with this sort of vanity/hatred dynamic that can come up.

[Worlok]

Ok. So if we still use the computer analogy, IQ is like the processing power of a computer. You can still make amazing things on a slow computer if you have the right software. On the other hand, a really good computer is useless if it doesn't run any software or is never used. Is that were we are? And if so, does this still correlate with IQ findings between groups of people?

 

I would like to clear this part up before possibly going back to other things such as changing IQ or environmental factors. However, that might possibly be another thread.

 

Also another possible thread: Does IQ have a direct relationship with with willingness to listen to reason and fact based arguments. This one I know nothing about. Let me know if you are interested in starting that conversation. Or if you have the answer just tell me.

 

The whole quote seems to question knowledge vs physical cognitive ability, so I'll just go with that.

 

As I understand the brain, there are two types of knowledge and two types of IQ.

 

Temporary and permanent knowledge. Temporary is purely chemical and many aspects of a memory may be forgotten prior to synapses developing. Permanent memory is basically chunks of neurons that all send electrical signals in a pattern. The pattern is the way that the synapses (connections between neurons) have developed. connected like kinex or some other toy. If the neurons aren't frequently accessed, they are forgotten in what seems to be the brain preferring other neural pathways. The more connections between neurons to any given piece of information, the easier it is to get there. Like if every room in your house had a hallway to the toilet. It's always the easiest and quickest to get to and you will always know how to get there. The connections are constantly growing in number. you keep building away from that information, so if you don't keep building hallways to the toilet, it gets harder to find your way there. however, once you have accessed that memory, you remember other things that are directly connected. You will also start developing new pathways to this memory while you are thinking of it. Your brain is one big game of connect the dots, but you keep connecting the dots until every dot is connected to every dot. Problem is is that there are so damn  many dots.

 

fluid and crystalline intelligence. Crystalline intelligence is basically your maximal level of operation. It is there. It's going to stay there. Then there is fluid intelligence. Fluid intelligence can grow. You can train it, but if you stop it will shrink. Stupid people can build their fluid intelligence through hard work and persistence. they can get all the same good grades that a genius can. They can get all the same jobs. it's just really really damn hard. smart people have high crystalline intelligence. However, if they also work really really damn hard, you will still seem like you belong on the short bus regardless of your test scores.

 

Now, my actual point is this: the more you know, the less you have to figure out. If you were taught how to think logically from the very beginning and you know how to stop and think, it won't be difficult. If you never learned how to think logically, you will probably fail and get emotional. If you are very intelligent, you don't require as much teaching or possibly any at all to know how to think logically. The highly intelligent people have an edge at all time. You don't have to stop and let me figure out theoretical physics before continuing explaining for me to get the basic idea. I don't really know much about physics. I just follow logic well. for a person with a below average IQ, they may need to study for a few years before they can understand as well as I can, which isn't to say that it's all that well. So, a super genius can follow you, a moron can also follow you, If they already have a certain level of information on the subject.  So, you can learn to listen. You can learn to think logically. It will certainly help if you also know a fair amount of information about a topic as you listen and think logically. If you never learned to think logically, learned to listen, or learned about the subject, you will not be able to compete like somebody with high intelligence and the same lack of knowledge. 

 

Not being a moron is harder for a moron, but both their knowledge and fluid intelligence can grow to be a veritable force of nature.

[The Invisible Gorilla]

Hey everyone!

 

I am new here and I am looking to learn as much as I can. I am interested in intelligence and IQ. My main question is "Why does this blog hold the IQ intelligence theory to be true rather than some other ones?" 

 

I have been researching this topic for a while and there are a lot of options out there. I can flesh some out if you guys want. Just let me know.

 

Hi Robert,

 

I'm also interested in the intelligence debate. A couple of months ago, I contributed a post to the General Messages section of the forum entitled: The Data Used to Support IQ Heritability Estimates are JUNK. I think you might find it interesting. Let me know what you think.

