"Not Guilty" Does Not Equal "Innocent", And Related Fallacies

Wild Bill Jacobson shows more courage than discretion by diving into the Harvard Law School debate (I cited it as an example of epistemic closure here).

One of his links is to Brian Leiter, a professor of law and philosophy who ought to be far beyond simple logical fallacies. Or not.

Let's focus on this from Prof. Leiter (whose name may be familiar to long-time readers here):

Given the magnitude of Ms. Grace's ignorance, and the fact that ignorance was skewed in favor of racist stereotypes, it is unsurprising that she has been pilloried for her views.  (To her credit, Ms. Grace did apologize for the offensive e-mail.) To be clear, as I understand it, all of the following is uncontroversial: 

1.  There is substantial evidence that IQ is heritable (which does not mean, contrary to what many blogs, as well as the HLS student, seem to think, that it has a genetic basis).

2.  IQ is, at best, a controversial measure of intelligence.

3.  There is no evidence--literally, none--that IQ differences between racial groups have a genetic basis.

I have no problem with (2).  As to (3), I suppose it depends on what one means by "evidence".  Certainly there is no proof, from which we might argue that there is no convincing evidence.  Whether that means that suggestive but inconclusive evidence doesn't exist is, I guess, a matter of philosophy.  Or semantics.

But my real objection is to (1), which is restated a bit later in the post as this:

A very clear explanation of the main points is this essay by Ned Block (NYU).  It is useful, in particular, in explaining why the heritability of IQ is not evidence of its having a genetic basis.

Well, well.  I found the Block essay to be fascinating, often well-reasoned, and utterly convincing on his central point - as a matter of logic, it is entirely possible for a trait to be heritable yet not have a direct genetic basis.  By establishing this point, Block pushes back against the Bell Curve hypothesis.

Several examples are offered to make this point.  As a South Park tribute, let's pick up the one on redheads:

Let's start with an example. Consider a culture in which red-haired children are beaten over the head regularly, but all other children are treated well. This effect will increase the measured heritability of IQ because red-haired identical twins will tend to resemble one another in IQ (because they will both have low IQs) no matter what the social class of the family in which they are raised. The effect of a red-hair gene on red hair is a "direct" genetic effect because the gene affects the color via an internal biochemical process. By contrast, a gene affects a characteristic indirectly by producing a direct effect which interacts with the environment so as to affect the characteristic. In the hypothetical example, the red hair genes affect IQ indirectly. In the case of IQ, no one has any idea how to separate out direct from indirect genetic effects because no one has much of an idea how genes and environment affect IQ. For that reason, we don't know whether or to what extent the roughly 60 percent heritability of IQ found in White populations is indirect heritability as opposed to direct heritability.

OK.  That makes sense, from which it follows that the available evidence in the Bell Curve and follow-ups won't be sufficient to resolve the question of nature versus nurture in the race and IQ debate.  If this were a jury trial and the Bell Curve authors were the prosecutor, the jury would have to come back with a "Not Guilty" verdict (In memory of Arlen Specter, "Not Proven" would suffice.)

But this is not a jury trial, and "Not Guilty" does not mean "Innocent".  The Bell Curve evidence may not be strong enough to make the authors' case, but demonstrating that their case is not proven does not prove that it is wrong.

Or let's try some classic logic - Socrates is a man; some men like bowling; therefore Socrates is a bowler.  True or false?

How about, "We don't know"?  The available information is hardly sufficient to logically deduce that Socrates is a bowler.  However, it would be hasty to insist that he cannot be.

Leiter is making the leap from "Not Proven True" to "Proven False" as a faith-based initiative.  Let's reprise his first proposition:

(1) There is substantial evidence that IQ is heritable (which does not mean, contrary to what many blogs, as well as the HLS student, seem to think, that it has a genetic basis).

What that should say is, there is substantial evidence that IQ is heritable, which does not mean that it *must* have a genetic basis.  Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, and we don't know enough to be sure.

That interpretation would be consistent with Block's essay, by the way - the error of interpretation lies with Leiter.  This is from Block's conclusion:

In effect, the field has adopted as an axiom that heritability of IQ can be measured by current methods. Without this assumption, the right conclusion would be that since we cannot separate indirect genetic effects (including certain kinds of gene/environment covariance) from pure genetic variance, no heritability estimate can be made.

...The points I've just made about indirect heritability show why, as I said at the beginning of this section, any inferences from heritability statistics to genetic disadvantage would be misguided. Such inferences seem plausible if we assume that the heritability of IQ within Whites reflects differences in IQ caused by differences in IQ genes. But the points about indirect heritability show that we don't know whether any of the variation within Whites is due to variation in IQ genes. If we have no real grip on the kinds of causal mechanisms that produce the 60 percent heritability within Whites, we can have no confidence in any extrapolation to Blacks. 

The notion that the direct genetic contribution can't be measured and may not exist is quite different from Leiter's assertion that there is no genetic contribution.  That undermines his familiar denunciations of the "know-nothing blogosphere" and leads us back to the agnosticism expressed by the beleaguered Harvard Law student.

MORE LOGICAL FALLACIES:  In a new post, the professor of philosophy lays out the error in logic that is the foundation of his mistake:

If a purported piece of evidence is logically compatible with P and ~P, then it can't actually be evidence for either...

True, but not on point.  Suppose the proposition at hand is "There is a component to IQ that is heritable due to direct genetic effects."  The negation of that proposition would be "There is *not* a component of IQ that is heritable due to direct genetic effects".  But Block, and the rest of the world, are dealing with an alternative, competing hypothesis, namely, "There is a component of IQ that is heritable due to interplay between genes and the environment".  That is not the negation of the original proposition, and evidence for one could be evidence for the other. 

I belabor that here.

