Race, Genetics, and IQ
First and foremost, what exactly is intelligence? This word, intelligence, carries a lot of baggage and various definitions but this is quite normal especially in the field of psychology wherein there are many concepts that "lack clear-cut definitions" (Lilienfield). With the case of intelligence, "psychologists can't agree" on a clear-cut definition (Lilienfield; Sternberg, 2003b; Sternberg & Detterman,1986). Psychologist Edwin Boring, for example, defined intelligence as being "whatever intelligence tests measure" (Lilienfield). This, of course, does not satisfy the question of what is intelligence, how it comes to be, how it is measured accurately and so forth. Some "influential attempts to define and understand intelligence" define intelligence in a multitude of ways (Lilienfield).
Sir Francis Galton, a rather great scientist and cousin of Charles Darwin, "was fascinated by the question of what makes" one "smart" (Lilienfield). Essentially, what Galton "proposed" was that intelligence is a "by-product of sensory capacity" (Lilienfield). So, his proposition argues that knowledge initially comes "through the senses" and, therefore, those with, say, "superior eyesight and hearing" should "acquire more knowledge than other people" (Lilienfield). Though, through experiments and criticisms, it is unlikely that one's sensory capacity equals intelligence but "some forms of sensory ability" do relate "modestly" to intelligence but these concepts "aren't clearly identical"; so, in the end, sensory capacity can influence what intelligence may be (Lilienfield).
Now, another way of looking at intelligence is that it relates to abstract thinking. The French government "wanted to find a way to identify children in need of special education assistance" (Lilienfield). So Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon developed an objective psychological test similar to the common IQ test that was to distinguish the slow-learners or those in need of special assistance without a teacher who may subjectively distinguish a student from being a slow-learner or not. Binet and Simon's test was noted as being "remarkably diverse in content" that involved naming objects, definitions, drawing, completing incomplete sentences, determining similarities between two things, sentence construction and so on (Lilienfield). So, in sum, what was being measured was one's mental processes and not the senses as on Galton may have done. From Binet and Simon, other intelligence theorists figured that intelligence has something to do with abstract thinking: "the capacity to understand hypothetical concepts, rather than concepts in the here-and-now" (Lilienfield; Gottfredson, 1997; Sternberg, 2003b). These abstract concepts can include the ability to reason abstractly, learn to adapt to new environments, acquire knowledge, and benefit from experience. This sort of intelligence is what is commonly referred to.
However, there are differences among cultures in their regard to intelligence. As "most Americans" regard intelligence as being the ability to "reason quickly" as well as to "amass large amounts of knowledge" in a brief span of time; the Chinese or, rather, non-Western countries, in contrast, "view intelligence as reflecting people's wisdom and judgement" as opposed to "their intellectual brilliance" (Lilienfield; Sternberg et al., 1981; Baral & Das, 2003). The Chinese, for example, often regard the intelligent person as on who "perform[s] actions for the greater good of society" while being humble (Lilienfield; Yang & Sternberg, 1997). The major difference between the Chinese and Americans can be noted in how the haughty are often "showered with fame and fortune" while the Chinese view the haughty intelligent people as "hopeless braggarts"; this is likely due to the difference in cultural history between the two countries as the Chinese culture emphasizes societal "harmony" more so than the Americans (Lilienfield; Triandis, 2001). With China's culture being heavily influenced by schools of thought like Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism, and the likes, it is no wonder why societal harmony and collectivism is stressed more so than individualism; this is seen a lot in the comparison of the East and West nations—or, rather, Europa contra alia.
Building off from Binet and Simon's attempt to measure intelligence, there comes a sort of general intelligence in contrast to specific intelligence. As Binet and Simon's tests were known for including a variety of subjects, Charles Spearman hypothesized that "general intelligence", g, denotes overall intelligence. Spearmen had thought that g is produced by something like " mental energy" and those that have more "powerful" brains must also have much more g (Sternberg, 2003b; Lilienfield). Again, and as usual, how likely it is that g correlates with an accurate measurement of intelligence is "controversial" as Stephen Jay Gould argues that people cannot be "ranked along a single dimension of general intelligence" (Lilienfield). Nonetheless, Spearman was not satisfied with a concept that intelligence being solely about one's g and "proposed" another measurement, "specific abilities" (Lilienfield). It would seem that Spearman's two statistical concepts of intelligence are correlated with one another however. As, "according to Spearman", specific abilities are based in our ability to "perform" mental tasks along with the use of our general intelligence (Lilienfield). However, one with a high amount of g can fail to score highly in a test of one's specific abilities; one can have a high g but fail to comprehend, say, spatial problems or puzzles as these are specific tasks/items that require a specific ability. This "deficiency" of being unable to score highly on a specific ability test may correspond with one not being "inherently adept" at the task or has not "had much experience with them" (Lilienfield). This detail about how experience can influence one's ability brings us to the next concept of intelligence.
