Asymmetrical Information

Gonna have some real interesting data in a few years time from couples who used donor eggs (although the market in "designer" eggs [a Stanford athlete can rent out her ovaries for $40-50K]) might skew this.

hence the genius in the preamble:

"we hold these truths to be self-evident.... all men (read people) are created equal..."

I haven't seen the underlying paper, so I certainly don't know if these issues are (i) true, and (ii)addressed by the paper, but some of the commenters on Kevin Drum's site noted some potentially confounding factors:

(a) the adoptees are all Korean,
(b) the adoptees are primarily girls,
(c) the adoptees were raised in families of a different ethnicity than their own.

That said, I think there are relatively few people who don't believe that there are genetic components to a number of traits. The real issues are (a) how much of a factor genetics are in the acquisition of certain skills, and (b) how much of a factor actual skills are in economic or professional success.

"shouldn't our system reward people for being intelligent, well-behaved, and so forth, even if they didn't do much to get that way?"

No. So much for the libertarian. Our system...to the extent we choose to control it.... should be morally and normatively neutral, neither favoring stocks over bonds, earned income over rents, blondes over brunettes, or work and productive characteristics over leisure and consumption preferences.

Unless you are not a libertarian, and really a liberal or conservative in disguise. Then you get to decide distribution results based on your personal preferences.

As someone on the short-side and not inclined to Napoleonic strutting becuase I have brain cells and also on the downward-side of productive life - big and attractive people make more money in this society - more than even their more intelligent small and plain colleagues - this is a simple fact of life that the study does not seem to take into account

This is very counterintuitive. Think of all the ways that higher-income parents can influence outcomes (in addition to genetics) For starters: better neighborhoods, better schools. Bigger vocabularies, in many cases. Business or professional "war stories," leading to interest in those fields. Business or professional contacts. More travel. Lots more. Is it really credible that the aggregate of these factors has *no effect whatsoever* on the future income of their kids?

SomeCallMeTim,

The confounding factors are all legitmate questions for this study, but this study is simply one of many that have similar findings, and many of which have addressed those issues.

A more comprehensive treatment of the nurture vs. nature question can be found in Judith Harris' The Nurture Assumption. See my post. The parental genetic contribution has a more significant influence on children's outcomes than does parental environmental influence. In fact, children's peers play a significant part in the environmental quotient.

Many studies that look at family environmental conditions assume that genetics play no part at all in determining the environmental variables chosen.

We're learning more and more that genetics is playing a larger part than was previously thought in shaping the course of a person's development. By no means is this leading to a genetic determinist model of the world but it is eroding The Axiom of Equality, and that erosion is very troubling for some people's world view.

Two quick points:

I think bob mcmanus took Megan's post too literally. I did not take the post to suggest that society "reward" someone based on genetics. Rather, I took Jane to mean that, from a libertarian perspective, people will succeed or fail based on their own efforts and character traits, regardless of whether they are genetic. She could just as easily have written that it would be wrong to discriminate against people who have genetics predisposed toward success in a particular society at a patricular time.

The second thing is that this sort of research and discussion strays toward The Bell Curve. Thus, I hope that Megan is aware of the risk she is taking by even discussing it, as some on the Left will immediately suspect her of all sorts of closet "isms" for doing so.

I'm hardly the Left, but I have some methodological problems with the study, at least what I've seen of it.

Let's start with the "treatment" which in this case is adoption.

What I can't tell from this study is whether the researchers collected data on the pre-treatment covariates that need to be controlled for. Like, why are Korean children put up for adoption anyway? Could it be that the birth mother was a drug addict, or a prostitute? Either of those prenatal conditions for the child could potentially jeopardize that child's future potential earnings. How about prenatal care?

Were the children adopted at birth, or later? If later, then there might be pre-treatment conditions that come into play.

Finally, the treatment itself is not well-specified. Do we have matched pairs of children, one adopted and one biological, in the same family to compare outcomes? Or are these children in different families? Clearly, the experience of growing up in different families is markedly different, whether adopted or not.

Also, what might be the preconditions that lead a family to adopt? Could it be that the family has a less stable structure, or that there's some bizarre need to have a child as an ornament that leads to poor parenting? Perhaps parents are not able to handle the racial difference and treat adopted children poorly.

I really don't think this is a good study. Sorry. Maybe there's something here, but not until you clean up the details. I would like to see some kind of regression analysis that controls for all these variables, and then shows me what kind of coefficient there is for adoption versus biological.

For a long time attributing practically anything to genetics, but particularly anything behavioral, was anathema to many.

To leftists, it meant man was not perfectable, and that their critique of capitalism (people learned to put the individual before the collective) and their alternative (re-education to promote socialism) was fundamentally flawed.

To rightists, it meant that the mantra of free will and individual responsibility had to be tempered by the realization that internal variables played a large and immutable role. It clearly wasn't fair to hold people completely responsible for their decisions if those decisions were heavily influenced by variables beyond their control.

To some extent, both sides tacitly agreed to minimize the role of genetics in behavior to maintain intellectual consistency in their philosophies. But both need to rethink their views.

Consider a less emotive, indeed prosaic, case, the role of genetics in influencing the behvaior of other animals. For example, while most dogs hate getting wet, retrievers love to swim, and to retrieve, without being taught or even ever seeing another dog do either. It's a feature of the breed, along with the sweet and gentle disposition for which they are so rightly known.

A clearer (or less politically fraught) example of an inherent behavioral pattern is hard to find. Retrieving and swimming are manifestly writ large in the DNA. The burden of proof has to shift to those arguing for the primacy of environment, which looks like an uphill argument.

"shouldn't our system reward people for being intelligent, well-behaved, and so forth, even if they didn't do much to get that way?"

Just curious Jane... why? If they're going to be that way anyway, what's the point of a reward?

Dave: i guess i would have to point you towards the " invisible hand" that uncle adam ( smith ) refers to.

No reward = unproductive citizenry.

why would intellegent productive people want to disproprtionately support the ever increasing burden of the nonproductive amongst us?

The second thing is that this sort of research and discussion strays toward The Bell Curve.

To be flip, so what? Are some topics of research forever to be verboten because it upsets a segment of the population? The research will stand or fall on its merits. Of course, you may mean that Megan may find herself tarred as a nazi for mentioning topics like IQ and genetics, but the question still remains, are topics to be avoided because of fear of irrational responses?

Look at how the Bell Curve has faired over the years. One of the best reasoned critiques was offered by U. of Chicago economist and Nobel winner James Heckman in 1995. Compare to his thinking in 2003. See here for more.

JennyD, I think you missed this one:

"The graph does not say that adopted children necessarily have low income. On the contrary, some have high and some have low income and the same is true of biological children. What the graph says is that higher parental income predicts higher child income but only for biological children and not for adoptees."

In other words, this implies that some adoptees did well in their careers, but not in particuarl correlation to their adopted parents. Nonetheless I do agree with some of your objections, in that all we may be seeing among the adoptees is that some families were better able to adjust to raising a Korean girl than others.

Also, in addition to the various other types of non-genetic factors that have been discussed in this thread, what are the odds that families with higher incomes are better at teaching their children self-discipline? Some people seem to have a natural drive to succeed no matter where they came from, but having parents who push you to do your best throughout the race (within reasonable limits) can make up for a whole lot of economic disadvantage back at the starting line.

in addition to the various other types of non-genetic factors that have been discussed in this thread, what are the odds that families with higher incomes are better at teaching their children self-discipline?

Two questions: 1.) Why is it that you posit a non-genetic contribution to income level? and 2.) what is the causal linkage between income level and teaching of self-discipline?

If the high income - self discipline linkage is a strong one, then the genetic origin of the child shouldn't matter at all for both the biological and adoptive children would benefit from the income-discipline relationship.

Someone doesn't know what a "confounding factor" is. If all the adopted subjects were both Korean and female, those are not confounding factors but instead remove potentially confounding factors. Matching for particular traits removes potentially confounding factors.

It does seem that adopted children were compared with biological children in terms of parent-child correlations in income, which adds meaning to the study. It would be nice to have more background details into the adoption circumstances, but information is never perfect in any such study.

Clearly this study is meant to be provocative, in other words to provoke further, more rigorous studies. Political correctness may cut off that avenue of research, in a fit of self-fulfilling ignorance.

Once again, my eugenics argument is sounding just about right.

If these little people are genetically disadvantaged at birth and are destined to be a burden to society, shouldn't we try to prevent the misery they will experience? If it is humane to end suffering, isn't it more humane to stop it before it ever begins?

Evilone,

We're talking about distributions and probabilities, not certainties. Your argument is sounding quite wrong and misguided.

Actually, a strong case can be made by fans of redistribution (not necessarily one that I'm making) who accept the genetic linkages, that an even stronger effort should be made on behalf of those who need help so as to equalize as many of the environmental factors as possible and therefore close the gap that genetic endowment + favorable environment yields to some and not others.

IOW, give every child the best start in life and then let their preparation and genetics carry them forward to make their own way in life without endless handouts. That's not the current leftist line, but it could be, and it could actually be more tax intensive than the schemes we see now. You could see calls for gov't financed genetic enhancement for some people that wouldn't be available to others, all in the goal of maintaining the Axiom of Equality.

Or it could just be another lets-blame-the-parents line to bring up in therapy.

A couple of posts seem to be in response to mine, so I'll briefly reply:

JennyD wrote: "I'm hardly the Left, but I have some methodological problems with the study, at least what I've seen of it."

