HBD-denialism at National Review

The following is from a National Review column by Jonah Goldberg in which he is supposedly giving advice to Sarah Palin:

[P]eddling a few platitudes and truisms about free markets and limited government is no substitute for really knowing what you’re talking about. Yes, you can talk well about the stuff you know — oil drilling, energy, etc. — but beyond your comfort zone, you fall back on bumper-sticker language that sounds fine to the people who already agree with you but is useless in winning over skeptics.

President Bush had the same problem you do, which is why there’s a hunger for Republicans who can effectively articulate and sell our policies and philosophy. That’s why the wonks have the upper hand. Mitt Romney, Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, and other hands-on types are what the party wants and, frankly, needs.

Here’s the good news: You have time. Here’s the better news: You have something no one else in the party has — charisma. And I don’t mean you have the most charisma like it’s a consolation prize for not being elected prom queen. If money could buy what you have, Romney would have bought it all by now. Good politicians can learn how to win over audiences, but the great ones are born with the ability. Reagan had it. Clinton had it. Obama has it. You have it. You are the “It Girl” of the GOP.

What you lack, you can learn. ...

What Jonah doesn’t seem to understand is that intelligence, which I like to define as the ability to reason and learn, is a genetically inherited trait, and to whatever small extent if any that it might be influenced by environment, it’s solidly fixed by the time one reaches Sarah Palin’s age. Sarah lacks the ability to learn.

Furthermore, I am disgusted by Jonah’s statement that Sarah is “the ‘It Girl’ of the GOP.” National Review has sunk a lot. William F. Buckley, Jr. would never have written that.

Comments

[Farrout]

I don't think me and Jonah have the same definition of charisma. She is not unattractive, but physical appearance is not equivalent to charisma. In her speeches she sounds like she's addressing a group of children, trying to get them excited about the field trip, and she never says anything of substance. It's like someone handed her a stack of flash cards with all the inane GOP soundbites, and she randomly picks some for a speech.
I know modern politics is a race to see who can grab the bottom-dwellers, the mouth breathers who bother to vote and are attracted to shiny objects and have the attention span of a moth. But still - can the GOP really bank their future on a glorified teacher's aide?

[OneSTDV]

I don't know if this constitutes HBD-denialism. I think this constitutes IQ-denialism. I generally consider HBD to be concerned with racial differences, not individual differences.

Nonetheless, he's arguing "nurture" when it's clear Palin can't handle herself in the highest political strata.

[DaveinHackensack]

"Sarah lacks the ability to learn."

You base this statement on what, exactly? Given that she apparently wasn't born with any knowledge of, say, the oil industry, she seems to have learned something about it over time. What made Palin look bad was her interviews where she was quized on foreign policy.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to speak intelligently about foreign affairs. All it takes is a little regular reading of a few periodicals. The limiting factor, in Palin's case, probably hasn't been intelligence, but interest. If you are interested in world events and foreign policy, you read related op/eds and reporting about the subject every week in the NY Times, the WSJ, the Washington Post, The Economist, Foreign Affairs, etc. Over years of doing this, you learn facts and form opinions. This isn't like figuring out String Theory: it doesn't require a lot of intellectual horsepower. Just an average or slightly above average intelligence and an interest in the subject.

Palin obviously had no interest in this before she was picked as McCain's VP candidate.

[APH]

"she sounds like she's addressing a group of children, trying to get them excited about the field trip"

Yes, very true! But lots of adults want to be excited like that.

[I_Affe]

Simian features? Seriously? I know Obama is black and the average (and I repeat AVERAGE) IQ among blacks is lower than that of other races, but that doesn't mean every black is below the average white IQ.

We all know IQ is partially hertiable. Well, Obama's half-brother studied physics at Stanford and has an MBA from Emory. Obama also has a half-sister who has a PhD in German studies from a German university. His mother earned a PhD and his father earned a master's degree in economics from Harvard.

Disagree with his policies all you want, but to think that a man with his accomplishments and pedigree has a low IQ is well... stupid.

[I_Affe]

Opps... it looks like the post I responded to has been deleted. Anyway, I agree with HS about Palin, until I see evidence to the contrary. I'm going to agree with HS and my gut.

[An engineer]

"Sarah lacks the ability to learn."

Repetition isn't demonstration.

Dave, you said:
"The limiting factor, in Palin's case, probably hasn't been intelligence, but interest. If you are interested in world events and foreign policy, you read related op/eds and reporting about the subject every week in the NY Times, the WSJ, the Washington Post, The Economist, Foreign Affairs, etc. Over years of doing this, you learn facts and form opinions. "

HS has on numerous occasions said that her lack of interest in intellectual pursuits points to her lack of intelligence.

