writing assignment4
xxyyzz
RaceAndIntelligence.pptxRace
and
Intelligence
Clearly, populations (“races”) differ in the frequencies of various physical characteristics
Is it possible that there are similar differences in mental characteristics?
This may seem like a distasteful topic, but it needs to be examined.
Scientific racism argues that serious differences in intelligence mark the races.
Mainstream science until recently also consistently has argued for these differences.
Some mainstream science today continues to argue for these differences.
So the next few sessions will examine this issue.
The Everyday Answer
I believe that many Americans today believe there are consistent differences in intelligence among the different races.
I can document this statement for earlier times.
E.g., the Federalist Papers arguing why African-Americans obviously should not be given the vote because they were “temperamentally incapable of making rational judgments”
E.g., the U.S. federal government declaring that Indian agents were necessary because Native American temperament made them necessarily “wards of the state”
I cannot document the statement for today, but there is a good deal of supporting evidence suggesting it to be true.
“Different animals are smarter or dumber; why not the same with races?”
E.g., Arabian horses vs. quarterhorses, German shepherds vs. beagles, Siamese cats vs. alley cats
“If White people weren’t smarter than everybody else, then why were they able to conquer the world, colonize it, and enslave the people there?”
The corrolary: primitive people must be stupid, or they wouldn’t be primitive.
All this is common sense.
“Common sense is the sum total of prejudices learned by the age of six.”
-- Mark Twain”
Some scientific answers
In the 18th century and before, philosophers were the primary scholars discussing ideas of human inequality.
In the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, scientists got into the game.
Paul Broca
Robert Bennett Bean
Alfred Binet
H. H. Goddard and followers (L. M. Terman and Robert Yerkes)
Arthur Jensen
Charles Murray and Richard Hernstein
Paul Broca: Bigger is better (at least in brains) I
Paul Broca (1824-1880)
French anatomist, anthropologist, and neurosurgeon
professor of medicine at the Anthropological Institute in Paris
founder of the Anthropological Society of Paris
very mainstream and highly respected
His basic argument: human brain size is a good measure of intelligence
His logic:
Bigger muscles mean more strength; a bigger heart means more bravery; so a bigger brain should mean greater intelligence.
Having a large head brings disadvantages, particularly in terms of childbirth and expenditure of energy; so a bigger brain must bring some compensating benefit, such as greater intelligence.
Paul Broca: Bigger is better (at least in brains) II
How do you measure brain size?
dissect the head, remove the brain, and weigh it
considered ideal method
but required a fresh cadaver – sometimes difficult to obtain, esp. for “exotic” races (e.g., Australians)
therefore, not usual approach
measure cranial capacity of empty skull with lead shot or water
but great weight of lead sometimes broke delicate skulls,
and water sometimes leaked out,
so amended to . . .
measure cranial capacity of empty skull with millet seed
this is standard procedure through today
measurements recorded in cubic centimeters (cc)
Paul Broca: Bigger is better (at least in brains) III
Broca measured literally thousands of skulls for cranial capacity
He published many studies with different racial groups.
Here are the results from one of his studies:
racial group average cranial capacity, cc
White males 1350
European Jews 1310
Chinese 1300
Negroes 1280
Hottentots 1240
Australians 1240
Other studies came to substantially the same conclusion:
White people have bigger brains than (almost) everyone else.
Paul Broca: Bigger is better (at least in brains) IV
Broca demonstrated – at least to the satisfaction of virtually all of his contemporaries – that Europeans had bigger brains than (almost) anyone else.
(Modern measurements mostly agree with this of Broca’s conclusions.)
But how did he measure intelligence to see whether it correlated to brain size?
He didn’t.
“We surmount the problem easily by choosing, for our comparison of brains, races whose intellectual inequalities are completely clear. Thus, the superiority of Europeans compared with African Negroes, American Indians, Hottentots, Australians, and the Negroes of Oceania, is sufficiently certain to serve as a point of departure for the comparison of brains.”