SPEAKING OF MAKING THINGS UP:  Brian Leiter obfuscates in his response:

I am sorry to have to spell this out in such tedious detail, since I'm sure it was obvious to many readers the first time around.  But perhaps it will do some good, maybe even with the proverbial know-nothings of the blogosphere, who, alas, did not disappoint.  This one, for example, despite actually making an effort, it appears, to read Ned Block's essay, announces with a sense of triumph that Block's essay does not support "Leiter's assertion that there is no genetic contribution."  But, of course, I nowhere asserted any such thing: this right-wing blogger just made it up.  "There is no evidence--literally none--that IQ differences between racial groups have a genetic basis" means what it says.

Uh huh.  That is his point (3), with which I am in caveated agreement.  I specifically challenged his point (1), which he quotes only in part in his own response. Let me offer a more complete reminder, with emphasis:

1.  There is substantial evidence that IQ is heritable (which does not mean, contrary to what many blogs, as well as the HLS student, seem to think, that it has a genetic basis).

His current position seems to be that he said no such thing.  To aid himself, he excerpts only this much of his proposition (1) in his latest:

In response to the earlier post, various e-mailers and bloggers proceeded to cite the heritability studies (apparently not noticing my first "uncontroversial" proposition, namely, that "There is substantial evidence that IQ is heritable")...

So initially, Leiter informed us that although IQ is heritable, this does not mean it has a genetic basis.  I corrected that to note that Block's real point is that, although IQ may be heritable, that is not proof that there is a direct genetic basis; the genetic mechanism may work through an interaction with the environment. 

Now Leiter wants to suppress his earlier parenthetical aside and claim that I "made it up" when he summarized his view as being that being that there is no genetic contribution to IQ.  I suppose he would insist that he has always been open to the genetic/environmental interaction, so in that sense I am mis-stating his view.  I think my meaning was clear, even if it is not well presented in half a sentence (I would have been more correct saying that Leiter asserts there is no direct genetic contribution to IQ, a point which remains unproven).

Still, Shorter Leiter is that we should ignore what he writes in assessing what he writes.  Good advice.

Comments

[Danube of Thought]

I am (was) a redhead. I was not beaten over the head as a child. Therefore I am... well, I'm not sure.

All people without moustaches are comedians. Groucho Marx does not have a moustache. Therefore, Groucho Marx is a comedian.

[Danube of Thought]

I had a statistics prof who demonstrated to my satisfaction that sitting in the first three rows at burlesque shows causes baldness.

I had a physics prof who demonstrated to my satisfaction that if you dammed up the Bay of Fundy the moon would fall into the earth.

Just thought you'd like to know...

[rse]

Is it even appropriate to talk about the Bell Curve when you are talking about nonrandom events?

Especially by the time you are talking about who is getting into these Ivy League grad programs.

[rse]

DOT-

You seem to be having a fun evening.

[MeTooThen]

Sigh.

This is so tiresome.

Tom, you are trying to inject logic and reason as a way to assuage a culture's narcissistic rage and fury.

That, or it's like trying overcome someone's religious faith with math.

In Sum: Some Thoughts and Words are Forbidden.

Our Bettors Will be our Judges.

The Edicts of the Judges are Perfect and Immutable, until a Time when it suites the Needs of the Judges.

Example: Ice Age Cometh - Global Warming - Climate Change.

So Tiresome.

By the way, people are trying to kill us in cities like New York.

But not to worry.

It isn't terrorism.

They acted alone.

It was probably due to their dislike of the health care bill.

Oops!

There I go again.

[MeTooThen]

Sigh.

This is so tiresome.

Tom, you are trying to inject logic and reason as a way to assuage a culture's narcissistic rage and fury.

That, or it's like trying overcome someone's religious faith with math.

In Sum: Some Thoughts and Words are Forbidden.

Our Bettors Will be our Judges.

The Edicts of the Judges are Perfect and Immutable, until a Time when it suites the Needs of the Judges.

Example: Ice Age Cometh - Global Warming - Climate Change.

So Tiresome.

By the way, people are trying to kill us in cities like New York.

But not to worry.

It isn't terrorism.

They acted alone.

It was probably due to their dislike of the health care bill.

Oops!

There I go again.

[MeTooThen]

Betters.

LOL.

Can't type and eat.

Enjoy!

[Cecil Turner]

What that should say is, there is substantial evidence that IQ is heritable, which does not mean that it *must* have a genetic basis.

TM, you're working way too hard on this one. If you look up the word "heritability," you'll see definitions that are some variation of:

Heritability is the proportion of phenotypic variation in a population that is attributable to genetic variation.

Yeah, that means it's genetic. Block's essay was a longwinded attempt to talk around the subject, and Leiter is wrong by definition. (Dude, buy a dictionary.)

And while we're at it, can anyone point out the error in the egregious 3L's e-mail to me? Here is the offending passage:

I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances. The fact is, some things are genetic.

[Emphasis added . . . BTW, we call those "genetic" things "heritable."]

Looks to me like she's saying "not proven" on a subject that is definitively not proven . . . and demonstrating a mind far more open than Professor L's. Further, if she were saying something politically correct, like "Asians are smarter than white people," it'd be uncontroversial. But failing to toe the PC line in a leftist bastion is apparently beyond the pale.

I think I'll have a "beer summit" with myself to ponder this (or maybe not).

[Jim Ryan]

Grace has no idea whether blacks are "genetically predisposed to be less intelligent." Neither does Leiter. But he calls her "ignorant." Huh.

At least she is aware that she doesn't know.

[jimmyk]

I wonder how this guy (who I'm guessing has never done any actual empirical research) views the hypothesis that women are discriminated against in the labor market, based on the fact that, women earn less than men--on average and after controlling for things like occupation, age, etc. Is he just as dismissive of the discrimination hypothesis, since "the right conclusion would be that since we cannot separate indirect [earnings] effects (including certain kinds of [gender/skill/lifestyle choice] covariance) from pure [discrimination], no [discrimination] estimate can be made."