One's ability to learn something novel comes horizontally or by experience. Fluid intelligence "refers to the capacity to learn new ways of solving problems" (Lilienfield). So, for example, the first time one attempts to solve a puzzle, Rubik cube, or drive a car is attempted with fluid intelligence. In contrast, crystallized intelligence refers to what has already been learned; this sort of intelligence is used when answering questions like "where is Spain's capital city"? With this concept, crystallized intelligence is usually a by-product of the fluid intelligence; "according to Cattel and Horn", that which is learned from novel tasks "flow" into our 'memories" and "crystallize into lasting knowledge" (Cattel, 1971; Horn, 1994; Lilienfield). This concept also "undermines" the concept relating intelligence as being based in g as the fluid and crystallized concept of intelligence views g as being "more specific aspects of g (Messick, 1992; Lilienfield). To add, generally a younger person tends to use more fluid intelligence than the older person who relies much more on what has been crystallized. Furthermore, fluid intelligence is "more highly related to g than crystallized" intelligence (Blair, 2006; Gustafsson, 1988). So this concept of intelligence is founded much more in learned experiences than the previous that focused much more on the condition of the brain than the others or inherited intelligence. If, however, all these concepts are blended together, then a different hybrid sort of concept of intelligence comes to be.
Multiple intelligences are "entirely different domains of intellectual skill" (Lilienfield). So, in a sense, the concept of g, general intelligence, is wrong or not a complete and accurate measurement of one's intelligence. This is why "psychologists" tend to state that "Sally is smarter than Bill" because "there are many ways of being smart" (Lilienfield). In short, this brings about many categories of intelligence or, in a sense, multiple specific abilities. Some like Gardner propose either or nine types of intelligence: linguistic, logicomathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalist, and possibly existential. This how and why it is sometimes difficult to state that one is smarter or more intelligent than the other as one who may score highly in bodily-kinesthetic may score lowly in logicomathematical areas of testing. Some of Gardner's critics note that because of his emphasis on evolutionary adaptiveness, categories of intelligence should also include "humor", "memory", "romantic" and other forms of intelligence as these are important evolutionary adaptions (Willingham, 2004; Lilienfield). But, as with all the previous concepts of intelligence, there are discrepancies and critiques of this concept; Gardner had not made tests to support his concept and his model is "virtually impossible to falsify" (Klein, 1998; Lilienfield). There are also discrepancies regarding how g may or may not correlate with higher or lower scores in these categorical intelligences as supported by test scores of autistic savants (Miller, 1999; Lilienfield). In more recent years, a new concept of intelligence is becoming rather prevalent thanks to the College Board. Sternberg has "posited" a triarchic model which emphasizes three types of intelligences: analytical, practical, and creative (Sternberg 1983, 1988b; Lilienfield).
Now, stepping away from these concepts of intelligence that attempt to define and measure intelligence. Does brain size correlate with having a higher intelligence, more g, or more specific capabilities? Believe it or not, this is a rather hot topic, especially when human race is applied to the brain size and its correlation with IQ. It seems rather natural to correlate brain size with IQ capabilities and "for many years" students were taught that brain size does correlate with IQ when one species is compared to another but not within species (Lilienfield). I recommend reading studies dedicated to correlating brain size, brain matter, and intelligence because, in short, the "relationship" between "brain volume and IQ is complicated"; but it would seem that more brain volume correlates with higher possible spatial and verbal abilities, though slightly (Witelson, Beresh, & Kiger, 2006; Lilienfield). Any association with brain volume and intelligence is "far less than perfect" (Lilienfield). There are some findings, however, that highlight the possibility that slight differences in certain cortexes or above-average amount of glial and neuron cells can correlate with higher intelligence capabilities as with Einstein (Witelson, Kigar, & Harvey, 1999; Lilienfield; Anderson & Harvey, 1999).
Conclusion,
With both the lack of clear-cut definitions of intelligence and continuous research attempting to describe what intelligence really is, I can only see this as being verification for not taking IQ tests as being too serious and well-founded. Surely, IQ tests can have its uses but with the rise of the Western alt-right, the IQ topic has been brought back to further the alt-right ideology; this ideology is often associated with self-identified fascists, race realists, anti-semiticism, eugenics, and the likes. Unbeknownst to many, a eugenics movement did occur in the United States wherein many people were involuntarily sterilized. It is because of this, IQ tests are sometimes looked down upon as it can be misused, in a sense. Because of what I call "nescience", and the misunderstandings of IQ that I have come across. This brings me to part two: Race, IQ, and Genetics.