If this was a response to my reference to the Left (and my post was immediately prior to hers), I'd note that I did not comment on the specific study that spurred Megan's original post. My comments were general, in part because I have not reviewed the study myself.

TangoMan quotes me and responds:

"'The second thing is that this sort of research and discussion strays toward The Bell Curve.'

"To be flip, so what? Are some topics of research forever to be verboten because it upsets a segment of the population? The research will stand or fall on its merits. Of course, you may mean that Megan may find herself tarred as a nazi for mentioning topics like IQ and genetics, but the question still remains, are topics to be avoided because of fear of irrational responses?"

I may mean that? The sentences immediately following the quoted portion read, "Thus, I hope that Megan is aware of the risk she is taking by even discussing it, as some on the Left will immediately suspect her of all sorts of closet 'isms' for doing so."

So this is not merely what I meant, it is what I wrote.

As for whether the subject should be verboten, I say, "No, of course not."

But while "So what?" is one of my favorite questions, I think it is a little flip in this case. Megan has a life outside this blog. While I tend to assume that she is aware that the topic is controversial and commend her for opening her blog to us to discuss it, I care enough to flag just how radioactive the topic is in some circles on the off chance that Megan overlooked it, or at least to ensure that she keeps an eye on the thread to make sure nothing in it gives ammo to some narrow-minded person to cause problems for her. I've commented here, e-mailed Megan and otherwise supported the blog enough that I'm sure she knows the comment was well-intentioned and not meant to unduly stifle the discussion here. Now everyone knows it.

Ever read Harrison Bergeron? Great story.

Should we make Lance Armstrong carry a 80 lb weight on his back when he rides the Tour de France, so as to make everyone equal? Give Einstein a lobotomy so morons won't feel bad? Put a fright mask on all the pretty people?

Some people are more productive, intelligent, better looking. Some are all three. Deal with it. I don't begrudge Michael Jordan the fact that he's a thousand times better at basketball than me. Brad Pitt is similiarly better looking. And richer. There are any number of people smarter than me. SFW? Redistribution is another word for jealousy. Jealousy is the hallmark of mediocrity.

So what if you're predestined to be poor? Let Bill Gates & co. do their thing, and you'll be living in "poverty" that by any objective standard of historical poverty is fabulously luxurious.

One thing I've been trying to figure out how to express is that I don't see any neccesary conflict between being genetically prone to behaviour, and a lack of free will. The fact that you have a context doesn't mean you are a robot.

Karl,

Your points are taken - I should have been a little more rigorous in my phrasing and acknowledged your point forthrightly. My bad. Incidently, I didn't interpret your comment as intending to limit discussion.

I'm well aware of how radioactive this topic is, (two of my co-bloggers are being stalked by a vigilante group) it's just that I'm bothered by suppression for the sake of PC. If the research is to be attacked I'd rather see it happen for shoddy science rather than ideology.

However, I do think that the topic is detoxifying for it's becoming increasingly more difficult to ignore, or explain away, the research results coming from labs.

I think that Megan, and Kevin Drum (who also linked to this article) know how far to take the topic. Both were involved in the Feb/03 Blogosphere Bell Curve Dust-Up along with DeLong, Murtaugh, Atrios, et al. This isn't meant to downplay the sensitivity of the topic, for as Murtaugh said:

I think I've established my bona fides as being (a) not a racist, but (b) still open to the possibility that there is a genetic component to intelligence, so I'm rather depressed to be accused of racism (by email, actually that I "have been in touch with [my] inner Klansman for quite some time") in the long comments section of this Matthew Yglesias post on intelligence testing.

Anyway, it's a subject that is very interesting, racial aspects aside, and I'd love to write more about it in the future, but if people think I'm a racist for my troubles, then maybe I won't bother. Better that than to pretend that the two-ton elephant in the room is just a chest of drawers.

Incidently, you may want to read the link for other thoughts on the radioactivity of the topic.

So, in the end, I think your comments are well founded and my intention wasn't to dismiss them, rather I dispair that it must be this way.

Toxic, on free will vs genetic capacities, I say: if we know what "free will" is [means], then we have it. We can envision a state of having free will, a situation in which we could confidently say we have free will, if we know what the concept means.

The determinism we fear denies that we could ever envision a state of free will, or know what the concept means - that when we think we are, or would be, exercising free will, we "really" are not, because we are really "determined".

But this is then a useless definition of determinism, because it too must rest on us knowing what determinism is not, which turns out to be the meaning of "free will". Determinism is necessarily the absence of free will. But,if we don't know what determinism is not, then we don't know what it is, which contradicts the assertion that "we are [always] determined" is a meaningful statement - that even when we think we have free will, we do not.

In other words, the blanket claim that we are always "determined" is actually a definition of how to use words, to wit, that before or after we do anything at all, we must always incant, "Of course, we are 'determined'".

Obviously, we must have some capacities in order to even think. It would be ludicrous, in the way of initiating an infinite regress, to claim that these capacities are not genetic in some degree, that the human brain as evolved simply produced a "blank slate" for others to write upon. How did they come to know how to write, what to write, etc.? How did they learn how to judge what is "best", "wrong", "logical", and so on? Who taught them and how did these ancestors know how to even write, etc.? And as noted by Stephen Pinker in "The Blank Slate", being born with a blank slate would probably not be very conducive to survival.

But these genetic capacities in no way limit the possibility of free will. They make it possible for us to know what it is.

Why this has occurred, I don't know, but it has, imho. [What really astounds me is that the "dead" Universe has created a capacity in us which wants to understand the Universe.]

Two questions: 1.) Why is it that you posit a non-genetic contribution to income level?

Uhm, because they may very well exist? By the way, I'm not denying the possible existence of a genetic link, only that a study like this doesn't necessarily get us any closer to discovering it.

and 2.) what is the causal linkage between income level and teaching of self-discipline?

I think it can be argued that income level, in a general, statistical sense, rises in proportion with a person's ability to apply him/herself to a task. Some people seem to have that skill naturally, but those who don't can still be taught it. And a person who has that skill is more likely to teach it to their offspring than someone who hasn't developed it.

Again, speaking generally, this would have results affecting that child's future income level. As a hypothetical, consider two children with very similar talents and abilities, but poor self-discipline. One of them is allowed to roam free and starts many good projects, but flits from one to another while never developing any of them into a marketable entity. The other child is given space to be creative, but does have a parent who checks up on homework and requires the kid to regularly participate in a disciplined activity (music lessons, martial arts, whatever).

What do you think the results would be? And is is really a stretch to think that child, as a future parent, would be more likely to instill similar values in his/her own offspring?

If the high income - self discipline linkage is a strong one, then the genetic origin of the child shouldn't matter at all for both the biological and adoptive children would benefit from the income-discipline relationship.

Again, I didn't discount the possibility of a genetic link, just this study's ability to demonstrate it as a primary factor. I would suspect the real answer lies in a mix of factors -- the child's genetic heritage, any artifical damage caused by prenatal or postnatal environmental factors, the presence of positive role models, the wisdom and presence (or lack thereof) of the parents, and so forth.

In fact, I would be inclined to believe that non-genetic factors play a significant role; I expect the income productivity of the entire population would rise substantially if more parents simply took time to read to their children from the time they are old enough to point at a book, rather than parking them in front of the boob tube. That is what my parents did (in fact they chose not to have a TV at all), and I think I can say -- without the benefit of a study proving it -- that my score of five on the College AP English test owed more to that than to any other factor.

However, I do think that the topic is detoxifying for it's becoming increasingly more difficult to ignore, or explain away, the research results coming from labs.

I thought I'd flesh this out a bit. The Human Genome Project got a lot of attention but its successor the Human Genetic Diversity Project, was doomed by protests that it would "intrude into people's beliefs about their own origins." The successor project toed the more political correct line and the International Haplotype Map Project got under way. It gathered genetic samples from Nigerian Yorubas, Japanese, Chinese and Americans of northern and western European ancestry. It released its data a few weeks ago. This data source will be invaluable to genetics researchers looking into issues of population diversity.

Even prior to this data collection, we've been able to identify population differences that are exempt from the charge of cultural bias. For instance: . . . (original source)

For instance, certain Asian populations have a frequency of 0.60 in COMT Met158 allele, which predicts lower COMT-enzyme activity and thereby better cognitive performance, while Caucasians have a frequency of 0.42 for the same allele.

So, this adoption study does add to our accumulating knowledge but it needn't stand on its own in isolation on the question of genetic contribution to complex questions. IQ is slowly and methodically being mapped to brain function.

Jenny D.:

Good points above. One thing sticks in my mind (from many years ago)--that many of the kids in Korean orphanages were biracial, conceived by Korean mothers with non-Asian
fathers. It's also widely said that such mixed children are regarded far more unfavorably in most Asian cultures than elsewhere.

My reaction to reading The Bell Curve - actually I'm halfway through it - was that the mechanism life has come up with for evening out the obvious differences in intelligence is not society but the family. An extended family will contain at least some members with enough intelligence to keep the whole enterprise going in the right direction. This consideration makes the liberal attack on the family take on a whole new aspect. Social engineers want the welfare and education systems to take the place of the family. We have seen how well that works.

TangoMan,

Thanks for the response. I also wish the topic were not so radioactive. I hope that it becomes less so over time; indeed, as your response suggests, it's already happening in some quarters. But your response also demonstrates why we cannot ignore the climate as it exists now: If your co-bloggers are being stalked by vigilantes, that's a pretty good answer to the "So what?" question.

