Bryan Caplan has a response to my criticisms of Rand’s “pyramid of ability.” I have a comment in the talkback section.
About Roderick T. Long
The Empirical Me
I’m Roderick T. Long, Professor of Philosophy at Auburn University. I’m an Aristotelean/Wittgensteinian in philosophy and a left-libertarian market anarchist in social theory. (More about me here.) This blog, Austro-Athenian Empire, is a continuation of my earlier blog, archived here.
Upcoming Events
Roderick, your response to Caplan was brilliant.
The point is not that managers are stupid as individuals, but that they’re systematically stupid. No matter how intelligent they are as individuals, the structure of a large, hierarchical organization makes their intelligence less usable.
And the overall structure of the economy, when an industry is dominated by a handful of firms with the same pathological organizational cultures, reduces the competitive incentive to reduce irrationality.
Roderick, your response to Caplan was brilliant.
Probably because I was channeling that Carson guy.
Get a room.
And now I must go; I’ve a convention to attend this weekend, and way too much cleaning and email to sort through by tonight.
That heritability of intelligence stuff puts Caplan dangerously close to eugenics and racism. After all, if intelligence and economic sense are heritable, it’s not a big leap to conclude that the wealth-gap between racial groups is due to inherent ability and not past injustice.
VOILA!
Anon, if we can think non-hysterically about it for a second, if the correlation does hold up (which it does btw), then the wealth-gap indeed could be due to that. But even if average IQs were similar between groups, if there were any genetic differences at all manifesting themselves in physical/mental abilities, there would STILL be gaps of all kings. How?
Simple: Comparative advantage and specialization.
Lets not be afraid of things that could be true in fact. We don’t need to let go of our value-based and legal equality concepts if groups turn out to be different. Thats just a Hitler-esque bogeyman
We don’t need to let go of our value-based and legal equality concepts if groups turn out to be different
True enough. But there are also reasons not to treat claims about biologically-based differences as if they were just one more scientific hypothesis to be discussed dispassionately; see this post.
O.K., I’m still not done with cleaning and emails, but I have to ask ‘race realists’ like this don’t show up in progressive spaces but they do keep showing up in libertarian spaces.
And as I’ll be away this weekend, would anyone interested in left-libertarian virtual anti-fascist action please consider engaging this gentleman in an appropriately polite exchange of ideas. It would put me in a really nice RKBA kind of mood.
To answer your first question, there are no doubt Progressives who think the same things (this is painfully evident by many “progressive” attitudes about race,) but they are more likely to self censor. However, anyone who has taken an intro level anthropology class can shoot a bajillion holes into the race/intelligence thing.
Anon, if we can think non-hysterically
Hmm, for an attempted argument against “race-realism’s” status as bigoted pseudo-science, this is not a good start, my friend.
if the correlation does hold up (which it does btw), then the wealth-gap indeed could be due to that.
Or, more likely, it’s due to environmental factors in American society that are already known to exist. That would account for the completely different correlations in other parts of the world, like the fact that best performing students in Britain’s universities tend to come from it’s former African colonies, and that they also do comparably well to white students in Europe and Chinese schools. Or that Botswana developed into an upper-middle income country (on par with South Africa) through native entrepreneurship by it’s black population after gaining independence, and was the fastest growing economy in the world for much of the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. Not to mention the similar economic recovery in Somalia during the late 90’s, which included the ground-up development of the cheapest telecom system in sub-Saharan African, with the second most extensive coverage outside South Africa.
Race-based IQ theories should rule out those developments, especially since many African-Americans have at least some degree of mixed ancestry, and therefore have some “good genes” to dilute the “innate disadvantage” that Africans on the continent would suffer from.
But even if average IQs were similar between groups, if there were any genetic differences at all manifesting themselves in physical/mental abilities, there would STILL be gaps of all kings.
How?
Simple: Comparative advantage and specialization.
