Featured Post

PZ Myers dissects evolutionary psychology: brief, sharp and fabulous

I admit I LOL'd at the part about "lighting up like a Christmas tree." WATCH AND LEARN all IDWs!

The Brian Ferguson Interview

Monday, December 2, 2019

How to do race science part 2

So we have established that although race science proponents may retreat in some circumstances to the position that IQ scores are the result of genetics and environment, a move I call weak pinkerism, in fact what they really believe is revealed under strong pinkerism circumstances, as when they appear before a Koch-funded organization or write for Quillette.

In an article in Quillette, recommended by both Sam Harris and Steven Pinker called "A Tale of Two Bell Curves" Ben and Bo Winegard write:
Of course, there are other possible explanations of the Black-White gap, such as parenting styles, stereotype threat, and a legacy of slavery/discrimination among others. However, to date, none of these putative causal variables has been shown to have a significant effect on the IQ gap, and no researcher has yet made a compelling case that environmental variables can explain the gap. This is certainly not for lack of effort; for good reason, scholars are highly motivated to ascertain possible environmental causes of the gap and have tried for many years to do just that.
They clearly rule out all environmental explanations.

And this suits the mindset of the kind of people who favor race science explanations for human behavior because if you admit that both genetics and environment play a role in IQ scores, you have to explain how much each plays a role and then you have to make a serious effort and do actual work.

Which is why, in spite of their professed interest in genetics and human ancestry, when it comes to actually determining study subjects' genetics and ancestry, race science simply uses existing government demographic categories and calls that "race" - even in the case of Latinos (aka "Hispanic') who can be many different combinations of ancestries as explained by 23andMe:
The one thing that genetic testing won’t tell you is whether or not you are Latino or Hispanic. That’s because people from Latin America typically are a mix of European, African, and Native American ancestry. You might also find Middle Eastern, East Asian and Ashkenazi ancestry folded into your results. And as much as it is in the DNA, that rich mixture of ancestry is also embedded in the art, music, and food that make up Latino culture.
How do I know they don't do any genetic testing? Because the kingpin of biosocial criminology, Kevin Beaver, told me so in an email. But I would have guessed it anyway because genetically testing subjects for those occasions when you want to make claims about race and IQ would take a lot of work.

As we know, race science is incredibly lazy.

We also know that race science considers differences in IQ test scores to be genetics-based, although sibling birth order tests say otherwise.

And we know they think genetics and IQ are sorted by race even though they have no system of identifying human races - not even a system that they agree on, amongst themselves.

Although the Winegard brothers and Brian Boutwell want you to know that is perfectly fine.

OK let's do some race science.

Jean-Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen are two of the most influential race science proponents.

I went to the trouble of comparing state demographics and state average intelligence rankings and came up with this spreadsheet. While there was no consistent connection between black percentage of population and state average IQ, what really struck me was that Hawaii had such a high Asian population - 35% - and yet ranked 47 out of 50 states. Remember Rushton and Jensen (along with every race science proponent I have ever seen) believe Asian IQ is higher - genetically - than any other "race." 

The hereditarian wasn't ready to give up yet though:

But remember we are doing race science here, and according to leading race science lights Ben and Bo Winegard and Brian Boutwell, one can go ahead and group races in any way that is "useful"
One might start with five continentally based categories (i.e., Caucasians, East Asians, Africans, Native Americans, and Australian Aborigines) and then add more categories as one’s analysis becomes more granular (e.g. Ashkenazi Jewish, Mizrahi Jewish, and so on). These categories aren’t real in some metaphysical sense, but they are useful, and they do have predictive value.  In this, they are like many other constructs in the social sciences such as self-esteem, intelligence, and agreeableness. They represent traits that cluster together; they predict outcomes; and they can be quantified.

So here is how I figured it, per the tenets of race science (in the first tweet below it should be "above" not "about.")

So in conclusion, even with the loose, sloppy standards of race science itself, we have failed to predict IQ scores across a state by knowing the state's demographic mix.

I say in the last tweet that "hereditarians discover environment" but although they may hand-wave any problems with their race/IQ system by saying environment counts for something, in practice they will always go back to the strong pinkerism of genetics-only, so clearly described by the Winegards and Boutwell. 

Because it would take a lot of work to explain where genetics ends and environment begins and that's not something hereditarians have any interest in doing because....

race science is lazy.

Like Gudetama. But not as cute.