Jump to content

Race and intelligence: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎See also: Deleted irrelevant link
Akuri (talk | contribs)
m →‎Brain size: fix ref format
(84 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
{{human intelligence}}
{{human intelligence}}
{{Race}}
{{Race}}
The connection between '''race and intelligence''' has been a subject of debate in both [[popular science]] and [[academic research]] since the inception of [[intelligence quotient]] (IQ) testing in the early 20th century.<ref name="Hunt & Carlson 2007">{{harvnb|Hunt|Carlson|2007}}</ref> There is no widely accepted formal definition of either [[Race (classification of humans)|race]] or [[intelligence]] in academia, nor is there agreement on IQ's validity as a gauge of intelligence.<ref>{{cite book|last=Sternberg|first=Robert J.|title=The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence|year=2011|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9780521518062|page=295|url=http://books.google.ie/books?id=FtYeTcNwzQ4C&pg=PA295&lpg=PA295&dq=%22As+with+race,+there+is+no+universally+accepted+definition+of+intelligence.%22#v=onepage&q=%22As%20with%20race%2C%20there%20is%20no%20universally%20accepted%20definition%20of%20intelligence.%22&f=false|coauthors=Scott Barry Kaufman}}</ref> Historically, claims that races differed in innate intelligence were used to justify [[colonialism]], [[slavery]], [[Social Darwinism]], and [[eugenics]]. After losing favor in the postwar period, the idea of racial differences in innate intelligence was revived by [[Arthur Jensen]] in 1969 and drew public attention following the publication of ''[[The Bell Curve]]'' in 1994. Any discussion of a connection between race and intelligence involves studies from multiple disciplines, including [[psychology]], [[anthropology]], [[biology]] and [[sociology]].
The connection between '''race and intelligence''' has been a subject of debate in both [[popular science]] and [[academic research]] since the inception of [[intelligence quotient]] (IQ) testing in the early 20th century.<ref name="Hunt & Carlson 2007">{{harvnb|Hunt|Carlson|2007}}</ref> There is no widely accepted formal definition of either [[Race (classification of humans)|race]] or [[intelligence]] in academia, nor is there agreement on IQ's validity as a gauge of intelligence.<ref>{{cite book|last=Sternberg|first=Robert J.|title=The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence|year=2011|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9780521518062|page=295|url=http://books.google.ie/books?id=FtYeTcNwzQ4C&pg=PA295&lpg=PA295&dq=%22As+with+race,+there+is+no+universally+accepted+definition+of+intelligence.%22#v=onepage&q=%22As%20with%20race%2C%20there%20is%20no%20universally%20accepted%20definition%20of%20intelligence.%22&f=false|coauthors=Scott Barry Kaufman}}</ref> Historically, claims that races differed in intelligence were used to justify [[colonialism]], [[slavery]], [[Social Darwinism]], and [[eugenics]]. After losing favor in the [[Post-war#Year spans of the post-World War II era|post-war]] period, the idea of racial differences in intelligence was revived by [[Arthur Jensen]] in 1969 and drew public attention following the publication of ''[[The Bell Curve]]'' in 1994. Any discussion of a connection between race and intelligence involves studies from multiple disciplines, including [[psychology]], [[anthropology]], [[biology]] and [[sociology]].


Differences among [[Race in the United States|racial groups]] in mean scores of IQ tests and other assessment tools have long been identified in the United States. These tests show the average IQ scores of East Asian Americans is higher than those of White Americans, and that the average IQ scores of White Americans is higher than those of African Americans. Both environmental and genetic explanations have been advanced to account for these differences in test scores and educational achievement. Systemically disadvantaged minorities perform worse in education and on intelligence tests. Other environmental arguments include differences in health and nutrition (including lead exposure and iodine deficiency), educational quality and test bias.
Existence of differences in mean IQ scores between [[Race in the United States|racial groups in the United States]] is well-documented and not subject to much dispute; IQ tests performed in the United States consistently demonstrate variation. These tests show the average IQ scores of East Asian Americans is higher than those of White Americans, and that the average IQ scores of White Americans is higher than those of African Americans. Both environmental and genetic explanations have been advanced to account for these differences in test scores and educational achievement. Systemically disadvantaged minorities perform worse in education and on intelligence tests. Other environmental arguments include differences in health and nutrition (including lead exposure and iodine deficiency), educational quality and test bias.


The [[American Psychological Association]] has said that while there are differences in average IQ between racial groups, there is no conclusive evidence for environmental explanations, nor direct empirical support for a genetic interpretation, and that no adequate explanation for differences in group means of IQ scores is currently available.<ref name="Schacter, Gilbert & Wegner 2007">{{harvnb|Schacter|Gilbert|Wegner|2007}}</ref><ref name="Neisser et al. 1996">{{harvnb|Neisser et al.|1996}} "The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of blacks and whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential."</ref> The position of the [[American Anthropological Association]] is that variation in intelligence cannot be meaningfully explained by dividing a species into biologically defined races.<ref name="AAA 1994">{{harvnb|AAA|1994}}</ref> According to a 1996 statement from the [[American Association of Physical Anthropologists]], although heredity influences behavior in individuals, it does not affect the ability of a population to function in any social setting, all peoples "possess equal biological ability to assimilate any human culture" and "racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human populations."<ref name="AAPA 1996">{{harvnb|AAPA|1996}}</ref>
The [[American Psychological Association]] has said that while there are differences in average IQ between racial groups, there is no conclusive evidence for environmental explanations, nor direct empirical support for a genetic interpretation, and that no adequate explanation for differences in group means of IQ scores is currently available.<ref name="Schacter, Gilbert & Wegner 2007">{{harvnb|Schacter|Gilbert|Wegner|2007}}</ref><ref name="Neisser et al. 1996">{{harvnb|Neisser et al.|1996}} "The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of blacks and whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential."</ref> The position of the [[American Anthropological Association]] is that variation in intelligence cannot be meaningfully explained by dividing a species into biologically defined races.<ref name="AAA 1994">{{harvnb|AAA|1994}}</ref> According to a 1996 statement from the [[American Association of Physical Anthropologists]], although heredity influences behavior in individuals, it does not affect the ability of a population to function in any social setting, all peoples "possess equal biological ability to assimilate any human culture" and "racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human populations."<ref name="AAPA 1996">{{harvnb|AAPA|1996}}</ref>
Line 12: Line 12:
==History of the debate==
==History of the debate==
{{summarize|from|History of the race and intelligence controversy|date=March 2011}}
{{summarize|from|History of the race and intelligence controversy|date=March 2011}}
{{globalize|date=February 2013}}
{{Main|History of the race and intelligence controversy}}
{{Main|History of the race and intelligence controversy}}
{{See also|Scientific racism}}
{{See also|Scientific racism}}
[[File:Alfred Binet.jpg|160px|thumb|[[Alfred Binet]] (1857–1911), inventor of the first intelligence test.]]
[[File:Alfred Binet.jpg|160px|thumb|[[Alfred Binet]] (1857–1911), inventor of the first intelligence test.]]
The history of the race and intelligence controversy concerns the historical development of a debate, primarily in the United States, concerning possible explanations of group differences in scores on intelligence tests. Historically there have been differences among average scores in IQ tests of different population groups; these have sometimes been called "racial IQ gaps". Researchers believe that environmental (socioeconomic and cultural) factors contribute to this, but have not agreed on whether the differences are due to environmental factors alone, or whether there is any genetic contribution that can be substantiated.{{citation needed|date=February 2013}}


Claims of races having different intelligence were used to justify [[colonialism]], [[slavery]], [[social Darwinism]], and racial [[eugenic]]s. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, group differences in intelligence were assumed to be due to race and, apart from intelligence tests, research relied on measurements such as brain size or reaction times. The first IQ test was created between 1905 and 1908 and revised in 1916 (the [[Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales]]). [[Alfred Binet]], the developer of these tests, warned that these should not be used to measure innate intelligence or to label individuals.<ref>{{harvnb|Plotnik|Kouyoumdjian|2011}}</ref> However, at the time there was great concern in the United States about the abilities and skills of recent immigrants. Different nationalities were sometimes thought to comprise different races, such as [[Slavs]]. The tests were used to evaluate draftees for World War I, and researchers found that people of southern and eastern Europe scored lower than native-born Americans. At the time, such data was used to construct an ethnically based social hierarchy, one in which immigrants were rejected as unfit for service and mentally defective. It was not until later that researchers realized that lower language skills by new English speakers affected their scores on the tests.<ref>{{harvnb|Gould|1981}}</ref>
Claims of races having different intelligence were used to justify [[colonialism]], [[slavery]], [[social Darwinism]], and racial [[eugenic]]s. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, group differences in intelligence were assumed to be due to race and, apart from intelligence tests, research relied on measurements such as brain size or reaction times. The first IQ test was created between 1905 and 1908 and revised in 1916 (the [[Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales]]). [[Alfred Binet]], the developer of these tests, warned that these should not be used to measure innate intelligence or to label individuals.<ref>{{harvnb|Plotnik|Kouyoumdjian|2011}}</ref> However, at the time there was great concern in the United States about the abilities and skills of recent immigrants. Different nationalities were sometimes thought to comprise different races, such as [[Slavs]]. The tests were used to evaluate draftees for World War I, and researchers found that people of southern and eastern Europe scored lower than native-born Americans. At the time, such data was used to construct an ethnically based social hierarchy, one in which immigrants were rejected as unfit for service and mentally defective. It was not until later that researchers realized that lower language skills by new English speakers affected their scores on the tests.<ref>{{harvnb|Gould|1981}}</ref>
Line 22: Line 20:
In the 1920s, many scientists reacted to [[eugenicist]] claims linking abilities and moral character to racial or genetic ancestry. Despite that, states like Virginia enacted laws based in eugenics, such as its [[Racial Integrity Act of 1924|1924 Racial Integrity Act]], which established the [[one-drop rule]] as law. Generally, understanding grew about the contribution of environment to test-taking and results (such as having English as a second language).<ref>{{harvnb|Pickren|Rutherford|2010|p=163}}</ref> By the mid-1930s most US psychologists had adopted the view that environmental and cultural factors played a dominant role. In addition, psychologists were reluctant to risk being associated with the [[Germans|German]] [[Nazi]] claims of a "[[master race]]".<ref name="Ludy 2006">{{harvnb|Ludy|2006}}</ref>
In the 1920s, many scientists reacted to [[eugenicist]] claims linking abilities and moral character to racial or genetic ancestry. Despite that, states like Virginia enacted laws based in eugenics, such as its [[Racial Integrity Act of 1924|1924 Racial Integrity Act]], which established the [[one-drop rule]] as law. Generally, understanding grew about the contribution of environment to test-taking and results (such as having English as a second language).<ref>{{harvnb|Pickren|Rutherford|2010|p=163}}</ref> By the mid-1930s most US psychologists had adopted the view that environmental and cultural factors played a dominant role. In addition, psychologists were reluctant to risk being associated with the [[Germans|German]] [[Nazi]] claims of a "[[master race]]".<ref name="Ludy 2006">{{harvnb|Ludy|2006}}</ref>


In 1969, [[Arthur Jensen]] revived the hereditarian point of view in the article, "[[How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?]]"<ref name="Jensen 1969">{{harvnb|Jensen|1969|p=82}}</ref>{{primary source-inline|date=February 2013}} It followed changes in public programs introduced to try to correct decades of discrimination against poor African Americans. In 1954, the US Supreme Court ruled in ''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]'' that public school segregation was unconstitutional. As part of the [[Great Society]] programs under President [[Lyndon Johnson]], the [[Head Start Program]] was started with the goal of early intervention to help socially disadvantaged children succeed by providing remedial education. Given the effects of segregation and discrimination into the 1960s, many Head Start programs served African-American children.{{citation needed|date=February 2013}}
In 1969, [[Arthur Jensen]] revived the hereditarian point of view in the article, "[[How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?]]"<ref name="Jensen 1969">{{harvnb|Jensen|1969|p=82}}</ref>{{primary source-inline|date=February 2013}} It followed changes in public programs introduced to try to correct decades of discrimination against poor African Americans.


Jensen's article questioned remedial education for African-American children; he suggested their poor educational performance reflected an underlying genetic cause rather than lack of stimulation at home.<ref>{{harvnb|Alland|2002|pages=79–80}}</ref> Jensen's work, publicized by the Nobel laureate physicist [[William Shockley]], sparked controversy amongst the academic community and student protests.<ref name="Tucker 2002">{{harvnb|Tucker|2002}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Wooldridge|1995}}</ref>
Jensen's article questioned remedial education for African-American children; he suggested their poor educational performance reflected an underlying genetic cause rather than lack of stimulation at home.<ref>{{harvnb|Alland|2002|pages=79–80}}</ref> Jensen's work, publicized by the Nobel laureate physicist [[William Shockley]], sparked controversy amongst the academic community and student protests.<ref name="Tucker 2002">{{harvnb|Tucker|2002}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Wooldridge|1995}}</ref>
Line 35: Line 33:


==Ethics of research==
==Ethics of research==
The 1996 report of the APA had comments on the [[ethics]] of research on race and intelligence.<ref name="Hunt & Carlson 2007">{{harvnb|Hunt|Carlson|2007}}</ref> {{harvtxt|Gray|Thompson|2004}} as well as {{harvtxt|Hunt|Carlson|2007}} have also discussed different possible ethical guidelines.<ref name="Hunt & Carlson 2007"/><ref>{{harvnb|Gray|Thompson|2004}}</ref>{{primary source-inline|date=February 2013}} [[Nature (journal)|''Nature'']] in 2009 featured two editorials on the ethics of research in race and intelligence by [[Steven Rose]] (against) and [[Stephen J. Ceci]] and Wendy M. Williams (for).<ref name="Ceci & Williams 2009">{{harvnb|Ceci|Williams|2009}}</ref><ref name= "Rose 2009">{{harvnb|Rose|2009|pp=786–88}}</ref>{{primary source-inline|date=February 2013}}
The 1996 report of the APA had comments on the [[ethics]] of research on race and intelligence.<ref name="Hunt & Carlson 2007">{{harvnb|Hunt|Carlson|2007}}</ref> {{harvtxt|Gray|Thompson|2004}} as well as {{harvtxt|Hunt|Carlson|2007}} have also discussed different possible ethical guidelines.<ref name="Hunt & Carlson 2007"/><ref>{{harvnb|Gray|Thompson|2004}}</ref>{{primary source-inline|date=February 2013}} [[Nature (journal)|''Nature'']] in 2009 featured two editorials on the ethics of research in race and intelligence by [[Steven Rose]] (against) and [[Stephen J. Ceci]] and Wendy M. Williams (for).<ref name="Ceci & Williams 2009">{{harvnb|Ceci|Williams|2009}}</ref><ref name= "Rose 2009">{{harvnb|Rose|2009|pp=786–88}}</ref>{{primary source-inline|date=February 2013}}


According to critics, research will run the risk of producing the effects of social ideologies (such as [[Nazism]] or [[social Darwinism]]) justified in part on claimed hereditary racial differences.<ref name="AAA 1994">{{cite web |last=American Anthropological Association |title=Statement on "Race" and Intelligence |year=1994 |url=http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/race.htm |accessdate=March 31, 2010 |ref=harv |postscript=<!--None-->}}</ref><ref name="AAA"/> [[Steven Rose]] maintains that the history of [[eugenics]] makes this field of research difficult to reconcile with current ethical standards for science.<ref name="Rose 2009"/>
According to critics, research will run the risk of reproducing the negative effects of social ideologies (such as [[Nazism]] or [[social Darwinism]]) that were justified in part on claimed hereditary racial differences.<ref name="AAA 1994">{{cite web |last=American Anthropological Association |title=Statement on "Race" and Intelligence |year=1994 |url=http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/race.htm |accessdate=March 31, 2010 |ref=harv |postscript=<!--None-->}}</ref><ref name="AAA"/> [[Steven Rose]] maintains that the history of [[eugenics]] makes this field of research difficult to reconcile with current ethical standards for science.<ref name="Rose 2009"/>


[[Linda Gottfredson]] argues that suggestion of higher ethical standards for research into group differences in intelligence is a [[double standard]] applied in order to undermine disliked results.<ref name="Gottfredson 2007">{{harvnb|Gottfredson|2007}}</ref>{{primary source-inline|date=February 2013}} Flynn, a non-hereditarian, has argued that had there been a ban on research on possibly poorly conceived ideas, much valuable research on intelligence testing (including his own discovery of the [[Flynn effect]]) would not have occurred.<ref>{{harvnb|Flynn|2009}}</ref>{{primary source-inline|date=February 2013}}
[[Linda Gottfredson]] argues that suggestion of higher ethical standards for research into group differences in intelligence is a [[double standard]] applied in order to undermine disliked results.<ref name="Gottfredson 2007">{{harvnb|Gottfredson|2007}}</ref>{{primary source-inline|date=February 2013}} Flynn, a non-hereditarian, has argued that had there been a ban on research on possibly poorly conceived ideas, much valuable research on intelligence testing (including his own discovery of the [[Flynn effect]]) would not have occurred.<ref>{{harvnb|Flynn|2009}}</ref>{{primary source-inline|date=February 2013}}


==Validity of "race" and "IQ"==
==Validity of "race" and "IQ"==
Line 46: Line 44:
The concept of intelligence and the degree to which it is measurable is and has been a matter of discussion. In ''Psychology'', a psychology textbook by [[Daniel Schacter|Schacter]] [[Daniel Wegner|et]] [[Daniel Gilbert (psychologist)|al.]], the argument is made that while there is a general consensus within western science about how to define intelligence, the concept of intelligence as something that can be unequivocally measured by a single figure is not universally accepted.<ref name="Schacter, Gilbert & Wegner 2007, pp 350-1">{{harvnb|Schacter|Gilbert|Wegner|2007|pp=350–1}}</ref> A recurring criticism is that different societies value and promote different kinds of skills and that the concept of intelligence is therefore culturally variable and cannot be measured the same in different societies.<ref name="Schacter, Gilbert & Wegner 2007, pp 350-1"/> Consequently, some critics argue that proposed relationships to other variables are necessarily tentative.<ref name="Sternberg, Grigorenko & Kidd 2005">{{harvnb|Sternberg|Grigorenko|Kidd|2005}}</ref>
The concept of intelligence and the degree to which it is measurable is and has been a matter of discussion. In ''Psychology'', a psychology textbook by [[Daniel Schacter|Schacter]] [[Daniel Wegner|et]] [[Daniel Gilbert (psychologist)|al.]], the argument is made that while there is a general consensus within western science about how to define intelligence, the concept of intelligence as something that can be unequivocally measured by a single figure is not universally accepted.<ref name="Schacter, Gilbert & Wegner 2007, pp 350-1">{{harvnb|Schacter|Gilbert|Wegner|2007|pp=350–1}}</ref> A recurring criticism is that different societies value and promote different kinds of skills and that the concept of intelligence is therefore culturally variable and cannot be measured the same in different societies.<ref name="Schacter, Gilbert & Wegner 2007, pp 350-1"/> Consequently, some critics argue that proposed relationships to other variables are necessarily tentative.<ref name="Sternberg, Grigorenko & Kidd 2005">{{harvnb|Sternberg|Grigorenko|Kidd|2005}}</ref>