 

Thanks

[rosencrantz]

There is another way to find out about the heritability of IQ. You don't need twins raised apart to find out. In fact, you can take adopted children and compare their socio-economic status to their biological parents and to the parents who adopted them. There are two different outcomes:

- The socioeconomic status of the adopted children is similar to their biological parents. In that case, genetics is the deciding factor.

- The socioeconomic status is similar to the parents who adopted. In that case, the enviroment plays a bigger role than genetics. 

With a bit of research you can find out which is the case. 

[The Invisible Gorilla]

There is another way to find out about the heritability of IQ. You don't need twins raised apart to find out. In fact, you can take adopted children and compare their socio-economic status to their biological parents and to the parents who adopted them. There are two different outcomes:

 

- The socioeconomic status of the adopted children is similar to their biological parents. In that case, genetics is the deciding factor.

 

- The socioeconomic status is similar to the parents who adopted. In that case, the enviroment plays a bigger role than genetics. 

 

With a bit of research you can find out which is the case. 

 

Hi rosencrantz,

 

I did not say you 'need' to study twins reared apart to estimate heritability. Please don't straw-man. I merely quoted Herrnstein and Murray (1994), who view studies of twins reared apart as '‘The most unambiguous direct estimates' (p. 107) of IQ heritability.

 

Joseph (2004) goes into great detail as to why the adoption studies used to support the genetic component in various traits are garbage, too. I recommend you have a look at his critique. I may create another post outlining some of the arguments against the validity of the adoption studies but I'm occupied by other things at the moment. Regardless, the validity of adoption studies doesn't negate the issues with 'reared apart' twin studies, which are commonly used to justify high estimates of IQ heritability.

 

References

 

Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994) The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Simon & Schuster

 

Joseph, J. (2004). The gene illusion. New York. Algora.

[Mister Mister]

Hi rosencrantz,

 

I did not say you 'need' to study twins reared apart to estimate heritability. Please don't straw-man. I merely quoted Herrnstein and Murray (1994), who view studies of twins reared apart as '‘The most unambiguous direct estimates' (p. 107) of IQ heritability.

 

Joseph (2004) goes into great detail as to why the adoption studies used to support the genetic component in various traits are garbage, too. I recommend you have a look at his critique. I may create another post outlining some of the arguments against the validity of the adoption studies but I'm occupied by other things at the moment. Regardless, the validity of adoption studies doesn't negate the issues with 'reared apart' twin studies, which are commonly used to justify high estimates of IQ heritability.

 

References

 

Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994) The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Simon & Schuster

 

Joseph, J. (2004). The gene illusion. New York. Algora.

That's interesting, but at the moment, we don't have a way to raise IQ significantly (apart from less hitting and more breastfeeding as I mentioned), so even if it isn't genetic, the major arguments hold.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Hi rosencrantz,

 

I did not say you 'need' to study twins reared apart to estimate heritability. Please don't straw-man. I merely quoted Herrnstein and Murray (1994), who view studies of twins reared apart as '‘The most unambiguous direct estimates' (p. 107) of IQ heritability.

 

Joseph (2004) goes into great detail as to why the adoption studies used to support the genetic component in various traits are garbage, too. I recommend you have a look at his critique. I may create another post outlining some of the arguments against the validity of the adoption studies but I'm occupied by other things at the moment. Regardless, the validity of adoption studies doesn't negate the issues with 'reared apart' twin studies, which are commonly used to justify high estimates of IQ heritability.

 

References

 

Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994) The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Simon & Schuster

 

Joseph, J. (2004). The gene illusion. New York. Algora.

 

He wasn't attempting to repeat what you said. He was providing additional information. By your logic, everyone who doesn't reply on your terms is straw-manning you. Please do not poison the well, guy.

[The Invisible Gorilla]

That's interesting, but at the moment, we don't have a way to raise IQ significantly (apart from less hitting and more breastfeeding as I mentioned), so even if it isn't genetic, the major arguments hold.

 

Hi RoseCodex,

 

When you say 'major arguments', what are you referring to?

