The Haidt interjection”

Do you mean Haier? In his piece for Quillette, Haier doesn’t refute the Turkheimer et al piece, nor does he challenge what they argue is/is not mainstream. He says the following:

“I explained in a series of subsequent emails to the editors about the Default Hypothesis—whatever the factors are that influence individual differences in IQ, the same factors would influence average group differences. Since there is overwhelming evidence that genes influence the former, it would not be unreasonable to hypothesize that genes at least partially influence group differences.”

That genes influence individual intelligence is utterly non-controversial, one of those self-evident points that scarcely needs to be made. Like behavior, intelligence is polygenic, determined by a number of alleles at a whole family of loci we’ve yet to nail down in any precise way. As for mean differences in group IQ, again, no one has suggested it’s “unreasonable” to suspect a genetic component may be in play here as well. However, it is simply a fact that any evidence on this point has proved elusive.

Indeed, no sound studies exist that have found a statistically meaningful genetic relationship for the IQ gap, while pretty much every well designed study that looks at environmental factors and intelligence has found something significant. This is important to point out because it’s not that the studies hyped by Murray et al failed to account for environmental influences, but that they failed to find a valid genetic component even when designed at the outset to look for such patterns.

There is a mainstream view on the science of intelligence. Here’s the statement published in 1994. They write:

“There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups. The reasons for these IQ differences between groups may be markedly different from the reasons for why individuals differ among themselves within any particular group (whites or blacks or Asians)…Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too.”

To my knowledge, this is still firmly in the mainstream, and no studies to date have caused us to question these positions. Now consider what Turkheimer et al wrote:

“On the basis of the above premises, Murray casually concludes that group differences in IQ are genetically based. But what of the actual evidence on the question? Murray makes a rhetorical move that is commonly deployed by people supporting his point of view: They stake out the claim that at least some of the difference between racial groups is genetic, and challenge us to defend the claim that none, absolutely zero, of it is. They know that science is not designed for proving absolute negatives, but we will go this far: There is currently no reason at all to think that any significant portion of the IQ differences among socially defined racial groups is genetic in origin.”

Again, fully consonant with the mainstream, with the language there drawing directly from the available evidence weighing on this question. No one denies the mere possibility of a genetic basis for the gap; it’s just that no discernible signal exists in the data.

Turkheimer at al’s further point was that we also have a relatively weak understanding of general intelligence (g-factor) and similarly complex traits. This combined with certain sets of ambiguous data with loose correlations and confounding variables (which is somewhat inherent to the challenging complexities of social science research in general) make it problematic to make sure pronouncements as regards heritability. Haier, as far as I can tell, did not engage with this point.

As far as this conversation having “nothing to do with history,” I have already elaborated why I think that’s wrong, so I won’t repeat those arguments here. It will suffice to say here that we should always consider the broader context in which knowledge is disseminated. And I can hardly imagine a topic in which that broader context is more critical and necessary to acknowledge than this one. No, recognizing and addressing the context doesn’t change the underlying data, I agree, but there is a point at which discussing the data without acknowledging the social context becomes irresponsible, and I think the conversation Murray & Harris had certainly tripped over that line, especially given how this particular conversation has played out historically in Western societies.

I felt Klein articulated these points well. And he did *not* say that one’s race “disqualifies” you from having a certain conversation, only that it’s problematic for two white guys to be having this age-old conversation given how it has played out historically, especially without even addressing that historical context, which Murray & Harris completely failed to do. That the science doesn’t exist in a vacuum was exactly the kind of pushback Sam needed to hear. Could Klein have done a better job of getting through to Sam on these points? Perhaps. But I think our difference here is that you simply don’t think these are important or relevant points to raise in this discussion. And I very much do.

(Thanks for sticking around through all of this. Giant wall of text, I know.)

I appreciate your well though out response, I frankly disagree with so much of it though. Your claims about what is and is not mainstream it the relavent studies as well as Turkheimer and Nesbit were put to rest IMO by the Haidt interjection. The thing your citing as a virtue and strength of Klein as knowing the history etc is the exact thing that I view as the problem. This conversation has nothing to do with history, Klein used this topic to push forth his agenda which is why he never directly spoke to Sam. This is why many viewed him as slippery and disgusting during their debate. When pushed he played the, “as 2 white guys I find it funny we’re havjng this conversation”. Whenever you hear tactics like this know whomever is saying them has lost and is abandoning ship. It is racist to say that your race disqualified you from something, including comments about the realities one sees in front of them.

Thanks for the link. The political subtext of I.Q. hadn’t occurred to me.

Well said. I agree IQ is a reductive and woefully incomplete measurement that fails to capture the full breadth of one’s capabilities. Humans are complex creatures, and each of us has different proficiencies in set tasks, whether they involve critical thinking and decision making, problem solving, or more specialized tasks that require both cognitive and physical ability (think mechanical engineer). In effect, IQ is a single measurement by which we put people on ‘bell curves’. But in order to evaluate someone’s capabilities, there’re a hundred other measurements we would need to use, and they would fall at different places along those hundred other bell curves.

Obviously this sentiment would hardly be lost on intelligence researchers. (Indeed, there is much debate in the field ranging from the utility of the IQ metric to the best way to think about human ‘intelligence’ more generally.) Speaking of which, you might enjoy this post by my friend James Croft.