“A group with black skin, woolly hair and a prognathous face has never been able to raise itself spontaneously to civilization.”
Paul Broca: Bigger is better (at least in brains) V
In addition to racial differences, Broca also dabbled in other inequalities.
Women had smaller brains than men.
Criminals had smaller brains than law-abiders.
Germans had smaller brains than the French.
The poor had smaller brains than the rich.
For all these cases, Broca argued that this demonstrated clear intellectual inequalities.
And Broca claimed that intellectual superiority inexorably led to moral superiority.
Thus, White people were both smarter and better than everyone else.
Paul Broca: Bigger is better (at least in brains) VI
But there were a few problems with Broca’s research.
Pesky outliers.
Broca found a few groups with larger brains than he anticipated.
racial group average cranial capacity, cc
White males 1350
Eskimo (Inuit) 1410
Lapplanders (Sammi) 1400
Malays 1380
Tartars (Mongolians) 1360
Broca modified his argument to claim that small brains could only be stupid, but big brains could be either smart or stupid.
Sexual issues.
Broca typically used male skulls for European measurements, both male and female for other groups. Since men really do
have generally larger brains (to correlate with generally larger bodies), this skewed his European figures too high.
All in all though, Broca’s findings were generally accepted until the 1920s.
Robert Bennett Bean: It’s all in the ratios I
Robert Bennett Bean (1874-1944)
American physician and anatomist
a strong proponent and follower of Paul Broca
wanted to better understand (that is, explain away) the seeming contradictions of “large-brained primitives”
His argument: the size of the brain may approximately indicate intelligence, but a better indicator is the ratio of front-to-back brain.
His logic:
Late 19th-century research with brain damage showed that “higher functions” (e.g., reasoning, memory, creativity) were in the front part of the brain and “lower functions” (e.g., breathing, coordinating muscular activity, etc.) were in the rear of the brain.
Modern research shows this a bit oversimplified, but largely true.
Phineas Gage, the crowbar, and his damaged skull
Therefore, greater intelligence really will come about from a higher ratio of front:back.
Robert Bennett Bean: It’s all in the ratios II
Bean developed a method of approximating the front:back ratio for brains and applied it to several hundred skulls, mostly of Americans, a few from further afield.
His results:
American Whites had higher ratios than American Blacks.
American Whites had higher ratios than all foreign races.
American White males had higher ratios than American White females.
As Broca before him, he assumed that the ranking of intelligence was self-evident.
Thus, Bean concluded that White people were anatomically and intellectually superior to all others, and that White men were superior to White women.
Robert Bennett Bean: It’s all in the ratios III
The import of his conclusions?
“The Negro is primarily affectionate, immensely emotional, then sensual and under stimulation passionate. There is love of ostentation, and capacity for melodious articulation; there is undeveloped artistic power and taste – Negroes make good artisans, handicraftsmen – and there is instability of character incident to lack of self-control, especially in connection with the sexual relation; and there is lack of orientation, or recognition of position and condition of self and environment, evidenced by a peculiar bumptuousness, so called, that is particularly noticeable. One would naturally expect some such character for the Negro, because the whole posterior part of the brain is large, and the whole anterior portion is small.”
-- Robert Bennett Bean
In place of any independent measurement of intelligence, Bean simply substituted stereotyped behavior.
His conclusions made Bean the darling of medical circles.
In 1907, an editorial in American Medicine, praised Bean as providing . . .
“. . . the anatomical basis for the complete failure of the negro schools to impart the higher studies – the brain cannot comprehend them any more than a horse can understand the rule of three . . . Leaders in all political parties now acknowledge the error of human equality . . . It may be practicable to rectify the error and remove a menace to our prosperity – a large electorate without brains.”
Robert Bennett Bean: It’s all in the ratios IV
All this seemed pretty bleak for egalitarians.