While it can be a sign, it is not proof. A smart guy in Alaska isn't generally going to have the same interests as a smart guy in New York. Particularly when that same smart guy in Alaska has an abundance of stimulating diversions available that crowd out "intellectual hobbies".

Seriously, I'd rather be hunting this morning than posting this comment.

No, I read the Vanity Fair article and it's nothing new really. I like Sarah Palin, but I've come to agree with HS that she is a potential disaster for the Republicans.

Consider this anecdote: My wife's grandfather is a WWII vet from an upper middle class background in Alabama. He is very intelligent, and decidedly NOT a feminist. I would never have considered him one who would vote for a female. He is however, strongly behind her and WILL vote for her if given a chance.

I think a large part of his liking for her stems from his impression that the coastal elites of the party are at war with flyover conservatives like him. His enemies are her enemies, so that makes her his friend.

The more Republican insiders try to "nip her in the bud", the more she will remind people like him of the party elites attitude toward Reagan, and the stronger they'll support her.

So, in my mind, the potential disaster awaiting the Republican party is a huge split between the insiders and the grassroots.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"The limiting factor, in Palin's case, probably hasn't been intelligence, but interest. If you are interested in world events and foreign policy, you read related op/eds and reporting about the subject every week in the NY Times, the WSJ, the Washington Post, The Economist, Foreign Affairs, etc. Over years of doing this, you learn facts and form opinions."

I don't agree with you about foreign policy and intelligence.

People who are interested in foreign policy are going to be - and need to be - intelligent to begin with because foreign policy involves the subtle interaction between a wide variety of social science fields. Foreign policy involves economics, culture, religion, military capabilities, etc.

People of mediocre IQ are not strong enough in terms of logic and verbal intelligence to make the connection between seemingly unrelated topics, such as whether free trade increases or decreases political stability in certain countries.

In most foreign policy publications you need a certain minimal level of verbal intelligence just to have a good grasp of what the very high verbal intelligence writers are talking about.

[Peter]

"nominated an affirmative action diversity pimp to SCOTUS who obviously hates whites"

Even though, biologically speaking, she is at least 90% Caucasian.

[Linda]

"Even though, biologically speaking, she is at least 90% Caucasian."

No she's not. People who are 90% Caucasian have no visible non-Caucasian ancestry.

[Linda]

"What Jonah doesn’t seem to understand is that intelligence, which I like to define as the ability to reason and learn,"

I'd say it's more than just the ability to reason and learn. You also have to apply what you learn. Intelligence is the ability to problem solve.

"is a genetically inherited trait, and to whatever small extent if any that it might be influenced by environment, it’s solidly fixed by the time one reaches Sarah Palin’s age."

Assuming those recent studies about the n back test training improving intelligence are wrong. And they have come under some criticism.

[Linda]

"HS has on numerous occasions said that her lack of interest in intellectual pursuits points to her lack of intelligence.

While it can be a sign, it is not proof."

What causes me to question her intelligence is her tendency to produce long incoherent disjointed run-on sentences. She seems to get lost in long sentences of any complexity and ends up spewing giberish. She was mocked for this by Tina Fey.

[Petey]

"nominated an affirmative action diversity pimp to SCOTUS who obviously hates whites"

Even though, biologically speaking, she is at least 90% Caucasian.

Posted by: Peter | July 05, 2009 at 02:11 PM
Peter, I'd say Sotomayor has distinct Negroid features, especially her nose. Her short, dumpy body is reminiscent of an Inca. I doubt her genetic heritage can be traced to Spain, more likely South America and sub-Saharan Africa

[Another Engineer]

"What causes me to question her intelligence is her tendency to produce long incoherent disjointed run-on sentences. She seems to get lost in long sentences of any complexity and ends up spewing giberish. She was mocked for this by Tina Fey."

I don't see it. I totally understand her statements yesterday which seemed to perplex many blog-o-bservers, but I think neoneocon said it best:

"This is part of the reason for the idea that Palin is dumb—even though it’s clear she’s not. But she “reads” dumb to many people, because she’s working and/or middle class and doesn’t cover that fact up with erudite academic-speak. If she doesn’t, it must mean she can’t, in many people’s eyes; it can’t possibly be a proud and strategic choice, right?"

http://neoneocon.com/2009/07/04/palin-its-the-education-stupid/

[DaveinHackensack]

Undiscovered Jew,

"People who are interested in foreign policy are going to be - and need to be - intelligent to begin with because foreign policy involves the subtle interaction between a wide variety of social science fields."

Meh. I was reading Time Magazine when I was eleven years old and didn't find it terribly challenging, and I was no child genius. It had a lot of brightly colored maps, and as a boy I was interested in military hardware, so it was a natural progression to read about war, foreign policy, etc. Besides, unlike some fields where to be considered smart you have to be right, foreign policy experts can be wrong and not considered unintelligent. It's more important to demonstrate that you understand the issues.