The concept of race as a biologically meaningful category of analysis is also hotly contested in the social and behavioral sciences.<ref>{{harvnb|Daley|Onwuegbuzie|2011}}</ref> Articles in the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' and the ''Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society'' state that the current mainstream view is that race is a social construction mainly based not in actual biological differences but rather in folk ideologies that construct groups based on social disparities and superficial physical characteristics.<ref>{{harvnb|Britannica|2012}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Schaefer|2008}}</ref><!--Britannica is fine. Schaefer unconfirmed--> {{harvtxt|Sternberg|Grigorenko|Kidd|2005}} state, "Race is a socially constructed concept, not a biological one. It derives from people's desire to classify."<ref name="Sternberg, Grigorenko & Kidd 2005"/> The concept of human "races" as natural and separate divisions within the human species has also been rejected by the [[American Anthropological Association]]. The official position of the AAA, adopted in 1998, finds that advances in scientific knowledge have made it "clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups" and that "any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations [is] both arbitrary and subjective."<ref name="AAA">{{harvnb|AAA|1998}}</ref> Others argue that this view is restricted to certain fields, while in other fields, race is still seen as a valid biological category.<ref>{{harvnb|Kaszycka|Štrkalj|Strzałko| 2009}}</ref><!--Kaszycka unconfirmed.-->
In fields such as psychology, medicine, economics, political science, criminology, and other research on group differences, [[intelligence]] is commonly measured using [[intelligence quotient]] (IQ) tests.{{Citation needed|date=April 2011}} The statement "[[Mainstream Science on Intelligence]]" argued that "IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes ... Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance". Most of the research on intelligence differences between racial groups is based on IQ testing. These tests are highly correlated with the [[psychometric]] variable ''[[general intelligence factor|g]]'' (for ''general intelligence factor''). Other tests that are also highly correlated with ''g'' are also seen as measures of cognitive ability and have sometimes been used in the research. US examples include the [[Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery|Armed Forces Qualifying Test]]; [[SAT]]; [[Graduate Record Examination|GRE]]; [[Graduate Management Admissions Test|GMAT]]; and [[Law School Admission Test|LSAT]]. International student assessment tests that have been used include the [[Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study]], [[Programme for International Student Assessment]], and [[Progress in International Reading Literacy Study]].{{citation needed|date=February 2013}}


Race in the studies is almost always determined using self-reports, rather than based on analyses of the genetic history of the tested individuals. According to psychologist David Rowe, self-report is the preferred method for racial classification in studies of racial differences because classification based on genetic markers alone ignore the "cultural, behavioral, sociological, psychological, and epidemiological variables" that distinguish racial groups.<ref name="Rowe 2005">{{harvnb|Rowe|2005}}</ref> Hunt and Carlson write that "Nevertheless, self-identification is a surprisingly reliable guide to genetic composition. {{harvtxt|Tang et al.|2005}} applied mathematical clustering techniques to sort genomic markers for over 3,600 people in the United States and Taiwan into four groups. There was almost perfect agreement between cluster assignment and individuals' self-reports of racial/ethnic identification as white, black, East Asian, or Latino."<ref name="Hunt & Carlson 2007"/> Sternberg and Grigorenko disagree with Hunt and Carlson's interpretation of Tang, "Tang et al.'s point was that ancient geographic ancestry rather than current residence is associated with self-identification and not that such self-identification provides evidence for the existence of biological race."<ref>{{harvnb|Sternberg|Grigorenko|2007}}</ref>
The concept of race as a meaningful category of analysis is also hotly contested. The authors of two articles in two encyclopedias, the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' and the ''Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society'', argue that today the mainstream view is that race is a social construction that is based not mainly in actual biological differences but rather on folk ideologies that construct groups based on social disparities and superficial physical characteristics.<ref>{{harvnb|Britannica|2012}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Schaefer|2008}}</ref><!--Britannica is fine. Schaefer unconfirmed-->{{synthesis-inline|date=February 2013}} {{harvtxt|Sternberg|Grigorenko|Kidd|2005}} state that the overwhelming portion of the literature correlating race with identity has tacitly adopted folk definitions of race.<ref name="Sternberg, Grigorenko & Kidd 2005"/> The [[American Anthropological Association]] in 1998 published a "Statement on 'Race{{'"}} which rejected the existence of "races" as unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups.<ref name="AAA">{{harvnb|AAA|1998}}</ref> Others argue that this view is restricted to certain fields, while in other fields, race is still seen as a valid biological category.<ref>{{harvnb|Kaszycka|Štrkalj|Strzałko| 2009}}</ref><!--Kaszycka unconfirmed.-->


The notions that cluster analysis and the correlation between selfreported race and genetic ancestry supports a view of race as primarily based in biology is contradicted by [[C. Loring Brace]]<ref name="Brace 2005">{{harvnb|Brace|2005}}</ref> and geneticist [[Joseph L. Graves|Joseph Graves]].<ref>{{harvnb|Graves|2001}}</ref> They have argued that while it is possible to find biological and genetic variation corresponding roughly to the groupings normally defined as races, this is true for almost all geographically distinct populations. The cluster structure of the genetic data is dependent on the initial hypotheses of the researcher and the populations sampled. When one samples continental groups, the clusters become continental; if one had chosen other sampling patterns, the clusters would be different. {{harvnb|Kaplan|2011}} therefore concludes that, while differences in particular allele frequencies can be used to identify populations that loosely correspond to the racial categories common in western social discourse, the differences are of no more biological significance than the differences found between any human populations (e.g., the Spanish and Portuguese).
Race in the studies is almost always determined using self-reports, rather than based on analyses of the genetic history of the tested individuals. According to psychologist David Rowe, self-report is the preferred method for racial classification in studies of racial differences because classification based on genetic markers alone ignore the "cultural, behavioral, sociological, psychological, and epidemiological variables" that distinguish racial groups.<ref name="Rowe 2005">{{harvnb|Rowe|2005}}</ref> Hunt and Carlson write that "Nevertheless, self-identification is a surprisingly reliable guide to genetic composition. {{harvtxt|Tang et al.|2005}} applied mathematical clustering techniques to sort genomic markers for over 3,600 people in the United States and Taiwan into four groups. There was almost perfect agreement between cluster assignment and individuals' self-reports of racial/ethnic identification as white, black, East Asian, or Latino."<ref name="Hunt & Carlson 2007"/>


[[Earl B. Hunt]] agrees that racial categories are defined by social conventions, though he points out that they also correlate with clusters of both genetic traits and cultural traits. Hunt explains that, due to this, racial IQ differences are caused by these variables that correlate with race, and race itself is rarely a causal variable. Researchers who study racial disparities in test scores are studying the relationship between the scores and the many race-related factors which could potentially affect performance. These factors include health, wealth, biological differences, and education.<ref name="Hunt 2010, pp 408–10">{{harvnb|Hunt|2010|pp=408–10}}</ref>
The notions that cluster analysis and the correlation between self-reported race and genetic ancestry support a view of race as primarily based in biology is contradicted by some anthropologists. For example, [[C. Loring Brace]]<ref name="Brace 2005">{{harvnb|Brace|2005}}</ref> and geneticist [[Joseph L. Graves|Joseph Graves]],<ref>{{harvnb|Graves|2001}}</ref> have argued that while it is certainly possible to find biological and genetic variation that corresponds roughly to the groupings normally defined as races, this is true for almost all geographically distinct populations. The cluster structure of the genetic data is dependent on the initial hypotheses of the researcher and the populations sampled. When one samples continental groups, the clusters become continental; if one had chosen other sampling patterns, the clusters would be different. {{harvnb|Kaplan|2011}} therefore concludes that while racial groups are characterized by different allele frequencies, this does not mean that racial classification is a natural taxonomy of the human species, because multiple other genetic patterns can be found in human populations that crosscut racial distinctions. In this view, racial groupings are social constructs that have also a biological reality which is largely an artifact of how the category has been constructed.

[[Earl B. Hunt|Earl Hunt]] agrees that racial categories are defined by social conventions, though he points out that they also correlate with clusters of both genetic traits and cultural traits. Hunt explains that, due to this, racial IQ differences are caused by these variables that correlate with race, and race itself is rarely a causal variable. Researchers who study racial disparities in test scores are studying the relationship between the scores and the many race-related factors which could potentially affect performance. These factors include health, wealth, biological differences, and education.<ref name="Hunt 2010, pp 408–10">{{harvnb|Hunt|2010|pp=408–10}}</ref>


==Group differences==
==Group differences==
{{globalize|date=February 2013}}
{{globalize|date=February 2013}}
Earl Hunt and Jerry Carlson outlined four contemporary positions on differences in IQ based on race or ethnicity. The first is that these reflect real differences in average group intelligence, which is caused by a combination of environmental factors and heritable differences in brain function. A second position is that differences in average cognitive ability between races exist and are caused entirely by social and/or environmental factors. A third position holds that differences in average cognitive ability between races do not exist, and that the differences in average test scores are the result of inappropriate use of the tests themselves. Finally, a fourth position is that either or both of the concepts of [[race (classification of humans)|race]] and [[general intelligence factor|general intelligence]] are poorly constructed and therefore any comparisons between races are meaningless.<ref name="Hunt & Carlson 2007"/>
Hunt and Carlson outlined four contemporary positions on differences in IQ based on race or ethnicity. The first is that these reflect real differences in average group intelligence, which is caused by a combination of environmental factors and heritable differences in brain function. A second position is that differences in average cognitive ability between races exist and are caused entirely by social and/or environmental factors. A third position holds that differences in average cognitive ability between races do not exist, and that the differences in average test scores are the result of inappropriate use of the tests themselves. Finally, a fourth position is that either or both of the concepts of [[race (classification of humans)|race]] and [[general intelligence factor|general intelligence]] are poorly constructed and therefore any comparisons between races are meaningless.<ref name="Hunt & Carlson 2007"/>


===US test scores===
===US test scores===
{{main|Achievement gap in the United States}}
{{main|Achievement gap in the United States}}
{{harvtxt|Rushton|Jensen|2005}} write that, in the [[United States]], self-identified blacks and whites have been the subjects of the greatest number of studies. They state that the black-white IQ difference is about 15 to 18 points or 1 to 1.1 [[standard deviation]]s (SDs), which implies that between 11 and 16 percent of the black population have an IQ above 100 (the white mean). The black-white IQ difference is largest on those components of IQ tests that best represent the [[general intelligence factor]] ''g''.<ref name="Rushton & Jensen 2005">{{harvnb|Rushton|Jensen|2005}}</ref>{{primary source-inline|date=February 2013}} The 1996 APA report "[[Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns]]" and the 1994 editorial statement "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" gave more or less similar estimates.<ref name="Neisser et al. 1996">{{harvnb|Neisser et al.|1996}} "The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential."</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Gottfredson|1997}}</ref> {{harvtxt|Roth et al.|2001}}, in a review of the results of a total of 6,246,729 participants on other tests of cognitive ability or aptitude, found a difference in mean IQ scores between blacks and whites of 1.1 SD. Consistent results were found for college and university application tests such as the [[Scholastic Aptitude Test]] (N = 2.4 million) and [[Graduate Record Examination]] (N = 2.3 million), as well as for tests of job applicants in corporate sections (N = 0.5 million) and in the military (N = 0.4 million).<ref name="Roth et al. 2001">{{harvnb|Roth et al.|2001}}</ref>
{{harvtxt|Rushton|Jensen|2005}} write that, in the [[United States]], self-identified blacks and whites have been the subjects of the greatest number of studies. They state that the black-white IQ difference is about 15 to 18 points or 1 to 1.1 [[standard deviation]]s (SDs), which implies that between 11 and 16 percent of the black population have an IQ above 100 (the white mean). The black-white IQ difference is largest on those components of IQ tests that best represent the [[general intelligence factor]] ''g''.<ref name="Rushton & Jensen 2005">{{harvnb|Rushton|Jensen|2005}}</ref>{{primary source-inline|date=February 2013}} The 1996 APA report "[[Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns]]" and the 1994 editorial statement "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" gave more or less similar estimates.<ref name="Neisser et al. 1996">{{harvnb|Neisser et al.|1996}} "The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential."</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Gottfredson|1997}}</ref> {{harvtxt|Roth et al.|2001}}, in a review of the results of a total of 6,246,729 participants on other tests of cognitive ability or aptitude, found a difference in mean IQ scores between blacks and whites of 1.1 SD. Consistent results were found for college and university application tests such as the [[Scholastic Aptitude Test]] (N = 2.4 million) and [[Graduate Record Examination]] (N = 2.3 million), as well as for tests of job applicants in corporate sections (N = 0.5 million) and in the military (N = 0.4 million).<ref name="Roth et al. 2001">{{harvnb|Roth et al.|2001}}</ref>


A 2006 study by Dickens and Flynn estimated that the difference between mean scores of blacks and whites closed by about 5 or 6 IQ points between 1972 and 2002,<ref name="Dickens & Flynn 2006">{{harvnb|Dickens|Flynn|2006}}</ref> which would be a reduction of about one-third. However this was challenged by Rushton & Jensen who claim the difference remains stable.<ref name="Rushton & Jensen 2006">{{harvnb|Rushton|Jensen|2006}}</ref>{{primary source-inline|date=February 2013}} In a 2006 study, Murray agreed with Dickens and Flynn that there has been a narrowing of the difference; "Dickens' and Flynn's estimate of 3–6 IQ points from a base of about 16–18 points is a useful, though provisional, starting point". But he argued that this has stalled and that there has been no further narrowing for people born after the late 1970s.<ref>{{harvnb|Murray|2006}}</ref> Murray found similar results in a 2007 study.<ref>{{harvnb|Murray|2007}}</ref>{{primary source-inline|date=February 2013}}
A 2006 study by Dickens and Flynn estimated that the difference between mean scores of blacks and whites closed by about 5 or 6 IQ points between 1972 and 2002,<ref name="Dickens & Flynn 2006">{{harvnb|Dickens|Flynn|2006}}</ref> which would be a reduction of about one-third. However this was challenged by Rushton & Jensen who claim the difference remains stable.<ref name="Rushton & Jensen 2006">{{harvnb|Rushton|Jensen|2006}}</ref>{{primary source-inline|date=February 2013}} In a 2006 study, Murray agreed with Dickens and Flynn that there has been a narrowing of the difference; "Dickens' and Flynn's estimate of 3–6 IQ points from a base of about 16–18 points is a useful, though provisional, starting point". But he argued that this has stalled and that there has been no further narrowing for people born after the late 1970s.<ref>{{harvnb|Murray|2006}}</ref> Murray found similar results in a 2007 study.<ref>{{harvnb|Murray|2007}}</ref>{{primary source-inline|date=February 2013}}


The IQ distributions of other racial and ethnic groups in the United States are less well-studied. ''The Bell Curve'' (1994) stated that the average IQ of African Americans was 85, Latinos 89, whites 103, East Asians 106, and Jews 113. Asians score relatively higher on visuospatial than on verbal subtests. The few [[Amerindian]] populations who have been systematically tested, including Arctic Natives, tend to score worse on average than white populations but better on average than black populations.<ref name="Roth et al. 2001"/>
The IQ distributions of other racial and ethnic groups in the United States are less well-studied. ''The Bell Curve'' (1994) stated that the average IQ of African Americans was 85, Latinos 89, whites 103, East Asians 106, and Jews 113. Asians score relatively higher on visuospatial than on verbal subtests. The few [[Amerindian]] populations who have been systematically tested, including Arctic Natives, tend to score worse on average than white populations but better on average than black populations.<ref name="Roth et al. 2001"/>


According to several studies, [[Ashkenazi Jew]]s score 0.75 to 1.0 standard deviations above the general European average. This corresponds to an IQ of 112–115. Other studies have found somewhat lower values. During the 20th century, this population made up about 3% of the total US population, but won 27% of the US science [[Nobel Prize]]s and 25% of the [[Turing Award]]s. They have high verbal and mathematical scores, while their visuospatial abilities are typically somewhat lower, by about one half standard deviation, than the European average.<ref name="Cochran, Hardy & Harpending 2006">{{harvnb|Cochran|Hardy|Harpending|2006}}</ref>
According to several studies, [[Ashkenazi Jew]]s score 0.75 to 1.0 standard deviations above the general European average. This corresponds to an IQ of 112–115. Other studies have found somewhat lower values. During the 20th century, this population made up about 3% of the total US population, but won 27% of the US science [[Nobel Prize]]s and 25% of the [[Turing Award]]s. They have high verbal and mathematical scores, while their visuospatial abilities are typically somewhat lower, by about one half standard deviation, than the European average.<ref name="Cochran, Hardy & Harpending 2006">{{harvnb|Cochran|Hardy|Harpending|2006}}</ref>
{{See also|Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence}}


The racial groups studied in the United States and Europe are not necessarily [[sampling (statistics)|representative samples]] for populations in other parts of the world. Cultural differences may also factor in IQ test performance and outcomes. Therefore, results in the United States and Europe do not necessarily correlate to results in other populations.<ref>{{harvnb|Niu|Brass|2011}}</ref>
The racial groups studied in the United States and Europe are not necessarily [[sampling (statistics)|representative samples]] for populations in other parts of the world. Cultural differences may also factor in IQ test performance and outcomes. Therefore, results in the United States and Europe do not necessarily correlate to results in other populations.<ref>{{harvnb|Niu|Brass|2011}}</ref>

===International comparisons===
{{main|Nations and intelligence}}
The validity and reliability of IQ scores obtained from outside of the United States and Europe have been questioned due to the possibility of test bias as discussed in a later section. Nevertheless, some researchers have attempted to measure IQ variation in a global context.{{citation needed|date=February 2013}}


