Flynn on Race and IQ

Posted on October 31, 2008
Filed Under Politics, Science |

James Flynn has had some very interesting and controversial articles in New Scientist the past few months. They have mainly dealt with the taboo topic of IQ and black America. Yet he’s offered some very compelling and insightful alternative explanations that go against the “it’s genetics” theory that became popular (and simultaneously made the topic taboo because of the perceived racism of the theory).

One of his more recent articles was in the September 3rd New Scientist. Flynn makes a very compelling argument that much of the problem can be explained purely by demographics. Here’s the outline of the argument.

1. Take for granted that children raised in stable 2 parent homes will do better scholastically.

2. At birth there are 104 black boys for every 100 girls.

3. By the age of 45 six more men than women are dead changing the ration to 98:100.

4. Of the 98 men nine will be in jail, eight will be missing, and 21 will have at best part time employment. That reduces the ratio to 60:100.

5. More black men have non-black partners than black women have non-black partners. Going by the demographics of this the ratio reduces to 57:100.

6. So 43% of women have to face the choice of either being childless or having a child with a black man who will not settle down with them.

Flynn argues that the problem shouldn’t just be put to the culture and certainly not to genetics. Clearly culture has some influence but there are the strict facts of demographics now. By the age of 45 only 11% of white men are “no longer functioning” (to use Flynn’s term) whereas 32% of black men are. Now one could ask why so many black men die early, go to jail, or disappear. Yet if those are tied to criminality and criminality is caused by poor environment due to demographics then there is a catch-22 going on.

Now Flynn doesn’t stick with the demographic issue alone. He notes the oft made and fairly compelling argument against a genetic basis for the IQ gap. (i.e. that blacks and whites start with the same IQ but a gap appears by 4 and just keeps increasing at about 0.6 IQ points per year) He also notes studies such as black children being exposed to smaller vocabulary and education not being pushed as much. There are also studies on black children in white homes vs. black homes. By the age of 7.5 years those in black homes were 13 IQ points behind those in white homes. So it is very likely environmental and not genetic effects dominating the effects.

Flynn does make some broader arguments against “black teenage culture” that I think are much weaker. He also doesn’t address non-cultural environmental factors such as differing degrees of lead in primarily black communities versus white communities. But I think he does suggest that this ought be something studied.

Even if there is a strong cultural versus physical environment component to the problem that doesn’t get us very far unless we can point to where the problems are. Likewise solving the problem can be difficult. Understandably people take attacks on their culture personally. Likewise the catch-22 of the demographic issue might be very difficult to break. (Although I suspect a massive rethinking of our drug policy to be one significant thing that could affect the demographics)

[Edit]: apparently Cambridge put up the full article so you can read it first hand.

Comments

6 Responses to “Flynn on Race and IQ”

I’ll get my negative comment out of the way first: I think Flynn’s reasoning in the following is quite weak: “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.” Just because height differences settle at a certain age, why should we think IQ would?

That said, it’s a very interesting article and he provides some important ideas.

Good point Brian. I don’t think it is anything like an open or shut case. Rather I think the point is that right around the time cognitive development is likely to be affected by the goals and vocabulary/interests of parents that’s when difference is made. If it was a more general cognitive weakness we’d expect something like retardation or other cognitive limits.

However clearly there are learning disabilities that have more of an effect later in life.

When you combine the fact about the age of 4 with the fact about adopted kids then it really does seem pretty compelling though.

To add, in case it isn’t obvious, I think we need to worry about these sorts of things so as to better be able to understand how to help people. That said the catch-22 issue is a pretty difficult one to escape. As I mentioned I think changing how criminals are incarcerated as well as changing drug laws would be very wise.

There are also studies on black children in white homes vs. black homes. By the age of 7.5 years those in black homes were 13 IQ points behind those in white homes.

Does he mention what happens to that gap when those kids get older? I can’t access the article, sorry. We know from twin studies that environmental effects on IQ decrease while genetic effects on IQ increase with age. Scarr and Weinberg found significantly higher IQs in a group of transracially adopted African-American children at age 7 (91) than at age 17 (84).

He mentioned that the gap between the two increases with time.

Really? The gap between black children in white homes and black children in black homes *increases* as they age? Any idea what study he’s citing?

Here’s the relevant paragraph. He doesn’t quote the study but names the researcher and faculty they belong to.

Elsie Moore of Arizona State University, Phoenix, studied black children adopted by either black or white parents, all of whom were middle-class professionals. By the age of 7.5 years, those in black homes were 13 IQ points behind those being raised in the white homes. Eventually, children exchange parents for peers as their dominant cognitive environment. Orlando Patterson, John Cowles Professor of Sociology at Harvard University, argues that while many black males know education is valuable, they cannot resist the lure of black teenage subculture. Dressing sharply, sexual conquests, hanging out, drugs, hip-hop and atypical speech all crowd out more cognitively demanding pursuits. After 18 there is no problem finding signs of a disadvantageous environment. More black men go to jail than to university, while black women are three times as likely to become single mothers, often cognitively isolated in the sense that there is no constant interaction with another adult.

Leave a Reply