It's helpful to engage in debates about this sort of stuff, to hone your ability to speak competently about it. If this is the sort of thing you grow up talking about at the dinner table, or if, as an adult, you seek out folks to argue about this stuff with, you have an advantage (e.g., if you go out drinking with journalists, diplomats, military officers, etc.). If you're Sarah Palin, you've probably spent more time arguing about Alaska-specific issues.

I don't know how smart Palin is, but I think Another Engineer touches on an important point, which is the class snobbery inherent in a lot of attacks on Palin. This is somewhat similar to the attacks on Bush, except in Bush's case, his Texan inarticulateness and rancher persona was one he largely created himself, after he was beaten in a run for Congress by a candidate who mocked him as a Yankee interloper.

When you speak like Palin does, people assume you aren't smart, and then they'll proceed to try to snag you on stuff, thus confirming their suspicion. If you speak like Obama does, people will assume you are smart and you'll get away with more bad answers.

[silly girl]

"Well, Obama's half-brother studied physics at Stanford and has an MBA from Emory. Obama also has a half-sister who has a PhD in German studies from a German university. His mother earned a PhD and his father earned a master's degree in economics from Harvard."

Wow, and none of these people can scrape together enough money to help the brother in the shack in Kenya? And liberals think Obama cares about people? Is charity or the lack of it heritable? Seems like none in the Obama clan have any. Did Barack Obama Sr. ever contribute to little BO's support?

[silly girl]

Look at all the verifiably smart people who have screwed us!

We need a critical mass of people in government to advocate for what we want. People who will champion our interests.

I am not looking for the smartest person necessarily, although some smarts is necessary. I want someone who won't screw the working public, for the sake of their pet groups to get reelected over and over.

Palin may not be the brightest but she has demonstrated she does not seek to screw us.

Personally I prefer Romney. His experience seems to be best for the job.

[hfgcvb]

"which I like to define as the ability to reason and learn, is a genetically inherited trait, and to whatever small extent if any that it might be influenced by environment,"

Whoa, so IQ might be 100% genetic? Glad to see you're at an opposite extremity of the environmentalists you never cease to scream about. Too bad your inane shit is an extreme minority opinion in the psychological community.

[whiskey]

Reagan was not particularly "smart" and won two terms in large victories despite elite carping that he was "dumb."

What Reagan understood was that selling policies and people required simple, sound-bite sales techniques that were not long winded, moralizing, and the like. Palin has that, merely needs to develop it more.

As for the NYT, or Foreign Policy, or what have you, they are filled with elite idiocy and platitudes. Clearly, the Iranian mess over the election, the Honduran mess (and fairly united opposition in Honduras even among Zelaya's party to being a satellite of Venezuela and Cuba) caught the elite commentators off guard. They were shocked and unable to respond clearly to what was happening. You'll find better commentary here than on say, the NYT website.

The elite media class writes for the comfortable biases and prejudices of it's own class, never venturing out of their comfort zone (nukes are the great equalizer, the world is dangerous, a "flat" world ala Friedman means one in which the politics and rivalry of the Swat Valley get injected into downtown Manhattan). None of these truths are ever addressed, because it would violate the religious world-view of the soft, fuzzy, Gaia-driven post Nationalist international elite.

[whiskey]

Let me add that the record of wonks and wonkery is political failure: Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Paul Tsongas, Walter Mondale, Lamar Alexander, Dukakis, Ron Paul, Ross Perot, Bob Dole, and George Herbert Walker Bush. All failures on the Wonkery side, because people don't buy leaders on the basis of wonkery. A leader is expected to have those working under him, but make the calls based not on pure wonkery but on who's side fundamentally they are on.

Men, and married women thought Reagan, and W, were on their side. Single women, gays, Blacks, and Hispanics thought Obama, Clinton, and Carter were on their side. They generally were.

If Wonkery were at all important, we'd be discussing the seminal election and presidency of Mike Dukakis.

[mike]

"I don't think me and Jonah have the same definition of charisma."

The MSM definiton of "charisma" these days seems to be "not a white male".

[Linda]

"Whoa, so IQ might be 100% genetic?"

Pretty close according to Jensen's "The g Factor". The correlation between the IQ's of identical twins reared apart is about 0.9 in later adulthood (suggesting that 81% of the variation in IQ is genetic). That's higher than the correlation between the same person taking two different IQ tests such as the WAIS and the SAT. There's virtually zero correlation between unrelated people raised in the same home from birth by the the time they are audlts.

But even the small non-genetic variables that influence adult IQ appear to also be biological. Things like mother-fetus blood compatability, oxyen & nutrition in the womb, head trauma etc. By contrast, psychological & cultural factors such as education, schooling, and intellectual stimulation appears to have zero impact on g (though some controversial recent research on a ground break software brain builders like the n back test claims to be the first to challenge this).