He wasn't attempting to repeat what you said. He was providing additional information. By your logic, everyone who doesn't reply on your terms is straw-manning you. Please do not poison the well, guy.

 

Hi Mtt,

 

I'm sure rosencrantz is capable of explaining what he/she was attempting to do, if he/she wishes to do so, and does not need you to speak on his/her behalf. That said, I'm not really sure what 'your terms' is supposed to mean. I labelled the comment as straw-manning because rosencrantz referred to my post by implying I said something I did not say (i.e. that one 'needs' to study reared apart twins in order to measure IQ heritability). If rosencrantz's post was exactly the same but for the sentence about needing to study reared about twins, I would agree with you that the post was just supplying additional information, and would not have labelled it straw-manning. Either way, I still view it as an attempt to subtly dismiss the evidence I had already presented, without actually addressing its contents.

[rosencrantz]

I used 'you' as a generic term. Meaning there are other ways to study the heritability of IQ than the twin studies. It may well be that the twin studies are fraught with problems because of the small sample size and other problems. But these problems are overcome with other adoption studies. 

I had a look at a critique of Joseph's book and it seems that he focuses on twin studies and the way they were used to explain the aetiology of mental disorders like Schizophrenia and the like. I cannot see how this can be a refutation what I wrote when I said that adoption studies (in the vast number of cases there were no twins involved) show that IQ (not a mental disorder in my book) is heritable.

[The Invisible Gorilla]

I used 'you' as a generic term. Meaning there are other ways to study the heritability of IQ than the twin studies. It may well be that the twin studies are fraught with problems because of the small sample size and other problems. But these problems are overcome with other adoption studies. 

 

I had a look at a critique of Joseph's book and it seems that he focuses on twin studies and the way they were used to explain the aetiology of mental disorders like Schizophrenia and the like. I cannot see how this can be a refutation what I wrote when I said that adoption studies (in the vast number of cases there were no twins involved) show that IQ (not a mental disorder in my book) is heritable.

 

Hi rosencrantz,

 

I'm aware that you used 'you' as a general term.

 

Joseph (2004) also has a chapter (ch. 9) on IQ in which he refers to adoption studies. One of the studies he mentions that contradicts the view that IQ cannot be increased was conducted by Schiff et al. (1982).

 

References

 

Joseph, J. (2004). The gene illusion. New York. Algora.

 

Schiff, M., Duyme, M., Dumaret, A., & Tomkiewicz, S. (1982). How much could we boost scholastic achievement and IQ scores? A direct answer from a French adoption study. Cognition, 12(2), 165-196.

[rosencrantz]

The effects observed are an increase of 14 IQ points in the mean IQ score estimated with 2 tests 

 

That's well within the 80% heritability thesis. How does that contradict Jensen?

[Mister Mister]

Hi RoseCodex,

 

When you say 'major arguments', what are you referring to?

  The importance of IQ is to understand why different groups have varying degrees of success.  The leftist narrative is that white countries are rich, and other places are poor because we stole from them, enslaved and oppressed them.  And that blacks and other racial groups don't do as well within white countries because of racism.  Race and IQ is an important piece to understanding why this is BS.  If it is not genetic but something else, that's interesting, but unless that gives us a way to increase IQ, I'm not sure how relevant that is.

[The Invisible Gorilla]

That's well within the 80% heritability thesis. How does that contradict Jensen?

 

'There is simply no good evidence that social environmental factors have a large effect on IQ, particularly in adolescence and beyond, except in cases of extreme environmental deprivation.' Jensen, 1988, p. 476)

 

Schiff et al. (1982) reported an increase in IQ of almost an entire standard deviation compared to a control group.

 

References

 

Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor. Westport, CT: Praeger.

 

Schiff, M., Duyme, M., Dumaret, A., & Tomkiewicz, S. (1982). How much could we boost scholastic achievement and IQ scores? A direct answer from a French adoption study. Cognition, 12(2), 165-196.

[rosencrantz]

Schiff et al. (1982) reported an increase in IQ of almost an entire standard deviation compared to a control group.