This was essentially Larry Summers's point--it's not necessarily discrimination, there could be other things going on. Yet I'm guessing that this guy is a little more charitable toward the discrimination hypothesis despite the similarity of the reasoning.

[srp]

Two problems with the indirect heritability of IQ hypothesis in whites :

1) There is no plausible mechanism. The identical twins raised apart supposedly have some sort of marker that interacts with the environment in a common fashion? Like what?

2) The distinction between direct and indirect is very blurry. For example, suppose I have a gene that enables me to absorb oxygen better and that makes me think faster. It's an "indirect" effect but it might as well be "direct" for all practical purposes. What Block really means to say is that there might be traits that interact with the SOCIAL environment--hence his redhead example. So maybe cute infants get more attention and cuteness is hereditary and attention increases IQ...but that would be testable in a number of ways and I would be highly skeptical. Especially since there are experiments showing that IQ correlates with speed in pushing buttons in response to blinking lights.

[Clarice]

here's been a lengthy two day discussion of this at Volokh Conspiracy under a post by eugene Volokh.

I think the attack on the student was ridiculous and here point well taken.

I also think at this point there is no moral way to scientifically test the affect of nurture on IQ so for the moment we all need to be agnostics.

[nathan hale]

The University of Chicago, isn't turning out sterling intellects like they used to, and we see why.

[Clarice]

Here's a link to Volokh.http://volokh.com/wp/wp-comments-post.php

[MarkO]

So, is this how brave people talk about race?

[Melinda Romanoff]

narciso-

It depends on the discipline, mind you.

O/T: Barone's latest.

[nathan hale]

Stuart Buck's blog, among others has grappled with Leiter in the past, Of course, I was alluding to the other famous U Chicago academic in public life nowadays.

So Ot, I read somewhere how the class action suit against BP supposedly alleges that the lack of an accoustical valve, is the result of
Cheney's energy taskforce or something

[Murgatroyd]

I prefer Woody Allen's syllogism, from the movie Love and Death:

All men are mortal;
Socrates is a man;
Therefore ... all men are Socrates!

[bunkerbuster]

Except there's no biological or genetic category called "black" or "white" and anyone making an assertion based on a "black" race is spouting junk science. That would certainly include the "Bell Curve" authors.

"Black" or "African-American" are cultural/political/geographic descriptions. Even the genes that control skin color vary as widely within the group we call "black." To suggest a genetic link to intelligence within groupings based on skin color is totally bogus, as is the suggestion that it's a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry, since it has yet to be "disproven."
The aggrieved political reactions of white supremacists are telling, though...

[Cecil Turner]

Karate man bleed on the inside.

[Melinda Romanoff]

DoT-

Is changing avatars a lot, if DoT were here, I wonder.

G'night all.

[Pofarmer]

So, Herefords and Angus and Santa Gertrudis and Water Buffalo and Brahma are all cattle. Does that mean they are all identical? Are the difference "Junk Science"? Is there anything the left can't twist into an unrecognizable PC pretzel?

[larwyn]

Just wish to toss a thought out. Still can't see well enough to be keeping busy with "collecting", as I rest eyes between graphs, mind bursts ensue.

Blacks in America may be divided into those who are descendants of slaves or those who freely choose to come to our country.

"Just saying": Would it not be obvious that those who were captured and then sold into slavery belonged to tribes/villages who were not up to providing defenses against raids or ambushes. Could be lack of foresight,
lack of development of better weapons, skill in use of weapons etc.

Therefore, would it be racist to imply that those captured might just have been not quite as intelligent or productive as their fellow Black Africans who captured them?

Could also be viewed as a "culling" of those less aware from the particularly tribe/village.

:::laughing::: After spending weeks with 4 yr old grandson, thinking of the THREE LITTLE PIGS, as the ones who only had the proverbial straw house to protect them were captured, those with better defenses, more aware of possibility of dangers, were not captured.

It has been pointed out by many that Blacks who come to this country freely, even illegally, have an entirely different outlook on the opportunities this country provides them. That is true of most of those who seek our shores, no matter their race or nationality.

That is versus the "cargo cult" mentality of too many of the American descendants of slaves.

Well, eyes tearing and burning so will stop.
Great to see that automatic spellcheck ( that bright red squiggle), even half blind I didn't miss it and sure saved at least 8 typos...sigh...

[Clarice]

Hi. larwyn. Glad to see you .

[nathan hale]

The great sin, of this country, was counting by race, an artificial construct, so the solution to this is counting by race??

[DrJ]

Phenotype does not follow genotype? Really?

[Danube of Thought]

Mel, I never know what avatar is going to show up when I post, and I have no idea whether or how I can influence the outcome. No impostors on this thread so far.

As for the alarmingly overmatched BBuster, we see that, characteristically, he discerns a universe divided into two parts: (1) those who agree with his position (whatever it may be) on this uncertain issue, and (2) white supremacists.

[Pofarmer]

Phenotype does not follow genotype? Really?

Phenotype is a racist construct, doc.

Just don't tell all the Border Collies and Labs.

[Pofarmer]

Phenotype does not follow genotype? Really?

Phenotype is a racist construct, doc.

Just don't tell all the Border Collies and Labs.

[cracky 5113jailfusion]

So some people are retards and it's genetic. O is retard and he used like a good retard should and now he's the real president of americans. See, he's ben a retard for generations. It goes way back when his caveman daddy chose to close his eyes and stare at shit that ain't there, like tits or somethin. Then it got genetic on him and ain't his fault anymore. But he figures if you go seein shit like him then he's okay, so you gotta dream and its happy. (Don't tell him he goes to hell anyway as fast as possible.)

Oh ya he listens to voices too, but it's Jesus or God so he's okay.

[bgates]

there's no biological or genetic category called "black" or "white" and anyone making an assertion based on a "black" race is spouting junk science

Don't waste this valuable insight down here in the comments. Tell these guys.

From the link:

Every racial or ethnic group has specific health concerns. Differences in the health of groups can result from

* Genetics
* Environmental factors
* Access to care
* Cultural factors

On this page, you’ll find links to health issues that affect African-Americans.

