Presentation write-up

Bill Neater

I noticed at the outset of this class that most of the class was comprised of teachers. If we weren’t teachers, than most of us would engage in some form of childcare as our lives progressed. When given the topic of the genetics of intelligence, I immediately pondered the consequences of what teaching would be like without the ability for our students to advance. I thought of the possibility of having a child, and immediately placing limits upon how much he or she could learn. From that inference, one could then judge or limit what that child’s opportunities in life would amount to. For instance, if children are born with a low-IQ, does one immediately assume that they cannot be doctors or scientists? Are such children locked into "lower-IQ" jobs, and then into a lower-IQ life, possibly identified by poverty and misery? In that same vein, should the child be enrolled in pre-school, or extra-help programs, or should parents buy the child a broom and hope their child becomes the best janitor around. Of course, this is taking a radical extreme view of the effect of genetics on intelligence. I have not truly read any information suggesting that intelligence is entirely predetermined. But, I think we can all see where this argument can go. It is the classic, nature/nurture, fate v. free will debate.

In my presentation, I wanted to identify the idea that genetics in relation to something as abstract as intelligence is not as quantifiable as height, for example. In terms of physical characteristics such as height, or weight, there is a much higher correlative value between genetics and those properties. With intelligence it certainly cannot be as high of a correlation between heritability and IQ, as can be seen in heritability and physical properties. So, initially my focus was to identify those radical views and explain the reason why they are not necessarily a reality. To start off with, there are significant differences in the way in which intelligence is measured. For many of us, we measure intelligence by a variety of different factors, but for scientific reasons intelligence is somewhat limited because science needs to produce scientific data. The modern IQ test was developed to determine what basic intelligence is. Lastly, I wanted to look into the claims that genetics have much more to do with intelligence than we would like to believe. This discussion was based upon the book The Bell Curve by Murray and Herrnstein. This book, published in 1994, set off a series of debate unmatched in my mind. The amount of literature written in favor or in opposition to this is voluminous. And so, I wanted to present this somewhat controversial information, and also analyze what that data means to public policy. While we may not agree with many of the findings, we should all analyze what we do actually believe and develop an individual stance so as to be clear on what social policies one is to support or oppose.

A brief history of intelligence testing

Sir Francis Galton: 1/2 cousin of Charles Darwin. "People take in information through their senses, therefor the most intelligent people have the most developed senses."

1905-Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon- developed a test to determine children with behavior problems. Standardized by Stanford, the Stanford-Binet tests become the Americanized King of Intelligence testing.

****Binet puts forth the idea of "g" intelligence. "g" intelligence is the idea of basic cognitive ability. That is the basic ability to take in knowledge. This does not support the view of multiple intelligences. Rather, it is scientific because "g" intelligence is able to be measured by IQ tests, while multiple intelligences confuses the control factor.****

1916-US entry into WWI--Army Alpha and Beta tests-introduces the notion that IQ tests were useful for adults, not just children.

David Wechsler-blended Stanford-Binet and Army Alpha tests in an insistence that everyone be evaluated on both verbal and non-verbal tasks.

WHAT is intelligence?

• practical problem solving ability
• verbal ability
• social competence
• cognitive competence
• interpersonal understanding
• intrapersonal understanding
• intellectual self-assertion
• intellectual self-effacement

This is a classic argument of creative/practical abilities versus the traditional analytical model of intelligence.

Conclusions: There is more to intelligence to IQ, yet "to date, behavioral-genetic research addresses exclusively the etiology of g-based abilities. Whereas other areas of psychology have appreciated the diversity of human abilities, the field of behavioral genetics remains a dedicated soldier in the g-empire" (Grigorenko, 488).

 NATURE

The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein.

Much of the study for this presentation and my subsequent report was done about this book. The Bell Curve made such amazing claims in it, that the scientific community erupted in revolt or support to the claims which it puts forth. To start off with, I’ll show you two other individuals who were the first to exert a radical view on the subject of genetics and intelligence, and then go into the main points which The Bell Curve suggests.

1969-Arthur Jensen-One of the first to claim that an individual’s destiny substantially is affected by his or her talent as measured by IQ which, in turn, depends largely on genetics.

William Shockley-Nobel Prize winning physicist, coinventor of the transistor. Proposed that the government pay low-IQ people to be sterilized.

A summary of Murray and Herrnstein’s findings as reported by National Center for Educational Statistics as seen in Powell’s article.

• IQ tests provide the most accurate measure of general intelligence, while standardized tests of academic aptitude and achievement measure intelligence to some degree.
• Properly administered IQ tests provide a meaningful measure of general intelligence, regardless of an individual’s race, ethnic group, social status, or income.
• General intelligence is 40 to 80 percent gene driven
• IQ scores are reasonably stable throughout an individual’s life

• Low IQ is among the most accurate predictors of school failure. A study of whites shows that people in the bottom 20 percent of IQ account for 55 percent of high school dropouts.
• Generally, the lower the IQ, the higher the unemployment rate. About 10 percent of those surveyed from the bottom 20 percent of IQ were unemployed for a year, whereas there was no yearlong unemployment reported among people rated in the top 40 percent of IQ.
• The lower the IQ, the smaller the percentage of married people. White women from the bottom 5 percent of IQ are six times more likely to bear an illegitimate child than women from the top 5 percent
• Sixty-two percent of prison inmates interviewed come from the bottom 20 percent of IQ. Contrary to popular belief, Murray says, poverty is not a simple, direct cause of crime.