I share your confidence in Megan and Kevin Drum. However, as I noted, a blogger can be just as easily tarred by a commenter as by their his or her own posts. That's unfair, but you undoubtedly know that the PC crowd is often more unfair than that which they purport to remedy.

The silver lining, if any, to the PC climate on this issue is that it tends to force those willing to wrestle with the issue to be rigorous in their study and argument. That's why I didn't comment on the specific study that spurred this thread without reading it first. If there are flaws in the study, I'll be willing to acknowledge them and stick to more solid data. To your credit, it seems like you follow the same policy. Given the climate, I am as concerned with those who do not as I am with the PC types who would exploit sloppy work to discredit their opponents and chill the debate.

Charles Murray did some further research on the population whose data he used in The Bell Curve, looking only at siblings who were biological children of intact marriages, comparing differences in income and educational outcomes with differences in IQ.

I did a column about it, which is here:
http://ww2.scripps.com/cgi-bin/archives/denver.pl?DBLIST=rm98&DOCNUM=18664

Here's an article Murray wrote about it:
www.thepublicinterest.com/notable/article10.html

and I know the whole thing is online because I found it not so long ago but just at the moment I cant.

Aha!
there it is. link to pdf file (8 minute download)
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.,bookID.443/book_detail.asp

and that should be "can't."

By the way, I'm not denying the possible existence of a genetic link, only that a study like this doesn't necessarily get us any closer to discovering it.

Well, the study shows that there is a relationship between parental income and biological child's income but no such relationship exists for the adoptive child. Why the slope for one variable and not the other?

The reason I asked the two seemingly obtuse questions was to illicit a response that addressed the suppositions you used. I'm finding that there is a general disconnect between what we're starting to see is the ever expanding role of genetics and people's general problem formulation of looking to environment to first explain behavioral variance and then only grudgingly to entertain the prosepct that maybe, genetic factors are involved.

Take the self-discipline - income question I asked. Self-discipline is more akin to personality than is a habit like smoking. Have you ever tried to "train" a sullen person into being happy-go lucky? Sure, you can try to learn good work habits but if self-discipline isn't in your nature, then you're really going against the grain.

Is it simpler to posit that self-discipline may have genetic roots which leads to behavorial characteristics arising naturally which makes dedication to task at hand easier, or is it easier to enter the black box and say self-discipline should be modeled as strictly an environmentally acquired trait and its taking, or not, amongst different individuals has something to do with unknowns in their environment.

The way I see it, the simpler answer on this study is that the parents passed onto their children genetic advantages which enabled the children's income to correlate to the parents income, where income is a proxy for IQ. The adoptive children could only rely on common environmental factors to acquire self-discipline, or whatever the unknown factor is, that allows the correlation to exist. To explain away the lack of relationship between the adoptive children and parents requires a powerful factor which would have to increase as the parent's income increased (to allow the further depression of the adoptive child's income) so that all the adoptive children showed no relationship at all to the parent's income.

Simply, this paper points to genetic linkages and many people feel that they must exhaust all sorts of environmental causative agents before they're even willing to entertain the possibility of a simpler genetic explanation.

It's refreshing to read that you yourself don't deny genetic causation, but do you feel that it deserves equal standing to environmental influences, or that is should be looked to as the last resort?

Linsee,

Thanks for the links. It's actually refreshing to find another person who has actually read The Bell Curve. As with Megan's commentary, I see a remarkable difference in content and tone, not necessarily implying unqualified support though, between those who have read the book and those who are regurgitating talking points from the likes of Stephen J. Gould.

was that the mechanism life has come up with for evening out the obvious differences in intelligence is not society but the family.

As you get to the latter sections of the book, it might help you to model the concept of race as one big extended family. That would also help you in understanding the Lewontin Fallacy.

Well, the study shows that there is a relationship between parental income and biological child's income but no such relationship exists for the adoptive child. Why the slope for one variable and not the other?

Let's start with the author's abstract of the paper, since I don't have a copy of the paper itself:

"I use a new data set of Korean-American adoptees who, as infants, were randomly assigned to families in the U.S. I examine the treatment effects from being assigned to a high income family, a high education family or a family with four or more children. I calculate the transmission of income, education and health characteristics from adoptive parents to adoptees. I then compare these coefficients of transmission to the analogous coefficients for biological children in the same families, and to children raised by their biological parents in other data sets...."

As you see, there is one notworthy problem, which contrary to mousynon's comments above, DOES seem to be a confounding factor in that it may have resulted in systematic differences in how the two groups were handled: all of the adoptees were Korean and, according to Tim based on the Kevin Drum posting/discussion, primarily female and raised in a non-Korean family. The same obviously was not the case for the other group of biological children.

Granted, it looks from the abstract that the author did the best job he could do with the available datapoints, and the results are interesting, but I don't think that tells us much at this point.

Take the self-discipline - income question I asked. Self-discipline is more akin to personality than is a habit like smoking. Have you ever tried to "train" a sullen person into being happy-go lucky? Sure, you can try to learn good work habits but if self-discipline isn't in your nature, then you're really going against the grain.

That's rather a false comparison IMO. A dour person might never be able to act cheerful, but a dour and a cheerful person alike can learn some sense of prioritization and responsibility (although it will obviously be harder if the training doesn't begin at a very young age, when the mind is still malleable). I've got my own family to fall back on for evidence. I tend to be driven but I can get locked onto tasks that aren't as important as others, and procrastinate the important ones. My younger sister is creative but by nature has little concept of time management, and tends to stray randomly into nonessential tasks while forgetting that the essential ones ever existed. And my youngest sister is very dilligent, managing her time extremely well and completing every task she starts to perfection.

Fortunately, all three of us were born to parents who believe in old-fashioned values like self-discipline and personal responsibility. And all three of us -- just now finishing college and entering the workforce, in fact -- seem to be doing well and landing right around the same income level, which truly would not have been the case if they had just let us wander off into wherever our "genetics" took us.

It's refreshing to read that you yourself don't deny genetic causation, but do you feel that it deserves equal standing to environmental influences, or that is should be looked to as the last resort?

Who would deny that people start with different talents and abilities? I happen to have a singing voice, but I wouldn't survive very long auditioning for opera. I enjoy the maths and sciences, but I very quickly get lost in complex equations -- even though I know people who, given the same equations, can step through to the solution with just a few quick scribblings.

I only object to the search for an overarching theory of genetic differences on the basis that people might actually start discounting the influence of environmental factors and role models, which can go a long way to explaining individual success or failure later in life. Some smart kids are born that way, but many others are made.

As you see, there is one notworthy problem, which contrary to mousynon's comments above, DOES seem to be a confounding factor in that it may have resulted in systematic differences in how the two groups were handled: all of the adoptees were Korean and, according to Tim based on the Kevin Drum posting/discussion, primarily female and raised in a non-Korean family. The same obviously was not the case for the other group of biological children.

Keep in mind what this research is reporting: there is a correlative relationship between parental income and biological child income and no relationship at all for the adoptive children.

By equalizing the adoptive children to the same gender, race and family circumstance (adoption) the study has removed confounding factors and can concentrate on the income relationship.

To discount the genetic contribution from parent to child in the realm of income earning one has to posit that there is an inverse depressing factor that equalizes all of the Korean adoptess to earn in the same range. IOW, the higher the income of the parents the more they depressed some factor in the adopted child so that in the aggregrate all of the adopted children earned in a narrow band.

As others have stated, the startling conclusion is that there is no correlational relationship at all. That's news. To explain this away someone is going to have to model an impressive family dynamic to explain the negative relationship between parental income and adoptee income. Here's how I explained it to someone where I blog.

but I don't think that tells us much at this point.

I disagree. This study, when added to many like it, confirm the role of genetics, and disentangles the contribution from what was always assumed to be strictly environmental factors at work.

The Korean issue is a red-herring. So too is purported racism, adoption trauma, and other pre-adoption environmental factors, for they all would have to work in concert to create a negatively correlated environmental issue which depressed adoptee income more as the parental income increased. What on Earth is going to do that? Also a red herring is the family relationship between the biological and adoptive children, for if there were some environmental factor related to parental income it would show, even weakly, in the adopted children. It doesn't.

When you recount your upbringing and the values and habits that were imparted to you by your parents you're assuming that this is strictly a non-genetic choice on the part of your parents. Now, don't misunderstand what I'm saying - I'm not saying that people are automatons who follow genetic coding and have no free will. Rather, there are genetic impulses which are translated into urges and which we have the choice to act upon. Impulse control is a good example. You can succumb or you can channel and control. What you think is free will may actually have some genetic component. No, there is no such thing as a shopping gene which compells people to want to buy stuff, but the impulse for reward and satisfaction may be genetic in origin and the shopping serves as a way of satisfying that urge. To bring this back to parenting, some parents may derive a benefit from imparting, well to use our existing example, self-discipline reinforcement on their children and the children, being genetic offspring of their parents, have a good chance of responding favorably to that behavior training, whereas, a randomly chosen adoptee inserted into the family, may receive the same parental urging, and feels no genetic satisfaction in following the self-discipline routine. That's not saying that as they grow older and see the benefits of self-discipliine that they can't come to the realization themselves and set out to modify their behavior. However, even if they do so they most likely won't feel that sense of satisfaction that the people who carry the "self-discipline gene" (shorthand for the technical description) would get and thus they lack the reinforcement received from the pleasure of the self-discipline.

