In this discussion it might help those whose are arguing here for a hereditary explanation to be aware of certain facts. The slavic and southern Europeans peoples were routinely measured in the early 20th century as having lower IQ and being congenitally inferior. That gap no longer exists when testing. Voila! The superior abilities of blacks on the playing field can be as easily explained by environment as can the lower scores of blacks in the IQ tests. Witness the whites in the NBA successfully competing. They're mostly from Europe! When blacks in our society are impliedly inferior in their thought processes, they seek other avenues of excellence.

I have contact with black people every day. If anything their lack of confidence in an intellectual millieu and their macho culture are what make it difficult to compete in some scenarios. It is shameful for you to suppose lack of intelligence when alternative explanations are both plausible and readily apparent.

Dear nyscribble,

The story about "The slavic and southern Europeans peoples were routinely measured in the early 20th century as having lower IQ and being congenitally inferior" is a canard in the words of Stephen Pinker.

In the early 20th century, Goddard tested a group of pre-selected individuals, border cases. Every single book on genetics and intelligence published recently debunks the story of this ''mismeasuring test of man."

If you have seen this story represented as true in the books or science works published in the past two years, would you mind giving us titles or links.

Thanks.

this one?

Revisionist history - kind've makes you wonder what would motivate a person to engage in such a dishonest exercise, doesn't it?

You really might want to read those long posts I linked you to.

GeneralDisarray wrote the following post at 12/04/2007 11:29 AM:

this one?

That's from 1986, so it doesn't pass the "last two years" criterion.

More basically, the environmentalists say, "IQ testers used to think that Slavs and Jews had low IQs." The genetics boosters reply, "that's based on a lousy, discredited test. It doesn't invalidate IQ testing any more than Piltdown Man invalidates evolution."

Your link, though interesting, doesn't get us beyond the point summarized above.

"The story about "The slavic and southern Europeans peoples were routinely measured in the early 20th century as having lower IQ and being congenitally inferior" is a canard in the words of Stephen Pinker.

In the early 20th century, Goddard tested a group of pre-selected individuals, border cases. Every single book on genetics and intelligence published recently debunks the story of this ''mismeasuring test of man."

If you have seen this story represented as true in the books or science works published in the past two years, would you mind giving us titles or links." FPANE

I addressed his point.

Also, the 2-years rule doesn't really apply to examinations of history, does it? Or is it necessary for people to reinvent the wheel every couple of years?

Though it doesn't invalidate IQ testing, it does provide some indication that at least one of the major researchers in the area was rather taken in by the metaphorical equivalent of your Piltdown man. Might this say something about his objectivity?

Besides - the IQ researchers say something about lousy discredited tests in one breath, and then talk about the consistency of results throughout history (also covering this time-frame) in the next. Odd, isn't it?

Though it doesn't invalidate IQ testing, it does provide some indication that at least one of the major researchers in the area was rather taken in by the metaphorical equivalent of your Piltdown man. Might this say something about his objectivity?

I don't understand. Herrnstein said Goddard's testing was bad. If he'd said it was valid, the Piltdown analogy would hold.

Besides - the IQ researchers say something about lousy discredited tests in one breath, and then talk about the consistency of results throughout history (also covering this time-frame) in the next. Odd, isn't it?

Saying a 1916 test is not valid but that, to quote Rushton and Jensen's title, "Thirty Years of Research On Race Differences in Cognitive Ability" is valid (with the time period in question being approximately 1969-2003) is not odd at all.

Exactly. Just like the long debunked myth that Jews used to score poorly on IQ tests. That such rubbish is still being served up as an argument against hereditarian positions demonstrates how out of date and uninformed those proposing a 100% environmental cause for race differences in intelligence are. Steve Sailer doubts Metcalf has even read Jensen's The g Factor. The same could be said for most of the environmentalists here at Slate's peanut gallery.

1) Pinker, not Herrnstein. But even in the case of Herrnstein..

"Herrnstein claimed that documentation for Kamin's quotation was not found in the Goddard article to which Kamin had made reference, and that even if such evidence did appear in another place, it was most likely based on an early translation of the Binet test which would overestimate mental deficiency in any population it was given to."

Not exactly a strong refutation of the validity of testing.