That's from MedlinePlus, "a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health".

[Pofarmer]

Obviously right wing nut jobs, bgates.

[DrJ]

Must be all of those whites with sickle cell anemia, Po.

[cathyf]

There is no plausible mechanism. The identical twins raised apart supposedly have some sort of marker that interacts with the environment in a common fashion? Like what?

Actually, there is a quite plausible mechanism -- even identical twins raised apart share the same uterine environment. The most common cause of non-inherited mental retardation is prenatal exposure to alcohol. If mothers of different races have different rates of usage of alcohol, nicotine and various other drugs during pregnancy, then that will result in different IQ distributions for sure.

Also, black babies are significantly more likely to be born premature than white, again causing average IQs to drop. Another difference -- black mothers are more likely to develop gestational diabetes, and are more likely to have type 2 diabetes before they get pregnant.

One significant environmental destroyer of intelligence is infant formula. About 10% of the IQ difference between whites and blacks can be explained by differences in breastfeeding rates between the two populations.

So, yeah, there are lots of quite reasonable mechanisms. Look, the public health authorities have spent decades telling us that a mother's behavior can injure her unborn child. Why should we be unable to imagine that mothers' behavior might injure their children?

[Antimedia]

Here's my intellectual contribution. I read Leiter's "argument". Leiter is an idiot. He can't even read and comprehend. Which must make his classes in the law quite interesting.

[sylvia]

I don't know why you are so interested in this subject Tom.

So blacks may not have as high of an IQ as whites. So what? I've read high IQ is a historical urban phenom and blacks and others may have been later to the urban phenom. But, what are we going to do about it? Nothing. Even if it's true, there's no point in talking about it that much. Obviously it has no bearing on individuals and what they can individually achieve.

And by the way affirmative action is actually about slavery and Jim Crow laws, creating a generational wealth imbalance, that only ended a couple generations ago. It's not about IQ.

[as]

May I throw something in here? It seems to me that there probably is a pretty strong link between race and intelligence. It requires a lot of mental gymnastics and tortuous logic to avoid drawing that conclusion from all the studies that have been done over the years. Furthermore, saying things like "well there is no definition of intelligence" or "there is no definition of race" is avoiding the issue. We can come up with good enough definitions of intelligence (like 'g', or IQ) that are highly correlated with success; and even defining race based on country of origin is good enough.

This poster "Lumbago" at the blog "Volokh Conspiracy" outlined it more eloquently than I ever could, so I link you to his/her two posts:
http://volokh.com/2010/04/30/science-faith-and-not-ruling-out-possibilities/#comment-816595
http://volokh.com/2010/04/30/science-faith-and-not-ruling-out-possibilities/#comment-816731

Here's the problem. Let's assume for a moment that this is the case and 'black' people have an average IQ of 70 vs. 100 for 'white' people.

It is absolutely disingenuous to pretend that this conclusion would exist in a vacuum. You _cannot_ simply say "well if those are the facts, we should study them, and debate them". Because if such a conclusion were proven to be true, it would immediately follow that discrimination is, for the most part, perfectly justifiable.

We're not talking about small differences here; what's the standard deviation of IQ; something like 15 or 20? So a 70 average IQ for black people would mean that the _average_ white man is a 1.5 or 2-sigma performer on the black curve. You want to rule out people who will likely perform slower at school or in your business? Just say 'no blacks need apply'. Because, I mean, sure, you might get a four-sigma black man applying, but you'll have a hundred times more two-sigma white men applying with the same intelligence, and then you don't have to sort through so many, ahem, stupid applicants.

You see what I'm getting at here? And also, it's not enough to say that a strong race-intelligence link would not justify discrimination in some formal logical sense, because that's not how it would play out in the real world. Sure, there would be no proof that any individual had this or that intelligence, and it would be nice if we all judged people based on the content of their character. But to get by in life, we have to constantly make judgments based on incomplete information. We don't like to admit it but we're constantly stereotyping and drawing unsupported inferences. And most of the time they're correct. (It's the times when they're not that lead to conflict and other people getting interested.) So in the real world, an admitted average black IQ of 70 (vs. 100 for white and 110 for Asian/Jewish) WOULD BE a license to discriminate. It'd take the wind out of the sails of anyone campaigning against discrimination. Such a conclusion would have so many bad effects that is it any wonder people don't want the matter to be studied at all?

What I'm trying to say is that you CANNOT consider this question without considering the implications. I like to think that I don't respect many taboos, and yet my conclusion that there likely IS a strong link between race and intelligence terrifies me, and makes me want to drop the matter altogether.

[Pofarmer]

What I'm trying to say is that you CANNOT consider this question without considering the implications. I like to think that I don't respect many taboos, and yet my conclusion that there likely IS a strong link between race and intelligence terrifies me, and makes me want to drop the matter altogether.

That's a rather cowardly attitude.

[Frau Karpfen]

I noticed over the years that most critics of The Bell Curve had not read the book or listened to either of the authors explain the book's purpose.
I imagine that Eric Holder agrees with Buster.

[Dave (in MA)]

Arrest made in NYC bomb plot No words beginning with mus- or isl- in the article, in case you were wondering.

[ben]

Napolitano deeply disappointed this guy is not a tea partier but she vows to be ready for tea party terrorists in the future.

[bgates]

by the way affirmative action is actually about slavery and Jim Crow laws

No it isn't. If it were, there would be some effort to restrict the beneficiaries of aa to the descendants of those who were enslaved six or seven generations ago.

No words beginning with mus- or isl- in the article

That's a relief! From Bloomberg's comments I was worried it would turn out to be a musclebound Tea Partier from Staten Island.

[crack13ja]

The terrorist is naturalized like O. Hawaii and everything.

[DrJ]

It's not about IQ.

Clearly not for the posters here.