I'm sure you seen reference to programs that attempted to teach better parenting skills to dysfunctional adults and the follow on reporting of how dismally the programs worked. These programs assumed a completely malleable human nature. The Focus on Family programs of the Right are going to run into the same problem.

If your looking for a more thorough treatment on this line of reasoning I'd urge you to pick up Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate.

Who would deny that people start with different talents and abilities?

Perhaps I see this more in my travels than you do in yours but many people are adverse to the thought on not being infiniteally malleable, to the idea of varying distributions for differing populations. Take a look at pieces of legislation, for instance, the NCLB Act, which assume uniform equality and mandate equal results. It's one thing to be assumed equal before the law, which is an idea that everyone is for, and another to try to engineer equality against the hard facts of genetics.

The default position is public discourse seems to assume that the infiniteally malleable person exists and is us.

TangoMan:
"As you get to the latter sections of the book, it might help you to model the concept of race as one big extended family. That would also help you in understanding the Lewontin Fallacy."

I will do that, but my first reaction is that the only concept that is under heavier attack than the family is the race, especially where the race is "Caucasian" (however that is defined). I've taken to saying "gene pool" which sounds PC but helps me think more clearly.

Being adopted myself, I'd suggest that while adoptees with rich parents may not have higher incomes than adopees with poor parents, they are likely to wind up with higher net worths after they inherit their share of their adoptive parents' wealth.

So, the old advice "Choose your parents" wisely, still applies.

Here we go again. (sigh) I responded to a poster from here via email about this love affair with Charles Murray. I sent here some of the transcript of an interview held on PBS Thinktank between Murray and Ben Wattenburg. Read this transcript, and tell me afterwards WHY any conscious, educated non-white NOT on the Olin payroll would endorse this racial arsonist.

>>>MR. MURRAY: In the last paragraph to that 50-odd-page chapter, I think we say the central finding is that you can face all of the facts about ethnicity and IQ and not run screaming from the room. And a lot of the reason why we spend so much time in that chapter is to bring to the surface a topic that all sorts of people talk about privately among themselves or they think about is very politically incorrect, and we say, 'Okay, folks, you want to know what's going on; we will tell you to the best of our ability what the state of knowledge is about this subject.'

MR. WATTENBERG: And it is what?

MR. MURRAY: If you take the mean on most tests of cognitive ability that have been given, including up to recent times, there's about a 15-point difference between blacks and whites. I would hasten to add there is also a --

MR. WATTENBERG: In IQ score, there is a -- if whites --

MR. MURRAY: Yeah.

MR. WATTENBERG: Yeah, if whites average 100, blacks average 85.

MR. MURRAY: That's roughly -- that's the ball park.

MR. WATTENBERG: And that means, as I recall your numbers, that 80-- that 16 percent of blacks --

MR. MURRAY: Are at or above the white mean.

MR. WATTENBERG: Right.

MR. MURRAY: Now --

MR. WATTENBERG: And, therefore, 84 percent are below the white average.

MR. MURRAY: Yeah. Having said that, there are a whole bunch of other things that ought to be said along with it. And this is not in order to run for cover; it's in order to be realistic of one of the things that ought to be said. What that means is that there are blacks along the entire range of intelligence from bottom to top, and there are whites along the entire range of intelligence from bottom to top. It means that IQ is one important aspect of a person's abilities -- it sure isn't the only one -- and if you add in all the other things like determination and imagination and humor and sensitivity -- you can go through the whole list of human qualities. The reason I'm saying all this is, Ben, that we're dealing with very explosive stuff here --

MR. WATTENBERG: You sure are.
MR. MURRAY: -- and when we said you can face all these facts without running screaming from the room, one of the things that bothers us is that people are all too eager to run screaming from the room. Are there things that -- does this have implications for some aspects of society? Yeah, it does. There are a whole bunch of things that it has absolutely no implications for whatsoever. For example, it has absolutely no implications, as far as I can tell, for the way that any individual white and any individual black should interact with each other. Because when you approach an individual, you aren't approaching a mean and a standard deviation, you're approaching somebody with his own bundle of qualities.

MR. WATTENBERG: Yeah, but you're also -- if you believe your concept --

MR. MURRAY: Mmm-hmm.

MR. WATTENBERG: -- you are also approaching someone who, in the back of your mind you are saying, is, 'I've never met this person before, but on average, he is 15 points less smart than the white guy walking alongside him.'

MR. MURRAY: And that's one of the things that bothers --

MR. WATTENBERG: And that is called -- I mean, heretofore, when people said that, they were labeled racists.

MR. MURRAY: Yep.

http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript129.html

--Cobra

I'm sorry, Cobra, but I don't see anything terribly incendiary in Mr. Murray's comments. In fact, he sounds quite reasonable and non-malicious to me.

Anaconda writes:

>>>I'm sorry, Cobra, but I don't see anything terribly incendiary in Mr. Murray's comments. In fact, he sounds quite reasonable and non-malicious to me.

So, if you're white, Anaconda, do you believe, as Murray says right here, that you're MORE intelligent than any of the black people you see, without out any specific information on that person?
Now, if you're Asian, Anaconda, do you also believe that you are MORE intelligent than ANY non-Asian you see?
Of course, if you're Black, and agree with Murray, you would have to assume you you're the most stupid individual in ANY given interracial setting.
That's the "800lb Gorilla" these folks don't want to talk about when discussing Murray's Bell Curve.

--Cobra

Cobra,

Perhaps you can point out where you think that Murray says that "if you're white, ... you're MORE intelligent than any of the black people you see, without out any specific information on that person".

Because when I read the transcript you posted, I see that what Murray actually says is, "there are blacks along the entire range of intelligence from bottom to top, and there are whites along the entire range of intelligence from bottom to top", which contradicts the attitude you ascribe to him.

Jim

"Of course, if you're Black, and agree with Murray, you would have to assume you you're the most stupid individual in ANY given interracial setting."

Not necessarily, Cobra. You have lots of specific information about yourself, and cannot help but have formed a reasonable estimate of your place in the distribution of Black people. If you believe yourself to be average for a Black man and you encounter a white person about whom you have no other information, then yes, your prior would be that the other person is smarter (though you would rapidly Bayesian update this belief as you acquire information). But if you're in the right tail of the Black distribution, then 't ain't necessarily so. Note that I'm presuming an interaction with one other individual -- add more people to the room, and the most stupid person in the room becomes, on average, ever more stupid regardless of ethnicity.

Jim,

This sequence is the one that puts the last nail in for me:

>>>MR. WATTENBERG: Yeah, but you're also -- if you believe your concept --

MR. MURRAY: Mmm-hmm.

MR. WATTENBERG: -- you are also approaching someone who, in the back of your mind you are saying, is, 'I've never met this person before, but on average, he is 15 points less smart than the white guy walking alongside him.'

MR. MURRAY: And that's one of the things that bothers --

MR. WATTENBERG: And that is called -- I mean, heretofore, when people said that, they were labeled racists."

It's basically an academic sword that white supremacists, anti-affirmative action types, segregationists, neo-nazi groups, and right winged sympathizers can use to vindicate their racist belief systems and platforms.

Of course, I do fully understand that there are white people who can read Murray's studies and quotes, and think nothing of his insinuations, since white supremacy was the core of American ideology for most of its existance.
As a conscious African-American, I subscribe to a slightly different point of view.

--Cobra

Cobra,

In your original post, you wrote:

Read this transcript, and tell me afterwards WHY any conscious, educated non-white NOT on the Olin payroll would endorse this racial arsonist.

First of all, I don see anything in the transcript that makes Murray a "racial arsonist". In fact, in the segment that you identified in your most recent post, he seems troubled by the issue Wattenberg identifies:

MR. WATTENBERG: -- you are also approaching someone who, in the back of your mind you are saying, is, 'I've never met this person before, but on average, he is 15 points less smart than the white guy walking alongside him.'

MR. MURRAY: And that's one of the things that bothers --

There are two ways to attack Murray:
- One is to say that he's wrong--that the data he relies on or the conclusions he draws from it is incorrect.
- The other is to say that it doesn't matter if he's correct, the whole subject of differences between races is (or should be) anathema--not a legitimate subject for discussion.

Is your position that Murrays's wrong or that the question is illegitimate?

Jim

Jim writes:

>>>There are two ways to attack Murray:
- One is to say that he's wrong--that the data he relies on or the conclusions he draws from it is incorrect.
- The other is to say that it doesn't matter if he's correct, the whole subject of differences between races is (or should be) anathema--not a legitimate subject for discussion.

Is your position that Murrays's wrong or that the question is illegitimate?"

First, I don't have to tailor my positions to fit into boundaries you've created. Charles Murray is not the first person to suggest the inferiority of black people, and judging from this blog's posters, won't be the last. Many of the first US Presidents were slave owners. That you seem to interpret Murray as being "troubled" doesn't gain any sympathy for him from me.
But as far as your question goes, I will say that JennyD has an excellent post about the problems she has with the studies on the Korean adopties mentioned, raising many questions that have already been applied to Murray's works by critics. The agenda of Murray and others like him are transparent, and I believe that he is incorrect in his assessments, and a propagandist for a large, angry white population thirsty for a scapegoat.
It's nothing new.

