Pretending That Intelligence Does Not Matter
by Linda S. Gottfredson, Ph.D, July 1, 2000
The first public broadside against the new field of intelligence research was struck in 1922 by the journalist Walter Lippmann, who criticized the swelling cadre of IQ-test enthusiasts for “pretentious” claims, “abuse of scientific method,” and a “New Snobbery.”1 In intervening decades, thousands of scientists have entered the field, some bent on testing the claims that they initially thought dubious. Representing disciplines from genetics to sociology, these scientists have produced a vast body of evidence about why people differ in intelligence, how durable those differences are, and what they mean for us as individuals and as a society. As befits a vibrant, interdisciplinary endeavor, the field’s scientists scarcely agree on all matters, but they have forged a consensus on certain fundamental facts—on the ABC’s, so to speak. Their conclusion is that differences in general intelligence are real, stubborn, and important...
What the critics of intelligence research purport to fear is that the conclusions of intelligence research will undermine democratic values: specifically, that they will lead to denigrating certain groups of people and even denying them their rights. So strong is this fear that, while some critics vehemently reject the scientific claims of intelligence research, others believe those claims to be true but dangerous enough to be suppressed, for the public good...
Dismayed by the media disinformation attending The Bell Curve controversy, 52 prominent researchers from 34 universities and research centers published a Wall Street Journal editorial page statement in 1994 called “Mainstream Science on Intelligence.” These scientists, the antithesis of ideologues, have published thousands of scientific articles and hundreds of books defining the frontiers of intelligence research. They include many recipients of coveted awards and many past presidents of major scientific associations. Appearing several months into the firestorm over The Bell Curve, the joint statement simply recited the most settled facts in the field, facts that had been depicted over and over again in news and commentary as “controversial” or “discredited.” A second consensus statement appeared two years later in the form of an official task force report from the most pertinent scientific organization, the American Psychological Association. “Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns” offered essentially the same portrait of mainstream scientific opinion on the nature, origins, and predictive value of intelligence. Both statements suggested that The Bell Curve’s portrayal of intelligence was basically accurate.4 Neither statement had any discernible impact on media reporting...
Whether or not the critics addressed the book’s scientific credibility (and many did not), virtually all treated its appearance in public as a moral crisis. Many dispensed with civility and fair play, as if released from normal codes of conduct. Some linked the authors to the most reviled figure of the 20th century, Adolf Hitler, by portraying any belief in human difference as the first step on the slippery slope to genocide. Others fabricated elaborate webs of guilt by association in an attempt to taint the book, its sources (myself among them), or mental testing in general. An ABC news broadcast by Peter Jennings (aired on November 22, 1994) discussed the book with footage of Nazi doctors and concentration camps in the background...
This catastrophic scenario culminates in the cataloging of one worst case assumption after the other, ignoring a widely noted feature of the tragic genocides in the 20th century: They almost invariably targeted the more successful populations—the prosperous Kulaks in Russia, the Jewish population in Germany, the Ibos in Nigeria, the Armenians in Turkey, and the educated classes in Cambodia...
Much new research is examining intelligence as a property of the brain—for instance, by looking at speed of neural transmission, glucose (energy) uptake, and electrical activity in the brain. It finds, for instance, that smarter people have larger brains. Their brains also seem to work more quickly and efficiently, because they transmit electrical nerve impulses faster and use less glucose (energy) to solve mental problems. Research on brain waves (specifically, on average evoked potentials) shows that the brains of smarter people respond with greater speed and complexity even to the simplest information, such as a tone...
Individuals in all racial-ethnic groups can be found at all levels of intelligence, from the lowest to the highest. Groups differ, however, in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ line. The bell curve for American whites is centered roughly on IQ 100; that for American blacks on 85; that for different Hispanic-American groups midway between those for blacks and whites; and that for Asian and Jewish Americans somewhere above that for white gentiles...
Few occupations are out of reach, on the basis of intelligence, for people above the 90th percentile of general intelligence (IQ 120), but virtually none is within ready reach for those below the 10th (IQ 80). Indeed, the military is forbidden by law to induct anyone below the equivalent of IQ 80 and it currently inducts no one below about IQ 85. Just as the odds for obtaining a higher education and a good job rise steadily with a higher IQ, the likelihood of social pathology falls rapidly...
There is no persuasive evidence that the IQ bell curves for different racial-ethnic groups are converging over time, and they differ as much when children leave high school as when they enter kindergarten. Racial gaps in amount learned grow through the school years, however, because intelligence affects the rate at which students learn when exposed to the same instruction...
