November 21, 2007
Cosma Shalizi takes down William Saletan and Slate
First, the Saletan piece from Slate:
Last month, James Watson, the legendary biologist, was condemned and forced into retirement after claiming that African intelligence wasn't "the same as ours." "Racist, vicious and unsupported by science," said the Federation of American Scientists. "Utterly unsupported by scientific evidence," declared the U.S. government's supervisor of genetic research. The New York Times told readers that when Watson implied "that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn't a scientific leg to stand on."
I wish these assurances were true. They aren't. Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there's strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic. It's time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true.
More here. And here's Cosma:
William Saletan's recent venture into demanding that we squarely face the harsh light of his pseudo-scientific prejudices is, in itself, intensely boring ā we've played this scene over and over again ā but becomes more interesting when we try to trace it back to causes, and then forward again to effects.
His writing the story may be explained in one of two ways.
- He may be ignorant and stupid enough to be gulled by charltans like Rushton or Richard Lynn;
- More charitably, he may not believe the bullshit himself, but may repeat it to his readers because he hopes that doing so advances some agenda of his own.
Now, William Saletan is a journalist. He is paid to write stories, in the belief that they will attract readers, who can then be advertised at. But his job, the reason why this would not be a purely exploitative manipulation of those readers, is that his stories ought to tell his readers things which will make them better informed about the world, better able to make their way through it. He has just demonstrated that he is either unable or unwilling to do his job. His readers might attempt to extract information from his words by undoing the distortions imposed by his folly and manipulations, but life is too short. His words are worth attending to only as specimens, rather than communications.
William Saletan is the national correspondent of Slate, and published this multi-part heap of rubbish there.
Update: See next post before complaining.
More here. [Thanks to Ian McMeans.]
Posted by Abbas Raza at 04:47 AM | Permalink







Comments
Not trying to support Slate article but name calling is not the same thing as presenting stats and evidence to make one's case. Kenyans are not genetically superior to non-Kenyans in long distance races. The other articles on this topic, the nature of IQ definitions are questioned as are the contributions of culture and environment. We know, for example, that children tested very early with one IQ and soon thereafter moved to a more enriched environment show a jump in the same IQ tests.
Posted by: fred lapides | Nov 21, 2007 6:55:06 AM
"Takedown"? I make no statement here on whether Saletan's or Cosma's views are correct, but all I see in the latter's blog post is invective and ad hominem attack rather than reasoned argument, which won't persuade anyone and wasn't worth linking to.
Posted by: Ted Weinstein | Nov 21, 2007 10:14:21 AM
Ted/Fred,
The substance of Cosma's arguments against Saletan can be found here (http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/cat_iq.html). I have been following Cosma's line of reasoning for some time, so didn't even notice that he hadn't linked to his earlier posts.
Posted by: Abbas Raza | Nov 21, 2007 10:29:28 AM
I don't think this take-down was much of one. All I see in it are assertions and ad-hominem attacks. Well, if you can't fight the evidence I guess that's all you have left to fight with. Facts don't go away just because we don't like them. Please note, I don't think IQ is nearly as important as are motives and approach. I know plenty of brilliant idiots who can find nothing worthwhile upon which to focus their intelligence. I have known some not so smart people that had hearts of gold. None of that means Saletan's points weren't well reasoned.
Posted by: Steve Wells | Nov 21, 2007 11:32:22 AM
Actually Saletan is the first media figure to do his job: he is reporting that there is a legitimate debate taking place in science journals over whether racial IQ gaps have a genetic component.
He links to the articles of both sides in a published debate over this and takes sides after evaluating the arguments.
As I demonstrated in Saletan's link under 'They aren't' the media consistently either ignores this debate, asserts that it doesn't exist, or makes assertions about racial IQ gaps that are empirically false (e.g. that they are "explained" by test bias or income differences).
In other words Saletan is one of the first journalists to demonstrate some integrity on these taboo but important issues. (see also Amy Harmon's recent New York Times article on race and genetics)
Posted by: Jason Malloy | Nov 21, 2007 11:50:21 AM
Guys, please read the articles Abbas linked to above, esp:
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/520.html
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html
It's true that Shalizi's latest entry is mostly a peeve-rant, but understand the context.
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Nov 21, 2007 11:51:16 AM
I'm not in a position to state who is right about the intelligence-heredity debate, but I would point out that Slate has not had a subscription charge for a long time, so Shalizi can't demand that they refund it.
Also, I don't take Slate's word for the truth of anything; they publish a lot of stuff just to provoke folks, I think. Any one who ventures onto the Web looking for information has to realize that it is full of sideshow barkers and snake-oil salespersons.
Posted by: JonJ | Nov 21, 2007 1:03:00 PM
At some point it is reasonable to stop presenting detailed, reasoned rebuttals to people who keep pushing long-discredited stances as "scientific," and to simply mock them for being impervious to reason. This is not a political debate where both sides are entitled to their point of view; he's arguing scientific evidence. The bullshit artist's stock in trade is making reasonable people debate the merits of his argument, which requires much more effort than he has put forth to make them chase him.
