IQ and Race

"The three great strategies for obscuring an issue are to introduce irrelevancies, to arouse prejudice, and to excite ridicule...."
---Bergen Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense

"If you make statements about racial differences based on data that doesn't exist, and right now there's nothing legitimate, then you are no more than a terrorist."
--Jerome Kagan, professor of psychology, Harvard University

"IQ" stands for "intelligence quotient." A person's IQ is supposed to be a measure of that person's "intelligence:" the higher the IQ number, the greater the intelligence. Intelligence, or g as it is known among social scientists, is supposed to be some sort of entity or property or set of behaviors. However, g is as mythical as the unicorn. Not that there aren't people who are intelligent. Obviously, there are. And some people are more intelligent than others. But the myth is in thinking that only one type or set of behaviors counts as "intelligence." Most people recognize that there are some people with fantastic memories, some with mathematical minds, some with musical genius, some with mechanical expertise, some with good vocabularies, some good at seeing analogies, some good at synthesizing, some at unifying, etc., etc. And, of course, some people excel at more than one of these behaviors. In short, it may be appropriate to speak of human intelligences, but not of "intelligence."

Thus, it might seem ludicrous for the Arthur Jensens and William Shockleys of the world to find a correlation between race and this mythical beast called intelligence. The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray might seem improbable in a rational world, but it is not only probable but a best-seller in our world, albeit a controversial best-seller. What makes such works improbable is that race is just as mythical as intelligence. Even the fundamentalists with their original Adam and Eve must see that much: we all come from the same stock. There is no such thing as a racial gene or set of genes any more than there is such a thing as an intelligence gene or set of genes. This does not mean, of course, that a person's biological makeup is not a significant factor in individual intelligence in particular areas. The obvious physical differences among groups of peoples known as Mongoloids, Caucasians, Negroids, etc., have been determined by evolution over thousands of years. The primary mechanisms for the development of these racial differences have been natural selection and sexual selection. "There's about a 15 percent genetic variation between any two individuals," according to science writer Deborah Blum. "Less than half of that, about 6 percent, is accounted for by known racial groupings....A randomly selected white person, therefore, can easily be genetically closer to an African than another white." ["Race: many biologists argue for discarding the whole concept," Deborah Blum, The Sacramento Bee, October 18, 1995, p. A12.]

Joseph Graves, an African American evolutionary biologist at Arizona State University-West in Tempe, notes that most people and researchers who try to establish correlations between various natural abilities and skin color are not geneticists. "These people don't know evolutionary genetics. They talk about interesting issues in race and biology. And since, I think, there are no real races, I wonder what these issues are. It makes me angry that I have to take time from my research (on the genetics of aging) to argue about something that shouldn't even need to be discussed." [Blum] C. Loring Brace, an anthropologist at the University of Michigan, claims that "race is a four-letter word with no basis in biological reality." [Blum]

Of course, physical features such as skin color, shape of eyelid, color of eyes, texture of hair, etc., are genetically determined. It is also true, that an individual's capacity for any particular kind of intelligence is largely dependent upon genetic factors. What isn't true is the notion that whole races of people have sets of genes which make them as a group more intelligent than other races. The genes which affect musical talent, the power to visualize or to think abstractly, for example, are not established as the same ones which affect those characteristics which are associated with being caucasian, mongoloid or negroid. If you want to find out why Asians are overrepresented in California's universities and blacks and hispanics are underrepresented, you will search in vain for a genetic answer. My suggestion to those who are interested in such things is that they look to family structure, ethnic traditions, and social conditions.

Still, to correlate two mythical entities in the name of science and have the world pay attention to you is no small feat. Could it be the numbers, the statistics which impress some people? I don't think so. Even the most sophisticated numerical analysis which showed a correspondence between phlogiston and the ether wouldn't get a hearing today. So, why does the race/IQ bit get a hearing? How can any rational person take seriously notions such as the Aryans, racial superiority or g? For power, I suppose; as a quick and simple way to establish not only one's superiority, but one's right to superiority: as a rationalization to justify inequality. In a word, racism. What else could explain intelligent people taking seriously the psychological equivalent of Adam's naval or angels dancing on pinheads?