Genetic differences between regional and ancestral groupings of humans tend to fall into three categories:
1. Susceptibility and immunity to certain diseases, based on ancestral exposure.
2. Differences in metabolism and ability to digest certain foods based on ancestral diet, mainly with regard to grains and dairy.
3. Physical differences resulting from adaptation to climate.
So yeah, I suppose of you took a survey of the gourmet cheese testers of the world, you might find that East Asians are underrepresented. That’s probably not something that would get in the way of most careers.
would anyone interested in left-libertarian virtual anti-fascist action please consider engaging this gentleman in an appropriately polite exchange of ideas.
I’d totally waste a bunch of Nazis for a sauerkraut sammich.
And for motherfuck’s sake, will somebody please delete that first post with the overgrown hyperlink?
Ah yes the old “fascism” tripe. Just as a I thought. The IQ denialism is in full frontal assault. Obviously you may not care, but this is my ideological stance: Anti-war, anti-corporatist, conventional libertarian and I’m sympathetic to left-libertarians and anarchists, voluntary socialists etc. So you can shove the ‘fascism’ tripe up your intolerant bunghole.
Now, if anyone wants to actually dispute the absolutely steady, consistent, solid result in social sciences that is the correlation between IQ and income, well…its not me you should be debating. And this of course, has nothing to do with how much intelligence is ‘genetic’ or ‘environmental’. That debate is still being carried out. However, IQ denialism should not hold in social science anymore.
Ah yes the old “fascism” tripe. Just as a I thought. The IQ denialism is in full frontal assault.
1. I never denied that there are statistical differences between the mean IQ and income of different arbitrary groupings of superficial physical characteristics currently defined as “race”. I simply offered an alternative explanation for them based on known environmental factors, rather than one that tries to revive old racialist explanations with an unknown genetic factors.
2. Please inform me of just where exactly the word “fascism” appears in my response. As I recall, I made a second, unrelated statement indicating my pleasure at the thought of dead Nazi’s. I assume that as an “Anti-war, anti-corporatist, conventional libertarian and I’m sympathetic to left-libertarians and anarchists, voluntary socialists”, you would agree with that sentiment.
Please inform me of just where exactly the word “fascism” appears in my response. As I recall, I made a second, unrelated statement indicating my pleasure at the thought of dead Nazis. I assume that as an “Anti-war, anti-corporatist, conventional libertarian and I’m sympathetic to left-libertarians and anarchists, voluntary socialists”, you would agree with that sentiment.
I suspect that ‘contemplationist’ may have confused you with my request for ‘left libertarian virtual anti-fascist action’. It seems that I was careless, and while aiming for a fascist you may have accidentally shot a mere racist. This is terrible, as such carelessness is inexcusably bad form. Therefore may I suggest that to improve our future coordination we practice shooting the wounded racist over and over and over again until it stays dead?
Except that I think that you and Rod may have already killed it. Apparently racists have 0 immunity vs. actual science. Quite nicely done, except now I don’t get my turn with the Glock. Hmmph.
Perhaps we should see the silver lining to this stormcloud. If it weren’t for racists and fascists and the like there’s be nobody for vengeful humanists to shoot at. That sounds really doubleplusunfun.
I think I owe you a sauerkraut sandwich.
Sorry about the mess, y’all.
if intelligence and economic sense are heritable, it’s not a big leap to conclude that the wealth-gap between racial groups is due to inherent ability and not past injustice
I’ve raised a similar point here (pp. 333-334) — though I think the gap from intelligence being heritable to intelligence varying by race is actually fairly wide.
Roderick, do you think athleticism is inherited or genetic?
In other words, there is no great tennis player that started playing the game after the age of 10 — that is a fact, so some of it must be nurture instead of nature. But it’s hard for me to believe that Jordan, who could run at world class speeds and jump over the moon when he came into the NBA, was not gifted in ways that most of us will never be.