Part II
My aim is to critique videos and pundits of information that suggest IQ is largely founded in genetics and race. It is videos like this that I have the intention of critiquing. Firstly, however, I will discuss on genetics and IQ.
The prime way to understand genetics and its effects, in general, is to use family case studies and, especially, twin studies. Using twin studies is pretty straightforward as monozygotic twins share, essentially, identical DNA/genetics and thusly should have similar IQs if genetics do indeed play a role in IQ. And with monozygotic studies, "findings" suggest "two things": "the higher identical than fraternal twin correlations tell us that IQ is influenced by genetic factors" and the estimate for heritability of IQ is between 40 and 70 percent (Lilienfield; Brody, 1992; Devlin, Daniels, & Roeder, 1997). However, twin studies "provide even more" evidences that external factors play a larger role in IQ. If one assumes that IQ tests are reliable and that monozygotic twins are given the same IQ tests, then the probability inheritable IQ should be much closer to 100 percent if, indeed, IQ is based solely on genetics. To add, external factors play a large role in one's IQ such as food/nutrition, wealth, and so on (Turkheimer et al., 2003; Lilienfield; Ceci, 2001; Kelly, 2013). More often than not, children raised in "extremely deprived environments" have an IQ that is 16 points below the average of those who are not in the same or similar extremely deprived environment (Schiff et al., 1982; Lilienfield; Capron & Duyme, 1989). Adoption studies are used to contrast the IQ of an offspring from the biological parent(s) in order to further research if genetics still play a part in IQ while being raised by a non-biological parent. At a young age, children seem to retain an IQ similar to their biological parent(s) but, after time, the "resemblance dissipates" in adolescence and onward (Loehlin, Horn, & Willerman, 1989; Philips & Fulker, 1989; Plomin et al., 1997; Lilienfield).
So, it would seem that one's environment plays a much larger role in one's IQ capabilities than genetics alone. Schooling, for example, is often asserted to increase one's IQ. Although, it has been noted that "educated" people have "more synapses" or "neural connection" than the less-educated (Orlovskaya et al., 1999; Lilienfield). It is possible that those who are predisposed to having more neural connections and IQ at a younger age actually correlate with the likelihood of staying in school longer and taking school more seriously than those who do not. Nonetheless, there does seem to be a "casual influence on IQ" and schooling (Ceci, 1991; Ceci & Williams, 1997; Nisbett, 2009; Lilienfield).
With the above in mind, let us move on to the critique of a video. Within the first minute, it is asserted that IQ is indeed largely genetic and heritable which, as noted above, is rather misleading. Genetics can indeed play a role in IQ but IQ is malleable and not 100 percent linked with genetics. The map shown to chart the average IQs of the world does not detail why it is that IQs are not uniform throughout the world. It is suggested in the video that genetics and race are the largest contributions to this non-uniformity. This could be so if, say, the external environments in every country was also uniform but this is not so. If nutrition, for one, does play a role in IQ, then this is one other factor that can explain why it is that IQ is not uniform and why the generic poor countries have low IQ averages. With Sub-Saharan Africa having an IQ average close to that of mental-retardation, it would seem that the video author equates Sub-Saharan Africans as being nearly mentally retarded. This assumption however disregards what it is to be mentally retarded. Diagnosis of mental retardation generally consists of "three factors": IQ or intellectual function, deficiency in adaptive behavior, and early-age onset (Piotrowsky, N.P., & Houp, K.P., 2015). Mental retardation is also usually associated with physical abnormalities as seen with genetic disorders such as Down Syndrome. To use solely an IQ test to associate with Sub-Saharan Africans with being mentally retarded is inaccurate. To add, external and internal factors play a role in both metal retardation and IQ. Also, a problem with these IQ test averages is that not much information is given on what the questions are on the test or if the questions are catered to those in an environment within, say, the United States. Again, with environments being different from one another, to evaluate two dissimilar environments based on a test with that does not keep in mind the differences will produce a biased score result. It could be very likely that a Sub-Saharan African would score highly on an intelligence test that corresponds with their environment instead of the environment of another. Thusly, it is plausible that the Sub-Saharan African could have an IQ higher than what has been reported. What, I think is the voice of the video uploader, asserts that Sub-Saharan African societies are dysfunctional in Western Standards but it is rather observable that they are not dysfunctional but different.