For example, recently, I watched a television program on white supremacists. One fellow seemed to me to be typical of these characters. He was basically a thug who had been in prison several times for violent crimes, some of them hate crimes. He was not a stupid man, but no one would call him brilliant. But he was clearly a moral moron. He had no character, no sense of integrity or personal responsibility. He was basically a lazy dolt who had accomplished nothing in his life and blamed others for his lack of abilities and accomplishments. He saw himself as intelligent because he is white, but unable to flourish because blacks were either getting all the good jobs from a give-away government or they were stealing everything decent white folks earned the hard way. Now, again, there are no such things as "white" genes. There is no "white" race, no connection between his skin color and the kind of intelligences this man has or lacks. But he was convinced not only that by being "white" (he was actually kind of brown) he shared in some kind of group intelligence, but that those who are black are, by virtue of their skin color, "destroyers of civilizations." The ignorance or disingenuous portrayal of history displayed by white supremacists is greater even than that of the Afro-centrists who claim the ancient Greeks (and therefore all of western civilization) stole everything they ever knew or did from the Egyptians who were black Africans. All those barbarians that nearly eliminated western civilization in the 4th century and returned Europe to an age of darkness for half a millennium were "white." The barbarians of the Third Reich were "white." I would be the first to look proudly upon all the accomplishments of Greeks, Romans, Germans, Italians, Norsemen, Celts, etc. But it would be absurd to ignore that all of these peoples were great destroyers of civilizations as well as creators.

This same white supremacist "historian" referred to Asians as "preservers of civilization." I am sure these words were not his and that he got them from one of his "leaders;" but what ignorance of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. history does such a notion display. I can only suppose that our white supremacist feels he is somehow more powerful by identifying himself with a group he declares is superior to all other groups. But what a moronic idea! I am mainly Irish and Italian, but I hardly think I deserve to be proud of the accomplishments of Michaelangelo or W.B. Yeats. I might as well identify with Mussolini and Ronald Reagan! What non-sense! What any so-called "white" person accomplishes, or even what any so-called "white" race accomplishes, is irrelevant to who I am. I do not become "intelligent" because many "white" people are "intelligent." Intelligences always belong to individuals. They are measured by individual accomplishments, not by group affiliation.

Are the studies, then, which show that African-Americans or other minorities, do more poorly or better than, so-called "white" Americans, of no value? That is, is the work of people like Herrnstein and Murray worthless? No. It is valuable data, but it is also explosive data because of our racist political history. Such data will inevitably be exploited by white supremacists, twisted for their own political goals and used not to improve racial relations in America but to encourage further racial strife. Such data consists mainly of correlations. And while correlations should convince orthodox empirical scientists of nothing, to the racist researcher, correlations are the heart and soul of their work. The furor that The Bell Curve caused has died down because there has been an ongoing saga which has usurped its political and entertainment value: the O.J. Simpson trial. However, Herrnstein and Murray, in chapter after chapter, call for social reforms to improve the status of blacks in America. They may be disingenuous calls, but they are nevertheless inconsistent with the notion that the social condition of blacks in America is due to genetic factors. If genes led to the black underclass of young thugs who murder each other on a daily basis in almost every city in America, then there would be no point to call for educational or vocational programs, no point in urging a change of focus for black men and women in their families, as even the black supremacist, Louis Farrakhan has recommended with his million man march.

One can't deny that the majority of young men killing each other in gang wars are minorities. But one can deny that the reason they are so violent and immoral is because of their race. That is false and an insult to the majority of blacks and other minorities who are decent, law-abiding persons. One can't deny that minorities are undereducated as a group and underrepresented in our colleges and universities, and in the professions and skilled trades. But one can deny that the reason minorities are underrepresented is because their race makes them genetically inferior and incapable of competing with "white" America. That notion is false and an insult to minorities who are in our colleges and universities, or employed as professionals or skilled workers. It is true, however, that many minorities are not in college or working as doctors or lawyers or teachers or auto mechanics, etc., because of their race. Other have discriminated against minorities and deprived many of them of educational and employment opportunities because of racial prejudice.