===Flynn effect===
===Flynn effect===
Line 86: Line 77:


===Test bias===
===Test bias===
Studies on other groups and in other nations{{vague|date=February 2013}} have argued that IQ tests may be biased against certain groups.<ref>{{harvnb|Cronshaw et al.|2006|p=278}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Verney et al.|2005}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Borsboom|2006}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Shuttleworth-Edwards et al.|2004}}</ref> The validity and reliability of IQ scores obtained from outside the United States and Europe have been questioned, in part because of the inherent difficulty of comparing IQ scores between cultures.<ref name="Richardson 2004">{{harvnb|Richardson|2004}}</ref><ref name="Hunt & Wittmann 2008">{{harvnb|Hunt|Wittmann|2008}}</ref> Several researchers have argued that cultural differences limit the appropriateness of standard IQ tests in non-industrialized communities.<ref>{{harvnb|Irvine|1983}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Irvine|Berry|1988}} a collection of articles by several authors discussing the limits of assessment by intelligence tests in different communities in the world. In particular, {{harvtxt|Reuning|1988}} describes the difficulties in devising and administering tests for Kalahari bushmen.</ref> In the mid-1970s, for example, the Soviet psychologist [[Alexander Luria]] concluded that it was impossible to devise an IQ test to assess peasant communities in Russia because [[taxonomy]] was alien to their way of reasoning.<ref>{{harvnb|Mackintosh|1998|pp=180–2}}</ref>
A number of studies have reached the conclusion that IQ tests may be biased against certain groups.<ref>{{harvnb|Cronshaw et al.|2006|p=278}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Verney et al.|2005}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Borsboom|2006}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Shuttleworth-Edwards et al.|2004}}</ref> The validity and reliability of IQ scores obtained from outside the United States and Europe have been questioned, in part because of the inherent difficulty of comparing IQ scores between cultures.<ref name="Richardson 2004">{{harvnb|Richardson|2004}}</ref><ref name="Hunt & Wittmann 2008">{{harvnb|Hunt|Wittmann|2008}}</ref> Several researchers have argued that cultural differences limit the appropriateness of standard IQ tests in non-industrialized communities.<ref>{{harvnb|Irvine|1983}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Irvine|Berry|1988}} a collection of articles by several authors discussing the limits of assessment by intelligence tests in different communities in the world. In particular, {{harvtxt|Reuning|1988}} describes the difficulties in devising and administering tests for Kalahari bushmen.</ref> In the mid-1970s, for example, the Soviet psychologist [[Alexander Luria]] concluded that it was impossible to devise an IQ test to assess peasant communities in Russia because [[taxonomy]] was alien to their way of reasoning.<ref>{{harvnb|Mackintosh|1998|pp=180–2}}</ref>


A 1996 report by the [[American Psychological Association]] states that controlled studies show that differences in mean IQ scores were not substantially due to bias in the content or administration of the IQ tests. Furthermore, the tests are equally valid predictors of future achievement for black and white Americans.<ref name="Neisser et al. 1996"/> This view is reinforced by [[Nicholas Mackintosh]] in his 1998 book ''IQ and Human Intelligence'',<ref>{{harvnb|Mackintosh|1998|p=174}}: "Despite widespread belief to the contrary, however, there is ample evidence, both in Britain and the USA, that IQ tests predict educational attaintment just about as well in ethnic minorities as in the white majority."</ref> and by a 1999 literature review by {{harvtxt|Brown|Reynolds|Whitaker|1999}}.<ref>{{harvnb|Brown|Reynolds|Whitaker|1999}}</ref>
A 1996 report by the [[American Psychological Association]] states that controlled studies show that differences in mean IQ scores were not substantially due to bias in the content or administration of the IQ tests. Furthermore, the tests are equally valid predictors of future achievement for black and white Americans.<ref name="Neisser et al. 1996"/> This view is reinforced by [[Nicholas Mackintosh]] in his 1998 book ''IQ and Human Intelligence'',<ref>{{harvnb|Mackintosh|1998|p=174}}: "Despite widespread belief to the contrary, however, there is ample evidence, both in Britain and the USA, that IQ tests predict educational attaintment just about as well in ethnic minorities as in the white majority."</ref> and by a 1999 literature review by {{harvtxt|Brown|Reynolds|Whitaker|1999}}.<ref>{{harvnb|Brown|Reynolds|Whitaker|1999}}</ref>
Line 92: Line 83:
===Stereotype threat===
===Stereotype threat===
{{Main|Stereotype threat}}
{{Main|Stereotype threat}}
[[Stereotype threat]] is the fear that one's behavior will confirm an existing [[stereotype]] of a group with which one identifies or by which one is defined; this fear may in turn lead to an impairment of performance.<ref>{{harvnb|Aronson|Wilson|Akert| 2005}}</ref> Testing situations that highlight the fact that intelligence is being measured tend to lower the scores of individuals from racial-ethnic groups who already score lower on average or are expected to score lower. Stereotype threat conditions cause larger than expected IQ differences among groups.{{citation needed|date=February 2013}}
[[Stereotype threat]] is the fear that one's behavior will confirm an existing [[stereotype]] of a group with which one identifies or by which one is defined; this fear may in turn lead to an impairment of performance.<ref>{{harvnb|Aronson|Wilson|Akert| 2005}}</ref> Testing situations that highlight the fact that intelligence is being measured tend to lower the scores of individuals from racial-ethnic groups who already score lower on average or are expected to score lower. Stereotype threat conditions cause larger than expected IQ differences among groups.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Steele|first1=Claude M.|title=A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance|journal=American Psychologist|volume=52|issue=6|year=1997|pages=613–629|issn=0003-066X|doi=10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613|pmid=9174398}}</ref>


===Socioeconomic environment===
===Socioeconomic environment===
Line 99: Line 90:
===Health and nutrition===
===Health and nutrition===
<!--Sources cited here should be double-checked for potential SYNTH-->
<!--Sources cited here should be double-checked for potential SYNTH-->
{{Main|Health and intelligence}}
{{Main|Impact of health on intelligence}}
[[Image:Lead levels children.png|thumb|right|Percentage of children aged 1-5 with blood lead levels ''at least'' 10 µg/dL. Black and Hispanic children have much higher levels than white children. A 10 µg/dL increase in blood lead at 24 months is associated with a 5.8-point decline in IQ.<ref name="Bellinger, Stiles & Needleman 1992">{{harvnb|Bellinger|Stiles|Needleman|1992}}</ref> Although the Geometric Mean Blood Lead Levels (GM BLL) are declining, a CDC report (2002) states that: "However, the GM BLL for non-Hispanic black children remains higher than that for Mexican-American and non-Hispanic white children, indicating that differences in risk for exposure still persist."<ref>{{harvnb|MMWR|2005}}</ref>]]
[[Image:Lead levels children.png|thumb|right|Percentage of children aged 1-5 with blood lead levels ''at least'' 10 µg/dL. Black and Hispanic children have much higher levels than white children. A 10 µg/dL increase in blood lead at 24 months is associated with a 5.8-point decline in IQ.<ref name="Bellinger, Stiles & Needleman 1992">{{harvnb|Bellinger|Stiles|Needleman|1992}}</ref> Although the Geometric Mean Blood Lead Levels (GM BLL) are declining, a CDC report (2002) states that: "However, the GM BLL for non-Hispanic black children remains higher than that for Mexican-American and non-Hispanic white children, indicating that differences in risk for exposure still persist."<ref>{{harvnb|MMWR|2005}}</ref>]]


Line 133: Line 124:


JR Harris suggested in ''[[The Nurture Assumption]]'' that different peer group cultures may contribute to the black-white IQ gap. She cites the work of Thomas Kindermann, whose [[longitudinal studies]] find that peer groups significantly affect scholastic achievement.<ref>{{harvnb|Kindermann|1993}}</ref>
JR Harris suggested in ''[[The Nurture Assumption]]'' that different peer group cultures may contribute to the black-white IQ gap. She cites the work of Thomas Kindermann, whose [[longitudinal studies]] find that peer groups significantly affect scholastic achievement.<ref>{{harvnb|Kindermann|1993}}</ref>




==Genetic arguments==
==Genetic arguments==
{{POV-section|date=February 2013}}
The American Anthropological Association in 1994 stated that intelligence is not biologically determined by race.<ref name="AAA 1994"/> The American Psychological Association in 1994, stated that there is little evidence to support environmental explanations, certainly no support for genetic interpretations, and that presently the cause of the black-white IQ gap is unknown.<ref>{{harvnb|Neisser et al.|1996}}</ref> A number of scientists, however, have concluded sufficient evidence exists to support substantial genetic contribution to explain the black-white IQ gap.<ref name="Rushton & Jensen 2005"/><ref name="Rushton & Jensen 2010"/><ref name="Gottfredson 2007"/><ref>{{harvnb|Herrnstein|Murray|1994}}</ref><ref name="Lynn 2006"/>
The American Anthropological Association in 1994 stated that intelligence is not biologically determined by race.<ref name="AAA 1994"/> The American Psychological Association in 1994, stated that there is little evidence to support environmental explanations, certainly no support for genetic interpretations, and that presently the cause of the black-white IQ gap is unknown.<ref>{{harvnb|Neisser et al.|1996}}</ref> A number of scientists, however, have concluded sufficient evidence exists to support substantial genetic contribution to explain the black-white IQ gap.<ref name="Rushton & Jensen 2005"/><ref name="Rushton & Jensen 2010"/><ref name="Gottfredson 2007"/><ref>{{harvnb|Herrnstein|Murray|1994}}</ref><ref name="Lynn 2006"/>

{{POV-section|date=February 2013}}


===Genetics of race and intelligence===
===Genetics of race and intelligence===
{{main|Race and genetics}}
{{main|Race and genetics}}


The decoding of the [[human genome]] has enabled scientists to search for sections of the genome that contribute to cognitive abilities, and there are also ways to study whether the differences in frequency of particular genetic variants between populations contribute to differences in average cognitive abilities. However the geneticist, [[Alan R. Templeton]] suggests this question is muddled by the general focus on "race" rather than on populations defined by gene frequency or by geographical proximity, and by the general insistence on phrasing the question in terms of heritability.<ref name="Templeton 2001">{{harvnb|Templeton|2001}}</ref> Templeton argues that racial groups neither represent [[sub-species]] or distinct [[lineage (evolution)|evolutionary lineages]], and that therefore there is no basis for making claims about the general intelligence of races.<ref name="Templeton 2001"/> He also finds that phrasing the question in terms of heritability not helpful because heritability "by definition is not applicable to between-population phenotypic differences" and is therefore "completely irrelevant to the question of genetic differentiation for any trait, including intelligence, among human populations." Templeton argues that the only way to design a study of the genetic contribution to intelligence is to the correlation between degree of geographic ancestry and cognitive abilities. He argues that this would require a [[Gregor Mendel|Mendelian]] "common garden" design where specimens with different hybrid compositions are subjected to the same environmental influences, and he further argues that when this design has been carried out, it has shown no significant correlation between any cognitive and the degree of African or European ancestry.<ref name="Templeton 2001"/>
The decoding of the [[human genome]] has enabled scientists to search for sections of the genome that may contribute to cognitive abilities. However the geneticist, [[Alan R. Templeton]] suggests this question is muddled by the general focus on "race" rather than on populations defined by gene frequency or by geographical proximity, and by the general insistence on phrasing the question in terms of heritability.<ref name="Templeton 2001">{{harvnb|Templeton|2001}}</ref> Templeton points out that racial groups neither represent [[sub-species]] or distinct [[lineage (evolution)|evolutionary lineages]], and that therefore there is no basis for making claims about the general intelligence of races.<ref name="Templeton 2001"/> He also finds that phrasing the question in terms of heritability not helpful because heritability "by definition is not applicable to between-population phenotypic differences" and is therefore "completely irrelevant to the question of genetic differentiation for any trait, including intelligence, among human populations." Templeton says that the only way to design a study of the genetic contribution to intelligence is to the correlation between degree of geographic ancestry and cognitive abilities. He states that this would require a [[Gregor Mendel|Mendelian]] "common garden" design where specimens with different hybrid compositions are subjected to the same environmental influences, and that when this design has been carried out, it has shown no significant correlation between any cognitive and the degree of African or European ancestry.<ref name="Templeton 2001"/>


Intelligence is both a quantitative and [[polygenic trait]]. This means that intelligence is under the influence of several genes, possibly several thousand. The effect of most individual genetic variants on intelligence is thought to be very small, well below 1% of the variance in ''g''. Current studies using [[quantitative trait loci]] have yielded little success in the search for genes influencing intelligence. [[Robert Plomin]] is confident that QTLs responsible for the variation in IQ scores exist, but due to their small effect sizes, more powerful tools of analysis will be required to detect them.<ref>{{harvnb|Plomin|Kennedy|Craig|2005|p=513}}</ref> Others assert that no useful answers can be reasonably expected from such research before an understanding of the relation between DNA and human phenotypes emerges.<ref name="Cooper 2005">{{harvnb|Cooper|2005}}</ref>
Intelligence is both a quantitative and [[polygenic trait]]. This means that intelligence is under the influence of several genes, possibly several thousand. The effect of most individual genetic variants on intelligence is thought to be very small, well below 1% of the variance in ''g''. Current studies using [[quantitative trait loci]] have yielded little success in the search for genes influencing intelligence. [[Robert Plomin]] is confident that QTLs responsible for the variation in IQ scores exist, but due to their small effect sizes, more powerful tools of analysis will be required to detect them.<ref>{{harvnb|Plomin|Kennedy|Craig|2005|p=513}}</ref> Others assert that no useful answers can be reasonably expected from such research before an understanding of the relation between DNA and human phenotypes emerges.<ref name="Cooper 2005">{{harvnb|Cooper|2005}}</ref>
Line 152: Line 138:


===Heritability within and between groups===
===Heritability within and between groups===
[[Image:Heritability plants.jpeg|thumb|250px| An environmental factor that varies between groups but not within groups can cause group differences in a trait that is otherwise 100% [[heritable]]. The height of this "ordinary genetically varied corn" is 100% heritable, but the difference between the groups is totally environmental. This is because the nutrient solution varies between populations, but not within populations.<ref>{{harvnb|Block|2002}}</ref>]]
[[Image:Heritability plants.jpeg|thumb| An environmental factor that varies between groups but not within groups can cause group differences in a trait that is otherwise 100% [[heritable]]. The height of this "ordinary genetically varied corn" is 100% heritable, but the difference between the groups is totally environmental. This is because the nutrient solution varies between populations, but not within populations.<ref>{{harvnb|Block|2002}}</ref>]]


[[Heritability]] is defined as the proportion of interindividual [[variance]] in a [[trait (biology)|trait]] which is attributable to [[genotype]] within a defined population in a specific environment. A heritability of 1 indicates that variation correlates fully with genetic variation and a heritability of 0 indicates that there is no correlation between the trait and genes at all. There is broad agreement that individual variation in intelligence is neither fully genetic nor fully environmental, but there is little agreement on the relative contribution of genes and environment on individual intelligence.
[[Heritability]] is defined as the ratio of genetic variation in an observable [[trait (biology)|trait]] to the trait's total observable variation. The heritability of a trait describes the proportion of variation in the trait that is attributable to genetic factors within a particular population. Heritability is not the proportion of a trait that is genetic and it does not describe what role, if any, genes play in producing the trait itself. A heritability of 1 indicates that variation correlates fully with genetic variation and a heritability of 0 indicates that there is no correlation between the trait and genes at all. There is broad agreement that individual variation in intelligence is neither fully genetic nor fully environmental, but there is little agreement on the relative contribution of genes and environment on individual intelligence.


It has been argued that intelligence is substantially heritable within populations, with 30–50% of variance in IQ scores in early childhood being attributable to genetic factors in analyzed US populations, increasing to 75–80% by late adolescence.<ref name="Neisser et al. 1996"/><ref name="Deary, Johnson & Houlihan 2009"/> High heritability does not imply that a trait is genetic or unchangeable, however, as environmental factors that affect all group members equally will not be measured by heritability (see the figure) and the heritability of a trait may also change over time in response to changes in the distribution of genes and environmental factors.<ref name="Neisser et al. 1996"/> High heritability also doesn't imply that all of the heritability is genetically determined, but can also be due to environmental differences that affect only a certain genetically defined group (indirect heritability).<ref name="Block 2002">{{harvnb|Block|2002}}</ref>
It has been argued that intelligence is substantially heritable within populations, with 30–50% of variance in IQ scores in early childhood being attributable to genetic factors in analyzed US populations, increasing to 75–80% by late adolescence.<ref name="Neisser et al. 1996"/><ref name="Deary, Johnson & Houlihan 2009"/> High heritability does not imply that a trait is genetic or unchangeable, however, as environmental factors that affect all group members equally will not be measured by heritability (see the figure) and the heritability of a trait may also change over time in response to changes in the distribution of genes and environmental factors.<ref name="Neisser et al. 1996"/> High heritability also doesn't imply that all of the heritability is genetically determined, but can also be due to environmental differences that affect only a certain genetically defined group (indirect heritability).<ref name="Block 2002">{{harvnb|Block|2002}}</ref>
Line 164: Line 150:
===Spearman's hypothesis===
===Spearman's hypothesis===
{{Main|Spearman's hypothesis}}
{{Main|Spearman's hypothesis}}
Spearman's hypothesis states that the magnitude of the black-white difference in tests of cognitive ability is entirely or mainly a function of the extent to which a test measures general mental ability, or g. The hypothesis, first formalized by Arthur Jensen in the 1980s based on Charles Spearman's earlier comments on the topic, argues that differences in g are the sole or major source of differences between blacks and whites observed in many studies of race and intelligence. {{citation needed|date=February 2013}}
Spearman's hypothesis states that the magnitude of the black-white difference in tests of cognitive ability is entirely or mainly a function of the extent to which a test measures general mental ability, or g. The hypothesis, first formalized by Arthur Jensen in the 1980s based on Charles Spearman's earlier comments on the topic, argues that differences in g are the sole or major source of differences between blacks and whites observed in many studies of race and intelligence.