(Egalitarian scholars, like Franz Boas existed, but they were a marked minority.)
Then along came Franklin Mall (1862-1917), an American physician and anatomist.
Mall measured exactly the same skulls as Bean, but with one difference:
Bean knew the race and sex of the skull as he measured them;
Mall measured them blind.
The results: there were no consistent differences in front:back brain ratios.
That is, means and ranges were essentially the same for all races, for both men and women. Mall’s results were confirmed by subsequent researchers.
What had happened?
Bean might have simply made up his figures, but probably he deluded himself: there is some judgment in making measurements, and he may have gone a little long on the measurements he thought should be long, a little short on the ones he thought should be short.
The upshot: Bean’s studies and conclusions about race and cranial anatomy were universally rejected.
The Roster of Geniuses
The Roster of Geniuses Project
1910s-1920s
one of the first widely-collaborative pieces of research (so no particular name to remember)
began with attempts to revive Broca’s notion that brain size directly relates to intelligence
get acknowledged geniuses to donate their brains for dissection and measurement
all geniuses were male and of European descent
received brains from several hundred (!) acknowledged high-achievers
Results:
mean cranial capacity the same as for mean of all White males
therefore, no correlation of brain size and intelligence
very large range of brain sizes among geniuses
E.g., novelists Anatole France (1017 cc) and Ivan Turgenev (2003 cc)
Conclusion:
If all of these geniuses functioned equally well with large or tiny brains, raw brain size must have no particular effect on intelligence.
Modern perspectives on brain size
There is no correlation between brain size (or brain ratios) and intelligence.
Differences in mean brain size for different populations are real, but neither they (nor brain ratios) show any correlation with intelligence.
Differences in mean brain size for different populations relate to:
mean body size (by far the most important factor)
mean pelvic width of women in any population (related to childbirth)
differences in skull architecture for different populations.
Intelligence and intelligence testing I
One of the major flaws of the attempts to link brain size and intelligence is that none of the studies really defined intelligence or attempted to test for it.
What exactly is intelligence?
Most scholars believe it has many facets:
memory
logical reasoning
quantitative reasoning
spatial reasoning
creativity
aesthetic talents
quickness in mental activities
and probably more
One thing intelligence is not: knowledge acquired.
Generally agreed: intelligence is a potential, not a set of skills that have been learned over a lifetime.
Needless to say, the complexity of intelligence makes it difficult to quantitatively assess.
Intelligence and intelligence testing II
How do we define intelligence?
operational definition
the ability to acquire, store, and manipulate information effectively
ideal definition
the potential to acquire, store, and manipulate information effectively
A classic problem:
We want to deal with potentials, since claims of superior or inferior intelligence for particular groups always leads back to genetic potential.
But there is no way to directly measure intellectual potential.
Instead, every intelligence test can do no better than testing one’s ability to perform certain intellectual tasks.
Performance is shaped partly by genetics, partly by learning.
E.g., the ability to calculate the area of a triangle requires:
sufficient intellectual potential to be able to grasp the concepts and operations
sufficient learning to have acquired the appropriate calculating formula
How can you disentangle these two aspects of performance?
Intelligence and intelligence testing III
IQ = Intelligence Quotient
It has been the most important intelligence test in the history of intelligence testing.
The Original IQ Test
Developed between 1905-1911 in France by Alfred Binet (1857-1911), an educational psychologist
Purpose: to assist educators in assigning children to the appropriate grade level
Consisted of a series of short tasks:
ordering of series
picking out geometric shapes that were different from others
picking out objects (drawings) or words that were different from others
Avoided tasks overtly based on learning:
defining words
calculating arithmetic and geometry problems
recalling facts (e.g., when the War of the Roses began)
Binet viewed it as a practical test of student preparedness, not of intellectual potential.
That is, it fit the operational but not the ideal definition of intelligence.