[jem]

Palin may not be intelligent enough to be a scientist or a writer or a professor, but she's smart enough to be a modern American politician, even on the national level. Compare her cognitive abilities to Michelle Obama, Sen. Patty Murray, Maxine Waters, Caroline Kennedy, etc. No big difference besides ideology. Palin's biggest problem is her manic rambling which would diminish anyone's gravitas. Intensive media coaching would make a world of difference.

[hayek2009]

i do not understand. i find this blog very interesting and intelligent. this post on sarah palin is out of nowhere.

let me say that i also think that she should not be the leader of the republican party or our presidential candidate but probably have an active role in the movement, pushing people to vote and to contribute.

but from this to say that she is stupid... is simply wrong. we know she is ignorant about some (many) subjects but she can not be stupid. To become governor I'd assume you need a 110-115 IQ at least (on average). A governor has to take care of many abstract issues, so you probably need a college intelligence to do that. Moreover she has demonstrated that she can learn whatever she's interested in (like oil policy).

I agree with the argument "intelligence should make you read stuff". True but not everyone reads about foreign policy or economics necessarily. I have many smart friends who do not anything about either.

So she's no rocket scientist but she's definitely not a moron. She is smart enough to educate herself about what she doesn't know.

[DaveinHackensack]

"Compare her cognitive abilities to Michelle Obama, Sen. Patty Murray, Maxine Waters, Caroline Kennedy, etc. No big difference besides ideology."

Michelle Obama isn't a politician, and neither is Caroline Kennedy. As for Maxine Waters, I think she is smarter than she appears to be. As I noted elsewhere ( http://thehackensack.blogspot.com/search?q=maxine+waters ), she and her family have done quite well in various business dealings leveraging off of her political office, and you have to have some savvy to be able to go up to the line with that sort of thing without crossing the line blatantly and getting caught.

[Lugo]

At this point I'd rather have "above average IQ, conservative instincts" than "genius IQ, liberal instincts".

[Turambar]

"We all know IQ is partially hertiable. Well, Obama's half-brother studied physics at Stanford and has an MBA from Emory. Obama also has a half-sister who has a PhD in German studies from a German university. His mother earned a PhD and his father earned a master's degree in economics from Harvard."

Its kind of interesting that out of the whole crop of them you can shake a stick at the number of them with real jobs.

Obama famously never had much of a real job.

The half brother, despite and MBA and a physics degree that some government paid for, is playing house in China with some girl and teaching piano at an orphanage.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4406813.ece

His mother was a ditzy hippie anthropologist whose sole accomplishment was a study of crafting in Indonesia.

His father was a drunken philander and bigamist. He went into a depression when it turns out his Harvard views weren't Socialist enough for his country.

Auma Obama having found some government to pay for her getting a Phd in Germany, became a social worker.

All in all this family has been a huge drain in student loans and grants with very little actual production.

[lcs]

William F. Buckley would have dismissed Sarah Palin with a mere flair of the nostrils.

[Peter A]

All in all this family has been a huge drain in student loans and grants with very little actual production.

But that says nothing about their intelligence. Maybe they're all +145 geniuses. There are plenty of very smart people who don't succeed in the rat race, as most readers of this blog know full well. G is not the only heritable trait. You can be very smart and not very conscientious or hard working.

[DaveinHackensack]

Incidentally, a more damning article about Palin was the one about her in Portfolio earlier this year, about the backstory behind the oil pipeline clusterfuck.

[patrick]

Sotomayor is probably triracial, like most people from Puerto Rico. In any Latin American country with a large Black or Indian population, she would be considered White; elsewhere she would be considered "castiza" (a light-skinned mixed-race person).

[Turambar]

"But that says nothing about their intelligence. Maybe they're all +145 geniuses."

1. You could argue that the principle family business seems to be finding other people to sponsor their education/extended adolescence/travel plans and never deliver much. They are the welfare queens of education, so if you think thats genius IQ I guess I'd have to disagree. And they all seem to have a quality of wandering off- whether it abandoning a family to go to Africa, or not writing a book you have been paid for.

2. I dont think HS really read Millionaire Mind, which argues that people who are likely to really succeed are those who have moderate intelligence but a drive toward tangible accomplishments.

[Linda]

"But that says nothing about their intelligence. Maybe they're all +145 geniuses. There are plenty of very smart people who don't succeed in the rat race, as most readers of this blog know full well."

Extremely high IQ people who don't succeed in the rate race usually drop out of university, not go on to become PhDs.

"G is not the only heritable trait. You can be very smart and not very conscientious or hard working."

The fact that they got PhDs suggests they are EXTREMELY conscientious and hard working.