Studies on Spearman's hypothesis have often confirmed that racial IQ differences between Blacks and Whites are in line with Spearman's hypothesis.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Hartmann, Kruuse, Nyborg |journal=Intelligence |volume=35 |pages=47–57 |year=2007 |url=http://occidentalascent.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/hartmannspearmanshispanic.pdf |title=Testing the cross-racial generality of Spearman's hypothesis |ref=harv}}</ref> Some have criticized these results. Hunt and Carlson argues Spearman's hypothesis is just one of several models that could explain the observed distributions in test scores.<ref name="Hunt & Carlson 2007"/>
Studies on Spearman's hypothesis have often confirmed that racial IQ differences between Blacks and Whites are in line with Spearman's hypothesis.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Hartmann, Kruuse, Nyborg |journal=Intelligence |volume=35 |pages=47–57 |year=2007 |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606000481|title=Testing the cross-racial generality of Spearman's hypothesis |ref=harv}}</ref> Some have criticized these results. Hunt and Carlson argues Spearman's hypothesis is just one of several models that could explain the observed distributions in test scores.<ref name="Hunt & Carlson 2007"/>

===Regression toward the mean===
{{undue|date=December 2011}}
Jensen and Rushton argue that [[regression toward the mean]] effects observed in studies comparing blacks and whites with high and low IQs to the IQs of their close relatives provide evidence of a [[polygene]]tic basis for the black/white IQ gap.<ref>{{harvnb|Jensen|1973|pp=107–9}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Rushton|2003}}</ref> However, other researchers have found Jensen's arguments to be unpersuasive,<ref name="Flynn 2010">{{harvnb|Flynn|2010|pp=363–6}}</ref> noting that regression to the mean is merely a statistical artifact and cannot be used to isolate potential causal factors.<ref>''See:''
*{{harvnb|Munsinger|1975}}
*{{harvnb|Horn|1989}}</ref>


===Gradual gap appearance===
===Gradual gap appearance===
{{see also|Heritability of IQ}}
{{harvtxt|Fryer|Levitt|2006}} found in tests of children aged eight to twelve months only minor differences (0.06 SD) between blacks and whites that disappeared with the inclusion of a limited set of controls including social-economic status.<ref>{{harvnb|Fryer|Levitt|2006}}</ref> Flynn has argued that the U.S. black-white gap appears gradually which suggests environmental causes. "At just 10 months old, the average score is only one point behind; by the age of 4, it is 4.6 points behind, and by the age of 24, the gap is 16.6 points. This could be due to genes, but the steady rate after the age of 4 (about 0.6 IQ points lost every year) suggests otherwise, since genetically driven differences such as height differences between males and females tend to kick in at a certain age."<ref name="Flynn 2008">{{harvnb|Flynn|2008}}</ref>
{{harvtxt|Fryer|Levitt|2006}} found in tests of children aged eight to twelve months only minor differences (0.06 SD) between blacks and whites that disappeared with the inclusion of a limited set of controls including social-economic status.<ref>{{harvnb|Fryer|Levitt|2006}}</ref> Flynn has argued that the U.S. black-white gap appears gradually which suggests environmental causes. "At just 10 months old, the average score is only one point behind; by the age of 4, it is 4.6 points behind, and by the age of 24, the gap is 16.6 points. This could be due to genes, but the steady rate after the age of 4 (about 0.6 IQ points lost every year) suggests otherwise, since genetically driven differences such as height differences between males and females tend to kick in at a certain age."<ref name="Flynn 2008">{{harvnb|Flynn|2008}}</ref>


Line 183: Line 162:
Several studies have been done on the effect of similar rearing conditions on children from different races.
Several studies have been done on the effect of similar rearing conditions on children from different races.


The [[Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study]] (1976) examined the [[intelligence quotient|IQ test scores]] of 122 [[adopted]] children and 143 nonadopted children reared by advantaged white families. The children were restudied ten years later.<ref name="Weinberg 1992">{{harvnb|Weinberg|Scarr|Waldman|1992}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Loehlin|2000|p=185}}</ref> The study found higher IQ for whites compared to blacks, both at age 7 and age 17.<ref name="Weinberg 1992"/><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Scarr | first1 = S. | last2 = Weinberg | first2 = R. A. | year = 1976 | title = IQ test performance of black children adopted by White families | url = | journal = American Psychologist | volume = 31 | issue = | pages = 726–739 }}</ref> Two other studies found opposing evidence with none finding higher intelligence in white children than in black children. However, unlike the [[Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study]], these studies did not retest the children post-adolescence when heritability of IQ would be much higher.<ref name="Rushton & Jensen 2005"/><ref name="Rushton & Jensen 2010"/><ref>{{cite book|last=Nyborg |first=Helmuth |title=The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur Jensen |year=2003|publisher=Elsevier Science |isbn=978-0080437934 |pages=402–406|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=rPNFXBnwuNoC |ref=harv}}</ref> {{harvtxt|Moore|1986}} compared black and mixed-race children adopted by either black or white middle-class families in the US. Moore observed that 23 black and interracial children raised by white parents had a significantly higher mean score than 23 age-matched children raised by black parents (117 vs 104), and argued that differences in early socialization explained these differences. {{harvtxt|Eyferth|1961}} studied the out-of-wedlock children of black and white soldiers stationed in Germany after World War 2 and then raised by white German mothers and found no significant differences.
The [[Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study]] (1976) examined the [[intelligence quotient|IQ test scores]] of 122 [[adopted]] children and 143 nonadopted children reared by advantaged white families. The children were restudied ten years later.<ref name="Weinberg 1992">{{harvnb|Weinberg|Scarr|Waldman|1992}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Scarr | first1 = S. | last2 = Weinberg | first2 = R. A. | year = 1976 | title = IQ test performance of black children adopted by White families | url = | journal = American Psychologist | volume = 31 | issue = | pages = 726–739 }}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Loehlin|2000|p=185}}</ref> The study found higher IQ for whites compared to blacks, both at age 7 and age 17.<ref name="Weinberg 1992"/><ref>Scarr, S., & Weinberg, R. A. (1976). IQ test performance of black children adopted by White families. American Psychologist, 31, 726-739.</ref> Three other studies found opposing evidence with none finding higher intelligence in white children than in black children. However, unlike the [[Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study]], these studies did not retest the children post-adolescence when heritability of IQ would be much higher.<ref name="Rushton & Jensen 2005"/><ref name="Rushton & Jensen 2010"/><ref>{{cite book|last=Nyborg |first=Helmuth |title=The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur Jensen |year=2003|publisher=Elsevier Science |isbn=978-0080437934 |pages=402–406|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=rPNFXBnwuNoC |ref=harv}}</ref> {{harvtxt|Moore|1986}} compared black and mixed-race children adopted by either black or white middle-class families in the US. Moore observed that 23 black and interracial children raised by white parents had a significantly higher mean score than 23 age-matched children raised by black parents (117 vs 104), and argued that differences in early socialization explained these differences. {{harvtxt|Eyferth|1961}} studied the out-of-wedlock children of black and white soldiers stationed in Germany after World War 2 and then raised by white German mothers and found no significant differences. {{harvtxt|Tizard et al.|1972}} studied black (African and West Indian), white, and mixed-race children raised in British long-stay residential nurseries. Three out of four tests found no significant differences. One test found higher scores for non-whites.<ref name="Tizard et al.">{{harvnb|Tizard et al.|1972}}</ref>


Studies on Korean infants adopted by European families have consistently shown a higher IQ than the European average.<ref name="Rushton & Jensen 2005"/><ref name="Lynn 2006">Lynn, Richard (2006) [http://www.velesova-sloboda.org/antrop/lynn-race-differences-in-intelligence.html Race Differences in Intelligence]</ref><ref name="Frydman and Lynn">{{cite journal |author=Frydman and Lynn |journal=Personality and Individual Differences |volume=10 |issue=12 |pages=1323–1325|year=1989 |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886989902468 |title=The intelligence of Korean children adopted in Belgium
Studies on Korean infants adopted by European families have consistently shown a higher IQ than the European average.<ref name="Rushton & Jensen 2005"/><ref name="Lynn 2006">Lynn, Richard (2006) [http://www.velesova-sloboda.org/antrop/lynn-race-differences-in-intelligence.html Race Differences in Intelligence]</ref><ref name="Frydman and Lynn">{{cite journal |author=Frydman and Lynn |journal=Personality and Individual Differences |volume=10 |issue=12 |pages=1323–1325|year=1989 |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886989902468 |title=The intelligence of Korean children adopted in Belgium |ref=harv}}</ref> Frydman and Lynn (1989) showed a mean IQ of 119 for Korean infants adopted by Belgium families. After correcting for the [[Flynn effect]], the IQ of the adopted Korean children was still 10 points higher than the indigenous Belgian children.<ref name="Rushton & Jensen 2005"/><ref name="Lynn 2006"/><ref name="Frydman and Lynn">{{cite journal |author=Frydman and Lynn |journal=Personality and Individual Differences |volume=10 |issue=12 |pages=1323–1325|year=1989 |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886989902468 |title=The intelligence of Korean children adopted in Belgium|ref=harv}}</ref> Lynn and Rushton claim that a Stams et al. (2000) dataset shows a mean IQ of 115 for Korean infants adopted in the Netherlands.<ref name="Lynn 2006"/><ref name=Stams>{{cite journal |author=Stams, Juffer, Rispens, Hoksbergen |journal=J Child Psychol Psychiatry |volume=41 |issue=8 |pages=1025–1037| year=2000 |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11099119 |title=The development and adjustment of 7-year-old children adopted in infancy |ref=harv}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Rushton |first1=J Philippe |last2=Ankney |first2=C Davison |title="The evolution of brain size and intelligence." In ''Evolutionary Cognitive Neuroscience'', eds. SM Platek, JP Keenan and TK Shackelford|year=2007|publisher=MIT Press |isbn=9780262162418 |pages=121–161 |ref=harv}}</ref>
|ref=harv |doi=10.1016/0191-8869(89)90246-8}}</ref><ref name=Stams>{{cite journal |author=Stams, Juffer, Rispens, Hoksbergen |journal=J Child Psychol Psychiatry |volume=41 |issue=8 |pages=1025–1037| year=2000 |title=The development and adjustment of 7-year-old children adopted in infancy |ref=harv |pmid=11099119}}</ref> Frydman and Lynn (1989) showed a mean IQ of 119 for Korean infants adopted by Belgium families. After correcting for the [[Flynn effect]], the IQ of the adopted Korean children was still 10 points higher than the indigenous Belgian children.<ref name="Rushton & Jensen 2005"/><ref name="Lynn 2006"/><ref name="Frydman and Lynn">{{cite journal |author=Frydman and Lynn |journal=Personality and Individual Differences |volume=10 |issue=12 |pages=1323–1325|year=1989 |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886989902468 |title=The intelligence of Korean children adopted in Belgium
|ref=harv |doi=10.1016/0191-8869(89)90246-8}}</ref> Stams et al. (2000) showed a mean IQ of 115 for Korean infants adopted in the Netherlands.<ref name=Stams>{{cite journal |author=Stams, Juffer, Rispens, Hoksbergen |journal=J Child Psychol Psychiatry |volume=41 |issue=8 |pages=1025–1037| year=2000 |title=The development and adjustment of 7-year-old children adopted in infancy |ref=harv |pmid=11099119}}</ref> Lindblad et al. (2009) studied school performance of adoptees in Sweden relative to intelligence tests in Sweden's military. The study showed that Korean adoptees had a higher grade point average and higher intelligence test score than Sweden's national average. While non-Korean adoptees had a lower grade point average and lower intelligence test score than Sweden's national average.<ref name=Lindblad>{{cite journal |author=Lindblad et al |journal="European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry |volume=18 |issue=5 |pages=301–308 |year=2009 |url=http://peer.ccsd.cnrs.fr/docs/00/47/80/80/PDF/PEER_stage2_10.1007%252Fs00787-008-0731-7.pdf |title=School performance of international adoptees better than expected from cognitive test results |ref=harv}}</ref> The higher IQ for Korean adoptees is in line with the higher IQ average of [[South Korea]] compared to Western nations.<ref name="main">Lynn, R. and Vanhanen, T. (2002). [http://books.google.com/books?id=KQ4rLiAbHQQC IQ and the wealth of nations]. Westport, CT: Praeger. ISBN 0-275-97510-X</ref>


===Racial admixture studies===
===Racial admixture studies===
Many people have an ancestry from different geographic regions. For example, African Americans typically have ancestors from both Africa and Europe, with, on average, 20% of their genome inherited from European ancestors.<ref>{{harvnb|Bryc et al.|2009}}</ref> If racial IQ gaps have a partially genetic basis, blacks with a higher degree of European ancestry should on average have higher IQ, because the genes inherited from European ancestors would likely include some genes with a positive effect on IQ.<ref name="Loehlin 2000">{{harvnb|Loehlin|2000}}</ref>
Many people have an ancestry from different geographic regions. For example, African Americans typically have ancestors from both Africa and Europe, with, on average, 20% of their genome inherited from European ancestors.<ref>{{harvnb|Bryc et al.|2009}}</ref> If racial IQ gaps have a partially genetic basis, blacks with a higher degree of European ancestry should on average have higher IQ, because the genes inherited from European ancestors would likely include some genes with a positive effect on IQ.<ref name="Loehlin 2000">{{harvnb|Loehlin|2000}}</ref>


Witty and Jenkins (1936) compared a group of 63 black students all with an IQ of 125 and above and compared their white ancestry level to Herskovits (1930) national sample of blacks and concluded no significant difference in the level of white ancestry between their sample of gifted students and the national sample of Herskovits (1930).<ref>{{cite journal |author=Witty and Jenkins |journal=Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied |volume=1 |pages=179–192 |year=1936 |url=http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&UID=1936-04182-001 |title=A Socio-Psychological Study of Negro Children of Superior Intelligene |ref=harv}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Jenkins |journal=Journal of Negro Education |volume=5 |issue=2 |pages=175–190 |year=1936 |url=http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/a-socio-psychological-study-of-negro-children-of-superior-intelligence.pdf |title=Intra-race testing and negro intelligence |ref=harv}}</ref>
Witty and Jenkins (1936) compared a group of 63 black students all with an IQ of 125 and above and compared their white ancestry level to Herskovits (1930) national sample of blacks and concluded no significant difference in the level of white ancestry between their sample of gifted students and the national sample of Herskovits (1930).<ref>{{cite journal |author=Witty and Jenkins |journal=Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied |volume=1 |pages=179–192 |year=1936 |url=http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&UID=1936-04182-001 |title=A Socio-Psychological Study of Negro Children of Superior Intelligence |ref=harv}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Jenkins |journal=Journal of Negro Education |volume=5 |issue=2 |pages=175–190 |year=1936 |url=http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/a-socio-psychological-study-of-negro-children-of-superior-intelligence.pdf |title=Intra-race testing and negro intelligence |ref=harv}}</ref>


This study has been criticized as the study's control sample of Herskovitz (1930) was not considered representative. 50% of the Herskovitz (1930) sample were composed of Howard University undergraduates and “well to do” professions with higher than average SES.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Mackenzie, Brian |journal=American Psychologist |volume=39 |issue=11 |pages=1214–1233|year=1984 |url=http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/mackenize-1984-explaining-race-differences-in-iq.pdf |title=Explaining Race Differences in IQ |ref=harv}}</ref> Blacks in both the control sample of Herskovitz (1930) and the test sample by Witty and Jenkins (1936) had higher percentage of white ancestry (approximately 30%) than the national average.<ref>{{cite book|last=Loehlin |first=John |title=Race Differences in Intelligence |year=1975 |publisher=W H Freeman & Co |isbn=978-0716707530 |ref=harv}}</ref>
This study has been criticized as the study's control sample of Herskovitz (1930) was not considered representative. 50% of the Herskovitz (1930) sample were composed of Howard University undergraduates and “well to do” professions with higher than average SES.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Mackenzie, Brian |journal=American Psychologist |volume=39 |issue=11 |pages=1214–1233|year=1984 |url=http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/mackenize-1984-explaining-race-differences-in-iq.pdf |title=Explaining Race Differences in IQ |ref=harv}}</ref> Blacks in both the control sample of Herskovitz (1930) and the test sample by Witty and Jenkins (1936) had higher percentage of white ancestry (approximately 30%) than the national average.<ref>{{cite book|last=Loehlin |first=John |title=Race Differences in Intelligence |year=1975 |publisher=W H Freeman & Co |isbn=978-0716707530 |ref=harv}}</ref>
Line 204: Line 181:
===Mental chronometry===
===Mental chronometry===
{{Main|Mental chronometry}}
{{Main|Mental chronometry}}
[[Mental chronometry]] is an area of research which measures the elapsed time between the presentation of a sensory stimulus and the subsequent behavioral response by the participant. This time is known as reaction time (RT), and is considered a measure of the speed and efficiency with which the brain processes information.<ref name="Jensen 2006">{{harvnb|Jensen|2006}}</ref> Scores on most types of RT tasks tend to correlate with scores on standard IQ tests as well as with ''g'', and no relationship has been found between RT and any other psychometric factors independent of ''g''.<ref name="Jensen 2006"/> The strength of the correlation with IQ varies from one RT test to another, but [[Hans Eysenck]] gives 0.40 as a typical correlation under favorable conditions.<ref>{{harvnb|Eysenck|1987}}</ref> According to Jensen individual differences in RT have a substantial genetic component, and heritability is higher for performance on tests that correlate more strongly with IQ.<ref name="Jensen 1998"/> Nisbett argues that some studies have found correlations closer to 0.2, and that the correlation is not always found.<ref name="Nisbett 2009">{{harvnb|Nisbett|2009}}</ref><!--page number needed-->
[[Mental chronometry]] measures the elapsed time between the presentation of a sensory stimulus and the subsequent behavioral response by the participant. This reaction time (RT) is considered a measure of the speed and efficiency with which the brain processes information.<ref name="Jensen 2006">{{harvnb|Jensen|2006}}</ref> Scores on most types of RT tasks tend to correlate with scores on standard IQ tests as well as with ''g'', and no relationship has been found between RT and any other psychometric factors independent of ''g''.<ref name="Jensen 2006"/> The strength of the correlation with IQ varies from one RT test to another, but [[Hans Eysenck]] gives 0.40 as a typical correlation under favorable conditions.<ref>{{harvnb|Eysenck|1987}}</ref> According to Jensen individual differences in RT have a substantial genetic component, and heritability is higher for performance on tests that correlate more strongly with IQ.<ref name="Jensen 1998"/> Nisbett argues that some studies have found correlations closer to 0.2, and that the correlation is not always found.<ref name="Nisbett 2009">{{harvnb|Nisbett|2009}}</ref><!--page number needed-->