1) Murray and Herrnstein suggest that spending money on government school doesn’t raise intelligence. In a program like Head Start, for example, Murray and Herrnstein report that most cognitive benefits are lost by grade three. No lasting improvements in intelligence have ever been statistically validated with any head start program.

2) Government schools have skewed education away from higher-IQ students and toward lower-IQ students. Monies have been cut back from gifted students, and funneled to students with problems learning.

3) Affirmative action admission policies to college are promoted on the notion that intellectual deficiencies can be resolved with remedial courses.

Among many other effects...

Murray finds validation in these ideas and problems largely because his view of the big-government federal world we live in is not consistent with his view on the best way to live life. It should come as no surprise that Murray favors a return to higher education based upon intelligence, and for that matter a society in which the best jobs are simply reserved for those who have the highest-IQ. The problem exists in the way our culture has identified the "lower-IQ" jobs. Murray favors a society in which everyone fits in equally. That is, every individual performs his or her own talent according to his or her own level of skill. The society is successful because whether it is high or low IQ, every individual can bring something to society. Murray asserts that the problem exists when society places a label on those lower jobs, and therefor they become unattractive, yet vitally important. He blames much of this on the big government which pushes through welfare programs that stratifies society, and places a label on them, oftentimes pushing them father down, rather than lifting them up. Powell ends his article quoting Thomas Jefferson, in reference to Murray by stating that "It’s no wonder Murray favors the Jeffersonian ideal that government that governs best governs least. Government may be able to make people smarter, he says, but getting out of the way would enable everyone to make a better life with what they have."

The "g" Factor

Arthur Jensen (remember 1969), writes in 1998, a book entitled The ‘g’ Factor which supports many of Murray and Herrnstein’s findings. Jensen supports the idea that East Asians test smarter than whites, and whites in turn smarter than blacks. Jensen separates himself from The Bell Curve on two major points:

• Jensen reports a high correlation between IQ scores and brain size.
• Jensen also reports that this theory of intelligence is supported by the "out-of-Africa" evolutionary theory. Jensen believes that all life did begin in Africa, and as time progressed the group of homo sapiens split. As populations migrated north and west through time, those individuals encountered difficulties in the maintenance of life, such as found in the climate and terrain. These difficulties caused man to constantly overcome obstacles, heightening their intelligence at an accelerated speed.

I am certainly not too sure how plausible that these theories are, but they are published, and Arthur Jensen is certainly an accomplished source.

As I did in my presentation, I would leave the "nurture" end of this discussion to the individual. As I stated in class, I, as a teacher, think that one must take into account the environmental effects that we as a teacher or a parent can have on students and children in general. The class raised some interesting points that supported this claim. Of the most noteworthy question though, that is whether there was a genetic predisposition to intelligence that ran along gender lines, there is not any true claims to that. I looked first into Murray and Herrnstein's book, and they claim that intelligence can not be transmitted along gender lines. That is, on average. Looking into several other books as noted in my bibliography, it seems as if this is the only claim in which the multiple authors agree on.

As we have found on many different occasions, the most logical way to approach the issue is the exact way the industry has approached the issue....50/50. Until we know more, as scientific fact, this is the best assumption to recognize the importance of both genetics and environment and their role in the development of intelligence.
 
 

This was used for my paper, and helpful in my presentation and the subsequent write-up.

Devlin, Bernie, et al. Statistics for Social Science and Public Policy: Intelligence, Genes, and Success. New York: Springer, 1997.

Easterbrook, Gregg. "The Case against ‘The Bell Curve.’" Washington Monthly. Dec 1994: 17-26.

Gould, Stephen Jay. The Mismeasure of Man. New York; WW Norton and Company, 1996.

Grigorenko, Elena L.; Sternberg, Robert J.. "Genetics of Childhood Disorders: I. Genetics and Intelligence." Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. v. 38.4 (1999) : 486-8.

Herrnstein, Richard J., and Charles Murray. The Bell Curve. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994.

Kaufman, Alan S.. "Genetics of Childhood Disorders: II. Genetics and Intelligence." Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. v.38.5 (1999) : 626-8

Loury, Glenn. "A Political Act." The New Republic. 31 Oct 1994: 12-13.

Powell, James. "New ideas about smarts stand logic on its head." Insight on the News. 31 Oct 1994: 14-18.

Rushton, J. Philippe. "The ‘Jensen-effect’ and the Spearman-Jensen Hypothesis of Black-White IQ Differences." Intelligence. May 1998: 217

Sloboda, John. "Weighing of the Talents." Nature. 11 Mar 1993: 115-116.