[Linda]

"2. I dont think HS really read Millionaire Mind, which argues that people who are likely to really succeed are those who have moderate intelligence but a drive toward tangible accomplishments."

I disagree. If intelligence is the ability to problem solve, the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to succeed (assuming the intelligence itself doesn't create more problems than it solves). However success also requires luck, and the majority of lucky people are likely to have mediocre intelligence simply because luck favours large numbers, and average IQ people outnumber high IQ people.

[HS: The question is, do employers reward people who have better problem-solving ability? There is no evidence for this.]

[hfgcvb]

"Pretty close according to Jensen's "The g Factor". The correlation between the IQ's of identical twins reared apart is about 0.9 in later adulthood (suggesting that 81% of the variation in IQ is genetic). That's higher than the correlation between the same person taking two different IQ tests such as the WAIS and the SAT. There's virtually zero correlation between unrelated people raised in the same home from birth by the the time they are audlts.

But even the small non-genetic variables that influence adult IQ appear to also be biological. Things like mother-fetus blood compatability, oxyen & nutrition in the womb, head trauma etc."

Around 80% isn't "100%". Bare in mind that's also just an average. You're also extrapolating uncommon medical natal conditions to basic heritability measurements within a population.

"By contrast, psychological & cultural factors such as education, schooling, and intellectual stimulation appears to have zero impact on g (though some controversial recent research on a ground break software brain builders like the n back test claims to be the first to challenge this)."

So, if all of those numerous environmental factors have 0 impact on IQ, how in god's name can creatures in the natural world evolve intellectualy?

But I'm tired of playing around. Here's a really funny thing about hereditarians- you're of an extreme minority in the psychological community, especially nuts who think IQ is 100% genetic, which you don't seem to comprehend is as bad as extreme environmentalism.

Here's a fun example: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1288305

"Dozens of studies, including >8,000 parent-offspring pairs, >25,000 pairs of siblings, >10,000 twin pairs, and 100s of adoptive families, all converge on the conclusion that the heritability of g is ~50% (Bouchard and McGue 1981)."

That's about 100,000 people right there. From a study in 1981. Much of Arthur Jensen's work is well-respected, but his ideas on heritability are fringe work. I would love for you to find a substantial portion of the psychological community that supports hereditarianism, especially the idea of IQ being 100% genetic.

So, to sum it up, you're fringe nuts. No better than the extreme environmentalists fifth rate intellectuals like you and Half Sigma scream about.

[HS: Bouchard upped his estimate to 70% in the 1990s. but no one really knows where the other 30% comes from. I attribute most of it to the inability of tests to perfectly measure g, and random development of the brain which is environmental to be sure, but not something we have any control over.]

[Linda]

"[HS: The question is, do employers reward people who have better problem-solving ability? There is no evidence for this.]"

Well a smart employer will reward productivity if they want to stay in business in a competetive market, and job performance is predicted by IQ (even after controlling for eduction) according to Jensen.

But even if employers didn't reward problem solving ability, an adaptable problem solver will quickly learn whatever behavior gets rewarded in her environment and figure out a way to apply that knowledge to her advantage. Figuring out how to be rewarded in life is the most important problem most of will ever solve, so I would expect good problem solvers to excel at it.

[RS]

Linda said:
"intellectual stimulation appears to have zero impact on g (though some controversial recent research on a ground break software brain builders like the n back test claims to be the first to challenge this."

Can you link to or provide a reference for some of the literature concerning this debate? I've seen some magazine articles about it (all positive, of course), and would like to know more. From experience, I've noticed that these reports of miraculous improvement of intelligence never seem to pan out.

Also, if you are the same Linda, a while back you posted here about physiological/information processing links to g and noted that you thought that the hundred highest g people in the world were NE Asian and that they had a considerable average advantage in g over caucasiods based on their neurophysiology. Is any of this work published, and if so, could you provide links/citations for it?

[Linda]

"So, if all of those numerous environmental factors have 0 impact on IQ, how in god's name can creatures in the natural world evolve intellectualy?"

They evolve because those lucky enough to be born with a genetic mutation than enhances problem solving ability will be more successful at adapting the environment to their advantage, and thus leave behind lots of copies of their genes for intelligence. To suggest that the environment must enhance intelligence in order for it to evolve is to invoke Lamarckism which is currently discredited.

"You're also extrapolating uncommon medical natal conditions to basic heritability measurements within a population."

A good analogy to IQ is height. Height is highly genetic but contains some environmental inluences, but these environmental influences are biological and largely beyond a person's control. There's not much evidence that culture can influence height, nor are there many exercises you can do to improve your height. Now you can fake good height by adopting the right posture and high heal shoes, just like you fake high intelligence by adopting the right test taking skills and high education, but the preponderance of evidence suggests there's not much we can do to actually improve our real height or our real intelligence.

