« NY Times article about the plight of Top 14 students | Main | The Game »

August 28, 2009

Comments

Rich parents are buying a better peer group for their kids. That has a huge impact. Not to mention better schools, SAT prep etc. Fifty percent of IQ is genetic, but who your kids go to school with matters too.

Surprisingly, Krugman responds, not by objecting to the idea of hereditary intelligence, but by noting that income is still more important than intelligence in determining educational outcomes (by one standard) and linking to this study:

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20051012/

If I were a high school principal with ambitions to create a top school, I would accept only students from the upper middle class. The first reason is higher IQ based on genes. Second is values -- upper middle class has the right values, and you wouldn't want to pollute your school with the wrong values (that would be worse than admitting a stupid student). And third is motivation -- upper middle class families tend to have their priorities in place, while the lower classes tend to laugh at people who go to college.

Even if you have money, it is is not enough:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Income2.png
(whites from families with less then 10K/year income - an abject poverty - doing a little better on SAT than blacks from the families with >70K/year income).

Essentially the same data for 1994:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf96311/tables/at2-32.xls

Amazing. A Harvard professor mentions IQ. What will happen next?

@ Ted:

That's an interesting study and it definitely shows educational outcomes are significantly affected by income.

It still doesn't go against HBD because we can control for income and look at how educational outcomes correlate with race.

But it does show that high achieving, poor kids are having trouble graduating from college. Unfortunately for Krugman, this is probably due to the faults of liberalism and subjectivity of the college admissions process. I discussed it here:

http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2009/07/affirmative-action-and-economic.html

HS:

guys like Mankiw have always said things like that. the problem is they shroud it in nerd-speak like "omitted variable bias" rather than saying "look, if you're smart, you'll have smart kids regardless of if you're white, poor, black, or a Gypsy."

The truly committed liberal hates the fact that some people (the highly productive) can buy things that others cannot. Other liberals, the kind that run for office, love that this occurs because it allow them to pit the larger group without the success gene against the smaller group of moderate- to highly-productive folks.

Brian: "Rich parents are buying a better peer group for their kids."

It doesn't matter as far as adult IQ is concerned. It probably matters as far as having "friends who count/have connections as adults," etc.

Brian: "Fifty percent of IQ is genetic..."

For young kids, but not for adults.

Ted: "Surprisingly, Krugman responds, not by objecting to the idea of hereditary intelligence, but by noting that income is still more important than intelligence in determining educational outcomes (by one standard) and linking to this study:"

Krugman paper: "Socioeconomic status was measured by a composite score of parental education and occupations, and family income."
SES is not defined further in Krugman's reference, either.

They're mixing apples and oranges anyway, with IQ, income, education level and an undefined SES. What would you like to bet that Professor of Medieval Poetry is a 'higher status' profession than real-estate agent or building contractor, both of which are likely to pay more than reading moldy poetry but require less "education," which, as defined in the papers being referenced, is something you can buy, so it shouldn't be surprising that people with more money can and do buy more education.

Anyway -

http://www.itari.in/categories/multipleintelligences/GeneralorgIntelligence.pdf

"...about 40 percent of IQ differences among preschoolers stems from genetic differences but that heritability rises to 60 percent by adolescence and to 80 percent by late adulthood.
...
A second big surprise for intelligence experts was the discovery that environments shared by siblings have little to do with IQ. Many people still mistakenly believe that social, psychological and economic differences among families create lasting and marked differences in IQ."

That paper and similar are also at http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/

-But it does show that high achieving, poor kids are having trouble graduating from college.-

High achieving poor kids are mostly white. Liberals hate that and hate them.

PS Krugman is slime. Hope he dies soon like Ted Kennedy.

The thing about Krugman's take is that it's measuring something completely different. Sure, a rich kid is likely to be able to finish college - his parents can afford to keep paying until he passes enough credits, or transfer him to an easier school, whereas even a smart poor kid might have to drop out due to finances. But that has nothing to do with SAT scores.