Thus, the real message we should get from The Bell Curve is that all of us must work much more diligently to eradicate racism in America. I wish I could be optimistic here and say that I envision a day when we all live in harmony. There are too many haters and too many professional victims to be optimistic. Too many people are unwilling to face the fact that life is a struggle for everyone, and that if some people have to struggle very little it is not because they are "white" or "male." Wealth and connections reduce a person's need to compete and struggle, and most in our society who are wealthy and connected are white males, but it does not follow from that that simply by virtue of being a "white male" you've got it made and your life is easy or that others who are not "white males" should be given advantages that you should not get. Too many people have come to identify being given special advantages with being treated equally to white males. Too many people think they are owed too many opportunities and advantages by society or their government, either on general principle or out of a misguided sense of justice. Whatever abuse our grandparents suffered produces no obligation for the grandchildren to stand in any particular relationship to one another. Slavery and the treatment of women as children or property for most of our history are abominable blemishes, but today's blacks and women are not owed anything by society for those past abuses. Too many people are spending too much time blaming others for their problems to be hopeful of an early resolution to the racial or gender strife in America. Too many people are demanding too many privileges under the guise of justice or rights. Too many people are yelling and screaming that they are owed this or that. Too many people are standing with outstretched palms, demanding a handout. I could be more hopeful if more people stretched out their hands in order to help others. But, as generous as many people in this country are, the helpers and givers seem to be outnumbered by the beggars and whiners. The doers seem outnumbered by the complainers. There is too much noise, too much hate, too much emphasis on rights and not enough on duties, for me to be hopeful.

Yet, as hopeless as the future looks, I don't think we need to despair. There are some signs of improvement. The goals of the million man march, which encouraged taking family responsibilities and self-determination seriously, are steps in the right direction. The presidential concern for the teenage pregnancy problem is a point of light. Black and feminist leaders calling for the end to special treatment (so-called affirmative action) programs is a step forward. The works of scientists debunking racial inferiority myths is another hopeful sign. It is possible that someday we may be able to look at people of different races and see them as human beings without losing sight of the specialness and uniqueness that racial or ethnic membership brings. We do not need to be colorblind, nor should we strive to ignore racial differences. But they should be seen in their proper perspective, significant in molding us but irrelevant to our status as human beings capable of the highest moral behavior as well as of bestial depravity. And if we feel the need to judge one another and compare ourselves to others, maybe we will focus on our moral characters, not our skin colors.

Reader comments

On the entry IQ and Race:

You say something along the lines that genes are not used for determining the race of an individual. While I admit that the question whether there are races at all is a legitimate one, the statement seems to be a bit too strong.

One can use genes (or better alleles) in order to classify a population. However, in practice it is usually easier to refer to phenotypic criteria (or what is thought to be one).

As far as I see, even Lewontin admits that there is a correlation between the traditional races and certain genes (like skin and hair pigmentation or face form), the question is whether these genes are a random sample of all human genes.

If you are interested, I could give you pointers to more recent papers on that issue, but basically message is: the question is not settled and the question is highly controversial. In direct consequence, books as the 'Bell Curve' become even more questionable.

I think the point is best described by:

" A subspecies is simply a race that has been honored with a formal name. As pointed out earlier, a species with recognized races is called "polytypic," while those without are "monotypic." Humans are obviously polytypic. [...]

Though I'd disagree with the 'purely subjective' claim. If one makes statements about races, one implies populations which are distinct (with regard to frequency of alleles) from other groups. The reason for this is that there was sufficiently little exchange with other social, geographical, whatever groups in order to establish this difference and that this difference can be traced back into the past. If not, every founder effect would build a new race. I have heard that new, so called network models, have been introduced which integrate aspects of the race and of the cline approach to human diversity. If these are more useful in biology and archeology, it might settle that question eventually.