"Dozens of studies, including >8,000 parent-offspring pairs, >25,000 pairs of siblings, >10,000 twin pairs, and 100s of adoptive families, all converge on the conclusion that the heritability of g is ~50% (Bouchard and McGue 1981)."

How old were the subjects? The family environment DOES make a substantial contribution to IQ in childhood, but as we become adults, the effects of family environmnet vanish completely, and all that's left is genetics, and small within familiy envioronmental effects, which are tiny, random, microenvironmental physical events like the efficiency of the birth process, number of times you've been hit on the head by a soccer ball, even possibly subtle reactions to childhood vaccines. The effects of the physical (not cultural) environmnet are so tiny and individually contribute so little to the variation in IQ that scientists can not even isolate them, but combined they explain about 20% of the variation in IQ, while the remaining 80% (by later adulthood) is explained by genetics.

The same thing happens with height btw. In babies, height has a large environmental contribution, but by adulthood, height is almost entirely genetic.

[Turambar]

"I disagree. If intelligence is the ability to problem solve, the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to succeed (assuming the intelligence itself doesn't create more problems than it solves).
"

Well you could look to the income distribution data which show a drop off income at the higher IQ's.

Or you could examine the argument more closely. Solving a problem like "which one of these 5 words dont belong in the group" requires having a decent vocabulary, a mathematical sense and being able to generate and test a lot of possible connections quickly. The kind of issues involved in solving the problems "growing revenue on the Johnson account" probably involve hussle, convincing an organization to act with urgency and interpersonal skills.

"However success also requires luck, and the majority of lucky people are likely to have mediocre intelligence simply because luck favours large numbers, and average IQ people outnumber high IQ people."

Stanley ranked the characteristics that millionaires had- attending and elite school, getting an advanced degree, having an high GPA were all minor factors. I dont recall about luck but I think it was rated as a minor factor. The average millionaire had a 2.9GPA, and 1100ish SATs. Stanley's thesis is that since these people dont feel lucky or especially gifted they feel they must work harder and have more personal discipline that others.

As has come up on this blog there is a strong correlation between millionaires having played competitive sports when young.

"
The fact that they got PhDs suggests they are EXTREMELY conscientious and hard working."

You may be over stating things in the Obama clans case.
His mother's dissertation was:
"Peasant blacksmithing in Indonesia: surviving and thriving against all odds"
Auma Obama dissertation was "about the conception of labor in Germany and its literary reflections"
His half-sister's PhD is in "comparative education".

The half brother did not get a degree in physics.

So their conscientiousness may have been at getting funding for an education of little value while keeping themselves comfortably nestled in academia.

[Linda]

"Can you link to or provide a reference for some of the literature concerning this debate?"

Sure. There's a very recent & skeptical article called "Can intelligence be increased by training on a task of working memory?" by David E. Moody in the journal "Intelligence" (July 2009), 37 (4), pg. 327-328.

Also, Jensen reviews all the experiemental attempts to increase g (i.e. headstart etc) and concludes on pg 335-336 of "The g Factor" that "...the preponderance of evidence argues that variance in the level of g is not a psychologically manipulable variable, but rather a biological phenomenon under the control of both of the genes and of those external physical variables that affect the physiological and biochemical function of the central nervous system, which mediates the behavioral manifestation of g"

"Also, if you are the same Linda, a while back you posted here about physiological/information processing links to g and noted that you thought that the hundred highest g people in the world were NE Asian and that they had a considerable average advantage in g over caucasiods based on their neurophysiology."

Well in addition to the massive meta-studies showing East Asians have IQ's about 6 points higher than Europeans (see the book Racial Differences in Intelligence by Richard Lynn) there is a growing body of chronometric research showing that the East Asian brain processes information more quickly and efficiently. Jensen cites some of this in "the g Factor", Lynn probably cites some of it in his book, and Rushton cited it in his book "Race, Evolution & Behavior" though I think Rushton's publisher was pressured into taking his Nobel prize worthy book out of print so all that remains in the simplified dumbed down version which doesn't go into many details.

I do think the 100 smartest people in the entire world are all East Asian. That's not to deny that the caucasoid race have a few ethnic groups which have IQ's that rival or even exceed the East Asian mean (American Ashkenazi Jews, American Brahmens whose genius is symbolized by Deepak Choprah) but these tiny isolated tribes are too small in population & too limited by caucasoid physiology and skull structure to produce anyone smart enough to rank among the world's 100 smartest people. Only East Asians exist at that level.

[silly girl]

"But I'm tired of playing around. Here's a really funny thing about hereditarians- you're of an extreme minority in the psychological community, especially nuts who think IQ is 100% genetic, which you don't seem to comprehend is as bad as extreme environmentalism."