 

 

80 IQ *1,2 (good enviroment) = 96 IQ. That's an increase of 16 and well within the limits of the studies of an IQ increase of 14. I cannot see how that contradicts the heritability.

[The Invisible Gorilla]

 

80 IQ *1,2 (good enviroment) = 96 IQ. That's an increase of 16 and well within the limits of the studies of an IQ increase of 14. I cannot see how that contradicts the heritability.

 

 

Sorry rosencrantz, I don't understand what you have written. Schiff et al. (1982) doesn't even discuss heritability estimates and I didn't mention them, either. As I said, the study contradicts the view of Jensen (1998) and others that environmental influences can't significantly alter IQ scores. Schiff et al. compared the IQ scores of working class children who were adopted into upper-middle class families with a control group and found the former's scores to be almost a standard deviation higher than the latter's. 

 

'In conclusion, if French children of lower-class parents were reared under exactly the same conditions as the adopted children of our study, they would obtain IQ scores and scholastic results close to those presently observed for up middle-class children. Our observations indicate that, in the population at large, failure is linked with the social class of the parents rather than with the genes they transmit, but these observations only provide ambiguous answers about: genetic differences between children of various social groups. The important point however is that, within the range allowed by our observations and by those of other authors, the answers to these latter questions are not only technically ambiguous but are also of marginal social relevance. We hope that our work will contribute in making more evident the fact that questions concerning the reproduction of social inequalities from one generation to the next cannot be answered by a genetic analysis of IQ scores, and also in making evident the even more important fact that improvements in social conditions could go a long way to ‘boost IQ and scholastic achievement’. (Schiff et al., p. 186-187)

 

I would also like to briefly mention that the concept of heritability is very often misunderstood. There are critics (Joseph, 2004, ch. 5) who argue it should be abandoned, except for use by animal and plant breeders. I'm still trying to get to grips with how to articulate its flaws, myself, so for now I'll just share some critiques that I've found interesting (e.g. Hirsch, 1997; Joseph, 2004; Wahlsten, 1994). 

 

References

 

Hirsch, J. (1997). Some history of heredity-vs-environment, genetic inferiority at Harvard (?), and The (incredible) Bell Curve. Genetica, 99(2-3), 207-224.

 

Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor. Westport, CT: Praeger.

 

Joseph, J. (2004). The gene illusion. New York. Algora.

 

Schiff, M., Duyme, M., Dumaret, A., & Tomkiewicz, S. (1982). How much could we boost scholastic achievement and IQ scores? A direct answer from a French adoption study. Cognition, 12(2), 165-196.

 

Wahlsten, D. (1994). The intelligence of heritability. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 35(3), 244.

[rosencrantz]

A 20% increase or decrease is by no means a significant change in IQ.

[The Invisible Gorilla]

A 20% increase or decrease is by no means a significant change in IQ.

 

This is just an assertion... 

 

Based on this view, the reported Black-White difference in IQ of roughly one standard deviation (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) is unimportant and increasing Black average IQ scores to match White averages would not be considered a 'significant' change. Similarly, if White IQ scores dropped by a standard deviation due to some unknown environmental factor and became equal to Black scores, this would not be worth mentioning in your view. Do you consider disparities in IQ noteworthy or not? I thought you did, but based on your latest comment, it sounds like you don't.

 

References

 

Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994) The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Simon & Schuster

[rosencrantz]

Based on this view, the reported Black-White difference in IQ of roughly one standard deviation (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) is unimportant and increasing Black average IQ scores to match White averages would not be considered a 'significant' change.

 

Not really. If you have white kids in a dysfunctional enviroment, then seperate their sibling and put them in a good enviroment you will see what the French studies shows. Namely that the dysfunctional enviroment brings down the IQ a bit, while the good enviroment brings it up a bit. The sum of that are the 14 point IQ increase. That's because whites with a normal 100 IQ have a larger variability than blacks with a 90 IQ, when the enviromental factor is 20%.