--Cobra

Cobra,

Why not use this rejoinder: "There are over 7 million African Americans with IQs higher than the Amercian mean." If you're ever confronted with a racist, they won't be able to dispute that fact and you can watch their heads explode as their supremicist ideology falls to their feet.

That said, it's quite clear that you're upset with the Murray's statement but all I see in the above comments is you disparaging Murray the person for a comment you disagree with but you don't tell us where Murray's facts are incorrect. In fact, it's been 10 years now since the publication of the Bell Curve and many of the findings have been upheld. So for me, I don't see the validity of your position. And btw, we were doing a nice job of keeping race out of the adoption study controversy. This is what Karl was warning about.

Just so I'm clear - the IQ under discussion is measured by tests which show the Flynn effect?

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/FLYNNEFF.html

Dog Fan,

Yes. Now I don't want to hi-jack the thread, but the Flynn Effect hasn't closed any gaps between population groups. If you're interested in a more technical discussion on this issue feel free to click on my name and get redirected. Once at the blog, click on the "open thread" in the upper right corner, and ask and argue away.

TangoMan writes:

>>>And btw, WE were doing a NICE JOB of keeping RACE OUT of the adoption study controversy. This is what Karl was warning about."

Ummm....I made my first post on this thread 10:48 AM, December 1, 2004. The following are some of the interesting quotes posted before me:

>>>“(a) the adoptees are all KOREAN,
(b) the adoptees are primarily girls,
(c) the adoptees were raised in families of a different ETHNICITY than their own.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim at November 29, 2004 03:25 PM
>>>Of course, you may mean that Megan may find herself tarred as a NAZI for mentioning topics like IQ and GENETICS, but the question still remains, are topics to be avoided because of fear of irrational responses?
Look at how the Bell Curve has faired over the years
--Posted by TangoMan at November 29, 2004 06:48 PM
>>>Nonetheless I do agree with some of your objections, in that all we may be seeing among the adoptees is that some families were better able to adjust to raising a KOREAN girl than others.
--Posted by anony-mouse at November 29, 2004 06:59 PM
>>>Once again, my EUGENICS argument is sounding just about right.
If these little people are GENETICALLY DISADVANTAGED at birth and are destined to be a burden to society, shouldn't we try to prevent the misery they will experience? If it is humane to end suffering, isn't it more humane to stop it before it ever begins?
Posted by EvilOne at November 29, 2004 07:26 PM
>>>You could see calls for gov't financed GENETIC ENHANCEMENT for some people that wouldn't be available to others, all in the goal of maintaining the Axiom of Equality.
Posted by TangoMan at November 29, 2004 07:51 PM
This isn't meant to downplay the sensitivity of the topic, for as Murtaugh said:
I think I've established my bona fides as being (a) not a RACIST, but (b) still open to the possibility that there is a GENETIC component to intelligence, so I'm rather depressed to be accused of RACISM (by email, actually that I "have been in touch with [my] inner KLANSMAN for quite some time") in the long comments section of this Matthew Yglesias post on intelligence testing.
Posted by TangoMan at November 29, 2004 11:25 PM
>>>The Human Genome Project got a lot of attention but its successor the Human Genetic Diversity Project, was doomed by protests that it would "intrude into people's beliefs about their own origins." The successor project toed the more political correct line and the International Haplotype Map Project got under way. It gathered genetic samples from Nigerian Yorubas, Japanese, Chinese and Americans of northern and western European ancestry. It released its data a few weeks ago. This data source will be invaluable to genetics researchers looking into issues of population diversity.
--Posted by TangoMan at November 30, 2004 04:07 AM
>>>Good points above. One thing sticks in my mind (from many years ago)--that many of the kids in Korean orphanages were biracial, conceived by Korean mothers with non-Asian
fathers. It's also widely said that such mixed children are regarded far more unfavorably in most Asian cultures than elsewhere.
Posted by gene berman at November 30, 2004 09:06 AM
>>>As you get to the latter sections of the book, it might help you to model the concept of race as one big extended family. That would also help you in understanding the Lewontin Fallacy.
Posted by TangoMan at November 30, 2004 06:04 PM

>>>I will do that, but my first reaction is that the only concept that is under heavier attack than the family is the race, especially where the race is "Caucasian" (however that is defined). I've taken to saying "gene pool" which sounds PC but helps me think more clearly.
Posted by Robert Speirs at December 1, 2004 09:16 AM


I got plum tired capitalizing all the instances where race and genetics were used. If that's your idea of a "good job keeping race out of the discussion", I'd love to see what a bad job is. I mean, the audacity of a NON-WHITE person like myself daring to QUESTION research by WHITE SCIENTISTS that labels the majority of people who look me less intelligent? I mean, HOW DARE I actually challenge some of the above posts, and call it for what I feel it truly is--the proliferation of white supremacy.

Tango also writes:

>>>Why not use this rejoinder: "There are over 7 million African Americans with IQs higher than the Amercian mean." If you're ever confronted with a racist, they won't be able to dispute that fact and you can watch their heads explode as their supremicist ideology falls to their feet."

Actually, if you subscribe to that fraudalent extrapolation (and this is the blog that laughed at Kerry's exit polls election night? LOL) you'd also have me saying that 32 million OTHER African Americans have IQ's LOWER than the American mean, which would get a celebratory "Amen" from every right winger, skinhead, sheet-wearer, Confederate flag waver, eugenicist, neo-con, Al Campanis fan, talk radio junkie, and "vote 'NO' on removing segregationist language from the Alabama Constitition in 2004" cretin alive in America today, because their core beliefs would be confirmed--that most blacks are inferior to them.

Why would I, as a conscious black man, light THAT particular cross for you?

And it's not just a black thing. I would LOVE to see cross linked posts to KOREAN-AMERICAN blogs to see what their reaction would be to these allegations in the original study. I think it would be interesting to hear the Korean opinion of their "genetic value" as opposed to where some whites have them perched in the intelligence caste system.

Karl said that this topic is "radioactive." Well, if you're afraid of the fallout, don't drop the Bomb.

--Cobra

I have to agree with Cobra here. The study may or may not point out something factual. However, I cannot in anyway see how the *result* of the study will be positive.

Realistically, society requires the assumption that "all men are created equal". Societies that haven't have not faired well at all, either morally or economically. Studies like this and the Bell Curve can only put that assumption under greater strain, regardless of their accuracy (and I have serious doubts about either).

Can anyone point to a single *positive* outcome of this research? Is there anyone here who seriously doubts that this sort of information would *not* be simplified and used to promote odious beliefs and legislation?

I can see it now: "Scientists say those genetically gifted Chinese are destined to supplant America as the dominant world power if we don't stop them permanently now!"

[Before we get to the "truth must out" replies, does anyone think that researching and publicizing easy ways to create low tech biological weapons is a good thing? No? Right, so we all agree that some "truths" are not to the benefit of mankind...]

Cobra,

Karl said that this topic is "radioactive." Well, if you're afraid of the fallout, don't drop the Bomb.

Not afraid of the bomb at all and I'd be happy to discuss this further, I just don't want to hi-jack this thread dealing with the Korean adoption study. You're assuming motives on my part which simply aren't there, believe it or not.

I think it would be interesting to hear the Korean opinion of their "genetic value" as opposed to where some whites have them perched in the intelligence caste system.

Considering that South Koreans have a mean average IQ of 105-109 (depending on the tests and normalization procedures) compared to the US mean of 100, I don't think they have much issue with the fact.

daring to QUESTION research by WHITE SCIENTISTS

You mean like the authors of Individual Differences in the Expression of a “General” Learning Ability in Mice, Louis D. Matzel, Yu Ray Han, Henya Grossman, Meghana S. Karnik, Dave Patel, Nicholas Scott, Steven M. Specht, and Chetan C. Gandhi.

Seems to me, just guessing though, that we have 1 East Asian, 3 South Asians, 3 Ashkenazi Jews and 1 European Gentile who are interested in studying the genetic basis of intelligence. Take a look around most genetic labs these days and you'll see a rainbow of races and a UN of nationalities working side by side.

You're barking up the wrong tree with me.

T. West,

However, I cannot in anyway see how the *result* of the study will be positive.

I can see endless positive possibilities, all stemming from the fact that it's better to work with known facts than to continue to live life, propose gov't policies, etc under false assumptions about nature.

society requires the assumption that "all men are created equal".

No one is arguing against that point. Wholehearted agreement. Just clarify a point for me - is there a difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome?

Right, so we all agree that some "truths" are not to the benefit of mankind...]

Lot's to pick apart on this line of reasoning, but I'll simply ask whether you want the deaths of innocents on your conscience by withholding the release of research that could save lives simply for satisfying your ideological peccadillos. There are exciting discoveries coming out of genetic labs that are, even now, transforming our lives and hold so much promise for the future.

is there a difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome?

Of course there is. However, I think it's pretty obvious that if there's widespread belief in the genetic differences of intelligence correlating to race, you'll see equality of opportunity disappear (or at the very least, be followed in name only).

I'm not diputing racial differences, appearance being the obvious one (although not as obvious as all that according to those sudying racial genetics). However, I will bitterly dispute differences in something that is taken as a general predictor of success in society. In other words, people in general take intelligence as a stand-in for worthiness. Witness the Steve Sailers in this world trying to have immigration based on these same grounds. (With a nudge, nudge, wink, wink when looking at what the effects of such official racism would have on existing citizens...)