It doesn't matter how many experts "believe" something if it cannot be verified empirically. It is especially egregious when the virtually all data contradicts the "belief".

[Linda]

"Well you could look to the income distribution data which show a drop off income at the higher IQ's."

Citation? The two studies I've seen showed that gifted children grew up to perform very well financially.

"The kind of issues involved in solving the problems 'growing revenue on the Johnson account' probably involve hussle, convincing an organization to act with urgency and interpersonal skills."

I agree that the behaviors you describe a lot more than just IQ, but don't underestimate the importance of IQ in these domains. Hussle involves the g loaded ability to organize complex behavior rapidly, convincing an organization to act with urgency involves the g loaded ability to make compelling verbal arguments, and interpersonal skills involves the g loaded ability to see things from the perspective of others and figure out how to manipulate an entity as complex as another human.

"The average millionaire had a 2.9GPA, and 1100ish SATs."

An 1100ish SAT (on the pre-1995 SAT) equates to an IQ of about 120 and is higher than 90% of the population. This is perfectly consistent with the idea that IQ is a major determinant of success and is an especially high average IQ when you consider that the average is depressed by all the trust fund babies in the sample who inherrited their wealth.

[RS]

Linda,

Thanks for the citation re working memory training. I’ll check it out.

I am familiar with Lynn, Rushton, and Jensen’s work (I’ve read the books you’ve mentioned). I find Jensen’s work exemplary. Lynn, however, I feel is generally correct in the “big picture” issues (and “IQ and the Wealth of Nations” is starting to spur on some excellent work by economists that considers cognitive ability, which in the past has been woefully neglected), but I find his work to have a frustrating sloppiness to it that often disappoints (and it is a pity, because when one is advancing an unpopular, but probably true, thesis, it helps to be very meticulous – like Jensen). The one area where I would to some extent part company with Lynn and Rushton is in their emphasis on the effect of moving to cold environs on the evolution of g and other psychological traits. Looking at their data, it seems to show that hunter gathers and tribal peoples living in colder/arctic environs have larger brains, higher g, and especially strong visuospatial skills compared to similarly primitive peoples occupying warmer climates, but, I suspect that natural selection through the cultural and social environment over the past centuries and millennia has had a much stronger effect on the currently observable differences in g and other traits (time preference, conscientiousness, etc.) between populations (along the lines proposed by Cochran and Harpending and Gregory Clarke).

One thing I noticed about Lynn’s meta-analysis of East Asian IQ is that on larger, representative samples, such as the standardizations of the Wechsler, Kauffman (KABC, KAIT), McCarthy, DAT, DAB, the NLSY’s AFQT (although small sample in that case), and some of the larger Raven’s standardizations in East Asian Countries as well as the US, East Asians don’t tend to have IQs in the 106 range. They seem to do better than whites, but usually in the 101 to 104 range and also show a marked difference in verbal and visuospatial IQ. The higher scores, in the 106 + range seem more questionable, often from small or select populations. For instance, Lynn includes a study by Geary asserting that Chinese have a 113 IQ based on samples of students at an American and a Chinese University. How is this comparison worthwhile? It all depends on which University in each country you look at. Also, Lynn reports high scores (105-110+) for samples of school children in Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan. From his data, I have no problem believing that the average IQ in these urban financial and political centers is around 106 or even higher. However, are they representative of NE Asian Mongoloids as a whole? I would image that the white population of Washington D.C., or many European capitals also has an IQ above 100. For instance, Lynn cites Buj’s 1981 study of IQs in various European capitals using the Cattell Culture Fair Test. Lynn gives the IQs for Bonn, Amsterdam, and Warsaw as 107, 107, and 106 respectively, which is much higher than any of the norming studies on Germany, Holland or Poland have ever shown. Again, I think Lynn is correct that East Asian Mongoloids are higher in g than European Caucasoids, but I think he tends to be a bit sloppy on his selection of studies and sometimes exaggerates his conclusions.

Also, you said:
“… but these tiny isolated tribes are too small in population & too limited by caucasoid physiology and skull structure to produce anyone smart enough to rank among the world's 100 smartest people.”

Could you elaborate on this? What are the aspects of physiology and skull structure that are important? Is it brain/skull size? Shape (and it’s influence on the volume of specific areas?* Amount of white or gray matter? Myelination? Something else?