“Intelligence . . . is too complex to capture with a single number . . . We shall make no attempt to distinguish between acquired and congenital idiocy or intelligence.”
-- Alfred Binet
Intelligence and intelligence testing IV
IQ testing was brought to the U.S. by H[enry]. H. Goddard (1866-1952) in 1914.
Goddard taught at Stanford University, and his version became known as the Stanford-Binet test.
Goddard re-conceived the IQ test as a test of intelligence in the ideal sense, assessing potential with no “noise” from learning and environment.
Goddard set up a scale of categories based on IQ scores:
category defining IQ scores
genius 140+
near genius 130-139
very superior 120-129
superior 110-119
normal 90-109
high-grade defective 80-89
defective 70-79
moron 50-69
imbecile 26-49
idiot 0-25
subnormals
Goddard was particularly concerned about subnormals.
Intelligence and intelligence testing IV
Goddard was not merely using IQ tests for research;
he was advocating social policy for the United States, based on IQ scores.
Advocated sterilization (at least prohibition of marriage) for subnormals.
Was unsuccessful with this issue.
Advocated setting of immigration quotas on the basis of mean IQ scores for immigrants from particular countries.
Was successful on this issue: convinced Congress to pass and President Calvin Coolidge to sign into law the Immigration
Restriction Act of 1924.
Advocated use of IQ tests to determine whether a child should be permitted to pursue the regular academic track or be shunted to a vocational track.
Mixed success with this issue: some school boards adopted these criteria, but there was no national standard
based on his advocacy.
Goddard on subnormals: “ Treat them as children according to their mental age, constantly encourage and praise, never discourage or scold, and keep them happy.”
Intelligence and intelligence testing V
Goddard’s followers were even more radical.
Louis M. Terman (1918): advocated IQ testing of children at age 6 and immediate, irrevocable assignment to profession.
Robert Yerkes (1921): advocated revoking vote from “subnormal races.”
His IQ testing had established the following mental ages for races within the U.S.
race mental age
White (in general) 13.08
northern European 15.1
Italian 11.0
Russian 11.3
Polish 10.7
Negro 10.4
The cutoff for “moron” was 12.0, so he advocated retaining vote only for Whites of northern European extraction (except for Slavs, like Poles and Russians).
Intelligence and intelligence testing VI
Major issues with these findings and the research they were based on:
Conditions of testing.
IQ testing of immigrants often was in noisy, crowded areas of immigration facilities.
The original tests were given in English, regardless of whether immigrants spoke that language.
When critics complained about the English-only requirement, they were “modified.” In one test, immigrants were asked to name as many words in their native language as they could, but that request was delivered in English!
Test conditions were improved, but mostly in the 1930s, after most of the policy damage had been done.
The confusion of testing for potential or testing for ability.
This already has been discussed, but it’s a really important issue.
The culture-bound nature of the IQ test.
This is a complex issue and will require more time and space to discuss.
Intelligence and intelligence testing VII
Culture-bound: referring to tests that require culture-specific learning to succeed
E.g., you take a test on the Greek language, which you don’t speak and never studied
How culture-bound were IQ tests in the 1910s and 1920s?
Very.
I’m going to administer a short IQ test to you, all of the questions drawn from a 1923 IQ test devised by H. H. Goddard and administered by Louis Terman.
Question #1. Look at this figure. Then it will be covered, and you have to draw it from memory.
This may appear to be non-culture-bound, since it involves largely general perceptory skills that don’t require formal training. But many taking the test were illiterate and had never held a pencil before; they may not have been comfortable drawing or have developed any motor skills for it.
(Terman chuckled at having to explain how to hold a pencil to many of the Russian Jews who took the test.)
Question #2. Divide 327 by 3.
The answer is 109, and most of you could calculate it in your head. But how simple is this task if you have never been taught arithmetic?
This tests learning as much as potential.
Question #3. Complete the picture.