I say that the study of the genetic influence of attributes that are generally connected with worthiness in the public's eye is dangerous and, yes, can have no positive impact on our society.

Cobra wrote:
First, I don't have to tailor my positions to fit into boundaries you've created.

Of course you don't. Please suggest another category if you think it's relevant. Leaving Murray aside for a moment, I am still curious whether you think racial differences in intelligence are a legitimate topic for research or not.

That you seem to interpret Murray as being "troubled" doesn't gain any sympathy for him from me.

I didn't bring it up to elicit your sympathy, but instead to point out the it seemed an unlikely response from a "racial arsonist".

I'm not going to argue in favor of Murray's position, because I don't know enough about the subject to be convinced he is right. I did read his book when it came out (which I suspect is more than some of his critics have done), but that was a number of years ago. Like his critics, I would prefer to find out that Murray is wrong. Unlike them, I am neither convinced that he is or willing to dismiss him as a racist for daring to ask the question.

Jim

Cobra wrote:
I would LOVE to see cross linked posts to KOREAN-AMERICAN blogs to see what their reaction would be to these allegations in the original study.

I just want to point out that the adoption study being discussed here has NOTHING to do with intelligence differences between racial or ethnic groups!

Sorry for shouting, but a lot of people here and elsewhere seem to have jumped to that conclusion. The interesting result of the study is that the adoptee's incomes (NOT intelligence) did not correlate with their parents' incomes, while the genetic children's incomes did. It's not important that the adoptees are Korean-American, while it is important that they were randomly assigned to families. As Alex Tabarrok explain in his follow-up post:

"Suppose we control for age and other factors which in effect will raise the adoptee line then we could phrase the results as 'adoptees do better than biological children raised in poor households but worse than biological children raised in rich households.' The explanation is simple from the genetic point of view - adoptees are drawn more or less randomly while high income parents tend to pass on high-income genes and low income parents tend to pass on low-income genes. It's going to be very difficult, however, to explain why poor parents treat their adopted children better than their biological children but rich parents treat their adopted children worse."

So if you want to argue for a non-genetic explanation, you need to explain why the adoptees from low-income families tend to make more than their non-adopted siblings, while the adoptees from high-income families tend to make less.

Jim

Jim writes:

>>>I just want to point out that the adoption study being discussed here has NOTHING to do with intelligence differences between racial or ethnic groups!"

The problem Jim, is that Jane introduced intelligence differences via genetics in her intial post here:

>>>This raises some interesting philosophical issues. No one "deserves" a good genetic inheritance. On the other hand, your genes are, fundamentally, "who you are", and shouldn't our system reward people for being INTELLIGENT, well-behaved, and so forth, even if they didn't do much to get that way?"

That horse has already left the stable. Conservatives and their "libertarian" co-horts can't seem to help themselves but to discuss race in this manner.

Jim writes:

>>>Unlike them, I am neither convinced that he is or willing to dismiss him as a racist for daring to ask the question.

That's your right, just as I have a right to call him what I feel he deserves to be called.

Tango writes:

>>>Lot's to pick apart on this line of reasoning, but I'll simply ask whether you want the deaths of innocents on your conscience by withholding the release of research that could save lives simply for satisfying your ideological peccadillos. There are exciting discoveries coming out of genetic labs that are, even now, transforming our lives and hold so much promise for the future."

The dark side of the genetic research is illuminated here:
http://www.bilderberg.org/hgenetix.htm
and here:
http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/signs_ethnic_supplement.htm

And that's for some of you who don't think America is capable of this sort of fiendish activity.

--Cobra

Cobra wrote:

The problem Jim, is that Jane introduced intelligence differences via genetics in her intial post here:

But you continue to miss my point. The study was not comparing racial or ethnic groups! The important thing about the adoptive children was that they were randomly assigned to families, so the adoptive families selection biases can't be a factor in the outcome, not that they came from Korea.

Or is it your position that research into the genetic basis of any behavioral trait is illegitimate?

Jim

While we know that *this* study doesn't have a racial component to it, is there anyone who doubts for even a second that people will make a racial issue out of it? Goodness, it only took a few posts here to do so. We can try to pretend that it won't become racially tinged, but I think that anyone who is not deluding themselves will understand that this study and others like it will be used (or misused if you prefer) to link racial background and intelligence. It's why I don't think that this area of study does anyone any good.

As for this study itself, let me take a stab at a non-genetic explanation. Adoptees are often going to feel somewhat "outside" the family, especially during adolescence when they are making educational choices that will affect the rest of their life. (Don't know why, but most of the adoptees I know do mention this - why else is hunting for a birth mother so popular?)

In this study, it is compounded by the adoptees being Korean (and thus likely of a different race than the adoptive parents) and being female. Thus it's not the parents that lavish more or less care on their children, it's the fact that by virtue of being thrice foreign to their family in the child's own eyes, the children are vastly more likely to make their own way in life, avoiding the influence of a close connection of friends and family that lead to poorer results for the children of poor parents and the opposite for children of wealthier parents.

It's the independence of the children, not the care of the parents that makes the "curve" flat. (I love economics-speak).

Cobra,

You'd more likely help your case if you didn't introduce fringe, moonbat links. Why not find a well reasoned essay that opposes genetic research, (hint: look to the religious right and the anti-stemcell advocates-they at least try to avoid the tinhat flavor of your links) to convince us.

T. West,

you'll see equality of opportunity disappear

I'm not so sure, but I'm willing to look at your reasoning. I'm generally against Affirmative Action but I've some sympathy to the notion of aggrieved peoples, Native Americans and descendents of slaves. I simply don't see any justification whatsoever why racial preferences are given to post 1965 voluntary immigrants and why 2/3 of African American admitted Harvard students are immigrants or children of immigrants, from African and Caribbean nations.

"some speakers brought up the thorny issue of exactly who those black students are." The question arises because, even though in recent years 7 to 9 percent of Harvard's incoming freshmen (8.9 percent for the class of 2008) have been African Americans, some studies suggest that more than half of these students, and perhaps as many as two-thirds, are West Indian or African immigrants or their children. A substantial number also identify themselves as children of biracial couples.

However, I will bitterly dispute differences in something that is taken as a general predictor of success in society.

Of course, you have every right to dispute any notion you choose. I'd be interested in reading the factual basis for your dispute. As we both know, wishing doesn't make things so.

Witness the Steve Sailers in this world trying to have immigration based on these same grounds.

If you're going to cast aspersions on the man at least have the moral fortitude to provide evidence.

I say that the study of the genetic influence of attributes that are generally connected with worthiness in the public's eye is dangerous and, yes, can have no positive impact on our society.

Well yes, it's quite evident that you say this but you don't argue it. Saying so simply isn't convincing in the least.

I'm not deaf or blind to your concerns, really I'm not. I'd urge you to read this essay Atheism is not Satanism. I judge from the tenure of our writings that I have a greater faith in our country's citizens to follow a more just path in the future than you do. I however, simply don't see how peace and tranquility can be purchased with the currency of purposeful ignorance. Further, you seem to assume that if the US stops research into genetics that the world will follow suit. The best counter to this line of reasoning can be found in the stem cell research controversy and how while the US dawdled South Korea made startling advances. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle. Therefore, I think it should be incumbent upon folks like you, those who have a deep concern about social justice, to make sure that the results of research are harnessed for good social policy. The days of eugenics are buried in the dust-bin of history - what awaits us is soccer-mom personal choice. Look how parents, even now, try their mightiest to give their children a leg up - sports, music lessons, tutoring, all sorts of enrichment, etc. It'll be the same with trying to prevent disease (the Jewish community is already the leader in this respect judging from their concerted effort to lesson the incidence of Tays-Sachs through genetic counciling and Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis.) We've already had a birth where 2 women and a man contributed DNA, one woman contributing healthy mtDNA. The end result is that parents want healthier, and better babies, with the parent's choice determining what better is. This is human nature, for the seeking of better is even evident in mate selection. I simply don't see how this genie is being put back into the bottle.

Look here for the Jewish positions on Tays -Sachs and Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis:

The second method to prevent the birth of a Tay Sachs baby is to perform preimplantation screening of the in vitro fertilized zygotes if both husband and wife are known carriers and to only use the healthy ones for implantation. The discarding of the affected zygotes is not considered as abortion since the status of a fetus or a potential life in Judaism applies only to a fetus implanted and growing in the mother's womb. This artificial method of conception is sanctioned by many Rabbis for couples who cannot have a child in the normal way in order to enable them to have a child, albeit by assisted reproduction.

I posted on foreign efforts along these lines 1.) Chinese Establish Brain Bank to study difference in brain structures between races, 2) and the Asian Genome Project has been launched.

It's the independence of the children, not the care of the parents that makes the "curve" flat.

This is an interesting hypothesis but it is totally, and completely, off the mark. It doesn't account for the greater "suppressive" effect that increases as parental income increases. Why would that type of relationship exist?

Scarhill,

I'm not going to argue in favor of Murray's position, because I don't know enough about the subject to be convinced he is right.

A very prudent position. I however, am prepared to advance Murray's position, that intelligence matters, because I have available to me 10 years of additional research which buttresses Murray's main thesis, (BTW, the race warriors seem to only focus on the small section on race within the Bell Curve, most likely never having even read the book) despite the incidental errors that Murray may have made. His critics have not been able to invalidate the bulk of this work.