Any one read the comments on Krugman's hit and run non-refutation. They are literally unbelievable. For instance:

"Is it possible to revoke Mankiw’s PhD, not to mention his Harvard post? He may be an “infuriating kook,” but this is disgusting — not even a first year grad student with half a brain would make such a mistake. How about some accountability in academia?"

and this non-sequitor:
"Mankiw’s ideology…this is something really ugly. Very widespread among scholars in general, economists in particular. Thanks Paul Krugman for somewhat balancing mankiw’s terrible propaganda. Ah if greg mankiw could read a bit of sociology, learn about great thinkers. Ever heard about Pierre Bourdieu? Ever heard about 18th century french philosophy?"

"liberals believe that rich parents are buying something with their money which causes higher SAT scores."

And furthermore, the gummint should give poor people money so they can buy that "something" and have their SAT scores go up, too! Leave No Child Behind!

"If I were a high school principal with ambitions to create a top school, I would accept only students from the upper middle class."

If only there were some way to do that, for example, by charging high fees so that only students from the upper middle class could afford to attend...

**blacks from the families with >70K/year income**

While a sizable chunk of the black population resides in the South where cost of living is cheaper, I'm almost tempted to wonder if there's some inflation from the children of black media and sports celebrities and from those who have high paying, blue collar government work (i.e rapid transit/bus employees) in high cost of living locations. Two parents who are train operators in New York can easily walk away with a combined income of $70k to $100K per year...

Dont forget the surprisingly high salaries of urban teachers, urban policemen, etc., who at least east of the Mississippi are often black.

//High achieving poor kids are mostly white. Liberals hate that and hate them.// This is definitely true. When the University of California briefly edited its Affirmative Action standards to favor generic low-income applicants instead of going by race, successful black enrollments went down, Asian enrollments went up, and white enrollment stayed about the same but shifted more towards conservatives from inland California.

"The truly committed liberal hates the fact that some people (the highly productive) can buy things that others cannot. Other liberals, the kind that run for office, love that this occurs because it allow them to pit the larger group without the success gene against the smaller group of moderate- to highly-productive folks."

Ah, but the problem is--traditionally moral values, at least in the Christian world, have revolved around reward and punishment for actions that one brings on oneself. If success is genetic (and hence unearned), then why should one be rewarded for it?

Also, in a democracy at some point you have to address the problems of the lower classes. There's always the Mencius Moldbug argument for doing away with democracy altogether, but I always found the man spectacularly unconvincing. Sure, all of us smarter people should make the decisions, and we can be trusted to look out for your interests.

David Alexander wrote:
"I'm almost tempted to wonder if there's some inflation from the children of black media and sports celebrities and from those who have high paying, blue collar government work (i.e rapid transit/bus employees) in high cost of living locations."

Unlikely. There are about 1,500,000 SAT takers. Say, 10% of them are blacks. Surely there are not enough SAT takers from families of media and black celebrities to skew the count on N=150,000, right?! And high cost living locations are, roughly speaking, equally high cost for whites and blacks. So whatever small inflation they give does not not significantly affect the between-groups comparison.


HBD awareness doesn't become a big deal until you're willing to concede the power of the evidence that shows that average differences cross racial and ethnic lines, and not just socio-economic/class lines.

"HBD awareness doesn't become a big deal until you're willing to concede the power of the evidence that shows that average differences cross racial and ethnic lines, and not just socio-economic/class lines."

I agree. For most liberals, I would guess that this is a "camel's nose in the tent" problem.

In the same vein, I was once arguing with a liberal who would not accept that most mammals (including humans) are genetically programmed to find fattier foods as being more tasty.

Obviously she just didn't want to take the first step of admitting that genes can and do affect behavior.

"High achieving poor kids are mostly white. Liberals hate that and hate them."

Arguably, that's what fuels theories that society is racist. When you have poor whites doing well, while rich blacks are failing, outside of HBD, the only "reasonable" explanation is racism. The problem is that nobody wants to admit to HBD because it essentially means the permanent uselessness and de facto inferiority of black people and to lesser extent, other non-white and Northeast Asian ethnic and racial groups. Yes, one can argue that there are some black people with overlapping bell curves, but the average black person is still 1 SD behind the average white person while the gap between whites and Northeast Asians is barely noticeable.

"And high cost living locations are, roughly speaking, equally high cost for whites and blacks."

Yes, but thanks to the magic of HBD, it's highly likely that the whites are earning even more money than their black counterparts. Theoretically, a dual income black family* in a high wage area (i.e two $35K earners) can look the same on paper as a single income white nuclear family, but in reality, the higher IQ of the white family allows it to earn the same income with less work.