Several studies have found differences between races in average reaction times. These studies have generally found that reaction times among black, Asian and white children follow the same pattern as IQ scores.<ref name="Lynn & Vanhanen 2002">{{harvnb|Lynn|Vanhanen|2002}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Jensen|Whang|1993}}</ref><ref name="Pesta & Poznanski 2008">{{harvnb|Pesta|Poznanski|2008}}</ref> Rushton and Jensen have argued that reaction time is independent of culture and that the existence of race differences in average reaction time is evidence that the cause of racial IQ gaps is partially genetic instead of entirely cultural.<ref name="Rushton & Jensen 2005"/> Responding to this argument in ''Intelligence and How to Get It'', Nisbett has pointed to the {{harvtxt|Jensen|Whang|1993}} study in which a group of Chinese Americans had longer reaction times than a group of European Americans, despite having higher IQs. Nisbett also mentions findings in {{harvtxt|Flynn|1991}} and {{harvtxt|Deary|2001}} suggesting that movement time (the measure of how long it takes a person to move a finger after making the decision to do so) correlates with IQ just as strongly as reaction time does, and that average movement time is faster for blacks than for whites.<ref>{{harvnb|Nisbett|2009|pp=221–2}}</ref>
Several studies have found differences between races in average reaction times. These studies have generally found that reaction times among black, Asian and white children follow the same pattern as IQ scores.<ref name="Lynn & Vanhanen 2002">{{harvnb|Lynn|Vanhanen|2002}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Jensen|Whang|1993}}</ref><ref name="Pesta & Poznanski 2008">{{harvnb|Pesta|Poznanski|2008}}</ref> Rushton and Jensen have argued that reaction time is independent of culture and that the existence of race differences in average reaction time is evidence that the cause of racial IQ gaps is partially genetic instead of entirely cultural.<ref name="Rushton & Jensen 2005"/> Responding to this argument in ''Intelligence and How to Get It'', Nisbett has pointed to the {{harvtxt|Jensen|Whang|1993}} study in which a group of Chinese Americans had longer reaction times than a group of European Americans, despite having higher IQs. Nisbett also mentions findings in {{harvtxt|Flynn|1991}} and {{harvtxt|Deary|2001}} suggesting that movement time (the measure of how long it takes a person to move a finger after making the decision to do so) correlates with IQ just as strongly as reaction time, and that average movement time is faster for blacks than for whites.<ref>{{harvnb|Nisbett|2009|pp=221–2}}</ref>


===Brain size===
===Brain size===
Harry Jerison writes that if races are defined sociologically rather than genetically, races differ in average brain size, and it is difficult to know what to make of these differences. Within a race, sex, or age group, brain size has about a 0.4 correlation with IQ. He also writes that because of politics, it is almost impossible to discuss these differences as a scientific issue.<ref>{{harvnb|Jerison|2000|pp=241}}</ref>
Many studies have looked at differences in brain size or head size (see Bibliography below). A study by Jensen and Johnson in 1994 found that black children had on average smaller heads and lower IQ than whites, and that IQ was positively correlated to head size. The differences in head size seemed to account for the differences in IQ: "White and black children who are matched on IQ show, on average, virtually zero difference in head size."<ref>{{harvnb|Jensen|Johnson|1994}}</ref>


[[Earl Hunt]] writes that because brain size is found to have a correlation of about .35 with intelligence among whites, and is almost entirely genetically determined, race differences in average brain size are an important argument for a genetic contribution to racial IQ gaps. However brain images are very expensive to obtain, so much of the research in this area is based on measures of cranial capacity, which only measures brain size indirectly. Combined with measures of processing speed (mental chronometry), this data accounts for a difference of .19 standard deviations between Black and White average test scores, only a small portion of the 1.0 standard deviation gap in average scores that is observed.<ref>{{harvnb|Hunt|2010|pp=433–434}}</ref>
[[Earl Hunt]], writing about the research of hereditarians in this area, states that because brain size is found to have a correlation of about .35 with intelligence among whites and is almost entirely genetically determined, race differences in average brain size are therefore an important argument for a possible genetic contribution to racial IQ gaps. However as brain images are expensive to obtain, much of the research in this area is based on measures of cranial capacity, which only measures brain size indirectly and thus makes the data less reliable. Hunt notes that, even when combined with measures of processing speed (mental chronometry), this data still just accounts for a difference of .19 standard deviations between Black and White average test scores, only a portion of the 1.0 standard deviation gap in average scores that is observed.<ref>{{harvnb|Hunt|2010|pp=433–434}}</ref>

Hunt and Carlson write that whether there is a relationship between race, genetics, brain size, and IQ is at present unknown. However, they say that it is an area both feasible and reasonable to study. Summarising Rushton's hypothesis that the black-white IQ gap can be explained by larger average brain size among whites, they say that because this argument presents a biological mechanism known to influence intelligence that could potentially help explain racial IQ gaps, discussing ideas like this is more likely to be informative than arguing about what percentage of the IQ gap is genetic or environmental.<ref>{{harvnb|Hunt|Carlson|2007}}</ref>


==Policy relevance==
==Policy relevance==
{{Main|Intelligence and public policy}}
{{Main|Intelligence and public policy}}
Jensen and Rushton argue that the existence of biological group differences does not rule out, but raises questions about the worthiness of policies such as [[affirmative action]] or placing a premium on diversity. They also argue for the importance of teaching people not to overgeneralize or [[stereotype]] individuals based on average group differences, because of the overlap of people with varying intelligence between different races.<ref name="Rushton & Jensen 2005"/>
Jensen and Rushton argue that the existence of biological group differences does not rule out, but raises questions about the worthiness of policies such as [[affirmative action]] or placing a premium on diversity. They also argue for the importance of teaching people not to overgeneralize or [[stereotype]] individuals based on average group differences, because of the significant overlap of people with varying intelligence between different races.<ref name="Rushton & Jensen 2005"/>


The environmentalist viewpoint argues for increased interventions in order to close the gaps.{{Citation needed|date=March 2011}} Nisbett argues that schools can be greatly improved and that many interventions at every age level are possible.<ref>{{harvnb|Nisbett|2009}}<!--page number needed--></ref> Flynn, arguing for the importance of the black subculture, writes that "America will have to address all the aspects of black experience that are disadvantageous, beginning with the regeneration of inner city neighbourhoods and their schools. A resident police office and teacher in every apartment block would be a good start."<ref name="Flynn 2008"/> Researchers from both sides agree that interventions should be better researched.<ref name="Nisbett 2009"/><!--page number needed--><ref name="Rushton & Jensen 2010"/>
The environmentalist viewpoint argues for increased interventions in order to close the gaps.{{Citation needed|date=March 2011}} Nisbett argues that schools can be greatly improved and that many interventions at every age level are possible.<ref>{{harvnb|Nisbett|2009}}<!--page number needed--></ref> Flynn, arguing for the importance of the black subculture, writes that "America will have to address all the aspects of black experience that are disadvantageous, beginning with the regeneration of inner city neighbourhoods and their schools. A resident police office and teacher in every apartment block would be a good start."<ref name="Flynn 2008"/> Researchers from both sides agree that interventions should be better researched.<ref name="Nisbett 2009"/><!--page number needed--><ref name="Rushton & Jensen 2010"/>


Especially in developing nations society has been urged to take on the prevention of cognitive impairment in children as of the highest priority. Possible preventable causes include [[malnutrition]], [[infectious diseases]] such as [[meningitis]], [[parasites]], and cerebral [[malaria]], [[in utero]] [[drug]] and [[alcohol]] exposure, newborn [[asphyxia]], [[low birth weight]], head injuries, and [[endocrine disorders]].<ref name="Olness 2003">{{harvnb|Olness|2003}}</ref>
Especially in developing nations, society has been urged to take on the prevention of cognitive impairment in children as of the highest priority. Possible preventable causes include [[malnutrition]], [[infectious diseases]] such as [[meningitis]], [[parasites]], and cerebral [[malaria]], [[in utero]] [[drug]] and [[alcohol]] exposure, newborn [[asphyxia]], [[low birth weight]], head injuries, and [[endocrine disorders]].<ref name="Olness 2003">{{harvnb|Olness|2003}}</ref>


== See also ==
== See also ==

*[[Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence]]
*[[Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence]]


Line 280: Line 258:
*{{cite journal |first=G |last=Cochran |first2=J |last2=Hardy |first3=H |last3=Harpending |url=http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/ashkiq.webpub.pdf |title=Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence |journal=Journal of Biosocial Science |volume=38 |issue=5 |pages=659–93 |year= 2006 |ref=harv }}
*{{cite journal |first=G |last=Cochran |first2=J |last2=Hardy |first3=H |last3=Harpending |url=http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/ashkiq.webpub.pdf |title=Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence |journal=Journal of Biosocial Science |volume=38 |issue=5 |pages=659–93 |year= 2006 |ref=harv }}
<!--Cooper 2005-->
<!--Cooper 2005-->
*{{cite journal |last=Cooper |first=Richard |year= 2005 |title=Race and IQ: Molecular Genetics as Deus ex Machina |journal= American Psychologist |volume=60 |issue=1 |pages=71–6 |ref=harv }}
*{{Cite journal | last1 = Cooper | first1 = R. S. | title = Race and IQ: Molecular Genetics as Deus ex Machina | doi = 10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.71 | journal = American Psychologist | volume = 60 | issue = 1 | pages = 71–76 | year = 2005 | pmid = 15641923| ref = harv}}
<!--CNN 2007-->
<!--CNN 2007-->
*{{cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/25/watson.resigns/index.html |title=Controversial Nobel winner resigns |newspaper=CNN |accessdate=21 February 2012 |date=25 October 2007 |ref={{harvid|CNN|2007}} }}
*{{cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/25/watson.resigns/index.html |title=Controversial Nobel winner resigns |newspaper=CNN |accessdate=21 February 2012 |date=25 October 2007 |ref={{harvid|CNN|2007}} }}
<!--Cronshaw et al. 2006-->
<!--Cronshaw et al. 2006-->
*{{cite journal |url=http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00346.x |title=Case for Non-Biased Intelligence Testing Against Black Africans Has Not Been Made: A Comment on Rushton, Skuy, and Bons |year=2004 |first=Steven F |last=Cronshaw |first2=Leah K |last2=Hamilton |first3=Betty R |last3=Onyura |first4=Andrew S |last4=Winston |journal=International Journal of Selection and Assessment |volume=14 |issue=3 |page=278 |date= September 2006 |doi=10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00346.x |ref={{harvid|Cronshaw et al.|2006}} }}
*{{cite journal |url=http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00346.x |title=Case for Non-Biased Intelligence Testing Against Black Africans Has Not Been Made: A Comment on Rushton, Skuy, and Bons |year=2004 |first=Steven F |last=Cronshaw |first2=Leah K |last2=Hamilton |first3=Betty R |last3=Onyura |first4=Andrew S |last4=Winston |journal=International Journal of Selection and Assessment |volume=14 |issue=3 |page=278 |date= September 2006 |doi=10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00346.x |ref={{harvid|Cronshaw et al.|2006}} }}
<!-- {{harvnb|Daley|Onwuegbuzie|2011}} -->
*{{cite book | last1 = Daley | first1 = C. E. | last2 = Onwuegbuzie | first2 = A. J. | editor1-last = Sternberg | editor1-first = R. | editor2-last = Kaufman | editor2-first = S. B. | title = The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence | chapter = Race and Intelligence | pages = 293–306| publisher = Cambridge University Press | location = Cambridge New York | year = 2011 | isbn = 9780521518062 | ref = harv }}
<!--Deary 2001-->
<!--Deary 2001-->
*{{cite book |first=Ian J |last=Deary |title=Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction |year=2001 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=0-19-289321-1 |ref=harv}}
*{{cite book |first=Ian J |last=Deary |title=Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction |year=2001 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=0-19-289321-1 |ref=harv}}
Line 342: Line 322:
*{{cite journal |journal=Nature Reviews Neuroscience |volume=5 |pages=471–82 |year=2004 |title=Neurobiology of intelligence: science and ethics |first=Jeremy R |last=Gray |first2=Paul M |last2= Thompson |doi=10.1038/nrn1405 |pmid=15152197 |issue=6 |url=http://scanlab.psych.yale.edu/public/_media/gt_2004_nrn.pdf |ref=harv}}
*{{cite journal |journal=Nature Reviews Neuroscience |volume=5 |pages=471–82 |year=2004 |title=Neurobiology of intelligence: science and ethics |first=Jeremy R |last=Gray |first2=Paul M |last2= Thompson |doi=10.1038/nrn1405 |pmid=15152197 |issue=6 |url=http://scanlab.psych.yale.edu/public/_media/gt_2004_nrn.pdf |ref=harv}}
<!--Grossman & Kaufman 2001-->
<!--Grossman & Kaufman 2001-->
*{{Cite book |title=The evolution of intelligence |chapter=Evolutionary Psychology: Promise and Perils |last=Grossman |first=James B |last2=Kaufman |first1=James B |editor-first=Robert J |editor-last=Sternberg |editor2-first=James C |editor2-last=Kaufman |publisher=Routledge |year=2001 |isbn=0-8058-3267-X |ref=harv}}
*{{Cite book |title=The evolution of intelligence |chapter=Evolutionary Psychology: Promise and Perils |last1=Grossman |first1=James B |last2=Kaufman |editor-first=Robert J |editor-last=Sternberg |editor2-first=James C |editor2-last=Kaufman |publisher=Routledge |year=2001 |isbn=0-8058-3267-X |ref=harv}}
<!--Herrnstein & Murray 1994 -->
<!--Herrnstein & Murray 1994 -->
*{{cite book |first=Richard J |last=Herrnstein |first2=Charles |last2=Murray |year=1994 |title=The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life |publisher=Free Press |location=New York |isbn=0-02-914673-9 |ref=harv }}
*{{cite book |first=Richard J |last=Herrnstein |first2=Charles |last2=Murray |year=1994 |title=The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life |publisher=Free Press |location=New York |isbn=0-02-914673-9 |ref=harv }}
Line 376: Line 356:
*{{cite book |last=Jensen |first=AR |year=2006 |title=Clocking the mind: Mental chronometry and individual differences |location=Amsterdam |publisher=Elsevier |isbn=978-0-08-044939-5 |ref=harv }}
*{{cite book |last=Jensen |first=AR |year=2006 |title=Clocking the mind: Mental chronometry and individual differences |location=Amsterdam |publisher=Elsevier |isbn=978-0-08-044939-5 |ref=harv }}
<!--Jensen & Johnson 1994 -->
<!--Jensen & Johnson 1994 -->
*{{cite journal |last1=Jensen |first1=Arthur R |last2=Johnson |first2=Fred W |year=1994|date=May–June 1994 |title=Race and sex differences in head size and IQ |journal=Intelligence |volume=18 |pages=309–33 |issue=3 |doi=10.1016/0160-2896(94)90032-9 |ref=harv }}
*{{Cite journal |doi=10.1016/0160-2896(94)90032-9 |last2=Johnson |first2=Fred W |last1=Jensen |first2=Arthur R |date=May–June 1994 |title=Race and sex differences in head size and IQ |journal=Intelligence |volume=18 |pages=309–33 |issue=3 |ref=harv }}
<!--Jerison 2000 -->
*{{cite book |last=Jerison |first=Harry J |year=2000 |chapter=The Evolution of Intelligence |editor-first=Robert J |editor-last= Sternberg |title=The Handbook of Intelligence |location=Cambridge |publisher=Cambridge University Press |ref=harv }}
<!--Kaplan 2011-->
<!--Kaplan 2011-->
*{{cite journal |last=Kaplan |first=Jonathan Michael |date=January 2011 |title=‘Race’: What Biology Can Tell Us about a Social Construct |journal=Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (ELS) |publisher=John Wiley & Sons, Ltd |location=Chichester |url=http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0005857.html |doi=10.1002/9780470015902.a0005857 |ref={{harvid|Kaplan|2011}} }}
*{{cite journal |last=Kaplan |first=Jonathan Michael |date=January 2011 |title=‘Race’: What Biology Can Tell Us about a Social Construct |journal=Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (ELS) |publisher=John Wiley & Sons, Ltd |location=Chichester |url=http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0005857.html |doi=10.1002/9780470015902.a0005857 |ref={{harvid|Kaplan|2011}} }}
Line 422: Line 404:
*{{cite journal |title=The magnitude and components of change in the black–white IQ difference from 1920 to 1991: A birth cohort analysis of the Woodcock–Johnson standardizations |first=Charles |last=Murray |journal=Intelligence |volume=35 |issue=4 |date= July–August 2007 |pages=305–18 |doi=10.1016/j.intell.2007.02.001 |ref={{harvid|Murray|2007}}}}
*{{cite journal |title=The magnitude and components of change in the black–white IQ difference from 1920 to 1991: A birth cohort analysis of the Woodcock–Johnson standardizations |first=Charles |last=Murray |journal=Intelligence |volume=35 |issue=4 |date= July–August 2007 |pages=305–18 |doi=10.1016/j.intell.2007.02.001 |ref={{harvid|Murray|2007}}}}
<!--Neisser 1997-->
<!--Neisser 1997-->
*{{cite journal |doi= 10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77 |last1=Neisser |first1=Ulric |last2=Boodoo|first2=Gwyneth |last3= Bouchard |first3=Thomas J, Jr |last4=Boykin |first4=A. Wade |last5=Brody |first5=Nathan |last6=Ceci |first6=Stephen J |last7=Halpern |first7=Diane F |last8=Loehlin |first8=John C |last9=Perloff |first9=Robert |title=Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns |journal=American Psychologist |volume=51 |pages=77–101 |year=1996 |url=http://www.psych.illinois.edu/~broberts/Neisser%20et%20al,%201996,%20intelligence.pdf |ref={{harvid|Neisser et al.|1996}} }}
*{{cite journal |last=Neisser |first= Ulric |year=1997 |title=Never a dull moment |journal=American Psychologist |volume=52 |pages=79–81 |doi=10.1037/0003-066X.52.1.79 |ref=harv}}
<!--Neisser 2004-->
<!--Neisser 2004-->
*{{cite journal |last=Neisser |first=Ulric |year=2004 |title=Serious Scientists or Disgusting Racists? |journal=Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books |volume=49 |issue=1 |pages=5–7 |doi=10.1037/004224 |ref=harv}}
*{{cite journal |last=Neisser |first=Ulric |year=2004 |title=Serious Scientists or Disgusting Racists? |journal=Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books |volume=49 |issue=1 |pages=5–7 |doi=10.1037/004224 |ref=harv}}
<!--Neisser et al. 1996-->
<!--Neisser et al. 1996-->
*{{cite journal |doi= 10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77 |last1=Neisser |first1=Ulric |last2=Boodoo|first2=Gwyneth |last3= Bouchard |first3=Thomas J, Jr |last4=Boykin |first4=A. Wade |last5=Brody |first5=Nathan |last6=Ceci |first6=Stephen J |last7=Halpern |first7=Diane F |last8=Loehlin |first8=John C |last9=Perloff |first9=Robert |title=Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns |journal=American Psychologist |volume=51 |pages=77–101 |year=1996 |url=http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/pdfFiles/IQ_Neisser2.pdf |ref={{harvid|Neisser et al.|1996}} }}
*{{cite journal |doi= 10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77 |last1=Neisser |first1=Ulric |last2=Boodoo|first2=Gwyneth |last3= Bouchard |first3=Thomas J, Jr |last4=Boykin |first4=A. Wade |last5=Brody |first5=Nathan |last6=Ceci |first6=Stephen J |last7=Halpern |first7=Diane F |last8=Loehlin |first8=John C |last9=Perloff |first9=Robert |title=Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns |journal=American Psychologist |volume=51 |pages=77–101 |year=1996 |url=http://www.psych.illinois.edu/~broberts/Neisser%20et%20al,%201996,%20intelligence.pdf |ref={{harvid|Neisser et al.|1996}} }}
<!--Nisbett 2005-->
<!--Nisbett 2005-->
*{{cite journal |first=Richard |last=Nisbett |title=Heredity, environment, and race differences in IQ: A commentary on Rushton and Jensen |journal=Psychology, Public Policy, and Law |volume=11 |pages=302–10 |year=2005 |url=http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Nisbett-commentary-on-30years.pdf |doi=10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.302 |issue=2 |ref=harv}}
*{{cite journal |first=Richard |last=Nisbett |title=Heredity, environment, and race differences in IQ: A commentary on Rushton and Jensen |journal=Psychology, Public Policy, and Law |volume=11 |pages=302–10 |year=2005 |url=http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Nisbett-commentary-on-30years.pdf |doi=10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.302 |issue=2 |ref=harv}}
Line 499: Line 481:
<!--Sternberg, Grigorenko & Kidd 2005-->
<!--Sternberg, Grigorenko & Kidd 2005-->
*{{cite journal |first=Robert J |last=Sternberg |first2=Elena L |last2=Grigorenko |first3=Kenneth K |last3=Kidd |year=2005 |title=Intelligence, Race, and Genetics |journal=American Psychologist |volume=60 |issue=1 |pages=46–59 |url= http://medicine.yale.edu/labs/kidd/440.pdf |doi=10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.46 |pmid=15641921 |ref=harv}}
*{{cite journal |first=Robert J |last=Sternberg |first2=Elena L |last2=Grigorenko |first3=Kenneth K |last3=Kidd |year=2005 |title=Intelligence, Race, and Genetics |journal=American Psychologist |volume=60 |issue=1 |pages=46–59 |url= http://medicine.yale.edu/labs/kidd/440.pdf |doi=10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.46 |pmid=15641921 |ref=harv}}
<!--Sternberg & Grigorenko 2007-->
*{{Cite journal | last1 = Sternberg | first1 = R. J. | last2 = Grigorenko | first2 = E. L. | doi = 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00040.x | title = The Difficulty of Escaping Preconceptions in Writing an Article About the Difficulty of Escaping Preconceptions: Commentary on Hunt and Carlson (2007) | journal = Perspectives on Psychological Science | volume = 2 | issue = 2 | pages = 221 | year = 2007 | ref = harv}}
<!--Tang et al. 2005-->
<!--Tang et al. 2005-->
*<!--to identify citation in quotation in mainspace from Hunt & Carlson (2007)-->{{cite journal |last=Tang |first=H |last2=Quertermous |first2=T |last3=Rodriguez |first3=B |last4=Kardia |first4=SL |last5=Zhu |first5=X |last6=Brown |first6=A |last7=Pankow |first7=JS |last8=Province |first8=MA |last9=Hunt |first9=SC |date=February 2005 |title=Genetic structure, self-identified race/ethnicity, and confounding in case-control association studies |journal=American Journal of Human Genetics |volume=7 |issue=2 |pages=268–75 |pmid=15625622| doi=10.1086/427888 |ref={{harvid|Tang et al.|2005}} |pmc=1196372}}
*<!--to identify citation in quotation in mainspace from Hunt & Carlson (2007)-->{{cite journal |last=Tang |first=H |last2=Quertermous |first2=T |last3=Rodriguez |first3=B |last4=Kardia |first4=SL |last5=Zhu |first5=X |last6=Brown |first6=A |last7=Pankow |first7=JS |last8=Province |first8=MA |last9=Hunt |first9=SC |date=February 2005 |title=Genetic structure, self-identified race/ethnicity, and confounding in case-control association studies |journal=American Journal of Human Genetics |volume=7 |issue=2 |pages=268–75 |pmid=15625622| doi=10.1086/427888 |ref={{harvid|Tang et al.|2005}} |pmc=1196372}}
<!-- Templeton 2001 -->
<!--Templeton 2001 -->
*{{Citation | last = Templeton | first = A. R. | author-link = Alan R. Templeton | contribution = The Genetic and Evolutionary Significance of Human Races | editor-last = Fish | editor-first = J. M. | title = Race and Intelligence Separating Science from Myth | pages = 31–55 | publisher = Routledge | place = London | publication-date = 2001 | isbn = 978-0805837575}}
*{{Citation | last = Templeton | first = A. R. | author-link = Alan R. Templeton | contribution = The Genetic and Evolutionary Significance of Human Races | editor-last = Fish | editor-first = J. M. | title = Race and Intelligence Separating Science from Myth | pages = 31–55 | publisher = Routledge | place = London | publication-date = 2001 | isbn = 978-0805837575}}
<!--Thompson et al. 2001 -->
<!--Thompson et al. 2001 -->
*{{cite journal |first=Paul |last=Thompson |first2=Tyrone D |last2=Cannon |first3=Katherine L |last3=Narr |first4= Theo |last4=van Erp |first5= Veli-Pekka |last5=Poutanen
*{{cite journal |first=Paul |last=Thompson |first2=Tyrone D |last2=Cannon |first3=Katherine L |last3=Narr |first4= Theo |last4=van Erp |first5= Veli-Pekka |last5=Poutanen
Line 514: Line 498:
*{{cite journal |url=http://asm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/3/303 |title=Culture-Fair Cognitive Ability Assessment |first=Steven P |last=Verney |last2=Eric |last2=Granholn |last3=Marshall |first3=Sandra P |last4=Malcarne |first4=Vanessa L |last5=Saccuzzo |first5=Dennis P|journal=Assessment |volume=12 |issue=3 |pages=303–19 |date= September 2005 |doi=10.1177/1073191105276674 |ref={{harvid|Verney et al.|2005}} |pmid=16123251}}
*{{cite journal |url=http://asm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/3/303 |title=Culture-Fair Cognitive Ability Assessment |first=Steven P |last=Verney |last2=Eric |last2=Granholn |last3=Marshall |first3=Sandra P |last4=Malcarne |first4=Vanessa L |last5=Saccuzzo |first5=Dennis P|journal=Assessment |volume=12 |issue=3 |pages=303–19 |date= September 2005 |doi=10.1177/1073191105276674 |ref={{harvid|Verney et al.|2005}} |pmid=16123251}}
<!--Wade 2011 -->
<!--Wade 2011 -->
*{{cite news |first=Nicholas |last=Wade |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html?_r=1&ref=intelligence |title=Scientists Measure the Accuracy of a Racism Claim |newspaper=New York Times |date=13 June 2011 |ref=harvid|New York Times|2011}}
*{{cite news |first=Nicholas |last=Wade |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html?_r=1&ref=intelligence |title=Scientists Measure the Accuracy of a Racism Claim |newspaper=New York Times |date=13 June 2011 |ref={{harvid|New York Times|2011}}}}
<!--Weinbert, Scarr & Waldman 1992-->
<!--Weinbert, Scarr & Waldman 1992-->
*{{cite journal |last1=Weinberg |first1=Richard A. |last2=Scarr |first2=Sandra |last3=Waldman |first3=Irwin D. |title=The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study: A Follow-Up of IQ Test Performance at Adolescence |journal=Intelligence |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=117–35 |year=1992 |doi=10.1016/0160-2896(92)90028-P |ref=harv }}
*{{cite journal |last1=Weinberg |first1=Richard A. |last2=Scarr |first2=Sandra |last3=Waldman |first3=Irwin D. |title=The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study: A Follow-Up of IQ Test Performance at Adolescence |journal=Intelligence |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=117–35 |year=1992 |doi=10.1016/0160-2896(92)90028-P |ref=harv }}