The only correct answer: put a spoon in the child’s right hand.
Not everyone eats with a spoon; not everyone is right-handed.
Question #4. Complete this picture.
The only correct answer: add the missing rivet near the butt of the knife.
Question #5. Complete this picture.
The only correct answer: add a net across the tennis court.
Tennis was only played in a few countries in the 1920s, and it was an elite sport.
Question #6. The number of a Kaffir’s legs is: 2, 4, 6, or 8?
The correct answer: 2.
Kaffir was an ethnic slur for the Xhosa people (= Hottentot, another disparaging term) of South Africa.
Did everyone know this in the 1920s? Does everyone know it now?
Question #7. Christy Mathewson is famous as a: writer, artist, baseball player, comedian.
The correct answer: baseball player.
But this involves cultural knowledge unlikely for any non-American.
Question #8. Crisco is a: patent medicine, disinfectant, toothpaste, food product.
The correct answer: a food product.
But, again, answering this correctly requires considerable cultural knowledge.
And Crisco was not sold outside of North America in the 1920s.
Question #9. Washington is to Adams as first is to . . .
The correct answer: second.
This is based on the succession of presidents, with George Washington followed by John Adams.
Even “sixth” -- considering John Quincy Adams, the sixth president -- was wrong.
Some test takers answered “Broadway,” because they were familiar with the street layout of Manhattan.
Question #10. Complete this picture.
The correct response: draw in a chimney.
Traditional Sicilian houses have a cross on the roof but no chimney; this response was wrong.
Question #11. How many cubes are there?
The correct answer: 4.
To answer correctly, you have to understand the artistic convention and realize that you should count the “hidden” cube obscured by the other three.
Question #12. A man is entering an Indian village. An Indian says, “That man is crazy – he walks while sitting down.” What is the man doing?
The correct answer: riding a bicycle.
Bicycles were not so widely distributed around the world in the 1920s as they are today.
There also is the issue of having to guess what stereotypes the question was assuming about Indians and their perception.
How’d you do?
Fewer than 9 out of 12 correct makes you subnormal;
Fewer than 5 out or 12 makes you a moron.
I administered this set of questions to 10 CSUSB faculty.
Results ranged from 17-82% correct.
7 of the 10 faculty fell into the idiot-moron categories.
Only 1 rated above normal.
IQ tests today I
Certainly, IQ testing has improved since the 1920s
better testing conditions
better accommodation of languages
attempts to limit culture-bound questions
But there remain two basic criticisms:
Culture-bound questions cannot be completely avoided.
IQ tests evaluate ability/skill, not potential.
IQ tests today II
Culture-bound questions cannot be completely avoided.
Some contemporary IQ test questions:
ferrier:horseshoe as carpenter: ? Options: copper, house, nail, truck
The correct answer: nail
(A ferrier works with horseshoes; a carpenter works with nails.
But this requires knowledge of a fairly obscure word: ferrier.
You probably are more likely to encounter that word in a prep school than in an inner-city school.
beer:whiskey as ?:horse Options: pony, rider, water, cow
The correct answer: pony
(Beer is a weaker form of whiskey [sort of], and a pony is a smaller form of horse.
Again, this requires cultural experience to know how whiskey and beer relate to one another.
Conclusion: you probably cannot avoid some level of culture-boundedness in questions. The best you can do is try to ask questions that your target audience is likely to be culturally prepared for.
IQ tests today III
IQ tests evaluate ability/skill, not potential.
I argue that the learned component that is tested is substantial.
The supporting evidence comes largely from IQ score distributions.
Regional patterns
In U.S., IQ scores for urbanites average 7 points higher than for rural folk.
In U.S., IQ scores for Northeasterners average 11 points higher than Southerners.
IQ scores for Americans average 9 points higher than for the Swiss.
It seems unlikely that the intellectual potential of any of these groups should be substantially higher or lower than any other, but these patterns have persisted for 80+ years.