Of course, Herrnstein was also being very selective:

"But even if one ignores the biases evident in Goddard's research methods and the fact that he published his study a year after Terman's Stanford revision was disseminated, Herrnstein's argument could only be valid if "post-IQ" mental testing had not also produced similar data. An example of a similar conclusion based on the Stanford-Binet IQ test itself is found in the very book by Terman which Herrnstein quoted in Goddard's behalf. In that work Terman wrote that "borderline" intelligence "is very, very common among Spanish-Indian and Mexican families of the southwest and also among negroes. Their dullness seems to be racial, or at least inherent in the family stocks from which they come."(16) Thus, neither of Herrnstein's arguments succeeded in getting Goddard and the early mental testing movement off the hook."

Maybe you should give the article a closer reading? That might clear up your confusion.

I'm not talking specifically about the Rushton and Jensen article. Hasn't Pinker (and others) made such an argument?

Watson, A REAL scientist, just made the mistake of telling a truth which is being suppressed.

======= HEY "LIBERAL CREATIONISTS":

Don't laugh at the "scientists" at Padua who refused to look through Galileo's telescope: you ARE the "scientists" at Padua who refused to look through Galileo's telescope.

And I... laugh at YOU!!

You'd see the folly of your presentation of the "environmentalist" straw man.

The argument here, as it's evolved, is more along the lines of a "rationalist" position.

The folly of Goddard, Terman, Yerkes and Brigham is that they were measuring group differences, but did not adequately understand the universe in which they were operating. Guess what? Same problem going on right now.

But go, read; see for yourself.

Maybe you should give the article a closer reading? That might clear up your confusion.

I did. Close enough to note that it makes no mention of Pinker, which makes sense, since he was in his 20s when it came out.

I don't know what Pinker has said about the history of IQ. As little as possible, I suspect. He has stated that "different groups of people may differ in their talents and temperments, which sounds fairly anodyne, except that he characterized it as a "dangerous idea."

<link>

The broader point is that people who talk about consistent results of IQ testing are generally talking about post-World War II work. Certainly Rushton and Jensen (who have done the most work in this area) are.

"The story about "The slavic and southern Europeans peoples were routinely measured in the early 20th century as having lower IQ and being congenitally inferior" is a canard in the words of Stephen Pinker....In the early 20th century, Goddard tested a group of pre-selected individuals, border cases. Every single book on genetics and intelligence published recently debunks the story of this ''mismeasuring test of man."" FPANE

[GD response - demonstrating that not "debunked" at all]

"More basically, the environmentalists say, "IQ testers used to think that Slavs and Jews had low IQs." The genetics boosters reply, "that's based on a lousy, discredited test. It doesn't invalidate IQ testing any more than Piltdown Man invalidates evolution." KP

[GD response - you're missing the point. I addressed Pinker's allegation that the Goddard testing was a "debunked canard". Suggested that "debunked" represents "Piltdown man" for Pinker]

"I don't understand. Herrnstein said Goddard's testing was bad. If he'd said it was valid, the Piltdown analogy would hold." KP

[GD response - you're missing the point. I was addressing Pinker's point that the Goddard testing results were a "debunked canard". You're also taking a very selective look at Herrnstein's argument. Maybe you should give the article a more careful reading - clear up your misunderstanding.]

"I did. Close enough to note that it makes no mention of Pinker, which makes sense, since he was in his 20s when it came out." KP

[GD - throws his hands up in the air and walks away, muttering something to himself about the inanity of people who do not read things very closely.]

The article linked to by GD shows some links between early IQ researchers and the movement for immigration restriction in the 20s.

But it shows nothing about low IQ scores in the same time period for Slavic people, Southern Europeans, or Jews. Goddard was looking at specially selected individuals. This is a separate issue.

Also a separate issue is the low IQs of blacks and Mexicans apparently found by another researcher.

A description of the specific ethnic groups in question is beyond the scope of the article. There are some indications, however:

"We have already mentioned Brigham's 1923 book, A Study of American Intelligence, which rank ordered American ethnic groups from superior "Nordic" Americans to inferior immigrants from southern and eastern European countries and yet more inferior blacks. Brigham concluded that public action was necessary to exclude the inferior groups. He wrote that "immigration should not only be restrictive but highly selective". In January 1924 Brigham, speaking before the luncheon of the National Republican Club, and in the company of Congressman Albert Johnson, the primary architect of the 1924 law, reiterated his book's racist conclusions."

Myself, I prefer the more comprehensive history of the area which is cited here (part one) and here (part two). If you follow the link to the source material, you'll see it is part of an annotated bibliography - for those of you who are inclined to ask for citations.