A deep dive into poverty in the US of A

[BacktoCricaddict]

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/03/21/1164275807/poverty-by-america-matthew-desmond-inequality

Excerpt:

Quote

 

Over 11% of the U.S. population — about one in nine people — lived below the federal poverty line in 2021. But Princeton sociologist Matthew Desmond says neither that statistic, nor the federal poverty line itself, encapsulate the full picture of economic insecurity in America.

 

"There's plenty of poverty above the poverty line as a lived experience," Desmond says. "About one in three Americans live in a household that's making $55,000 or less, and many of those folks aren't officially considered poor. But what else do you call trying to raise three kids in Portland on $55,000?"

 

 

Edited March 24, 2023 by BacktoCricaddict

[Prakat]

a useful investigation into a phenomenon that has gone on to contribute to the new right-wing base.

 

Nomadland by Jessica Bruder covers the same ground as well.

[BacktoCricaddict]

20 hours ago, Prakat said:

a useful investigation into a phenomenon that has gone on to contribute to the new right-wing base.

 

Nomadland by Jessica Bruder covers the same ground as well.

Added to read-list.  Thanks for the suggestion.

 

I will admit that I used to be "on that side."  That, if you "made it" in this world, it was because you are smarter and/or worked harder than everyone else.  And that, if you didn't, it is no one's fault but yours.  I would point to examples of the rare occasions when someone from an impoverished/underserved background struck it big and say "hey, if he could do, why can't all those others?"  And about 6 years ago, I started serving meals at a homeless shelter.  I thought I was helping people, but I was the one who was helped. I got to meet some incredibly smart people who had jobs and careers, but were hit by terrible life-events or made one bad decision that cost them their livelihood. They were simply trying to get out of the poverty cycle but climbing out of the abyss was unimaginably difficult. I started reading about systemic oppression, causes of homelessness, stigma of minor criminal records (like marijuana possession) etc.  In addition, I advise and mentor incredible students with life-stories that make my life seem like a complete cake-walk.  Together, these experiences and readings have changed me. 

 

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/01/the-myth-of-meritocracy-according-to-michael-sandel/

 

Quote

Why has admission to prestigious universities become so fiercely sought that privileged parents commit fraud to get their kids in? Or turn their high school years into a stress-strewn gantlet of AP classes, résumé building, and pressure-packed striving? Why has admission to elite colleges come to loom so large in our society that the FBI would devote massive law enforcement resources to ferreting out the scam, and that news of the scandal would command headlines and public attention for months?

The obsession has its origins in the growing inequality of recent decades. It reflects the fact that more is at stake in who gets in where. As the wealthiest 10 percent pulled away from the rest, the stakes of attending a prestigious college increased. Fifty years ago, applying to college was less fraught. Fewer than one in five Americans went to a four-year college, and those who did tended to enroll in places close to home. College rankings mattered less than they do today.

But economic anxiety is not the whole story. More than a hedge against downward mobility, Singer’s clients were buying something else, something less tangible but more valuable. They were, in fact, buying the borrowed luster of merit. In an unequal society, those who land on top want to believe their success is morally justified. In a meritocratic society, this means the winners must believe they have earned their success through their talent and hard work.

 

[coffee_rules]

^^ chee pakshantari professor. I moved the other way

[Prakat]

3 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Added to read-list.  Thanks for the suggestion.

 

I will admit that I used to be "on that side."  That, if you "made it" in this world, it was because you are smarter and/or worked harder than everyone else.  And that, if you didn't, it is no one's fault but yours.  I would point to examples of the rare occasions when someone from an impoverished/underserved background struck it big and say "hey, if he could do, why can't all those others?"  And about 6 years ago, I started serving meals at a homeless shelter.  I thought I was helping people, but I was the one who was helped. I got to meet some incredibly smart people who had jobs and careers, but were hit by terrible life-events or made one bad decision that cost them their livelihood. They were simply trying to get out of the poverty cycle but climbing out of the abyss was unimaginably difficult. I started reading about systemic oppression, causes of homelessness, stigma of minor criminal records (like marijuana possession) etc.  In addition, I advise and mentor incredible students with life-stories that make my life seem like a complete cake-walk.  Together, these experiences and readings have changed me. 