Posted by: Redshift | Nov 21, 2007 1:25:02 PM
Redshift writes: "people who keep pushing long-discredited stances as "scientific,"
Trouble is, which side is which?
I propose a link war: which side can link to the most peered review scientific articles -- not opinion pieces -- substantiating their side of the debate?
Anybody prepared to wager real money on the outcome?
Posted by: Luke Lea | Nov 21, 2007 7:23:05 PM
Here is a critique which also mentions Shalizi's comment, and why he is missing the point:
"Jake, this is a good review and I agree with many of your major conclusions. However, your summary of the literature on g has several problems.
[g-factor] s predicated on the notion that performance across different cognitive batteries tends to be positively correlated
A quibble -- the positive correlation between performance on different test items is not just a notion but an empirical observation that has been supported by millions of data points over the last century. More on this below.
Psychological tests for g-factor use principal component analysis -- a way of identifying different factors in data sets that involve mixtures of effects.
Factor analysis, not PCA, is the method used by psychometricians. They are similar in principle but not in application.
g-factor is very controversial.
Not among intelligence researchers.
In this review, we emphasize intelligence in the sense of reasoning and novel problem-solving ability (BOX 1). Also called FLUID INTELLIGENCE(Gf), it is related to analytical intelligence1. Intelligence in this sense is not at all controversial...
ref.1
[These authors go on to explain that in their view Gf and g are one and the same.]
From another review:
Here (as in later sections) much of our discussion is devoted to the dominant psychometric approach, which has not only inspired the most research and attracted the most attention (up to this time) but is by far the most widely used in practical settings.
ref.2
This was published over a decade ago. The psychometric approach has continued to attract the most research and attention and is still by far the most widely used.
The second and broader critique of this work is whether the tests that we have for "intelligence" measures something useful in the brain.
There's wide agreement that the tests measure something useful about human behavior:
In summary, intelligence test scores predict a wide range of social outcomes with varying degrees of success. Correlations are highest for school achievement, where they account for about a quarter of the variance. They are somewhat lower for job performance, and very low for negatively valued outcomes such as criminality. In general, intelligence tests measure only some of the many personal characteristics that are relevant to life in contemporary America. Those characteristics are never the only influence on outcomes, though in the case of school performance they may well be the strongest.
ref.2
A more standard criticism of g:
while the g-based factor hierarchy is the most widely accepted current view of the structure of abilities, some theorists regard it as misleading (Ceci, 1990).
ref.2
that is:
One view is that the general factor (g) is largely responsible for better performance on various measures40,85.A contrary view accepts the empirical,factor-analytic result, but interprets it as reflecting multiple abilities each with corresponding mechanisms141. In principle, factor analysis cannot distinguish between these two theories, whereas biological methods potentially could10,22,36. Other perspectives recognize the voluminous evidence for positive correlations between tasks and subfactors, but hold that practical, creative142 and social or emotion-related73 abilities are also essential ingredients in successful adaptation that are not assessed in typical intelligence tests. Further, estimates of individual competence, as inferred from test performance, can be influenced by remarkably subtle situational factors, the power and pervasiveness of which are typically underestimated2,136,137,143.
ref.1
The concepts of IQ and g-factor have been questioned by several authors. Stephen Jay Gould actually wrote a whole book -- The Mismeasure of Man -- trying to debunk the assumption that intelligence can be measured in a single number. (For a more recent and excellent critique, I recommend this article by Cosma Shalizi.) The common theme among many of these critiques is that the tests for intelligence conflate numerous separable brain processes into a single number. As a consequence, 1) you aren't sure what you are measuring, 2) you can't associate what you are measuring with a particular region (the output may be the result of an emergent process of several regions), and 3) you may be eliding significant differences in performance across individuals that you would recognize with a better test.
You give too much credit to Gould and Shalizi. Their primary criticisms are entirely less reasonable than the points you make.
The main thrusts of their arguments are that test data do not statistically support a g-factor. Gould's argument is statistically incompetent (for a statistican's critique see Measuring intelligence: facts and fallacies by David J. Bartholomew, 2004). Shalizi's criticism is incredibly sophisticated, but likewise incorrect. In a nutshell, Shalizi is trying to argue around the positive correlations between test batteries. If those correlations didn't exist, his argument would be meaningful. However, as I noted above, these intercorrelations are one of the best documented patterns in the social sciences.
significant differences in performance across individuals that you would recognize with a better test.
It's possibly not well known that enormous efforts have gone into trying to make tests that have practical validity for life outcomes yet do not mostly measure g. See for example the works of Gardner and Sternberg. The current consensus is that their efforts have failed. A notable exception might be measures of personality.
Conclusion:
Ultimately, we need to use biological measures such as cortical volume to determine what g really is. One possible approach is to combine chronometric measurements (e.g. reaction time) with brain imaging studies. Genetically informed study designs have a role to play here too.
references:
[1] www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/PDF/nrn0604-GrayThompson.pdf
[2] www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/Correlation/Intelligence.pdf"
Posted by: John | Mar 29, 2009 12:51:13 AM
Post a comment