I speak from rueful personal experience. I have silos and canyons in my own intelligence. I am much better at abstract ideas than contending with the physical world, for example; I simply cannot grasp how to go about the simplest home repairs.

Imagine if there were such a thing as a “P.Q.”, a “Physical Quotient” . You
take every aspect of an individual’s physical capability–strength,
flexibility, stamina, immune system, susceptibility to cancer and
perhaps a hundred other things. And then you assign a number to it.
Suppose there was a young man who could bench press a Dodge Caravan, but
had raging hemorrhoids, erectile dysfunction, and maybe diabetes.
Still, we presume to assign him a single number, say 121. Are we to
conclude, then, that this person is somehow physically “better” than
somebody who is assigned 117? It is absurd upon its face.

Human intelligence is, if anything, even more complex and multi-faceted than
physical capability. And, like our physical prowess, it has a
significant environmental element. And yet we imagine that there is a
magical number called “I.Q.” that somehow quantifies every aspect of our
cognitive gifts. To base a scientific hypothesis upon I.Q. is to build
a temple upon quicksand.

Indeed, all of us have a bias, and in this particular case mine is with Klein, primarily because I agree with his assessment of the issues under discussion. Specifically, I take Klein’s side on this because he is right on the science and he is right on the historical and social aspects of this conversation.

Re the science: Despite Murray & Harris’s repeated suggestion of uncertainty surrounding the genetic vs. environmental cause of the measured differences in racial IQ, there is in fact no known genetic basis for any gap in any data set of IQ scores. It isn’t a devil in the details or a gap in knowledge. As bioanthropologist Greg Laden puts it, “It is a paisley teapot in orbit around Jupiter.” That the predominant explanation is environmental/cultural in origin and that there is currently no persuasive evidence to suggest otherwise is firmly in the mainstream among researchers in intelligence and has been for more than two decades.

This is what the Vox piece responding to Harris-Murray communicated. This is what Flynn and Turkheimer communicated to Klein prior to his doing the podcast. And this is the position Klein himself took both in his follow up essay and his debate with Harris. Put simply, his presentation of the science was more accurate than what we heard in the Harris-Murray podcast. See my previous post for more.

Re the sociohistorical dimensions, as I say below, what I see Klein doing in this conversation is incorporating the much needed context that was missing in the conversation between Harris and Murray. You can’t have an honest conversation about racial differences in IQ without confronting and integrating the critically important context of the historic inequity of American life, namely the treatment of black Americans, and how the science in question has been (mis)used and exploited by bad actors. Especially if we believe — as the research consensus on this queston suggests — that the prevailing explanation is differences in environment, any conversation that omits this history does a gross disservice to listeners.

I don’t see this frankly as “dodging” or “rambling” but as contextualizing this historically fraught conversation in a way he and Murray failed to do.

Now, if you want to reduce all of this to “Klein has an issue with whites commenting on the lives of blacks” or that he’s a “race pusher” (whatever that means), that’s your prerogative. But I see a far more nuanced position being communicated in his essay and in this debate. And I believe it’s one we need to take seriously if we as a society are to have more productive conversations of this nature going forward.

Thank you to the OP for your take though I disagree with you.

Goodluck in the future!

Thanks for sharing your take. I’ll go back and read through that section of the transcript, because it’s certainly possible I have the context wrong. Judging purely from your own take of the context, however, I think I would say that Sam’s response doesn’t come off a whole lot better in this case.

As I understand it, Ezra’s fundamental point in all of this is that a scientific question this intertwined with the history of race and socioeconomic circumstance in America should not be discussed without confronting and integrating that critically important context. Any conversation that fails to do so is bound to be woefully incomplete and ahistorical.

Secondly, as Klein says both here in the podcast and in his article, he doesn’t think deplatforming Murray at Middlebury was a net win as it emboldens and energizes the anti-SJ wing of society. It also brings undue attention to the bad ideas we want cleansed from popular discourse, and often more attention than it otherwise would have had. (Indeed, one could argue that Murray once again being in the news cycle is a direct function of that incident in Middlebury.)

So Klein’s not against publicly discussing this or any other issue. It’s why he offered to do a podcast after all. But he does think pushback is necessary against conversations that fail to honor the proper context in which we should be having them.

You said:

“[t]he weight of American history is completely irrelevant [to the scientific discussion of race and IQ]”

But what I heard in the interview was this:

“[t]he weight of American history is completely irrelevant [to whether we can publicly discuss anything science discovers about race and IQ]”

He freely admitted that environment and history could (and probably do) account for far more of the distinctions between races than genetics ever will, and that any honest scientific or policy advancements must necessarily take American History into account.

Murray himself is failing to do that, but Harris is not.

At least, that was my take. Otherwise, Sam is as blind as a bat to his own biases, identity, and tribe. I’ve never listened to Ezra before, but he wiped the floor with Sam as far as I’m concerned. I still think Sam is mostly fine, but he’s definitely over-reacting some of the time, and a bit of a conversational bully.

It was nice to see someone finally tell him to shut his mouth for a second. Though from what I understand, Ezra is somewhat of a conversational bully as well, so I guess they just balanced out.