Revision as of 08:51, 26 April 2013

The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in both popular science and academic research since the inception of intelligence quotient (IQ) testing in the early 20th century.[1] There is no widely accepted formal definition of either race or intelligence in academia, nor is there agreement on IQ's validity as a gauge of intelligence.[2] Historically, claims that races differed in intelligence were used to justify colonialism, slavery, Social Darwinism, and eugenics. After losing favor in the post-war period, the idea of racial differences in intelligence was revived by Arthur Jensen in 1969 and drew public attention following the publication of The Bell Curve in 1994. Any discussion of a connection between race and intelligence involves studies from multiple disciplines, including psychology, anthropology, biology and sociology.

Existence of differences in mean IQ scores between racial groups in the United States is well-documented and not subject to much dispute; IQ tests performed in the United States consistently demonstrate variation. These tests show the average IQ scores of East Asian Americans is higher than those of White Americans, and that the average IQ scores of White Americans is higher than those of African Americans. Both environmental and genetic explanations have been advanced to account for these differences in test scores and educational achievement. Systemically disadvantaged minorities perform worse in education and on intelligence tests. Other environmental arguments include differences in health and nutrition (including lead exposure and iodine deficiency), educational quality and test bias.

The American Psychological Association has said that while there are differences in average IQ between racial groups, there is no conclusive evidence for environmental explanations, nor direct empirical support for a genetic interpretation, and that no adequate explanation for differences in group means of IQ scores is currently available.[3][4] The position of the American Anthropological Association is that variation in intelligence cannot be meaningfully explained by dividing a species into biologically defined races.[5] According to a 1996 statement from the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, although heredity influences behavior in individuals, it does not affect the ability of a population to function in any social setting, all peoples "possess equal biological ability to assimilate any human culture" and "racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human populations."[6]

History of the debate

Alfred Binet (1857–1911), inventor of the first intelligence test.

Claims of races having different intelligence were used to justify colonialism, slavery, social Darwinism, and racial eugenics. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, group differences in intelligence were assumed to be due to race and, apart from intelligence tests, research relied on measurements such as brain size or reaction times. The first IQ test was created between 1905 and 1908 and revised in 1916 (the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales). Alfred Binet, the developer of these tests, warned that these should not be used to measure innate intelligence or to label individuals.[7] However, at the time there was great concern in the United States about the abilities and skills of recent immigrants. Different nationalities were sometimes thought to comprise different races, such as Slavs. The tests were used to evaluate draftees for World War I, and researchers found that people of southern and eastern Europe scored lower than native-born Americans. At the time, such data was used to construct an ethnically based social hierarchy, one in which immigrants were rejected as unfit for service and mentally defective. It was not until later that researchers realized that lower language skills by new English speakers affected their scores on the tests.[8]

In the 1920s, many scientists reacted to eugenicist claims linking abilities and moral character to racial or genetic ancestry. Despite that, states like Virginia enacted laws based in eugenics, such as its 1924 Racial Integrity Act, which established the one-drop rule as law. Generally, understanding grew about the contribution of environment to test-taking and results (such as having English as a second language).[9] By the mid-1930s most US psychologists had adopted the view that environmental and cultural factors played a dominant role. In addition, psychologists were reluctant to risk being associated with the German Nazi claims of a "master race".[10]

In 1969, Arthur Jensen revived the hereditarian point of view in the article, "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?"[11][non-primary source needed] It followed changes in public programs introduced to try to correct decades of discrimination against poor African Americans.

Jensen's article questioned remedial education for African-American children; he suggested their poor educational performance reflected an underlying genetic cause rather than lack of stimulation at home.[12] Jensen's work, publicized by the Nobel laureate physicist William Shockley, sparked controversy amongst the academic community and student protests.[13][14]

In their 1988 book The IQ Controversy, the Media, and Public Policy, Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman claimed to document inaccurate media coverage of scientific findings regarding IQ. The book builds on the results of a survey conducted in 1984. The survey was sent to 1020 scholars within fields that deal with the issue of IQ and had 661 respondents. 45 percent of the respondents thought that black-white differences in IQ were the product of both genetic and environmental variation, while 15 percent believed that the differences were entirely due to environmental factors; the rest either declined to answer the question, or thought that there was insufficient evidence to give an answer.[15]

Another debate followed the appearance of The Bell Curve (1994), a book by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, who argued in favor of the hereditarian viewpoint. It provoked the publication of several interdisciplinary books representing the environmental point of view, as well as some in popular science.[16][17] They include The Bell Curve Debate (1995), Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth (1996) and a second edition of The Mismeasure of Man (1996) by Steven J. Gould.[17] One book written from the hereditarian point of view at this time was The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (1998) by Jensen. In 1994 a group of 52 scientists, including leading hereditarians, signed the statement "Mainstream Science on Intelligence". The Bell Curve also led to a 1995 report from the American Psychological Association, "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns", acknowledging a difference between mean IQ scores of whites and blacks as well as the absence of any adequate explanation of it, either environmental or genetic.

The review article "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability" by Rushton and Jensen was published in 2005.[18] The article was followed by a series of responses, some in support, some critical.[10][19] Richard Nisbett, another psychologist who had also commented at the time, later included an amplified version of his critique as part of the book Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count (2009).[20] Rushton and Jensen in 2010 made a point-for-point reply to this and again summarized the hereditarian position.[21]

Many of the leading hereditarians, mostly psychologists, have received funding from the Pioneer Fund which was headed by Rushton until his death in 2012.[13][17][22][23] The Southern Poverty Law Center lists the Pioneer Fund as a hate group, citing the fund's history, its funding of race and intelligence research, and its connections with racist individuals.[24] On the other hand, Ulrich Neisser writes that "Pioneer has sometimes sponsored useful research—research that otherwise might not have been done at all."[25] Other sources and researches have criticized the Pioneer Fund for promoting scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacy.[13][26][27][28]

Ethics of research

The 1996 report of the APA had comments on the ethics of research on race and intelligence.[1] Gray & Thompson (2004) as well as Hunt & Carlson (2007) have also discussed different possible ethical guidelines.[1][29][non-primary source needed] Nature in 2009 featured two editorials on the ethics of research in race and intelligence by Steven Rose (against) and Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams (for).[30][31][non-primary source needed]

According to critics, research will run the risk of reproducing the negative effects of social ideologies (such as Nazism or social Darwinism) that were justified in part on claimed hereditary racial differences.[5][32] Steven Rose maintains that the history of eugenics makes this field of research difficult to reconcile with current ethical standards for science.[31]

Linda Gottfredson argues that suggestion of higher ethical standards for research into group differences in intelligence is a double standard applied in order to undermine disliked results.[33][non-primary source needed] Flynn, a non-hereditarian, has argued that had there been a ban on research on possibly poorly conceived ideas, much valuable research on intelligence testing (including his own discovery of the Flynn effect) would not have occurred.[34][non-primary source needed]

Validity of "race" and "IQ"

The concept of intelligence and the degree to which it is measurable is and has been a matter of discussion. In Psychology, a psychology textbook by Schacter et al., the argument is made that while there is a general consensus within western science about how to define intelligence, the concept of intelligence as something that can be unequivocally measured by a single figure is not universally accepted.[35] A recurring criticism is that different societies value and promote different kinds of skills and that the concept of intelligence is therefore culturally variable and cannot be measured the same in different societies.[35] Consequently, some critics argue that proposed relationships to other variables are necessarily tentative.[36]

The concept of race as a biologically meaningful category of analysis is also hotly contested in the social and behavioral sciences.[37] Articles in the Encyclopædia Britannica and the Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society state that the current mainstream view is that race is a social construction mainly based not in actual biological differences but rather in folk ideologies that construct groups based on social disparities and superficial physical characteristics.[38][39] Sternberg, Grigorenko & Kidd (2005) state, "Race is a socially constructed concept, not a biological one. It derives from people's desire to classify."[36] The concept of human "races" as natural and separate divisions within the human species has also been rejected by the American Anthropological Association. The official position of the AAA, adopted in 1998, finds that advances in scientific knowledge have made it "clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups" and that "any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations [is] both arbitrary and subjective."[32] Others argue that this view is restricted to certain fields, while in other fields, race is still seen as a valid biological category.[40]

Race in the studies is almost always determined using self-reports, rather than based on analyses of the genetic history of the tested individuals. According to psychologist David Rowe, self-report is the preferred method for racial classification in studies of racial differences because classification based on genetic markers alone ignore the "cultural, behavioral, sociological, psychological, and epidemiological variables" that distinguish racial groups.[41] Hunt and Carlson write that "Nevertheless, self-identification is a surprisingly reliable guide to genetic composition. Tang et al. (2005) applied mathematical clustering techniques to sort genomic markers for over 3,600 people in the United States and Taiwan into four groups. There was almost perfect agreement between cluster assignment and individuals' self-reports of racial/ethnic identification as white, black, East Asian, or Latino."[1] Sternberg and Grigorenko disagree with Hunt and Carlson's interpretation of Tang, "Tang et al.'s point was that ancient geographic ancestry rather than current residence is associated with self-identification and not that such self-identification provides evidence for the existence of biological race."[42]

The notions that cluster analysis and the correlation between selfreported race and genetic ancestry supports a view of race as primarily based in biology is contradicted by C. Loring Brace[43] and geneticist Joseph Graves.[44] They have argued that while it is possible to find biological and genetic variation corresponding roughly to the groupings normally defined as races, this is true for almost all geographically distinct populations. The cluster structure of the genetic data is dependent on the initial hypotheses of the researcher and the populations sampled. When one samples continental groups, the clusters become continental; if one had chosen other sampling patterns, the clusters would be different. Kaplan 2011 therefore concludes that, while differences in particular allele frequencies can be used to identify populations that loosely correspond to the racial categories common in western social discourse, the differences are of no more biological significance than the differences found between any human populations (e.g., the Spanish and Portuguese).