[larwyn]

RE:

What I'm trying to say is that you CANNOT consider this question without considering the implications. I like to think that I don't respect many taboos, and yet my conclusion that there likely IS a strong link between race and intelligence terrifies me, and makes me want to drop the matter altogether.

That's a rather cowardly attitude.

Posted by: Pofarmer |

THIS is what terrifies most of us:

From I OWN THE WORLD
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=22831
Let’s Spread the Detroit

Home - by BigFurHat - May 3, 2010 - 22:10 UTC - 9 Comments

Do DPS control the Foundation or outside group? If an outside group control the foundation, then what is DPS Board row with selection of is director? Our we mixing DPS and None DPS row’s, and who is the watch dog?

No, I’m not drunk, nor did a stack of bicycles fall on my head at Walmart. The incoherent paragraph above was written by Detroit’s school board president, Otis Mathis. No, I’m not kidding. I am also not kidding when I say that this is the future of progressivism. This is the movie IDIOCRACY come to life.

When his complete lack of writing skills was discovered there was a debate which discussed whether Otis Mathis would keep his job or not. (Update: He is still Board President.) Why was there a discussion? The man is not an educator. He should not be in the field of education. He had a 1.8 grade average in school. The fact that he graduated is an embarrassment. Well, it’s an embarrassment to some. For progressives this is a stunning achievement, a culmination of years of activism. This is their dream. This is what America looks like under their regime. Not only will someone who never valued an education get a great job, he will be in charge of EDUCATION!

From The Detroit News: Laura Berman -

High school saw him bouncing back and forth between schools. “I was kicked out and kicked in and kicked out,” he says with a chuckle. He credits a high school English teacher with encouraging him to graduate, getting him to attend school “once a week instead of every two weeks” by giving him an audio version of Alex Haley’s “Roots,” one vinyl record at a time.

He went once a week? Bless his heart. And I can see exactly what his stunning achievement was that earned him a diploma. Some teacher had him LISTEN to ROOTS and then they quizzed him. He got 65% of the questions right and now he’s President of the school board. I weep for America.

Here’s another one of the PRESIDENT’S e-mails:

If you saw Sunday’s Free Press that shown Robert Bobb the emergency financial manager for Detroit Public Schools, move Mark Twain to Boynton which have three times the number seats then students and was one of the reason’s he gave for closing school to many empty seats.

Berman continues,

“I told him just last week that he should have his e-mails read by somebody before he sends them out,” said fellow school board member LaMar Lemmons Jr., who praises Mathis as a leader he can trust.

Ya, let’s hire a de-idiotizer for the PRESIDENT OF THE SCHOOL BOARD.

“I said, ‘If somebody gets ahold of this, it will become an issue that you can’t read or write. It will go around the world.’

Can Mathis read?

“Yes, I can read. I’m capable of reading a lot of information and regurgitation,” says Mathis.

In his career, Mathis has compensated for his rudimentary writing skills by seeking help from others and working on his listening and speech skills.

“We picked him (to be president) because we thought he has the intelligence for it..

And you were wrong.

… and the tolerance for disruptive behavior,” says Reverend David Murray. “He has that type of calm.”

Sounds like he’d make a helluva bar bouncer.

Is it absurd for a man who cannot write a simple English sentence to serve as the board president?

Yes.

The questions are more likely to elicit complex answers than criticism of Mathis.

The answers are only complex because there are people in this world that will talk and talk and filibuster until what is lost is that the MAN IS AN ILLITERATE.

“I know he’s a terrible writer. Oh wow, I’ve seen his e-mails,” says Ida Byrd-Hill, a parent and activist who runs a nonprofit and is a member of Mensa, the high-IQ group.

“His job, though, is to represent the community. His lack of writing skills is prevalent in the community. If anybody does, he understands the struggles of what it’s like to go through an institution and not be properly prepared.”

So this is the new vanguard in hiring? My first job experience was laying asphalt driveways in Chappaqua, New York. I was bounced around the job site until they found something that I seemed remotely capable of doing. Tamping was my forte, but I had my eye on that steamroller. One day I got the chance, and I made a driveway slightly better than Lucy Ricardo would have made. If I was making driveways in Detroit I could have been shop steward.

Because of his struggles and perseverance, Mathis describes himself as a role model.

But is he?

Yes. He’s a role model for the complete decay of standards in America. Way to go, Otis.

Hat Tip: PacW

[Nokia N97C has a TV]

They think they'll arrest him before he boards the airoplane to Indonesia because he can hide for prosecution. Dual nationality never really leaves it's just discounted by the US citizenship. We were hoping Kenya would buy in, but they've passed.

[srp]

Cathyf:

Sure, prenatal environment could be a factor, but a) stuff like fetal alcohol syndrome is not going to explain the twin studies overall, b) the racial effects occur across socioeconomic groups, i.e. in middle-class parents where the prenatal environment is unlikely to be deprived, and c) the kind of severe prenatal deficits that you flag are pretty hard to eradicate in a free society anyway.

My suggestion: Let's lower the cost of judging each individual on his or her own capabilities, which means letting employers use IQ tests in hiring. In a world with cheap and available intelligence tests, statistical discrimination and stereotyping are a lot less likely. Also, the need for expensive educational credentials would be reduced, to the extent that those are now serving as signals of ability rather than indicators of specific knowledge.

[AL]

“…there's no biological or genetic category called "black" or "white" and anyone making an assertion based on a "black" race is spouting junk science. That would certainly include the "Bell Curve" authors.”

True. Black-skinned Americans from India have IQ of about 100, same as of white/European origin.