Well, sure, there’s a genetic component to athleticism; but I’m not sure why you’re asking. I’d see the point if I’d just claimed that it was racist to say there was a genetic component to intelligence; but, y’know, I’d just claimed the opposite.
Roderick
Thanks for your response. Yes thats the only claim. That there is a genetic component to intelligence and its possible that it differs between groups. THAT IS ALL. And yes there is a “danger” in treating it as simply a hypothesis, but as an economist, you have to think on the margin. How much, on the margin, is it a danger to ignore it, vs accept it as just another hypothesis? Is there no negative affect to not pursuing the hypothesis if it has a non-trivial probability of being true?
None of this implies anything like I said about legal equality, etc etc. For libertarians this shouldn’t be hard to accept. Diversity may be genetic (surprise!). Its only a problem for social engineering left-liberals with penchant for policies like affirmative action etc etc.
So, again I ask…why is it so hard to accept that there may be group differences in IQ and may show up in differences in income and/or choice of professions for a libertarian?
why is it so hard to accept that there may be group differences in IQ
You mean apart from the reasons I gave at the link?
It appears that not only does the genetic soup discriminate along individual lines in this area but also along racial lines. And if that’s the case, then why not in intelligence too?
Okay so the equality absolutists – Marxists, leninists killed far far more people than the bigoted race-nationalists in the 20th century. One can still say, yeah now that the Marxists have been defeated, doesn’t mean we should allow the race nationalists to create an atmosphere to kill the lesser number of people.
But it seems to me that what you do with the knowledge is almost totally dependent on your accepted social values. Does anyone think that simply knowing that different racial groups’ variance in many things may be attributable to biology will start riots, lynchings etc? Really?
If you really believe that thats the level of cohesion and love of personal liberty among American society, then all the Hobbesian arguments for the State are far, far more powerful, and you have to give up on your anarchism.
And if that’s the case, then why not in intelligence too?
We know some people are murderers. Why not you?
Yes, but is reasoning power really the same as a belief system?
If you read this short bio of Ramanujan, is it really possible to dismiss the idea that there was natural talent in play there?
Roderick: Well, sure, there’s a genetic component to athleticism; but I’m not sure why you’re asking.
Brandon: It appears that not only does the genetic soup discriminate along individual lines in this area but also along racial lines. And if that’s the case, then why not in intelligence too?
Since we’re proceeding deductively here, one good reason to assume that IQ variations between “races” in America (and the correlations are different in other societies) are environmental rather than genetic is because there is no good reason why different natural or social conditions would select for a different IQ, as opposed to the aforementioned physical differences that have a real basis in climate, diet and disease exposure. Whether or not our great grandfathers drank milk or caught syphilis, they all needed to think.
If you read this short bio of Ramanujan, is it really possible to dismiss the idea that there was natural talent in play there?
Since I’ve already granted that there’s a genetic component to intelligence (what I’m skeptical of is the racial correlation, which is a different issue), I’m not sure why you’re asking me this question. I have no inclination to “dismiss the idea that there was natural talent in play” with Ramanujan.
OK. I misunderstood. I thought you had only said that it was not racist to suggest that there is a genetic component to intelligence, not that you yourself believed that there is. I guess we’re in agreement then. I doubt that there’s any racial component either.
Well darn, fight over.
Rand said in her published Question and Answer that someone could raise his IQ from 100 to 130 (or something like that). Leonard Peikoff reports that Rand’s view on the genetic basis of intelligence was that it really didn’t matter because people only use a small amount of their intelligence.
I’m persuaded by The Bell Curve argument that intelligence is largely (60-70%) fixed.
people only use a small amount of their intelligence
That certainly sounds right.
In related news, Hail Ants!
In unrelated news, the Piraha natives of Brazil apparently have no fiction or art, don’t care about the distant future or distant past, have no recorded history, and when told about Jesus replied that they were not interested in hearing about anybody the missionary had not personally spoken with or known.
http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/christian-missionary-deconverted-by-tribe-proteanview/
I think Ayn Rand would not be too impressed with these people. :-/
I think I’ve had Pirahas in my undergraduate classes.