Around the five minute to six minute periods of the video, it shows clips of environments that are severely depraved as if it is because the Africans that live in these environments live in these places because they have such a low IQ and are unable to somehow produce a state similar to the developed first world. However this assumes that first world state building is a top-down system wherein the human with a good IQ produces a good environment. Disregarding the subjectivity of good and bad environments, it is the environment that produces the man and if that environment is depraved, then IQ scores, as noted above, is lowered. There is a lack of racial distinction in this other than that the darker races populate most of the depraved environments.
At around seven minutes in, the video uploader asserts that if, however, the Sub-Saharan African IQ was higher, it would further strengthen IQ is racial-genetic and heritability as, he says, it is generally noted that Africans in the Western countries have an average IQ of around 85. This somehow furthers his assertion that environment's role in IQ is negligible unlike it is with genetics. The video then goes to mention the Flynn Effect and that Africans are generally not in the two or three right standard deviations of the bell curve. But, again, the reasons for this are likely not necessarily based on genetics but, rather, environmental factors.
Nine to ten minutes in and the uploader mentions that nutrition and environment do, however, play a role in IQ as data does suggest but the average nutritional intake in, say, Sub-Saharan Africa is going to be generally lower than the average German in Germany. This should not be too surprising, really. But this slightly creates a problem: if external factors do play a part in IQ, then the genetic factor becomes less prevalent as this author asserts that IQ is mainly genetic. The uploader also asserts that Africans/Blacks in the United States do not validate what was said previously: that increase in nutrition correlates with higher IQ. This leads him to assert that there is a gap between Black and White counterparts that has not been lessening. Data, however, refutes this as blacks in America have gained four to seven IQ points (Dickens, W.T., & Flynn, J.R., 2006). When European Immigrants immigrated to the United States, they often scored lower than the average American on mental tests; so did the white mountaineer children in the 1930s; so did the rural British children compared to their urban counterparts, so did the children Gaelic-speakers compared to the English-speaking children; "[t]his is neither a racial nor ethnic peculiarity but a characteristic found among low-scoring groups of European as well as African ancestry" (Sowell, T., 1995).
The uploader makes a brief reference to the "deniers" of racial-genetic IQ correlation attempting to ban research on race and IQ. Most likely, the uploader would categorize myself as being a denier but I would want to ban research on race and IQ outright. I do, however, understand why someone would like to see race and IQ research banned as it does often conflate into a debate of racial superiority, eugenics, and the likes. History has demonstrated that IQ tests can validate the extermination, negligence, or sterilization of those who score lowly on IQ tests. This is a reason and argument based in pathos and can be rather powerful but I remain open to further research on race and IQ.
He continues to invoke that those who deny the significance of racial components and IQ are denialists and have a bias to assert that genetics and race do not correlate with IQ. This can be true but this can also be said to the opposite party; either way, whichever faction has the data to support or counter a claim wins, in a sense. And as of right now, I find the evidence to support IQ being correlated solely by genetics and race as wanting. Especially with intelligence and concepts of intelligence and its measurement are, itself, inconclusive and a work in progress(Richardson, K., & Norgate, S.H., 2015; Lilienfield; Haviland et al., 2014).
Addendums
Full citations will be provided later. Further edits are likely.
Lazy citations because I lost all the tabs I had opened for my sources when I wrote this. Most of them came from books I have or from my university's databank.
(Sternberg & Detterman,1986) http://www.psicorip.org/Resumos/PerP/RIP/RIP036a0/RIP03921.pdf
Lilienfield's book: ISBN-13: 9780205966837
(Gottfredson, 1997) https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatters.pdf
(Sternberg et al., 1981) http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/mrg/LynottWoolfolk1994.pdf
(Baral & Das, 2003) http://open.lib.umn.edu/intropsyc/chapter/9-2-the-social-cultural-and-political-aspects-of-intelligence/
( Triandis, 2001) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-6494.696169/abstract
(Yang & Sternberg, 1997) http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/99024437.pdf
(Messick, 1992) http://nciea.org/publications/ValidityEvidence_Lane99.pdf
(Gustafsson, 1988) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1746-1049.1998.tb00225.x/abstract
Lilienfield's book: ISBN-13: 9780205966837
(Gottfredson, 1997) https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatters.pdf
(Sternberg et al., 1981) http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/mrg/LynottWoolfolk1994.pdf
(Baral & Das, 2003) http://open.lib.umn.edu/intropsyc/chapter/9-2-the-social-cultural-and-political-aspects-of-intelligence/
( Triandis, 2001) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-6494.696169/abstract
(Yang & Sternberg, 1997) http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/99024437.pdf
(Messick, 1992) http://nciea.org/publications/ValidityEvidence_Lane99.pdf
(Gustafsson, 1988) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1746-1049.1998.tb00225.x/abstract