That’s why researches use geographical origins to compile average IQ. For example, direct quote from Wiki:

“In the US, intelligence quotient (IQ) tests have consistently demonstrated statistical differences: the scores of the African American population are on average lower than that of the White American population; the Asian American population on average scores higher; Amerinds scores on average fall between Caucasian and African American scores… Using data primarily from the United States and Europe, Jensen and Rushton have estimated the average IQ of Blacks/Africans to be around 85; of whites/Europeans to be around 100, and of East Asians to be around 106…

IQ differences outside of the USA: commonly-cited review by Richard Lynn lists IQ scores for East Asians (105), Europeans (99), Inuit (91), Southeast Asians and Amerindians (87 each), Pacific Islanders (85), South Asians/North Africans (84), Non-Bushmen sub-Saharan Africans (67), Australian Aborigines (62) and Bushmen (54). This data is generally considered less accurate than data from the United States and Europe, in part because of the inherent difficulty of comparing IQ scores between cultures”

[Jane]

Okay I have a stupid question.

How do we know that an IQ test actually measures all kinds of IQ? How much of it is cultural and does that matter?

I still think nurture is as big of a factor as nature, but I'm no expert.

[sylvia]

"Let's lower the cost of judging each individual on his or her own capabilities, which means letting employers use IQ tests in hiring"

Trust me, IQ ain't everything. A high IQ is not even necessary for most jobs. In fact having a higher IQ can be a hindrance because normal IQ people, who are the vast majority, can band against you because you are different. And like likes like. And studies bear that out.

Probably about 95% of business success is social. Blacks may score higher in being socially smooth than whites or Asians, so they might have an advantage there.

[sylvia]

"How do we know that an IQ test actually measures all kinds of IQ? How much of it is cultural and does that matter?"

I do think there is a certain approach to doing those tests than can be learned. You have to practice at those kinds of tests a little bit, preferrably from a young age.

I don't think it can make THAT much difference, just like practicing your SATs forever won't make that much difference, but it might make a little difference. I'm guessing 10, 20 points, especially from the really low scores.

Also you have to care. If you don't care about the results because it's not culturally important, you won't try as hard. You'll just answer the questions with whatever, to get the weird test over with, and get the, say, free snacks at the end.

[JB]

"How do we know that an IQ test actually measures all kinds of IQ? How much of it is cultural and does that matter?"

I recommend Arthur Jensen's "The g factor".

An IQ test full scale score strongly correlates to a factor of "general ability" (g) which strongly correlates to real world success.

In other words, even without defining what "intelligence" is, we can make statistically valid predictions using IQ scores.

You can control for "cultural" factors by administering specific subtests -- e.g. Matrix Reasoning tests, which are non-verbal tests of inductive reasoning (pick the 4th shape to go with other 3 -- a test of pure abstract reasoning.)

IQ is ultimately about dealing with complexity, and that's what these tests reflect.

[JB]

It also appears that there are "cognitive classes" which are essentially distinctive, e.g. autodidactism is typical of the 124 and higher IQ range, theory-building based on essentials usually starts at 140, skilled labor requires about 93, and so on. The High IQ Society has an excellent description at their website after you take one of their tests.

[Janet]

The WaPo headline in the print edition is saying the bombing suspect is a naturalized citizen. Online headline is Pakistan native.
LUN

[JB]

"In fact having a higher IQ can be a hindrance because normal IQ people, who are the vast majority, can band against you because you are different."

This is true, but it's especially problematic for people with extraordinarily high IQs (let's say above 155) and underachievers (people trying to get jobs for which that high an IQ is unnecessary.)

Certain jobs require certain IQs and not more. E.g. it's probably detrimental for someone running for President to be too smart (140 and above.) They are less likely to relate to the average and there isn't a need for them to be of the intellectual class -- they just need to be smart enough to understand its output. Similarly for corporate leaders and so on. There really appear to be IQ niches where people fit best, and are more likely to fail both above and below it.

[peter]

OT, Obama releases information about the number of nuclear weapons the US has. LUN

[peter]

Why would a man from Pakistan be so upset about the health care bill?

[rse]

Ted Goertzel has written about the misuse if the bell curve to deal with nonrandom events in the empirical world. Especially misused in the area of education.

"The myth that social variables are normally distributed has been shown to be invalid by those methodologists who have taken the trouble to check it out".

He also suggests that we stop using the term bell curve and substitute it's real name "normal curve of error" to combat its widespread misapplication.

cathyf did a wonderful job last night of introducing some of the social variables that matter.

[sylvia]

"There really appear to be IQ niches where people fit best, and are more likely to fail both above and below it."

I agree with that. And since there are not as many jobs for people with high IQs, the really really high IQ people get them and leave the moderately high IQ people out. Affirmative action for kind of high IQ people!

[sylvia]

Yes JB that reminds me of something I read a long time ago. It classified I think 6 stages of intelligence.

I don't remember them all, but the last ones are something like, 4 you don't know the theories, 5 you learn the theories and you believe them always, and the last one is, 6 you know the theories, but you realize there is contradicting information, so you can hold two opposing thoughts in your head at the same time, and make them work.

I forgot who made that but I think it is true.

[sylvia]

And by the way, it is very hard to find someone at the last stage. I think the last stage is leaving group think, and very rare to find that.

[rse]

Once real intellectual differences and skills are determined by fiat to be irrelevant by schools and colleges so that they can get the diverse mix of students they want, you start having to change all sorts of academic rules.

Grade inflation is helpful.

Core requirements an impediment.

Projects, especially group, should be at least as important as tests.

And then you get National Honor Society deciding that GPA should only be 25% of who gets in.

LUN

[Jane]

Why would a man from Pakistan be so upset about the health care bill?

That made me laugh.

[nathan hale]

Since he's from Bridgeport, obviously Episcopalian. We're lucky this guy was Richard Reid incompetent, but that's not terribly reassuring. Why did the investigation
begin with the burning Pathfinder on Times Square, why was he almost able to get away to Dubai

[JB]

Sylvia,

Yeah, it's something like this:

108-124 You can be taught to understand it and will always believe it

124-140 You can learn it yourself, see that it has flaws and learn another one

140-155 You can come up with it on your own

155-171 You can come up with several of them and form a single grand formal system

[JB]

"108-124 You can be taught to understand it and will always believe it"

I should add "until you're told to forget about it and taught another one." :)

[mefolkes]

Since the Times Square bombing attempt has been brought up, I should mention that Bob Beckel was on Hannity last night, claiming that it could still be a home-grown militia action, despite the breaking news that the person of interest was naturalized, of South Asian descent.