On the other hand, the learning opportunities (particularly for culture-bound information) are greater in urban areas, the Northeast, and the U.S.
IQ tests today III (continued)
IQ tests evaluate ability/skill, not potential (continued).
Twin studies: average differences in IQ scores
identical twins raised in same family 5 points
identical twins raised in different families 8 points
unrelated individuals raised in same family 9 points
unrelated individuals raised in different families 11 points
This suggests that both genetics and learning are important inputs to IQ scores.
IQ tests today IV (continued)
IQ tests evaluate ability/skill, not potential (continued).
Longitudinal studies
Individual’s IQ scores can vary greatly through life.
E.g., IQ testing of Vietnam-era inductees, then as veterans aiming for college.
Mean increase in scores: 23 points. (83% increased over 10 points)
Overall conclusions: IQ tests measure both a genetic and a learned component of skill/ability.
Modern scholarly arguments for racial differences in intelligence: Arthur Jensen
Arthur Jensen (1923-2012)
educational psychologist
full professor at Berkeley for 45 years
His argument:
Blacks average 13 points lower on IQ tests than Whites.
The differences are not in memory but in conceptual understanding and quantitative reasoning.
E.g., Blacks can learn (memorize) the qualities that define a philosophical argument but will have difficulty
applying that knowledge to particular cases.
Since there are significant racial differences in intelligence – both quantitative and qualitative – education for Blacks should be directed more toward the concrete than the theoretical.
Criticisms: Many and widespread.
Technical issues with his statistical manipulation.
Cherry picking: comparing the highest-scoring White sample with the lowest-scoring Black sample.
Assuming IQ scores to reflect only genetic potential.
ignores cultural differences, differences in average education, various environmental factors
Range vs. means: by his own statistics, the ranges of IQ scores are essentially identical for all racial groups. This suggests that the intellectual potential of all is equal, but social issues limit how many people live up to their potential.
Modern scholarly arguments for racial differences in intelligence: Charles Murray and Richard Hernstein
A biologist and a psychologist
The Bell Curve (1995)
further elaboration of these ideas through today
In essence, little difference from Jensen
IQ tests demonstrate that there are significant racial differences in intellectual potential.
When viewed as a group, Blacks are intellectually inferior to Whites.
Any individual Black, however, may be an especially bright example of a dim race, and therefore may excel.
The argument is essentially the same as Jensen.
The criticisms are the same.
So, why do I even bring Murray and Hernstein up?
Because they demonstrate that the same argument keeps being recycled.
A very contemporary example: James Watson
James Watson: one half of the Watson-and Crick team that recognized that DNA came in the form of a double helix and that the sequence of individual amino acids within it was the place where genetic information was encoded
2007: Watson declares that he believes there are significant racial differences in intelligence
This is argued as self-evident from personal experience;
No scientific evidence is put forward
2019: Watson expresses his sorrow that Africa has little hope of pulling itself out of poverty and warfare.
“The African brain simply is too limited to be able to develop solutions.”
This led to Watson being stripped of a variety of very elite intellectual honors, including his Nobel Prize.
And what is the significance of all this?
Historically, the mainstream of Western scholarship has repeatedly found strategies to argue for racial inequalities in intelligence.
Those differences were used to justify discrimination and permanent low status for non-Whites.
The role of White male scholars can’t be overlooked here: this scholarship helped justify their privileged position.
Originally, head measurements were the basis for these studies.
When these failed, emphasis shifted to intelligence testing to justify the same conclusions.
Since the 1950s, these racial arguments have become increasingly marginalized, and by the 1970s they clearly were not mainstream.
But they still persist.
This could be just a hideous academic story, but these claims of intellectual inferiority have been used to support advocacy of
rescinding the vote;
restricting marriage and forcing sterilization;
providing second-class education (or worse) for “lesser” races
passing the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924
justifying segregation , discrimination, and domination