--Benedikt Rosenau

Suggested reading:

[1] Masatoshi Nei, "Molecular evolutionary genetics", Columbia
University Press 1987.

[2] Cannings, Cavalli-Sforza, "Human Population Structure",
Advances in Human Genetics 4 (1973)

[3] Kidd, Sgaramella-Zonta, "Phylogenetic Analysis: Concepts and
Methods", American Jornal of Human Genetics 23 (1971)

[4] Balazs, Baird, Clyne, Meade, "Human Population Genetic
Studies of Five Hypervariable DNA Loci", American Jornal of Human
Genetics 44:182-190, 1989

[5] Chakraborty, Kamboh, Nwankwo, Ferrell, "Caucasian genes in
American Blacks: New Data", American Jornal of Human Genetics
50:145-155, 1992

[6] Mettler, Gregg, Schaffer, "Population Genetics and
Evolution", Prentice-Hall 1988

[7] Kenneth Weiss, "In search of times past: gene flow and human
migration in the generation of human diversity" in "Biological
aspects of Human Migration", Hrsg. Taylor und Lasker, Cambridge
University Press 1988

Response:

It is assumed by many social scientists that genes are used to determine "races" and that "the black race" differs from "the white race" and "the yellow (Asian) race" in some profoundly genetic way. My view is that all these categories are profoundly political and basically mythological, providing symbolic support for a variety of metaphysical and sociological beliefs.

I am sure that there are times when there are biological reasons for defining races genetically, e.g., when certain diseases (such as sickle cell anemia) or significant physiological conditions (such as inability to process alcohol) occur significantly more frequently among members of a single racial group.

Your articles are wonderful. It is refreshing to encounter such clarity of thought on the Web.

reply: Thanks. Flattery will get you everywhere, but I have a feeling there is a catch.

I wanted to bring to your attention some flawed logic in the article "IQ and Race". Although I agree Herrnstein and Murray's conclusions are erroneous, I don't believe the article does an adequate job of treating the subject.

I knew it. At least my flawed logic is clear! Anyway, I would be the first to admit that I do not do an adequate job of evaluating the massive work of Herrnsteing and Murray. As to topic itself, this is one of those that I think it would better for the reader to consult the references I list than to consider my dictionary entry a comprehensive account of the issue.

In short, the article states that both intelligence and race are a "myth" and due to the fact that they are myths, any correlation between the two is invalid. Simply declaring a human characteristic a myth to disprove a conclusion you personally dislike is inadequate and misplaced among the other collections of reason in the Skeptic's Dictionary.

I would agree that to declare a human characteristic a myth to disprove conclusions one finds repulsive would be an indisputably egregious logical offense. I take it as a compliment that you think I don't do this very often. However, I must disagree with your assessment of my motives. I declare the concepts of race and IQ to be myths not because I am repulsed by the notion that some races are intellectually inferior to others, but because I do not believe there is any empirical basis for the notion either that there is a gene or set of genes which constitute a person's race or that there is a gene or set of genes which constitutes a person's intelligence. Of course, I am aware that the physical features which we associate with various races are determined by genetic factors and that intelligent behaviors are likewise so determined. There is no empirical data which supports the notion, however, that genetic factors which might affect skin color, shape of eyes, or diseases such as sickle cell anemia, etc., are significant causal factors in particular types of abilities we associate with intelligence, such as musical ability, ability to reason abstractly, etc.

While the correlation between true intelligence and an IQ score has often been a subject of debate, the existence of the score cannot be argued. In addition, 'race' is a valid human characteristic which, much like language, originated from geographic isolation. The fact that "we all came from the same stock" (shared a common ancestor) is valid. This valid notion, however, does not negate the fact that there are currently many classes or kinds of individuals with common characteristics -- which is Webster's definition of race.