*Yeah, this still exists in less than ideal numbers.

Chuck

"rather than saying "look, if you're smart, you'll have smart kids regardless of if you're white, poor, black, or a Gypsy." "

Yes but not with completely equal probability.

Because of the biological phenomenon of "reversion to the mean", which is to say the population aka racial mean, blacks parents who average a 125 IQ will be quite a lot less likely to have a 120 iq or up kid than two white or north Asian parents did.

What's going on is that the genes we inherit from our parents we're really inheriting from their respective family ancestors, with less likelihood the further out the ancestors are. There's always a roulette wheel among these ancestral alleles (gene variations) at conception. So the mean is really the respective ancestors mean. That means that endogmous Indian castes for example, to the extent that they've been strictly endogamous can have their own caste or local caste mean. So historically e.g. could Askenazi jews.

"The problem is that nobody wants to admit to HBD because it essentially means the permanent uselessness and de facto inferiority of black people and to lesser extent, other non-white and Northeast Asian ethnic and racial groups."

David Alexander:

Northeast Asians are actually really intelligent, have a higher mean IQ and higher average household income than whites. So I don't really know why you tried to use them as an example and included them as a NAM. What you actually meant is the "de facto inferiority of black people and to a lesser extent, other NAMs" correct? By including "Northeast Asian" in your example would refute your example. Northeast Asians shouldn't be put into the same basket with Blacks, Hispanics, and Arabs. All three of those groups have lower IQs than Whites and Northeast Asians.

Personal income by race: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Personal_income_race.png

IQ by race: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior

Also, Northeast Asians aren't useless to society. Think about our engineers and physicists. Where would the consumer electronics industry be without Sony, Panasonic, and Toshiba to name a few. Or Samsung, Lenovo, Acer (Korean, Chinese, Taiwanese respectively). Where would the efficient and reliable automobile industry, hi-tech computer gadgetry and robotics industry be without the highly intelligent Japanese who are always 10 years ahead of us in tech. and new technology?

Think before you call out Northeast Asians as "useless to society" David.

He probably meant non-[white and Northeast Asian]. Perhaps he should just have said NAM, but technically NAM itself is inaccurate because most Asians have low IQ's ... the only Asian countries that really are "high IQ" are Korea, Japan, and the various Chinese nations.

East Asians have higher household income than whites because they have more workers per household. When you control for that, they do not outearn whites. Also, both Jewish and South Asian Americans tend to outearn East Asians.

As for IQ, East Asian Americans have an IQ average of 98.5. In comparison, Jewish-Americans are at 110 IQ.

So IQ data suggests that relative to at least Jewish people, even Asians would be considered a relatively inferior group.

Also, "Northeast" Asians aren't neccessarily all that intelligent. Really it's just the southern Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans. The other groups haven't demonstrated evidence of elevated IQs.

Hey model minority east asian nerd, David Alexander's post sentence is clear from context. The "non" refers to both Whites and Northeast Asians (i.e., "...de facto inferiority of black people and to lesser extent, other non-white and non-Northeast Asian ethnic and racial groups."), so don't worry. I'm sure David is aware that all you people are absolutely brilliant and able to perceive the meaning of any complex structure, abstraction, or set of symbols far better than those of us limited with a meager caucasoid brain! ;-)

Re: Model Minority

Sadly, it was an error on my part, and obviously, I should have stated "non-white and non-Northeast Asian".

That 98.5 number for Asian IQ is just wrong. Seriously people! Truth is only a google away.

-Think before you call out Northeast Asians as "useless to society" David.-

Let it go. David is just bitter that while NE asians may be "useless to society" they certainly aren't the dangerous, violent, destructive, stupid, resource consuming savages that blacks and hispanics are. Unless you consider providing jobs for cops, crime scene investigators, jails, welfare programs, security systems, etc... as useful.

The Chinese people are incredibly diverse. Anyone who has visited Shanghai or Beijing will tell you this. Even the "Han" Chinese are clearly not a single race. The Chinese in Taiwan all look similar to each other, but the mainland Chinese all look different from each other and many of them are real drungers. The "Han" Chinese as a single race was a myth that was created by Sun Yat Sen about 100 years ago when they created the first Chinese republic. He created this myth to foster Chinese nationalism in order to promote economic development.