Tango writes:

>>>You'd more likely help your case if you didn't introduce fringe, moonbat links. Why not find a well reasoned essay that opposes genetic research, (hint: look to the religious right and the anti-stemcell advocates-they at least try to avoid the tinhat flavor of your links) to convince us."

I'm pretty sure I can't convince you of anything, Tango. You're entitled to your own opinion. You're not entitled to your own facts.
One of these "moon bat" links I've researched on this topic is the Sunshine Project, an international non-profit organization examining bio-weapons and genetic engineering.
This is what THEY had to say:
>>>VI. Ethnic specific biological weapons
Current wisdom holds that population specific biological weapons are practically and theoretically impossible. Practically, many consider it impossibly difficult to use genetic variability to kill or otherwise affect populations. Others, including geneticists, argue that no suitable ethnic specific genes exist in the first place. Both notions are wrong. New technologies are indeed available to translate specific genetic sequences into markers or triggers for biological activity. And a recent analysis of human genome data in public databases revealed that hundreds, possibly thousands, of target sequences for ethnic specific weapons do exist. It appears that ethnic specific biological weapons may indeed become possible in the near future.
Weapons targeting specific population groups do not need to be deadly. They could cause temporary incapacitation, illness, sterility, permanent fatigue, or any other condition that may not be fatal but desirable from an aggressors perspective. They may be used in an all out war, in the battlefield or against civilian population, or they may be used in covert operations in conflict situations and with long-term effects, in order to destabilise, harm economically or weaken an enemy society.
http://www.sunshine-project.org/publications/bk/bk12.html

On the same site, they show a fairly large amount of research to support their claims. Unlike you, I don't forget that this is the same America that put small pox in the blankets of Native Americans, performed STD experiments on African Americans at Tuskegee, and did this diabolical study in 1951:
>>>1951 Racist Germs:
Army researchers deliberately exposed a disproportionate number of black citizens to the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus, to see if African Americans were more susceptible to such infection, like they were already known to be to coccidioidomycosis (Coccidioides immitis). Similarly, in 1951, unsuspecting [black] workers at the Norfolk Supply Center, Norfolk, VA, were exposed to crates contaminated with A. fumigatus spores.3
-- http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue46/articles/history_of_biowarfare_in_usa.htm

Do I expect you, Tango, who has insinuated on here that the vast majority of Blacks in America are STUPID ("There are over 7 million African Americans with IQs higher than the Amercian mean.") to understand my legitimate concerns on this issue? Of course not. But I think there are enough posters on Jane's blog who can look at some of the links I've posted, and make their own judgements about the dangers you cavalierly dismiss.

Though I may seem sardonic, this thread seems to follow a pattern I witnessed in the "Suffer the Poor" thread, where the bottom line with some these conservative posters, seems to echo the quotes of eugencist Margaret Sanger, over 90 years ago:

>>>"Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly. … Funds that should be
used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to maintenance of those who
should never have been born."
—Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, p.279.

"Today, however, civilization has brought sympathy, pity, tenderness …. We
are now in a state where our charities, our compensation acts, our pensions, hospitals,
and even our drainage and sanitary equipment all tend to keep alive the sickly and the weak,
who are allowed to propagate and in turn produce a race of degenerates."
—Margaret Sanger, "Birth Control and Women's Health." Birth Control Review,
December 1917, (vol. I, no. 12); p. 7.

I wonder what Margaret Sanger's Blog would like if she was alive today?

--Cobra

you'll see equality of opportunity disappear

I'm not so sure, but I'm willing to look at your reasoning.

Its a matter of optimization of resources. Let's assume the whole kit and kaboodle about genetics, 'g', that indicator for general social/economic success, IQ, the works.

If resources for education are limited (which they always are), it does not make sense to attempt (and fail) to educate citizens at a level higher than they will grasp. We don't teach PhD level stuff at high school. If we assume that 'g' is genetically passed on, then we can logically assume that those from poorer backgrounds are genetically going to have lower 'g' scores. Why are we wasting money on trying to educate them to levels that the vast majority will not reach. Far more practical to give that opportunity only to schools in area where the population is much more likely to have a higher 'g' level (i.e. schools in economically privileged areas).

Sure a few students who have oddly high 'g' scores may suffer in the poorer areas, but no more than any student anywhere two or more standard deviations above their peers.

Notice we don't even have to bring race into it.

Once it becomes a general belief that genetics is to blame for poor economic performance, there's not exactly a lot of incentive to try and minimize the inequality. Inequality is not society's fault, and it's a losing game anyway. There's not much hope for improving the poor's lot, so why waste money even trying. Why give them equal oppotunity, if they're not equal and never will be

And of course, if we already know that certain groups are not going to be successful because of low 'g', why on earth would we want to welcome them to our shores. We've always held before that our greater freedoms would allow them to flourish. Now we know that their low 'g' scores will cause them to be unsuccessful no matter where they go. How can we justify allowing them to burden our society? It's not like, unlike our higher 'g' European ancestors that they'll ever claw their way up. (A familiar theme on Steve Sailer's site). The scales have fallen from our eyes and we can now let clear-eyed logic dictate who gets in rather than the fallacious (and costly) optimism of "anyone can succeed".

Even more corrosive is that there's just no way that 'g' doesn't correlate with society's general belief in how worthwhile an individual is in ways that aren't matched in other characteristics. We don't think of ourselves as inferior to someone taller than ourself. But almost everyone feels superior to someone less intelligent than they are.

If we start matching race and genetic components of 'g', we're looking at a society that is going to automaticaly start to look at those from certain races as less valuable. Not worth spending as much money to protect, not worth spending money to educate, not worth spending money to improve. Maybe we spend money for a hopeless charity case...

No, I cannot see anything positive coming out of this research. As for other countries, given that no-one has pointed out *any* positive outcome from this research, I can't see how we're likely to fall behind other countries. If the Chinese are ahead in the "We know have scientifically based fact for suppressing genetically inferior minorities" knowledge race, then we'll just have to suffer from not being on that cutting edge :-).

TangoMan, I'd really like to hear you give *one* positive outcome if such research linking genetics to IQ/'g'/social success/'whatever you want to call it' actually gained general acceptance. I've trolled a lot of message boards on this topic, including some I've had to wash my screen after reading, and I'll tell you, there's no shortage there about what they consider the positive impact to be... Scary stuff. I'd like to know what you consider to be a possible postive impact.

If you're going to cast aspersions on [Steve Sailer] at least have the moral fortitude to provide evidence.

Yea Gods, read his site! The man is well spoken, thoughtful, and operates from a premise that human beings aren't equal and it's foolish to pretend they are. He's constantly going on about how Mexican immigrants aren't "coming up to speed" as previous generations have done because they're they've low 'g'. (Well, he uses *slightly* different words, but the meaning is abundantly clear.)

To be honest, if this sort of research gets wide acceptance, I expect the Steve Sailers of this world to be the best of what's ahead. He doesn't pass value judgement, he doesn't call them inferior. (There's any number of others that will do that.) He simply advocates a set of policies that he calls logical, and I call evil.

His agenda is not exactly hidden...

It doesn't account for the greater "suppressive" effect that increases as parental income increases. Why would that type of relationship exist?

Hey, you're pitching me a slow ball... As parental income increases, much of the gain to children is because of personal connections. Trust me, as a child who "wasted a privileged private school experience because all I got was an excellent education :-)", I'm aware that to succeed beyond a certain point in most high income jobs, those connections are almost necessary (except for those odd super-achievers). Children who are obviously adopted, Asian, and female are almost certain to be the *last* people to gain from that particular advantage that the highest income parents would otherwise offer.

In other words, the greater the income, the less the advantage that the parents possess can be passed to the child.

T. West,

You're doing a good job of expressing your concerns about what you think the future portends, however, and I'll respond in detail in a moment, my question for you is whether you, I, and others would stand idly by and allow this discrimination you describe to be institutionalized? Your vision seems to assume that the citizenry will let this happen.

I have a lot of problems these days with what I see as "identity group politics" rather than dealing with people as individuals and your problem statement seems to assume a very genetic determinist mode of thinking and also a broad brushing of groups with stereotypes.

if we already know that certain groups are not going to be successful because of low 'g', why on earth would we want to welcome them to our shores.

What we see in populations are distributions. Those distributions have absolutely no validity in predicting individual outcome. We need to stress the opportunity for people to succeed if they have what it takes, but with every passing year the complexity our society grows and we need to import fewer high school and grade school drop-outs.

For example, in the last few decades the black community made the largest strides in upward SES mobility, in large part due to jobs in the manufacturing sector. What gets little attention in the news media is the state of Black unemployment. See here, and here. I'm not making any value judgement here, simply reporting the facts. Why are our borders open and allowing low priced labor to come to the US when we have a growing population of people, who are our fellow citizens, that are unemployed?

I think that those of a libertarian persuasion are in a bit of a bind. They advocate independence, especially of the economic and political variety, and thus many are in favor of open borders. On the other hand, they are a fringe group in American politics, and most people favor aspects of big gov't, especially the parts that benefit them. So, what's happening is that open borders is bringing in lots of net tax recipients. Consider the cost of educating the child of an illegal in school ($8-10,000,) primary medical care provided by emergency room physicans and other social services that we as a society provide because we mandate certain minimums. Low cost illegal workers benefits the employer but the costs are borne by all of the taxpayers.

Now we know that their low 'g' scores will cause them to be unsuccessful no matter where they go.

