BlackNotBlack.com

The Dumbbell Curve

As a black person who skipped ahead in grade school, scored highly on my last IQ test, and is reasonably well-informed, I often derive amusement from dealing with someone who thinks I’m a moron yet himself couldn’t hit the ground with a stream of piss. Most people think they’re smarter than others, and they often apply deeply rooted appearance-based preconceptions to the people they see. I happen to be a person who has, shall we say, evolved beyond the need for haircuts, which means my appearance sometimes triggers these preconceptions. When you look like a rastafarian people treat you that way. While it's doubtless easier than finding out what I am actually like inside, I've also learned that people will often mistreat me because it simply makes them feel better.

This hunger to derive self worth from the mistreatment of others is particularly evident in the furor surrounding James Watson’s (above) recent inflammatory comments concerning race. Watson, the 1962 Nobel laureate, asserted that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” and its citizens because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really.” Dr. Watson’s remarks created a stir, and the resultant row caused him to resign as chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, but it also created a legion of supporters who want desperately to believe blacks are inferior to them.

But is what Watson says true? Well, the data say no. But the data can scream from a mountaintop—proponents of race-based intelligence theories are hard of hearing. Such theories have always been with us, aimed at various ethnic groups over the centuries, but in regard to African-Americans they were given a boost in 1969 when Arthur Jensen published an article in The Harvard Educational Review maintaining that a 15-point difference in IQ between blacks and whites was mostly due to a genetic difference between the races. Dr. Jensen’s argument led to more literature on the subject, most famously from Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, who published The Bell Curve in 1994, and most recently from William Saletan in a series of articles in Slate.

All these writings claim that differences in black and white IQs are genetic, and can never be erased because of biological differences. I could question here whether race is even a legitimate scientific concept (most geneticists say no), or point out that nearly all American blacks possess 10 to 50 percent Anglo ancestry (which somehow fails to produce variations in IQ between light-skinned and dark-skinned blacks), but rather than waste my time, I’ll stick with the standard dogma espoused by Watson and others. That dogma states that IQ differences are hardwired by eons of evolution, and that for this reason black brains are less capable than white brains. The sluggishness of evolution is a central feature of the belief; the suggestion is that we should all accept the truth and get on with our lives because these facts will never change. Scientific researcher Kyle R. Skottke says, “Although thousands of years have passed since mankind migrated from Africa and populated the vast expanses of the world, there has been insufficient time for evolution to take effect and modify us to better fit our new environments.”

But the notion that evolution is the primary factor in racial IQ variation is blown to smithereens by James Flynn, the eminent IQ researcher who established during a global IQ study that in the western hemisphere, IQ collectively increased from 1947 to 2002. During that span IQs in the United States went up by 18 points. That's no small amount—IQ tests are calibrated so the average falls at 100. Since genes could not have changed in a mere 55 years to account for this astonishing rise, the gains were clearly the result of social factors, such as a shift that saw higher education become the American norm. If you heard a loud whooshing noise just now, it was reams of Jensen, Watson and Saletan papers going up in flames. James Flynn’s findings—irrefutable from any angle—tell us that if social factors can produce changes over time for the population as a whole, they can likewise produce changes between subpopulations.

New research tells us the IQ difference between black and white 12-year-olds in the U.S. has dropped to 9.5 points from 15 points in the last 30 years. If IQ were genetically predetermined, this rise could not have occurred. It is certainly not a coincidence that the 30 year period in question began at the tail end of a civil rights movement which resulted in blacks acquiring better access to education. In fact, during these three decades, reading and math improvement was modest for whites but substantial for blacks. The data tell us definitively that racial differences in IQ scores have nothing to do with evolution. Sorry racists. It also tells us—yet again—that good education is the key to avoiding the pitfalls of poverty and crime that later negatively impact all U.S. citizens. But sadly, education budgets continue to fall each year, which tells us quite clearly that American leaders have little interest in the future of the nation they so often claim to love.

There remains but one question pertaining to this discussion: We already know why Watson supporters exist—believing blacks are intellectually inferior pleases them—but why would a geneticist of James Watson’s stature make such statements in the first place? Well, the answer is provided by the nature of the truth surrounding this issue: since IQ differences between races have no relationship to genetics, how much can a geneticist truly know about it? Watson may possess a Nobel Prize, but he is also just a man whose own prejudices and preconceptions occasionally slip out. Watson said recently that he hoped everyone was equal, but “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.” There is nothing scientific in that statement—it’s a racial smear uttered by an old man who was having a bad week. Steven Rose, a professor at the Open University and an acquaintance of Watson’s, said: “This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain.” He added: “If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically.”

Labels: James Watson, The Bell Curve

posted by Egan Ehlers @ 12:19 PM