Earl B. Hunt agrees that racial categories are defined by social conventions, though he points out that they also correlate with clusters of both genetic traits and cultural traits. Hunt explains that, due to this, racial IQ differences are caused by these variables that correlate with race, and race itself is rarely a causal variable. Researchers who study racial disparities in test scores are studying the relationship between the scores and the many race-related factors which could potentially affect performance. These factors include health, wealth, biological differences, and education.[45]

Group differences

Hunt and Carlson outlined four contemporary positions on differences in IQ based on race or ethnicity. The first is that these reflect real differences in average group intelligence, which is caused by a combination of environmental factors and heritable differences in brain function. A second position is that differences in average cognitive ability between races exist and are caused entirely by social and/or environmental factors. A third position holds that differences in average cognitive ability between races do not exist, and that the differences in average test scores are the result of inappropriate use of the tests themselves. Finally, a fourth position is that either or both of the concepts of race and general intelligence are poorly constructed and therefore any comparisons between races are meaningless.[1]

US test scores

Rushton & Jensen (2005) write that, in the United States, self-identified blacks and whites have been the subjects of the greatest number of studies. They state that the black-white IQ difference is about 15 to 18 points or 1 to 1.1 standard deviations (SDs), which implies that between 11 and 16 percent of the black population have an IQ above 100 (the white mean). The black-white IQ difference is largest on those components of IQ tests that best represent the general intelligence factor g.[18][non-primary source needed] The 1996 APA report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" and the 1994 editorial statement "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" gave more or less similar estimates.[4][46] Roth et al. (2001), in a review of the results of a total of 6,246,729 participants on other tests of cognitive ability or aptitude, found a difference in mean IQ scores between blacks and whites of 1.1 SD. Consistent results were found for college and university application tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (N = 2.4 million) and Graduate Record Examination (N = 2.3 million), as well as for tests of job applicants in corporate sections (N = 0.5 million) and in the military (N = 0.4 million).[47]

A 2006 study by Dickens and Flynn estimated that the difference between mean scores of blacks and whites closed by about 5 or 6 IQ points between 1972 and 2002,[48] which would be a reduction of about one-third. However this was challenged by Rushton & Jensen who claim the difference remains stable.[49][non-primary source needed] In a 2006 study, Murray agreed with Dickens and Flynn that there has been a narrowing of the difference; "Dickens' and Flynn's estimate of 3–6 IQ points from a base of about 16–18 points is a useful, though provisional, starting point". But he argued that this has stalled and that there has been no further narrowing for people born after the late 1970s.[50] Murray found similar results in a 2007 study.[51][non-primary source needed]

The IQ distributions of other racial and ethnic groups in the United States are less well-studied. The Bell Curve (1994) stated that the average IQ of African Americans was 85, Latinos 89, whites 103, East Asians 106, and Jews 113. Asians score relatively higher on visuospatial than on verbal subtests. The few Amerindian populations who have been systematically tested, including Arctic Natives, tend to score worse on average than white populations but better on average than black populations.[47]

According to several studies, Ashkenazi Jews score 0.75 to 1.0 standard deviations above the general European average. This corresponds to an IQ of 112–115. Other studies have found somewhat lower values. During the 20th century, this population made up about 3% of the total US population, but won 27% of the US science Nobel Prizes and 25% of the Turing Awards. They have high verbal and mathematical scores, while their visuospatial abilities are typically somewhat lower, by about one half standard deviation, than the European average.[52]

The racial groups studied in the United States and Europe are not necessarily representative samples for populations in other parts of the world. Cultural differences may also factor in IQ test performance and outcomes. Therefore, results in the United States and Europe do not necessarily correlate to results in other populations.[53]

Flynn effect

Raw scores on IQ tests have been rising. This score increase, primarily in the lower end of the distribution, is known as the "Flynn effect," named for James R. Flynn, who did much to document it and promote awareness of its implications. In the United States, the increase has been continuous and approximately linear from the earliest years of testing to the present. For example, in the United States the average scores of blacks on some IQ tests in 1995 were the same as the scores of whites in 1945.[54]

Potential environmental causes

The following environmental factors are some of those suggested as explaining a portion of the differences in average IQ between races. These factors are not mutually exclusive with one another, and some may in fact contribute directly to others. Furthermore, the relationship between genetics and environmental factors may be complicated. For example, the differences in socioeconomic environment for a child may be due to differences in genetic IQ for the parents,[4] and the differences in average brain size between races could be the result of nutritional factors.[55]

Test bias

A number of studies have reached the conclusion that IQ tests may be biased against certain groups.[56][57][58][59] The validity and reliability of IQ scores obtained from outside the United States and Europe have been questioned, in part because of the inherent difficulty of comparing IQ scores between cultures.[60][61] Several researchers have argued that cultural differences limit the appropriateness of standard IQ tests in non-industrialized communities.[62][63] In the mid-1970s, for example, the Soviet psychologist Alexander Luria concluded that it was impossible to devise an IQ test to assess peasant communities in Russia because taxonomy was alien to their way of reasoning.[64]

A 1996 report by the American Psychological Association states that controlled studies show that differences in mean IQ scores were not substantially due to bias in the content or administration of the IQ tests. Furthermore, the tests are equally valid predictors of future achievement for black and white Americans.[4] This view is reinforced by Nicholas Mackintosh in his 1998 book IQ and Human Intelligence,[65] and by a 1999 literature review by Brown, Reynolds & Whitaker (1999).[66]

Stereotype threat

Stereotype threat is the fear that one's behavior will confirm an existing stereotype of a group with which one identifies or by which one is defined; this fear may in turn lead to an impairment of performance.[67] Testing situations that highlight the fact that intelligence is being measured tend to lower the scores of individuals from racial-ethnic groups who already score lower on average or are expected to score lower. Stereotype threat conditions cause larger than expected IQ differences among groups.[68]

Socioeconomic environment

According to the report of a 1996 APA task force, socioeconomic status (SES) cannot account for all the observed racial-ethnic group differences in IQ in the US. Their first reason for this conclusion is that the difference between mean test scores of blacks and whites is not eliminated when individuals and groups are matched on SES. Second, excluding extreme conditions, nutritional and biological factors that may vary with SES have shown little effect on IQ. Third, the relationship between IQ and SES is not simply one in which SES determines IQ, but differences in intelligence, particularly parental intelligence, also cause differences in SES, making separating the two factors difficult.[4]

Health and nutrition

Percentage of children aged 1-5 with blood lead levels at least 10 µg/dL. Black and Hispanic children have much higher levels than white children. A 10 µg/dL increase in blood lead at 24 months is associated with a 5.8-point decline in IQ.[69] Although the Geometric Mean Blood Lead Levels (GM BLL) are declining, a CDC report (2002) states that: "However, the GM BLL for non-Hispanic black children remains higher than that for Mexican-American and non-Hispanic white children, indicating that differences in risk for exposure still persist."[70]

Environmental factors including lead exposure,[69] breast feeding,[71] and nutrition[72][73] can significantly affect cognitive development and functioning. For example, iodine deficiency causes a fall, on average, of 12 IQ points.[74] Such impairments may sometimes be permanent, sometimes be partially or wholly compensated for by later growth. The first two years of life is the critical time for malnutrition, the consequences of which are often irreversible and include poor cognitive development, educability, and future economic productivity.[75] The African American population of the United States is statistically more likely to be exposed to many detrimental environmental factors such as poorer neighborhoods, schools, nutrition, and prenatal and postnatal health care.[76][77]

The Copenhagen consensus in 2004 stated that lack of both iodine and iron has been implicated in impaired brain development, and this can affect enormous numbers of people: it is estimated that one-third of the total global population are affected by iodine deficiency. In developing countries, it is estimated that 40% of children aged four and under suffer from anaemia because of insufficient iron in their diets.[78]

Eppig, Fincher & Thornhill (2010) argue that "From an energetics standpoint, a developing human will have difficulty building a brain and fighting off infectious diseases at the same time, as both are very metabolically costly tasks" and that differences in prevalence of infectious diseases (such as malaria) may be an important explanation for differences in IQ between different regions of the world.[79] They tested other hypotheses as well, including genetic explanations, concluding that infectious disease was "the best predictor".[80] Christopher Hassall and Thomas Sherratt repeated the analysis, and concluded "that infectious disease may be the only really important predictor of average national IQ".[80]

In order to mitigate the effects of education on IQ, Eppig, Fincher & Thornhill (2010) repeated their analysis across the United States where standardized and compulsory education exists.[80] The correlation between infectious disease and average IQ was confirmed, and they concluded that the "evidence suggests that infectious disease is a primary cause of the global variation in human intelligence".[80]

Education

Several studies have proposed that a large part of the gap can be attributed to differences in quality of education.[81] Racial discrimination in education has been proposed as one possible cause of differences in educational quality between races.[82] According to a paper by Hala Elhoweris, Kagendo Mutua, Negmeldin Alsheikh and Pauline Holloway, teachers' referral decisions for students to participate in gifted and talented educational programs were influenced in part by the students' ethnicity.[83]

The Abecedarian Early Intervention Project, an intensive early childhood education project, was also able to bring about an average IQ gain of 4.4 points at age 21 in the black children who participated in it compared to controls.[71] Arthur Jensen agreed that the Abecedarian project demonstrates that education can have a significant effect on IQ, but also said that no educational program thus far has been able to reduce the black-white IQ gap by more than a third, and that differences in education are thus unlikely to be its only cause.[84]

Rushton and Jensen argue that long-term follow-up of the Head Start Program found large immediate gains for blacks and whites but that these were quickly lost for the blacks although some remained for whites. They argue that also other more intensive and prolonged educational interventions have not produced lasting effects on IQ or scholastic performance.[18] Nisbett argues that they ignore studies such as Campbell & Ramey (1994) which found that at the age 12, 87% black of infants exposed to an intervention had IQs in the normal range (above 85) compared to 56% of controls, and none of the intervention-exposed children were mildly retarded compared to 7% of controls. Other early intervention programs have shown IQ effects in the range of 4–5 points, which are sustained until at least age 8–15. Effects on academic achievement can also be substantial. Nisbett also argues that not only early age intervention can be effective, citing other successful intervention studies from infancy to college.[85]

Logographic writing system

Complex logographic writing systems have been proposed as an explanation for the higher visuospatial IQ scores of East Asians. Critics argue that the causation may be reversed with higher visuospatial ability causing the development of pictorial symbols in writing rather than alphabetic ones. Another argument is that East Asians adopted at birth also score high on IQ tests. Similar relatively higher visuospatial abilities are also found among Inuit and Native Americans, whose ancestors migrated from East Asia to the Americas.[86][87]

Caste-like minorities

A large number of studies have shown that systemically disadvantaged minorities, such as the African American minority of the United States generally perform worse in the educational system and in intelligence tests than the majority groups or less disadvantaged minorities such as immigrant or "voluntary" minorities.[4] The explanation of these findings may be that children of caste-like minorities, due to the systemic limitations of their prospects of social advancement, do not have "effort optimism", i.e. they do not have the confidence that acquiring the skills valued by majority society, such as those skills measured by IQ tests, is worthwhile. They may even deliberately reject certain behaviors seen as "acting white".[4][88][89][90]

This argument is also explored in the book Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth (1996) which argues that it is not lower average intelligence that leads to the lower status of racial and ethnic minorities, it is instead their lower status that leads to their lower average intelligence test scores. One example being Jews in the early 20th century in the US who, the authors argue, scored low on IQ tests. To substantiate this claim, the book presents a table comparing social status or caste position with test scores and measures of school success in several countries around the world. Examples include Koreans, Peruvians and Brazilians in Japan, Burakumin in Japan, Australian Aborigines, Romani in Czechoslovakia, Maori in New Zealand, Afro-Brazilians, Indigenous Brazilians, Pardos and Rural Exiles (as, but not limited to, people from Northeast in Brasília, São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro metropolitan areas, and including a minority of European descent) in Brazil, Afrikaners in South Africa, Catholics in North Ireland, Irish and Scottish in Great Britain, Arabs and Sephardi Jews in Israel, and Dalit, low caste, and tribal people in India. The authors note, however, that the comparisons made in the table do not represent the results of all relevant findings, that sometimes studies have shown more mixed findings, that the tests and procedures varied greatly from study to study, and that there is no simple way to compare the size of group differences. The statement regarding Arabs in Israel, for example, is based on a news report that, in 1992, 26% of Jewish high school, predominantly Ashkenazim, students passed their matriculation exam as opposed to 15% of Arab students.[91] Stephen Jay Gould in the The Mismeasure of Man also argued that Jews in the early 20th century scored low on IQ tests. Rushton as well as Cochran, Hardy & Harpending have argued that this is a misrepresentation of the studies and that also the early testing support a high average Jewish IQ.[52][92]

Murray replies that purely sociocultural factors like this cannot explain the gap, because the size of the gap on any test is dependent on that test's degree of g-loading. As an example, Murray notes that the test of reciting a string of digits backwards is much more g-loaded than reciting it forwards, and the black-white gap is around twice as large on the first test as on the second. According to Murray, there is no way that culture or motivation could systematically encourage black performance on one test while decreasing it on another, when both tests are provided by the same examiner in the same setting.[93][non-primary source needed]

Cultural traditions valuing education

Nisbett argues cultural traditions valuing education can explain the high results in the US for Ashkenazi Jews (Talmud scholarship) and East Asians (Confucianism and the Imperial examination system).[94]

Black subculture

JR Harris suggested in The Nurture Assumption that different peer group cultures may contribute to the black-white IQ gap. She cites the work of Thomas Kindermann, whose longitudinal studies find that peer groups significantly affect scholastic achievement.[95]

Genetic arguments

The American Anthropological Association in 1994 stated that intelligence is not biologically determined by race.[5] The American Psychological Association in 1994, stated that there is little evidence to support environmental explanations, certainly no support for genetic interpretations, and that presently the cause of the black-white IQ gap is unknown.[96] A number of scientists, however, have concluded sufficient evidence exists to support substantial genetic contribution to explain the black-white IQ gap.[18][21][33][97][98]

Genetics of race and intelligence

The decoding of the human genome has enabled scientists to search for sections of the genome that may contribute to cognitive abilities. However the geneticist, Alan R. Templeton suggests this question is muddled by the general focus on "race" rather than on populations defined by gene frequency or by geographical proximity, and by the general insistence on phrasing the question in terms of heritability.[99] Templeton points out that racial groups neither represent sub-species or distinct evolutionary lineages, and that therefore there is no basis for making claims about the general intelligence of races.[99] He also finds that phrasing the question in terms of heritability not helpful because heritability "by definition is not applicable to between-population phenotypic differences" and is therefore "completely irrelevant to the question of genetic differentiation for any trait, including intelligence, among human populations." Templeton says that the only way to design a study of the genetic contribution to intelligence is to the correlation between degree of geographic ancestry and cognitive abilities. He states that this would require a Mendelian "common garden" design where specimens with different hybrid compositions are subjected to the same environmental influences, and that when this design has been carried out, it has shown no significant correlation between any cognitive and the degree of African or European ancestry.[99]

Intelligence is both a quantitative and polygenic trait. This means that intelligence is under the influence of several genes, possibly several thousand. The effect of most individual genetic variants on intelligence is thought to be very small, well below 1% of the variance in g. Current studies using quantitative trait loci have yielded little success in the search for genes influencing intelligence. Robert Plomin is confident that QTLs responsible for the variation in IQ scores exist, but due to their small effect sizes, more powerful tools of analysis will be required to detect them.[100] Others assert that no useful answers can be reasonably expected from such research before an understanding of the relation between DNA and human phenotypes emerges.[77]

A 2005 literature review article on the links between race and intelligence in American Psychologist stated that no gene has been shown to be linked to intelligence, "so attempts to provide a compelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this time".[101] Several candidate genes have been proposed to have a relationship with intelligence.[102][103] However, a review of candidate genes for intelligence published in Deary, Johnson & Houlihan (2009) failed to find evidence of an association between these genes and general intelligence, stating "there is still almost no replicated evidence concerning the individual genes, which have variants that contribute to intelligence differences".[104]

Heritability within and between groups

An environmental factor that varies between groups but not within groups can cause group differences in a trait that is otherwise 100% heritable. The height of this "ordinary genetically varied corn" is 100% heritable, but the difference between the groups is totally environmental. This is because the nutrient solution varies between populations, but not within populations.[105]

Heritability is defined as the ratio of genetic variation in an observable trait to the trait's total observable variation. The heritability of a trait describes the proportion of variation in the trait that is attributable to genetic factors within a particular population. Heritability is not the proportion of a trait that is genetic and it does not describe what role, if any, genes play in producing the trait itself. A heritability of 1 indicates that variation correlates fully with genetic variation and a heritability of 0 indicates that there is no correlation between the trait and genes at all. There is broad agreement that individual variation in intelligence is neither fully genetic nor fully environmental, but there is little agreement on the relative contribution of genes and environment on individual intelligence.

It has been argued that intelligence is substantially heritable within populations, with 30–50% of variance in IQ scores in early childhood being attributable to genetic factors in analyzed US populations, increasing to 75–80% by late adolescence.[4][104] High heritability does not imply that a trait is genetic or unchangeable, however, as environmental factors that affect all group members equally will not be measured by heritability (see the figure) and the heritability of a trait may also change over time in response to changes in the distribution of genes and environmental factors.[4] High heritability also doesn't imply that all of the heritability is genetically determined, but can also be due to environmental differences that affect only a certain genetically defined group (indirect heritability).[106]

Jensen and Rushton have argued that there may be environmental factors ("X factors") that are not measured by the heritability figure, but such factors must have the properties of not affecting whites while at the same time affecting all blacks equally, but, the hereditarians argue, no such plausible factors have been found and other statistical tests for the presence of such an influence in the US are negative.[21][107]

Dickens and Flynn argue that the conventional interpretation ignores the role of feedback between factors, such as those with a small initial IQ advantage, genetic or environmental, seeking out more stimulating environments which will gradually greatly increase their advantage, which, as one consequence in their alternative model, would mean that the "heritability" figure is only in part due to direct effects of genotype on IQ.[1][108][109]

Spearman's hypothesis

Spearman's hypothesis states that the magnitude of the black-white difference in tests of cognitive ability is entirely or mainly a function of the extent to which a test measures general mental ability, or g. The hypothesis, first formalized by Arthur Jensen in the 1980s based on Charles Spearman's earlier comments on the topic, argues that differences in g are the sole or major source of differences between blacks and whites observed in many studies of race and intelligence.