*The reason I ask about shape is due to several questions that arose to me while reading “The 10,000 Year Explosion” and remembering back to old anthropology books (Coon, Hooten, Garn, Birdsell, etc.) I read through in my grandmother’s house while in elementary and middle school when visiting her (she and my aunt were anthropology majors at UPenn and UVA in the 30s and late 60s/early 70s, respectively). In various parts of the book, Cochran and Harpending discuss cranial changes in the English from the Medieval period to present (higher frontal regions and correspondingly larger frontal lobes). They also mention that domestication studies selecting mammals for tameness result in rounder skulls. I also remembered reading from my grandmother’s old anthropology books that in Europe (and Asia) there has been an increasing trend towards brachycephalization since antiquity. This along with their discussion of Gregory Clarke’s work as well as their own dealing with the evolution of high intelligence among Ashkenazi Jews lead me to ask myself several questions: 1) Do the changes in skull shape in Eurasians have anything to do with selection for personality traits, namely has selection for tameness/reduced levels of interpersonal violence contributed to the trend in brachycephalization (as is the case with domesticated animals)? 2) Do the changes in cranial structure represent selection for g a la Cochran and Harpending? I thought of this because I had recently read Jung and Haier’s P-FIT theory and it seemed logical that the increasing the volume of the parietal region through increased brachycephalization (P) and the frontal region through higher skulls (F) would imply selection for higher intelligence. Any thoughts on this?

[Turambar]

"Citation? The two studies I've seen showed that gifted children grew up to perform very well financially."

This blog- it has been discussed many times that there is decreasing income effect about an IQ cutoff.

"An 1100ish SAT (on the pre-1995 SAT) equates to an IQ of about 120 and is higher than 90% of the population. This is perfectly consistent with the idea that IQ is a major determinant of success and is an especially high average IQ when you consider that the average is depressed by all the trust fund babies in the sample who inherrited their wealth."

I dont get your point on the inherited wealth effecting IQ score.

Regardless I'd say, contrary to HS's thesis for this post, Palin and Obama are both in roughly the same IQ range 115-125 that is prime territory high accomplishment.

Obama may be on the high side of that, but 145+ and other scores that get mentioned are fanciful. All you have to do is look at the Ricci case- the two statements the Constitutional scholar makes on the case are both blunders. (Perhaps if the crisis in academia continues it may get to the point where someone takes a monetary incentive to release either is grades or his SAT scores (and he wasnt a Merit semi-finalist) violating his personal records like people seem to feel free to do with Republicans)

HS is right on the fact that, good God, we wish Romney was President right now.

[hfgcvb]

"They evolve because those lucky enough to be born with a genetic mutation than enhances problem solving ability will be more successful at adapting the environment to their advantage, and thus leave behind lots of copies of their genes for intelligence. To suggest that the environment must enhance intelligence in order for it to evolve is to invoke Lamarckism which is currently discredited."

So intelligence can only increase in the natural world via mutations, right? Bullshit. I also love how you compare the idea that IQ can even be remotely stimulated by environment to lamarckism. I guess the same would hold true for personality as well, unless that's almost entirely genetic?

"A good analogy to IQ is height. Height is highly genetic but contains some environmental inluences, but these environmental influences are biological and largely beyond a person's control."

Why even call them an environmental influence if they're largely genetic?

Could you explain what caused the difference between danes descended from 1800's american immigrants and the ones who stayed in Denmark?

"There's not much evidence that culture can influence height, nor are there many exercises you can do to improve your height. Now you can fake good height by adopting the right posture and high heal shoes, just like you fake high intelligence by adopting the right test taking skills and high education, but the preponderance of evidence suggests there's not much we can do to actually improve our real height or our real intelligence."

Show me a single study that suggests height, even within a typical first world population, is almost 100% genetic.

This also does like, nothing to address how you're extrapolating uncommon medical anomalies to normal heritability measurements. Nice intellectual dishonesty.

"How old were the subjects? The family environment DOES make a substantial contribution to IQ in childhood, but as we become adults, the effects of family environmnet vanish completely,"

The family environment in general makes little contribution to IQ and personality traits. The rising heritability of IQ with age merely refers to how IQ exerts less environmental effects as one ages, going in line with the maturation of the brain, by the way.

I don't know the age of the subjects in a meta-analysis of around 100,000 people, though.

"and small within familiy envioronmental effects, which are tiny, random, microenvironmental physical events like the efficiency of the birth process, number of times you've been hit on the head by a soccer ball, even possibly subtle reactions to childhood vaccines."

All of which are too uncommon to extrapolate to normal heritability measurements. Unless.... almost everyone experiences these things?

"The effects of the physical (not cultural) environmnet are so tiny and individually contribute so little to the variation in IQ that scientists can not even isolate them, but combined they explain about 20% of the variation in IQ, while the remaining 80% (by later adulthood) is explained by genetics."

Under who's estimates? Bare in mind that, once again, hereditarianism is a fringe view in psychology. Refer to my meta-analysis of around 100,000 people compared to your cursory quotes of Jensen's work.

Then again, you also call Rushton's work nobel-prize worthy, which, well, is a statement that's insulting to human intelligence, sorry to say.