These, then, are the basic conclusions shared by psychologists and others who study IQ. Critics urge upon us certain conclusions that they consider more “welcome,” assuming that even if those conclusions are false, they will do no harm. Would-be censors assume that certain truths do harm but noble lies do not...
Both the white and black underclasses have grown in recent decades. Public policy analysts anguish over this trend, but seem unwilling to link it with variation in IQ...
Already there have been attempts to halt the search for the genes influencing normal intelligence...
when individuals are treated in a color-blind manner, large average group differences in intelligence, whatever the origin of those differences, can be expected to produce racial inequality...
federal insistence on racially balanced police hiring has forced some locales to strip their police entrance exams of all meaningful mental demands, despite the clear threat this poses to public safety.
-------------
Heriditarianism and race realism make three basic assertions: intelligence is the single most important factor in determining academic and economic success; intelligence is primarily determined by genes; individuals in some races tend to be more intelligent than individuals in other races.
Because anti racists cannot disprove these assertions rationally they try to suppress them when they have the power. They harass those who make them when they do not have the power. They continue to make assertions that they cannot prove, such as that the race gap has been closing since IQ testing begHereditarianisman a century ago.
Whenever The Bell Curve is mentioned, someone is likely to claim that it has been "decisively refuted" by Stephen Jay Gould"s The Mismeasure of Man. In my Amazon book review of The Mismeasure of Man I decisively refute that book:
It is interesting that Walter Lippmann led the charge against IQ testing. Characteristic of those who joined the charge Lippmann uncharacteristically presented no facts and insights, only expressions of anger. When I was in college I read an biography of Walter Lippmann. The author claimed that never in his life did Lippmann get less than an A on any course he took, any test he took, and any assignment he completed. This included his work in Harvard. During the 1930's many people refrained from passing judgment on any New Deal policy until Walter Lippmann had discussed it.
Lippmann probably had an IQ in the 160 to 180 range, maybe even higher. He had to know that IQ matters. I applaud his generosity in not gloating about the issue. I wonder at his motive in pretending to believe otherwise than what he certainly did believe.
I like the way Dr. Gottfredson's article distinguished between the journalistic consensus and the scientific consensus about the significance of IQ. I also like the way she pointed out that many journalists quietly agree with the scientific consensus, but believe that the truth is so dangerous that it must be suppressed.
In his essay "The Inequality Taboo" Charles Murray pointed out why suppression is dangerous, "specific
policies based on premises that conflict with scientific truths about human beings tend
not to work. Often they do harm."
What kind of harm? Well, since 1960 spending for public schools has increased dramatically in efforts to increase academic performance in general and to close the race gap in performance in particular. These efforts have failed. These failures have reduced the confidence most whites used to have in the liberal agenda. They have contributed to the Republican domination of the United States. Because I am a Democrat, I regret this domination. I also understand it.
The belief that most blacks have the same innate intelligence as most whites because, well just because, has led to affirmative action polices. These policies discriminate against whites and Orientals. They advance many Negroes to positions where they are unable to perform adequately. As a computer programmer I have worked with beneficiaries of affirmative action. Their inferiority was obvious to everyone.
I first became aware of the controversy over IQ in September 1971 when the Atlantic published an article by Professor Richard Herrnstein entitled "IQ." In this article he introduced arguments he was later to combine with Charles Murray in their book The Bell Curve, that was published in 1994. I found the article disturbing and depressing. I also found it convincing. What I found even more disturbing was the response of the new left organization, Students for a Democratic Society. Until then I had supported SDS because of its work opposing the War in Vietnam.
During the spring of 1972 SDS held a convention at Harvard with the expressed purpose to "Smash Racism." Its real purpose was to force the firing of Professor Herrnstein, and like minded professors and scientists. No effort was made at the convention to present a rational rebuttal of Professor Herrnstein's article. The discussion was over how to suppress that kind of article and books.
Fortunately, Professor Herrnstein kept his job. He was later to combine his facts and insights with Charles Murray in their book The Bell Curve. Unfortunately a precedent had been established for suppressing the scientific inquireries into the genetic reasons for individual and average racial differences in intelligence.
The freedom that is most important to me is intellectual freedom. I want to investigate different points of view, make up my own mind, and express my opinions without needing to fear the legal, economic, and economic consequences of what I say. Until the left began to suppress the cold, hard truth about IQ, the right had been the main offender against intellectual freedom with its loyalty oaths, witch hunts, and black lists.
Comments
Post a Comment