[mefolkes]

Obviously, Bob Beckel is not too smart to be president. Let's all pray that he never gets the chance.

[nathan hale]

So this guy had just come back from five monthes in Pokhistan, and he pops up on the Radar now.

[JB]

"Once real intellectual differences and skills are determined by fiat to be irrelevant by schools and colleges so that they can get the diverse mix of students they want, you start having to change all sorts of academic rules."

And then you have to regulate strict diversity for the job market so the frauds aren't weeded out by some type of signaling.

And then society regresses to Third World standards.

[nathan hale]

Speaking of intelligence or lack thereof, "Heck of a Job, wohoever" in the LUN

[Jane]

Isn't a huge part of this story, that you can no longer talk about race in any form or you are a racist? Well I suppose you can say things like: "There are more great black basketball players than white ones" but really any discussion that includes race is now incredibly taboo.

And that doesn't seem all that intelligent regardless of your IQ.

[Jane]

Gawd, Roselyn Carter is on Fox and friends and she looks like death warmed over. Sheesh

[daddy]

Am reading leftist Richard Dawkin's latest Evolution book ">http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787"> "The Greatest Show on Earth." He is currently the worlds foremost spokesman for Darwinian Evolution.

Page 38/39 he states the following:

"Political opposition to eugenic breeding of humans sometimes spills over into the almost certainly false assertion that it is impossible. Not only is it immoral, you may hear it said, it wouldn't work. Unfortunately, to say that something is morally wrong, or politically undesirable, is not to say that it wouldn't work. I have no doubt that, if you set your mind to it and had enough time and enough political power, you could breed a race of superior body-builders, or high-jumpers, or shot-putters; pearl fishers, sumo wrestlers or sprinters; or (I suspect, although now with less confidence because there are no animal precedents) superior musicians, poets, mathematicians or wine tasters. The reason I am confident about selective breeding for athletic prowess is that the qualities needed are so similar to those that demonstrably work in the breeding of race horses and cart horses, of greyhounds and sledge dogs. The reason I am still pretty confident about the practical feasibility (thought not the moral or political desirability) of selective breeding for MENTAL or otherwise uniquely human traits is that there are so few examples where an attempt at selective breeding in animals has ever failed, even for traits that might have been thought surprising. Who would have thought, for example, that dogs coud be bred for sheep-herding skills, or 'pointing', or bull-baiting?"

I emphasized the word Mental above, but other than that, all the above is the worlds foremost lefty Evolutionist telling us that the breeding of humans with differing "Mental" abilities is actually easy to do, and as you read the book you find that if such breeding couldn't lead to smarter racial breeds of naturally selected and artificially selected humans, then his Evolutionary thesis would actually collapse.

So I put this out there so that when we decide to pull out the tar and feathers for this Law Students Politically Incorrect innocuous, and innocent statement of possible mentally divergent traits among humans, that we please save some of that Tar and feathers for the august Richard Dawkins, Evolutionist, who not only tells us that such stuff is possible, but also, in so many words (500 pages or so) essentially tells us that it has already happened over the last many million years by Mom Nature, the ultimate racist sculptor.

And my last question: Why will leftist Richard Dawkin's get a pass, but not Charles Murray of "Bell Curve" infamy?

[rse]

But then we will be a "society that integrates complex parts into an effective whole" and thus "more interesting, resourceful, and humane society than one of narrow homogeneity" .

Guess which current Ivy League Pres said that?

It's actually not about learning anymore in the historic sense. It's about mandating diversity and cultural multiplicity so that each student learns to "recognize the humanity of self and others".

What a national tragedy education in this country has become primarily because we are not a homogeneous society.

[Melinda Romanoff]

rse-

I imagine pasteurization is next.

But I will confess to enjoying the occaisional hot tub.

[rse]

daddy-

David C Geary, a cognitive psych prof at Missouri, has written some fascinating work on how reading and math are examples of biologically secondary cultural information. They are codes and symbols and generally need to be taught explicitly.

He compares this to speech or the ability to read faces and determine emotions which evolved because they gave a survival advantage to those who were masters.

[Melinda Romanoff]

rse-

Thanks for that add to the summer reading list!

[rse]

mel-

These views may be driving American education but only someone who had never made payroll or known anyone with such mundane worries and everyday concerns could think this is a helpful driver of what we should be nurturing.

It's all about the wants of the collective and not the needs of the individual.

Yuck.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Wants of the collective?

No, sounds more like herding.

But that's just me.

[rse]

mel-

John Sweller, a New Zealand prof, then followed up with the instructional implications of this distinction of biologically primary knowledge that we evolved to acquire.

You should be able to pull up the work. If not let me know. I have copies they both sent me and can forward.

[Melinda Romanoff]

rse-

Just making notes for the "pile", my last bunch of summer reading list got completed in doctor's offices in November.

But I like to set goals, and grind them down.

[Rob Crawford]

And my last question: Why will leftist Richard Dawkin's get a pass, but not Charles Murray of "Bell Curve" infamy?

A more precise parallel is why Jimmy the Greek was drummed out of his career for saying the same thing Dawkins did.

[Rob Crawford]

Wants of the collective?

No, sounds more like herding.

The progressives are determined that the people are a herd, to be husbanded like a herd, occasionally culled, and to be exploited to the maximum possible extent.

They phrase it in terms of "reform", but their "reform" always leads to the same conclusion: they run our lives, live off our labor, and determine the extent of our success. That is, effectively, what a farmer does for his livestock.

[nathan hale]

This is certainly LOLworthy, in the LUN

[Captain Hate]

Roselyn Carter is on Fox and friends and she looks like death warmed over.