 

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/01/the-myth-of-meritocracy-according-to-michael-sandel/

 

 

 

spot on! Read Sandel's piece. Once we have tackled Pride and Prejudice we can acquire Sense and Sensibility.

[BacktoCricaddict]

22 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

^^ chee pakshantari professor. I moved the other way

I think I was always a bleeding heart, but had to make myself feel good by looking at the successes that came my way and posit that I am the sole cause for my own successes, and that if someone else couldn't replicate it, it's their own fault. 

 

My hubris made me ask: "I moved from India when I was 22, worked my butt off to get my PhD, became a professor; why can't they?" "I live within my means; why can't they?"  Etc. Etc. Then, getting to know people outside my academic and social circle - people like students who struggled because they had to work 40 hrs a week to pay their rent, homeless people who had been swindled by someone and had no recourse etc etc. - made me want to learn more about all the reasons that get people to land in bad situations. And the reasons are myriad; and just because a select few from a particular community make it out and become doctors or aerospace engineers does not make it necessary that everybody can.  

 

And even now, I don't do nearly as much as I potentially can to serve others who have fallen.  Just got to keep trying harder.  Ashte guru.

 

So, if you don't mind, tell us what caused your change of heart in the other direction?

 

PS: This discussion is a great distraction from grading exams :-)

[coffee_rules]

On 3/26/2023 at 8:35 AM, BacktoCricaddict said:

I think I was always a bleeding heart, but had to make myself feel good by looking at the successes that came my way and posit that I am the sole cause for my own successes, and that if someone else couldn't replicate it, it's their own fault. 

I am still a bleeding heart for those who are underprivileged. I don’t think one can be as Ayn Rand inspired republican to say that there are poor people because they chose to be. But have turned away from liberalism esp identity politics, feminism, etc. They are the most Ill-liberal people one can come across 

 

On 3/26/2023 at 8:35 AM, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

My hubris made me ask: "I moved from India when I was 22, worked my butt off to get my PhD, became a professor; why can't they?" "I live within my means; why can't they?"  Etc. Etc. Then, getting to know people outside my academic and social circle - people like students who struggled because they had to work 40 hrs a week to pay their rent, homeless people who had been swindled by someone and had no recourse etc etc. - made me want to learn more about all the reasons that get people to land in bad situations. And the reasons are myriad; and just because a select few from a particular community make it out and become doctors or aerospace engineers does not make it necessary that everybody can.  

 

And even now, I don't do nearly as much as I potentially can to serve others who have fallen.  Just got to keep trying harder.  Ashte guru.

 

So, if you don't mind, tell us what caused your change of heart in the other direction?

 

PS: This discussion is a great distraction from grading exams :-)

 
Now, you probably are more closer to the issue and hence understand your pov.

Now listen to this argument for a moment.

 

 

There should be a time limit for AA so generations can uplift themselves. I don’t know why liberals hate merit/meritocracy. It is not privilege

Edited March 28, 2023 by coffee_rules

[bharathh]

When I was in Atlanta at Georgia Tech - I saw how many perks AA students had to get plum scholarships, jobs, internships, etc. even though they were in the middle/bottom percentile of the class. They have been coasting by crying victims for the past many decades now. No sympathy for AA from me. They were IMO the most racist people towards Indians and Asians - making fun of our names, insulting people with impunity, and being lowlifes. Post 911 especially - they took it to a different level. 

 

Despite all the advantages they have afforded to them, they can do little other than cry racism and take advantage of bleeding heart idiots to keep their disproportionate advantages in the American system of employment and education.

[nevada]

On 3/25/2023 at 6:12 PM, BacktoCricaddict said:

Added to read-list.  Thanks for the suggestion.

 

I will admit that I used to be "on that side."  That, if you "made it" in this world, it was because you are smarter and/or worked harder than everyone else.  And that, if you didn't, it is no one's fault but yours.  I would point to examples of the rare occasions when someone from an impoverished/underserved background struck it big and say "hey, if he could do, why can't all those others?"  And about 6 years ago, I started serving meals at a homeless shelter.  I thought I was helping people, but I was the one who was helped. I got to meet some incredibly smart people who had jobs and careers, but were hit by terrible life-events or made one bad decision that cost them their livelihood. They were simply trying to get out of the poverty cycle but climbing out of the abyss was unimaginably difficult. I started reading about systemic oppression, causes of homelessness, stigma of minor criminal records (like marijuana possession) etc.  In addition, I advise and mentor incredible students with life-stories that make my life seem like a complete cake-walk.  Together, these experiences and readings have changed me. 