Were they the atheistic, utilitarian, peaceful communist types described in the video?
Maybe they were a heretical sect of Pirahas.
Oh, I’m just reminded of a line from Mises, criticising thinkers like Levy-Bruhl who argued that Africans and Polynesians were inferior in rationality to Europeans:
“Explorers and missionaries report that in Africa and Polynesia primitive man stops short at his earliest perception of things and never reasons if he can in any way avoid it. European and American educators sometimes report the same of their students. With regard to the Mossi on the Niger Levy-Bruhl quotes a missionary’s observation: ‘Conversation with them turns only upon women, food, and (in the rainy season) the crops.’ What other subjects did many contemporaries and neighbors of Newton, Kant, and Levy-Bruhl prefer?”
Soviet-Roderick,
The issue of genetic reasons for differences in intelligence does strike me as just a scientific issue in some respects. I distrust both right and left on this issue. I’d much rather read scientists who don’t come to the table with a hardcore axe to grind either way. I suspect people want to fit science into preconceived ideological paradigms that don’t mess with their worldview. I discussed this recently with a Libertarian psychologist with hardly any kind of social conservative predispositions. The perspective communicated to me was that intelligence is affected by both nature AND nurture. IQ does tend to play into hereditary patterns seems to be the conviction of a few knowledgeable scientists I know. I confess to my own relative ignorance of the literature, but the idea that nature plays some kind of role can be voiced by non-bigots.
And y’all didn’t deny, but I was interjecting myself via reply heh
But I’m not sure anyone in this talkback is denying the genetic role in individual intelligence.
I should say scientistey people I know who are much better well read in the debate will say genetics plays some role in individual variations.
____
people only use a small amount of their intelligence
That certainly sounds right.
____
That certainly sounds wrong to me (in the way that I think Rand was getting at). If the average person can do math and some algebra, does that mean if he used more of his intelligence he could master algebra and even calculus?
-Neil Parille
Certainly I think most people could master calculus if they trained long enough and hard enough at it; that doesn’t strike me as implausible at all. The feats of intelligence that involve originating brilliant new ideas are the tricky ones where it’s harder to see how people could be taught to do it — but just learning to apply a pre-existing mathematical method is not all that impressive. (And I say this as someone who’s always been lousy at math.)
And I say this as someone who’s always been lousy at math.
For some reason that makes me feel a whole lot better.
___
Certainly I think most people could master calculus if they trained long enough and hard enough at it; that doesn’t strike me as implausible at all.
___
It strikes me as very implausible. I think Charles Murray made the point that most people on the right side of the bell curve have little involvement with people to the left and therefore have mistaken beliefs about the average person’s intellectual ability.
-Neil Parille
Nonsense. The problem is not that the average person isn’t able. The problem is that the average person isn’t willing.
If the average person believed that calculus — or any discipline for that matter — was constitutive of their happiness, then they would more than likely learn it.
Sure some would need really awesome hints, but that doesn’t make it un-learnable.
The ability to speak one’s native language strikes me as a more impressive intellectual feat than calculus.
If we’d never seen what armless people can do with their legs and feet, we’d never dream what physical accomplishments people are capable of.
Wouldn’t the logic of calculus be nothing more than a re-application of the logic used in speech?
There’s also the structural aspects of capitalism that make it harder for poorer people to open their own businesses, get a degree, etc. Those who have access to good environments and wealth tend to be amazingly self-congratulatory about intelligence (e.g. Caplan), and greatly underestimate the ability of ordinary people.
And those structures depend on ordinary people not finding out what they’re capable of.
Roderick,
I’ve met some moderately retarded people who are quite good at their native languages. I doubt they could learn calculus.
I agree that most people don’t apply themselves or “focus” as Rand might say, but the evidence for the basic thesis of the Bell Curve is quite strong.
-Neil Parille