You're loking at this situation in a very, very determinist fashion. This isn't the way genetics works.

We don't think of ourselves as inferior to someone taller than ourself. But almost everyone feels superior to someone less intelligent than they are.

But that's the way even today, so how will more genetic knowledge change this? Also, I should add, and this is as good a place in my commentary as elsewhere, that the premise that genetics is immutable need not hold for the future. Genetics, to speak in general terms, will allow for engineering. We're already idenfiying genes that are linked to cognition, diseases, stature, etc.

You're curious about positive outcomes. OK, there is already work underway on race-based therapeutics. Population based diagnostics and health care maintenance. I've blogged about the Pima Indians of Arizona and their average life expectancy of 57, their predisposition towards diabetes and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases publishing treatment regimes for different population groups. Knowledge will directly improve people's lives, if not save them. As our understanding of brain physiology grows we can tailer eduation methodologies to individuals so as to increase the effectiveness of schooling.

If you're looking for a positive example of the future you need only look to the US Military. They are the world's largest users of IQ tests and they are the most racially egalitarion organization we can point to. Opportunity is color blind. Now the hard question is for you. The US military has an IQ cutoff and won't accept applicants below the threshold. Should they? If they do there will be social pathologies introduced into the ranks and problems will arise. Is that a more fair outcome than the present?

Now a more philosophical question. The research doesn't change the situation we face on the ground today. IQ distributions are what they are. I surmise that my mentioning this upsets Cobra, but should we pretend otherwise and assume that a person's lot in life is always the fault of others. Is it better to pour money into bottomless pits of social programs that are all premised on the Axiom of Equality and all administered and delivered in the same fashion or would it be better, if we had the knowledge, to tailer the administration and delivery to be more efficacious?

The ultimate positive outcome: genetic engineering. You want your kids to be taller, smarter, less prone to cancer, well then you decide to have genes inserted or excised, and if you're worried about permanently changing the germline then you can simply isolate onto an artificial chromsome. If you're religious and feel that this is interfering in god's plan, I respect your choice to have kids the natural way. Other's may not have that compunction. If you're at all interested in the possibilites with this line of research I point you to Dr. Gregory Stock's Redesigning Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future.

T. West,

Yea Gods, read his site! The man is well spoken, thoughtful, and operates from a premise that human beings aren't equal and it's foolish to pretend they are.

I do. I also operate from the same premise. In fact, I happen to think most people recognize that people aren't all equal. However, this in no way lends support to the position that people aren't equal before the law and that people shouldn't be discriminated against, and that people should all have equal access to opportunity. We all have different skill sets imparted to us by both environment and genetics.

Let me ask you where on this continuum of premises you would place yourself:

1.)Humans, like all animals, have been subject to natural selection pressures.

2.)Geographical and reproductive isolation produces intraspecies variation both because of genetic drift and because isolated groups are in different selection environments.

3.)There is a long list of physiological traits of genetic origin whose incidence differs by geographical ancestry.

4.)The brain is not a special organ which is off-limits to the effects of selection pressure and drift.

Many creationists reject premise #1, and of course, then all that follows will also be rejected. When I debate over at Tacitus and Red State, I often can't get beyond this premise.

Many fans of Stephen J. Gould lock up on #2 for ideological reasons and no amount of data will unlock their ideology. Others believe that the differences are only skin deep. I'm not sure how they handle the cognitive dissonance when presented with data on population differences.

Those who accept up to premise #3 may want to go further but don't want to be called a nazi so they try adopt a smokescreen by hiding behind an interest in Alzheimer's. However, those who reject premise #4 have to explain away differing brain structures amongst groups or myopia:

Race exercises a considerable influence over myopia. High degrees with degenerative changes are very common in certain races, such as Chinese, Japanese, Arab, and Jewish persons. Myopia is uncommon in black, Nubian, and Sudanese persons. The variation probably is due more to heredity than habit.

Now, you find that because Sailer and I accept all four premises that we're evil. No problem. I've got a thick skin and Sailer probably even more so, but what I find puzzling is that you grant much credit to Sailer, but never dispute the facts. Is he evil for believing something that he's making up out of whole clothe or is he evil for believing something that he has evidence for? You haven't come out and stated flatly that he's making up data or drawing erroneous conclusions and if the latter, where his error is.

If you've a problem with Sailer, you may find this NY Times editorial from a racially profiling physician to be interesting.

Also, if you read this post by Megan:

I had a discussion the other day with a friend who was frankly disbelieving that rising income inequality is due to rising wage inequality, rather than the rich getting richer off their investment income.

and you read The Bell Curve you'll see that Megan has provided you a clue that the Murray and Hernstein's major prediction is coming true. This has to do with assortive mating. A quick search yields this and this.

T. West,

Excellent post my friend. I think you've captured the heart of this matter in your writings. People endorsing race IQ stratification have to look into the mirror, and ask themselves precisely what they believe in. I hope readers and posters alike read your post carefully, and consider the consequences of this ghoulish branch of eugenics.

Tango writes:

>>>You're doing a good job of expressing your concerns about what you think the future portends, however, and I'll respond in detail in a moment, my question for you is whether you, I, and others would stand idly by and allow this discrimination you describe to be institutionalized? Your vision seems to assume that the citizenry will let this happen."

You obviously aren't a good student of American history. Discrimination in this country was indeed institutionalized, by the will of the white majority for nearly 190 years on paper. And if you think the mood has changed, what do you make of this vote in Alabama this past November 2nd?
--http://www.memefirst.com/000861.html

Apparently, no abomination is beyond the realm of possibility in "Red State America."

--Cobra

T. West, if reducing illegal immigration and putting more selective criteria on immigration as a whole is an "evil agenda", then all I can say is... BWAHAHAHAHA!

Don't have time for a long message. I'll just clarify one thing:

Me: He simply advocates a set of policies that he calls logical, and I call evil.

You: Now, you find that because Sailer and I accept all four premises that we're evil.

Big difference between those two statements. I think the policy is evil, not the person. I do think that the policy he advocates is evil, because I believe that it will have a deleterious effect on mankind in general and Americans in specific. However, for all I know (and the premise that I will operate on until proven otherwise), Steve believes that his policies and beliefs would help *all* Americans and make the world a better place. If that's the case, Steve is, in my opinion, not evil. Being not terribly judgemental, I certainly wouldn't judge either Steve or you unless I had reason to believe that your motivations for your policies were immoral.

Note, that what you *believe* is immaterial. It's your policies that come out of that belief that I'll judge.

I'll use myself as an example. I generally advocate for a society tolerant of cultural differences. There are quite a number of people who would consider the policy to be evil because they feel that the long term effects of such policies are detremental to the all members of society in the long term. Now some may view *me* as evil for advocating them because they assume that harm to (at least certain elements of) society is intended, and would classify *me* as evil, rather than just my policy. On the other hand, many (most?) would assume that my beliefs were predicated on attempting to generally improve society as a whole. They'd assume that I'm merely wrong-headed :-).

T. West,

It occurred to me a moment after I hit the post button that I should have couched the whole comment with respect to the male-female differences.

While always allowing for individual talent to rise, ie. some women are stronger than the average man, it is generally the case that men are stronger than women, yet you don't see the role of women being rolled back. For instance, "oh well, we shouldn't invest any money in women's college sports because of gender differences." In fact, their role vis a vis strength is being increased. Sports, policework, military, etc. Shouldn't you find reassurance from this for this seems to model quite well the future. Like I said, I don't think that the picture you paint will come to pass.

Policies vs. Person : Thanks for the clarification.

This may be off-topic, but one thing that I don't hear from those who decry any proposal to restrict or selectively filter immigrants is that our liberal neighbor to the north, Canada, has precisely such a system that opens the door to highly skilled prospective immigrants and not to unskilled ones. With all hullabaloo about Blue-staters wanting to migrate to Canada as a result of Bush's re-election, isn't it ironic that Canada's policies skew strongly against the bluest of the American voters, i.e., African Americans, and yet liberals view Canada as some sort of haven?

JM,

Post-election, I blogged on one aspect of this, arranged marriage ads in Canada willing to, for a fee, marry Americans, to get them into Canada. See also here.

For fun, see if you qualify to immigrate to Canada by taking this on-line test.

Canada is not a completely rational nirvana though, they have the world's highest rate of allowing senior citizen immigrants, who then quickly go onto Medicare, and as with seniors the world around, medical care for the elederly is about 10x more expensive than for those younger than 60. What's up with that?

Cobra,

More racist scientists at work, from a news release today:

"We found that African Americans were significantly more likely to carry genetic variants known to stimulate the inflammatory response . . . . At the same time, genotypes known to dampen the release of anti-inflammatory proteins were more common among African Americans. This is kind of a double whammy."

[ . . . . . ]

Inflammation is believed to be a fundamental component of heart attack, stroke, diabetes and kidney disease, all of which strike African Americans in higher proportions than whites. Other disorders associated with the inflammatory response include premature labor, transplant rejection and autoimmune disorders such as multiple sclerosis and scleroderma – again, all more common among African Americans.

Ignoring findings like this, only in order to live in a fantasy construction of "all people are the same and that race is a social construct" means that innocent people will suffer needlessly and possibly die from your choice of willful ignorance.

A bunch of points:

My worst case scenario is of course completely fallacious in terms of actual science, because distribution does not define individuals. On the other hand, if you don't think that's how people think, you don't know people very well. After all, how man times does one hear