Typical IQ statistics have the Japanese, Taiwanese, and South Koreans at around 105. However, the few data from mainland China is usually cited around 100. This is believable because the so-called high IQ Chinese are mainly concentrated in the East coast or south and many of the people from the inland do not strike me as being particularly clever.

You should know that the Chinese that make up the Kakkyo (overseas Chinese) of South East Asia are almost all from Fujian province. The Chinese from Fujian and Zhejiang provinces have historic reputation of being traders and merchants. Much of recent manufacturing entrepreneurship in China is in Zhejiang province (just south and west of Shanghai).

China is the East Asian equivalent to the U.S. in the sense that the U.S. has all different kinds of white people and China has all kinds of East Asian people.

China will have many of the social problems that we have once it develops to our standard of living.

The 98.5 IQ figure comes from Professor Flynn's research on 2nd gen Asian Americans (Chinese and Japanese) using Project Talent and Coleman Report data. The benefit of his figure is that it controls for environment and school system, which tends to be different in academically rigorous East Asia. The other figures that put Asians around 105-110 make no sense, as that would put them around the Jewish IQ average.

Speaking of the southern Chinese, I believe they pretty much run southeast Asia's economy. Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, Burma, Indonesia, and the Phillipines are economically powered by Fujianese and Cantonese. They've been persecuted for their economic success at times, especially in Vietnam and Indonesia.

It's interesting that a lot of southeast Asians in the U.S. are of southern Chinese ancestry, especially the Filipinos and Vietnamese. If you ever go into any Vietnamtown or Little Manila, I bet you most of the businesses will be owned by ethnic southern Chinese. They really are quite entrpranuerial.

On the imperial exams, historically the southerners owned the rest of the country. Their performance was so strong that the imperial government imposed a quota on them. It's interesting that southern Chinese genetically group with the other southeastern Asians, but economically are more dynamic.

I'd be willing to be that the level of selective pressure in China's large cities and southeast was pretty high, seeing as how those regions were centers of trade and international commerce. Also, those regions tended to be wealthier, so parents could afford to educate smart children and send them to the exams or well paying government jobs. Another thing to remember is that the Chinese government controlled population movement, especially to the cities, and that may have prevented diffusion or dilution of high IQ genes. If villagers or northerners come across as less clever than the southeasterners and urbanites, it may be a function of different selective pressure.

98.5 = below the white mean. That is the lowest number I've ever seen. I'm not surprised that it comes from Flynn, who is not generally all that honest when it comes to hereditarian data.

The totality of the evidence puts East Asians above the white mean, in the 103 to 107. This 98.5 figure is just white nationalist wishful thinking. East Asians may have their flaws (certainly less than NAMs), but low IQ isn't one of them.

Seriously, be evidence based and you won't come across as a racially motivated liar.

Ha. Flynn isn't known to be biased against any group, unlike Lynn and Rushton who clearly dislike NAMS. Flynn is actually of the view of possible IQ convergence between blacks and whites and is, therefore, anti-white nationalist. I'd trust him before I trusted those guys.

Besides, in his writings, Flynn noted that Asian Americans significantly beat out whites in academic achivement even with a 98.5 IQ and is full of praise for them. He's completely at odds with the Stormfronters.

Gto, the figure of 98.5 given by Flynn comes from Asian Americans in the 1960s from the Coleman. In his latest book Flynn estimates the IQ of Asian Americans from recent studies to be about 104 (which is probably correct). Flynn believes (wants to believe) that IQs are fairly malleable. He thinks Asian culture and emphasis on education has made them "smarter" in recent years. He also thinks blacks are converging with whites. I'm skeptical of the latter claim. As to the former (Asians), their poorer performances from 40 years ago is probably due to language difficulties depressing those scores and not any recent gains in g, which was always high.

Data from Jason Richwine on US immigrant children
from 2003 Princeton study

--

Reverse Digit span data (IQ equivalents) by U.S. immigrant group:

Europe 99, Northeast Asia 106, Southeast Asia 104, India 112, sub-Saharan African 89, Mexico 82, Central America/Caribbean 83, South America 86.

The comments to this entry are closed.