I agree that race is a valid concept. I disagree that gives anyone carte blanche to do with that concept what they will. And I maintain that the primary use of the concept is political and philosophical, not empirical, when the issue of race and intelligence is the focus.

Given that IQ test scores exist, and that groups of individuals with common characteristics exist, it is reasonable to conclude that a correlation between the two can exist. The Bell Curve is a study of that correlation.

I agree, though I think it is disingenuous and grossly misleading to blithely refer to The Bell Curve simply as "a study of that correlation."

Sadly enough, the data is valid. Black Americans, on average scored lower on the IQ test than Caucasians did, as seen by the inspection of the overlaid bell curves. What was invalid, was Herrnstein and Murray's racist conclusion that Afro-Americans scored lower due to their genetics. That is, Caucasians were purported to be smarter via superior genes.

Data is neither valid nor invalid. It is either accurate or inaccurate. The use of data is valid or invalid. I am willing to accept Herrnstein and Murray's data as accurate. It is incomplete, however. When similar tests were done before World War II on black soldiers from the north and white soldiers from the south, the blacks scored higher on intelligence tests. [See Bergen Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), ch. 14, "The Skin Game."] I'm also not sure it is fair to dismiss Herrnstein and Murray as racists who claim whites are genetically superior to blacks. They seem to go out of their way in chapter after chapter to advocate improved education, training, child rearing, etc., as a way to improve the situation of blacks. The advocacy of such social action makes no sense if one believe blacks are genetically inferior; for, genetically caused inferiority is forever; socially caused inferiority can, at least in theory, be alleviated.

The error is in the assumption that the cause of the discrepancy between the scores is due to genetics. Another, and more probable reason offered by critics, is that the scores achieved on the IQ test are influenced by an individual's socio-economic status. That is, people, regardless of race, who live in poverty and lack education, won't perform as well as those who do not live in poverty. Given that a greater percentage of Black Americans live in poverty with respect to White Americans, it seems reasonable that the scores would be proportionally lower. In addition, it has been suggested that IQ tests are unintentionally biased towards Caucasians, as the authors are often Caucasian and the tests contain material unique to Caucasian culture.

I agree with everything you say in this paragraph except the implication that the authors of the Bell Curve assume the discrepancy is due to genetics.

The flaw in Herrnstein and Murray's thesis is that the bell curves used to correlate IQ scores and race simply do not provide enough information to confirm or deny their theory (or the alternate theories stated above for that matter). A study to determine genetic and environmental influences on various races' intelligence would be a mighty undertaking indeed. If collected, the data would be an order of magnitude more complex than a simple pair of bell curves!

What you keep calling "their theory" is what I think others have made of the work of Herrnstein and Murray, and it may even be what they believe in their hearts, but their advocacy of social programs to improve the status of blacks is inconsistent with the theory that blacks are genetically inferior and hence incapable of improvement. There are, however, many racists who pounce on stuff like The Bell Curve to promote their racist ideologies.

I believe that the "IQ and Race" entry needs to be rewritten (perhaps using the above as a template). Currently the article lacks sufficient reason to be convincing.

Thanks for the suggestion. It has been revised slightly, but I am afraid you have not convinced me that the entry lacks sufficient reason to be convincing. I don't think my basic logic is flawed, though responding to your objections has allowed me to flesh out some details that might help clarify my position.

Updating the article will certainly make your excellent web site even better. I look forward to watching your site evolve.
Michael Forman

further reading

Augstein, Hannah. ed., Race: The Origins of an Idea, 1760-1850 (Bristol, UK: Thoemmen Press, 1996).

Evans, Bergen. The Natural History of Nonsense (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), ch. 14, "The Skin Game."

Gould, Stephen J. The Mismeasure of Man (New York, Norton: 1981).

Higgins, A.C. Review of William Tucker's The Science and Politics of Racial Research

Marks, Jonathan. "Black, White, Other" in Natural History, 12/94.

Montagu, Ashley. Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race, 5th ed. revised and enlarged (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974).