Studies on Spearman's hypothesis have often confirmed that racial IQ differences between Blacks and Whites are in line with Spearman's hypothesis.[110] Some have criticized these results. Hunt and Carlson argues Spearman's hypothesis is just one of several models that could explain the observed distributions in test scores.[1]

Gradual gap appearance

Fryer & Levitt (2006) found in tests of children aged eight to twelve months only minor differences (0.06 SD) between blacks and whites that disappeared with the inclusion of a limited set of controls including social-economic status.[111] Flynn has argued that the U.S. black-white gap appears gradually which suggests environmental causes. "At just 10 months old, the average score is only one point behind; by the age of 4, it is 4.6 points behind, and by the age of 24, the gap is 16.6 points. This could be due to genes, but the steady rate after the age of 4 (about 0.6 IQ points lost every year) suggests otherwise, since genetically driven differences such as height differences between males and females tend to kick in at a certain age."[112]

Rushton and Jensen argue that the black-white IQ difference of one standard deviation is present at the age of 3 and does not change significantly afterward.[18] Murray, also a hereditarian, argues that the heritability of IQ increases with age which is reflected in the racial IQ gaps gradually increasing.[93]

Adoption studies

Several studies have been done on the effect of similar rearing conditions on children from different races.

The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (1976) examined the IQ test scores of 122 adopted children and 143 nonadopted children reared by advantaged white families. The children were restudied ten years later.[113][114][115] The study found higher IQ for whites compared to blacks, both at age 7 and age 17.[113][116] Three other studies found opposing evidence with none finding higher intelligence in white children than in black children. However, unlike the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, these studies did not retest the children post-adolescence when heritability of IQ would be much higher.[18][21][117] Moore (1986) compared black and mixed-race children adopted by either black or white middle-class families in the US. Moore observed that 23 black and interracial children raised by white parents had a significantly higher mean score than 23 age-matched children raised by black parents (117 vs 104), and argued that differences in early socialization explained these differences. Eyferth (1961) studied the out-of-wedlock children of black and white soldiers stationed in Germany after World War 2 and then raised by white German mothers and found no significant differences. Tizard et al. (1972) studied black (African and West Indian), white, and mixed-race children raised in British long-stay residential nurseries. Three out of four tests found no significant differences. One test found higher scores for non-whites.[118]

Studies on Korean infants adopted by European families have consistently shown a higher IQ than the European average.[18][98][119] Frydman and Lynn (1989) showed a mean IQ of 119 for Korean infants adopted by Belgium families. After correcting for the Flynn effect, the IQ of the adopted Korean children was still 10 points higher than the indigenous Belgian children.[18][98][119] Lynn and Rushton claim that a Stams et al. (2000) dataset shows a mean IQ of 115 for Korean infants adopted in the Netherlands.[98][120][121]

Racial admixture studies

Many people have an ancestry from different geographic regions. For example, African Americans typically have ancestors from both Africa and Europe, with, on average, 20% of their genome inherited from European ancestors.[122] If racial IQ gaps have a partially genetic basis, blacks with a higher degree of European ancestry should on average have higher IQ, because the genes inherited from European ancestors would likely include some genes with a positive effect on IQ.[123]

Witty and Jenkins (1936) compared a group of 63 black students all with an IQ of 125 and above and compared their white ancestry level to Herskovits (1930) national sample of blacks and concluded no significant difference in the level of white ancestry between their sample of gifted students and the national sample of Herskovits (1930).[124][125]

This study has been criticized as the study's control sample of Herskovitz (1930) was not considered representative. 50% of the Herskovitz (1930) sample were composed of Howard University undergraduates and “well to do” professions with higher than average SES.[126] Blacks in both the control sample of Herskovitz (1930) and the test sample by Witty and Jenkins (1936) had higher percentage of white ancestry (approximately 30%) than the national average.[127]

Shuey (1966) summarized 18 black-white admixture studies and concluded 16 out of 18 studies showed a positive correlation between lighter skin color and higher IQ with correlation ranging from 0.12 to 0.30.[128][129][130] Nisbett and Jensen have both argued that skin color is a highly imprecise measure of racial ancestry.[131]

The frequency of different blood types vary with ancestry. Correlations between degree of European blood types and IQ have varied between 0.05 and -0.38 in two studies from 1973 and 1977. Nisbett writes that one problem with these studies is that white blood genes are very weakly associated with one another in the black population, so they are not a reliable method of estimating ancestry.[132] T. Edward Reed, an expert on blood groups, argues that the methodology used in these studies would have been unable to detect any difference, regardless of whether or not the hereditarian hypothesis is correct.[133]

Some authors have suggested that new studies of the relationship ancestry and IQ should be performed using modern DNA-based ancestry estimations, which would provide a more reliable measure of ancestry than is possible based on skin tone or blood groups.[41][134]

Mental chronometry

Mental chronometry measures the elapsed time between the presentation of a sensory stimulus and the subsequent behavioral response by the participant. This reaction time (RT) is considered a measure of the speed and efficiency with which the brain processes information.[135] Scores on most types of RT tasks tend to correlate with scores on standard IQ tests as well as with g, and no relationship has been found between RT and any other psychometric factors independent of g.[135] The strength of the correlation with IQ varies from one RT test to another, but Hans Eysenck gives 0.40 as a typical correlation under favorable conditions.[136] According to Jensen individual differences in RT have a substantial genetic component, and heritability is higher for performance on tests that correlate more strongly with IQ.[107] Nisbett argues that some studies have found correlations closer to 0.2, and that the correlation is not always found.[137]

Several studies have found differences between races in average reaction times. These studies have generally found that reaction times among black, Asian and white children follow the same pattern as IQ scores.[138][139][140] Rushton and Jensen have argued that reaction time is independent of culture and that the existence of race differences in average reaction time is evidence that the cause of racial IQ gaps is partially genetic instead of entirely cultural.[18] Responding to this argument in Intelligence and How to Get It, Nisbett has pointed to the Jensen & Whang (1993) study in which a group of Chinese Americans had longer reaction times than a group of European Americans, despite having higher IQs. Nisbett also mentions findings in Flynn (1991) and Deary (2001) suggesting that movement time (the measure of how long it takes a person to move a finger after making the decision to do so) correlates with IQ just as strongly as reaction time, and that average movement time is faster for blacks than for whites.[141]

Brain size

Harry Jerison writes that if races are defined sociologically rather than genetically, races differ in average brain size, and it is difficult to know what to make of these differences. Within a race, sex, or age group, brain size has about a 0.4 correlation with IQ. He also writes that because of politics, it is almost impossible to discuss these differences as a scientific issue.[142]

Earl Hunt, writing about the research of hereditarians in this area, states that because brain size is found to have a correlation of about .35 with intelligence among whites and is almost entirely genetically determined, race differences in average brain size are therefore an important argument for a possible genetic contribution to racial IQ gaps. However as brain images are expensive to obtain, much of the research in this area is based on measures of cranial capacity, which only measures brain size indirectly and thus makes the data less reliable. Hunt notes that, even when combined with measures of processing speed (mental chronometry), this data still just accounts for a difference of .19 standard deviations between Black and White average test scores, only a portion of the 1.0 standard deviation gap in average scores that is observed.[143]

Hunt and Carlson write that whether there is a relationship between race, genetics, brain size, and IQ is at present unknown. However, they say that it is an area both feasible and reasonable to study. Summarising Rushton's hypothesis that the black-white IQ gap can be explained by larger average brain size among whites, they say that because this argument presents a biological mechanism known to influence intelligence that could potentially help explain racial IQ gaps, discussing ideas like this is more likely to be informative than arguing about what percentage of the IQ gap is genetic or environmental.[144]

Policy relevance

Jensen and Rushton argue that the existence of biological group differences does not rule out, but raises questions about the worthiness of policies such as affirmative action or placing a premium on diversity. They also argue for the importance of teaching people not to overgeneralize or stereotype individuals based on average group differences, because of the significant overlap of people with varying intelligence between different races.[18]

The environmentalist viewpoint argues for increased interventions in order to close the gaps.[citation needed] Nisbett argues that schools can be greatly improved and that many interventions at every age level are possible.[145] Flynn, arguing for the importance of the black subculture, writes that "America will have to address all the aspects of black experience that are disadvantageous, beginning with the regeneration of inner city neighbourhoods and their schools. A resident police office and teacher in every apartment block would be a good start."[112] Researchers from both sides agree that interventions should be better researched.[137][21]

Especially in developing nations, society has been urged to take on the prevention of cognitive impairment in children as of the highest priority. Possible preventable causes include malnutrition, infectious diseases such as meningitis, parasites, and cerebral malaria, in utero drug and alcohol exposure, newborn asphyxia, low birth weight, head injuries, and endocrine disorders.[146]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Hunt & Carlson 2007
  2. ^ Sternberg, Robert J. (2011). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge University Press. p. 295. ISBN 9780521518062. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Schacter, Gilbert & Wegner 2007
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i Neisser et al. 1996 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFNeisser_et_al.1996 (help) "The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of blacks and whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential." Cite error: The named reference "Neisser et al. 1996" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b c AAA 1994 Cite error: The named reference "AAA 1994" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  6. ^ AAPA 1996
  7. ^ Plotnik & Kouyoumdjian 2011
  8. ^ Gould 1981
  9. ^ Pickren & Rutherford 2010, p. 163
  10. ^ a b Ludy 2006
  11. ^ Jensen 1969, p. 82
  12. ^ Alland 2002, pp. 79–80
  13. ^ a b c Tucker 2002
  14. ^ Wooldridge 1995
  15. ^ See Snyderman & Rothman 1987, pp. 137–144 for the first publication of the survey results. See H. J., Eysenck, "Media vs. Reality", chapter 4 in Haslam & Bryman (eds.), Social Scientists Meet the Media (Routledge, 1994), pp. 65-67 [1] for discussion of Snyderman and Rothman's survey and their claims with regards to the media.
  16. ^ Mackintosh 1998
  17. ^ a b c Maltby, Day & Macaskill 2007
  18. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Rushton & Jensen 2005
  19. ^ Rouvroy 2008, p. 86
  20. ^ Nisbett 2009, pp. 209–36
  21. ^ a b c d e Rushton & Jensen 2010
  22. ^ Graves 2002a
  23. ^ Grossman & Kaufman 2001
  24. ^ Berlet 2003
  25. ^ Neisser 2004
  26. ^ Pioneer Fund Board
  27. ^ Falk 2008, p. 18
  28. ^ Wroe 2008, p. 81
  29. ^ Gray & Thompson 2004
  30. ^ Ceci & Williams 2009
  31. ^ a b Rose 2009, pp. 786–88
  32. ^ a b AAA 1998
  33. ^ a b Gottfredson 2007
  34. ^ Flynn 2009
  35. ^ a b Schacter, Gilbert & Wegner 2007, pp. 350–1
  36. ^ a b Sternberg, Grigorenko & Kidd 2005
  37. ^ Daley & Onwuegbuzie 2011
  38. ^ Britannica 2012
  39. ^ Schaefer 2008
  40. ^ Kaszycka, Štrkalj & Strzałko 2009
  41. ^ a b Rowe 2005
  42. ^ Sternberg & Grigorenko 2007
  43. ^ Brace 2005
  44. ^ Graves 2001
  45. ^ Hunt 2010, pp. 408–10
  46. ^ Gottfredson 1997
  47. ^ a b Roth et al. 2001
  48. ^ Dickens & Flynn 2006
  49. ^ Rushton & Jensen 2006
  50. ^ Murray 2006
  51. ^ Murray 2007
  52. ^ a b Cochran, Hardy & Harpending 2006
  53. ^ Niu & Brass 2011
  54. ^ Mackintosh 1998, p. 162
  55. ^ Neisser 1997
  56. ^ Cronshaw et al. 2006, p. 278
  57. ^ Verney et al. 2005
  58. ^ Borsboom 2006
  59. ^ Shuttleworth-Edwards et al. 2004
  60. ^ Richardson 2004
  61. ^ Hunt & Wittmann 2008
  62. ^ Irvine 1983
  63. ^ Irvine & Berry 1988 a collection of articles by several authors discussing the limits of assessment by intelligence tests in different communities in the world. In particular, Reuning (1988) describes the difficulties in devising and administering tests for Kalahari bushmen.
  64. ^ Mackintosh 1998, pp. 180–2
  65. ^ Mackintosh 1998, p. 174: "Despite widespread belief to the contrary, however, there is ample evidence, both in Britain and the USA, that IQ tests predict educational attaintment just about as well in ethnic minorities as in the white majority."
  66. ^ Brown, Reynolds & Whitaker 1999
  67. ^ Aronson, Wilson & Akert 2005
  68. ^ Steele, Claude M. (1997). "A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance". American Psychologist. 52 (6): 613–629. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613. ISSN 0003-066X. PMID 9174398.
  69. ^ a b Bellinger, Stiles & Needleman 1992
  70. ^ MMWR 2005
  71. ^ a b Campbell et al. 2002
  72. ^ Ivanovic et al. 2004
  73. ^ Saloojee & Pettifor 2001
  74. ^ Qian et al. 2005
  75. ^ The Lancet Series on Maternal and Child Undernutrition, 2008.
  76. ^ Nisbett 2009, p. 101
  77. ^ a b Cooper 2005
  78. ^ Behrman, Alderman & Hoddinott 2004
  79. ^ Eppig, Fincher & Thornhill 2010
  80. ^ a b c d Eppig 2011
  81. ^ Manly et al. 2002 and Manly et al. 2004
  82. ^ Mickelson 2003
  83. ^ Elhoweris et al. 2005
  84. ^ Miele 2002, p. 133
  85. ^ Nisbett 2005, pp. 303–4
  86. ^ Demetriou et al. 2005
  87. ^ Bower 2005
  88. ^ Ogbu 1978
  89. ^ Ogbu 1994
  90. ^ Goleman 1988
  91. ^ Fischer et al. 1996, pp. 191–2
  92. ^ Rushton 1997b, pp. 169–80
  93. ^ a b Murray 2005
  94. ^ Nisbett 2009, pp. 158–9
  95. ^ Kindermann 1993
  96. ^ Neisser et al. 1996 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFNeisser_et_al.1996 (help)
  97. ^ Herrnstein & Murray 1994
  98. ^ a b c d Lynn, Richard (2006) Race Differences in Intelligence
  99. ^ a b c Templeton 2001
  100. ^ Plomin, Kennedy & Craig 2005, p. 513
  101. ^ Sternberg, Grigorenko & Kidd 2005, p. 46
  102. ^ Zinkstok et al. 2007
  103. ^ Dick et al. 2007
  104. ^ a b Deary, Johnson & Houlihan 2009
  105. ^ Block 2002
  106. ^ Block 2002
  107. ^ a b Jensen 1998
  108. ^ Nisbett 2009, p. 212
  109. ^ Dickens & Flynn 2001
  110. ^ Hartmann, Kruuse, Nyborg (2007). "Testing the cross-racial generality of Spearman's hypothesis". Intelligence. 35: 47–57. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  111. ^ Fryer & Levitt 2006
  112. ^ a b Flynn 2008
  113. ^ a b Weinberg, Scarr & Waldman 1992
  114. ^ Scarr, S.; Weinberg, R. A. (1976). "IQ test performance of black children adopted by White families". American Psychologist. 31: 726–739.
  115. ^ Loehlin 2000, p. 185
  116. ^ Scarr, S., & Weinberg, R. A. (1976). IQ test performance of black children adopted by White families. American Psychologist, 31, 726-739.
  117. ^ Nyborg, Helmuth (2003). The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur Jensen. Elsevier Science. pp. 402–406. ISBN 978-0080437934. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  118. ^ Tizard et al. 1972
  119. ^ a b Frydman and Lynn (1989). "The intelligence of Korean children adopted in Belgium". Personality and Individual Differences. 10 (12): 1323–1325. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Cite error: The named reference "Frydman and Lynn" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  120. ^ Stams, Juffer, Rispens, Hoksbergen (2000). "The development and adjustment of 7-year-old children adopted in infancy". J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 41 (8): 1025–1037. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  121. ^ Rushton, J Philippe; Ankney, C Davison (2007). "The evolution of brain size and intelligence." In Evolutionary Cognitive Neuroscience, eds. SM Platek, JP Keenan and TK Shackelford. MIT Press. pp. 121–161. ISBN 9780262162418. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  122. ^ Bryc et al. 2009
  123. ^ Loehlin 2000
  124. ^ Witty and Jenkins (1936). "A Socio-Psychological Study of Negro Children of Superior Intelligence". Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied. 1: 179–192. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  125. ^ Jenkins (1936). "Intra-race testing and negro intelligence" (PDF). Journal of Negro Education. 5 (2): 175–190. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  126. ^ Mackenzie, Brian (1984). "Explaining Race Differences in IQ" (PDF). American Psychologist. 39 (11): 1214–1233. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  127. ^ Loehlin, John (1975). Race Differences in Intelligence. W H Freeman & Co. ISBN 978-0716707530. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  128. ^ Shuey, Audrey (1966). The testing of Negro intelligence. Social Science Press. pp. 456–463. ISBN 9780911396003. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  129. ^ Jensen, Arthur (2012). Educability and Group Differences. Routledge. pp. 222–224. ISBN 9780415678568. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  130. ^ Nyborg, Helmuth (2003). The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur Jensen. Elsevier Science. pp. 175–176. ISBN 978-0080437934. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  131. ^ Nisbett 2009, p. 227
  132. ^ Nisbett 2009, p. 228
  133. ^ Reed 1997, pp. 77–8
  134. ^ Lee 2010
  135. ^ a b Jensen 2006
  136. ^ Eysenck 1987
  137. ^ a b Nisbett 2009
  138. ^ Lynn & Vanhanen 2002
  139. ^ Jensen & Whang 1993
  140. ^ Pesta & Poznanski 2008
  141. ^ Nisbett 2009, pp. 221–2
  142. ^ Jerison 2000, pp. 241
  143. ^ Hunt 2010, pp. 433–434
  144. ^ Hunt & Carlson 2007
  145. ^ Nisbett 2009
  146. ^ Olness 2003

Bibliography