Maybe that shrew's looks are finally displaying her inner ugliness. A more disgusting crone is hard to imagine.

[PDinDetroit]

Roselyn Carter is on Fox and friends and she looks like death warmed over.

I didn't think anyone was dumber than Jimmuh Carter, until I heard his wife speak this AM.

I believe I heard that "if our policies are making foreigners angry, we should change them". That, my friends, is weapons-grade stupid.

[Danube of Thought]

Minus 10 at Raz.

[Jane]

Maybe that shrew's looks are finally displaying her inner ugliness. A more disgusting crone is hard to imagine.

I'm telling you, when I turned around and looked at the screen to see who it was I thought someone had dressed up like a shrew.

Perhaps she has earned it.

[bunkerbuster]

Which gives a better picture of where conservative wingnuts are in this debate: that they deliberately blur the distinction between correlation and cause or that they are unaware of the distinction?
The bigger giveaway is that wingnuts inevitably focus on alleged black inferiority to whites. Why is that always the focus? The same type of research shows Asians and Jews score better than whites. Moreover, the correlation between gender and IQ is equally compelling as is that of height and IQ (tall people have higher IQs).
What is the motive here? Why the focus on white superiority? If mere intellectual curiosity and devotion to science is the motive, it will be very easy to avoid being called a white supremacist. Simply focus on white inferiority to Asians and Jews. The evidence -- which in my understanding shows only a weak correlation and nothing even approaching causation -- is just as strong for white inferiority as it is for white superiority.
Obviously, there is a political dimension to these discussions and, obviously, almost all of the people who advocate for "racial" understandings of variance in average intelligence are politically conservative. That's no accident.
Dot risibly asserts that I divide the world between liberals and white supremacists. I don't, of course, but the correlation between white supremacists and people who believe blacks are intellectually inferior is one to one. This isn't to say that one can't believe in white intellectual superiority to blacks and NOT be a white supremacist.
Though I guess if you not smart enough to smell the junk science in these claims of "black," "white" and "Asian" performance on intelligence tests, then maybe there is an argument that you don't understand why it's not at all unfair to assume you're a racist of some sort.
Take AL, for example, he apparently swallows whole the concept of a "European" race. But anyone who bothers to look as nearby as wikipedia would know that the European gene pool would include Laplanders, Greeks, Hispanics, Basque, Romanians and so on. To suggest that these groups have some genetic integrity is junk science, and rather obviously so. Were Jews included in "European?" And if so, only Ashkenazi?
Most of the categories AL cites are virtually meaningless biologically. They are geographic and ethno/political groupings that have far more genetic variability than genetic integrity.
If all your interested in is the science probing the heritability of intelligence, why not keep your focus on white inferiority to Asians and Jews? Just like that, you no longer have to fret about being called a white supremacist...

[Melinda Romanoff]

If anyone wants to take the time to watch a 3-part interview with Prof. Carmen Reinhart, co-author of "This Time Is Different", the second part of the interview is on Greece and its implications.

The video can be found at Seeking Alpha.

It's worth it.

[nathan hale]

That was not as bad as a comment shortly after Reagan was elected 'that history would
curse (Reagan's) name, that was almost Beharworthy stupidity.

[Captain Hate]

I believe I heard that "if our policies are making foreigners angry, we should change them". That, my friends, is weapons-grade stupid.

Wow, teh crazy is strong with that one. Her performance has been suggested as a thread topic at AoS so I'm sure a clip will be provided.

It's about time people realize what this harridan is really like after being fawned over by co-harpies like Eleanor Clift. She obviously cut "adultery of the heart" off after he knocked her up with Amy, a convincing argument against having children too late in life, which sent Dhimmi Earl off acting like a fapping perv lusting after every tin-pot dictator's molls.

[boris]

'If this were a jury trial ... the jury would have to come back with a "Not Guilty" verdict'

Then every jury trial would have to come back with not guilty. Even with video tape of a murder there is no way to "prove" the victim didn't die from some unknown natural cause the instant before the bullet went through the brain.

Science can't always prove a theory beyond the point that it fits with direct observation and testable predictions based on the theory turn out to be accurate.

Eminently testable predictions based on an IQ genetic component are not difficult to come up with. One example ... IQ correlation with children of sperm donors.

[nathan hale]

That seems unduly harsh, Captain, chalk it up that they are uncommonly dim and that covers a lot of ground. But then again, that doesn't explain Madame Secretary spitting in the wind
against Arizona's law, and the latest offering

[bunkerbuster]

though I do love how the GOP just cannot help itself. It still thinks the days of white rule are coming back, any day now. The party's recent "minority outreach" is something like:
Hi, are you "black?" Well, come on in. We don't care if you're intellectually inferior, on average, because we know you'll work that much harder to show us you're worth the gamble we're taking on you. Latino? Show us your papers! Just kidding. Come on in the big tent, unless you're gay, of course. Ha ha. Just kidding!! We're a barrel of laughs over here. But those, er, um, papers. Can you, um, show them and, while you're at it, how about those people living in your house, can you PROVE their citizens? Welcome to the Republican Party!!

[rse]

Strawman alert at 9:33.

Have you ever noticed they must teach that "causation vs correlation" assertion in Troll 101 training?

[Janet]

Shahzad became a citizen in April 2009. LUN

Our media, political class, and culture are rotten.
Franklin Graham can't come in to the Nat'l Day of Prayer, but Shahzad is invited into our country to become a citizen.
Come on in Faisal...have fun.

[Look over they're; watch a cherry bomb.]

Hey, bb, go read Mencken on the '48 Progressive Convention. It's a hoot.
========

[Captain Hate]

That seems unduly harsh, Captain

Sorry nh, but I've heard Billy's dumbass brother make too many extremely creepy comments about how some third world thug's squeeze is "one of the most beautiful women I've ever seen" inserted uncomfortably in the midst of one of his bowing and scraping speeches.