 

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/01/the-myth-of-meritocracy-according-to-michael-sandel/

 

 

Apart from people who got hit by life events, accidents etc, there are many who got badly squeezed by economic growth around them. In California, an apartment costing $900 a month jumped to $2200-$2500 thanks to an influx of Chinese students because it's right next to a community college which is basically their entry ticket to the US. Working class people like restaurant workers, painters, plumbers etc used to live there and they all had to move to inexpensive but far off places, which cost them big time in fuel expenses.  In the neighbouring town, rents jumped similarly because of its proximity to the train station which gets people to San Francisco.

Since these people can't afford to buy, renting is their only option but with big jumps in rent every year, it's a choice between food and paying rent for them. 

A society needs to have all kinds of people - not just the IT or finance types who have spare cash to hunt for third homes. In the current economic environment, the working class have been badly hit and pushed down into effectively poor status. 

[Tibarn]

 

I only had the time to skim through the article in the OP, but I did feel compelled to make time to point out several of the fallacies presented by the author in the article:

Quote

"There's plenty of poverty above the poverty line as a lived experience," Desmond says. "About one in three Americans live in a household that's making $55,000 or less, and many of those folks aren't officially considered poor. But what else do you call trying to raise three kids in Portland on $55,000?"

 

That's an appeal to emotion fallacy. He is priming the reader to be emotionally invested in what is coming next, in hopes of that established emotional investment convincing them about his following points, primarily by making one empathize with being in that situation.

However,  it's not anyone else's concern/responsibility what someone else's conscious decisions were. The family in the author's example made a conscious decision with their own agency to have 3 children whom they now struggle to afford. 

 

Quote

"Most government aid goes to families that need it the least," Desmond says. "If you add up the amount that the government is dedicating to tax breaks — mortgage interest deduction, wealth transfer tax breaks, tax breaks we get on our retirement accounts, our health insurance, our college savings accounts — you learn that we are doing so much more to subsidize affluence than to alleviate poverty."

This is a redefinition  fallacy: the author basically redefines what the word subsidy means, despite everyone with basic English competency  knowing the definition of the word in an attempt to "prove"  that people who get tax breaks are getting government subsidies/hand-outs. Without this redefinition of his arguement doesn't really hold-up. 

 

The reality is: tax breaks are people keeping more of their own money, the money they worked for. It's not public property. The highlighting of tax breaks related to retirement accounts and health insurance as government aid is also misguided. Gods forbid someone saves money for their and their family's health, financial security, and financial freedom.  Apparently this is government aid and is somehow taking money away from who it actually belongs to/is truly deserving, those whom the author decides fall into the category of deserving/impoverished. 

 

The author would be better served drawing a distinction between corporate welfare/subsides versus simple tax breaks middle/lower class citizens get.  He would actually get more support for his views. Rather than that, he doubles down comparing tax breaks to government aid.

Quote

The poverty rate between 1964 and '74 fell by half. So the "Great Society" and the war on poverty made an incredible difference. ... These were really robust interventions into the lives of the poorest families in America. They made food aid permanent. They expanded Social Security. There were so many elderly Americans dying penniless before the war on poverty and the Great Society. And there was this massive gain in pulling older folks out of poverty. ...

This is misinformation by the author.

 

Economists have never established any real effect of the "Great Society" and the "War on Poverty" (started under the Johnson administration) on poverty declining in the US. It's an oft-repeated canard by Statists/some Keynesian-bent economists to justify their misguided policies.

The consensus view is that there is no evidence on it leading to poverty declining(no evidence to reject the null hypothesis). This is also the case for the "New Deal" in response to the "Great Depression".

Poverty was secularly declining in the US for at least 2 decades prior to  "Great Society"/"War on Poverty."

 

The statement he makes that "Poverty fell by half by 1964 to 1974" is furthering misinformation. If one looks at the data presented below, the "falling by half" is an example of base-effect. From the decade 1940-50 the poverty rate roughly fell from 50% to 40%. From the decade 1960-70 the poverty rate roughly fell from 20% to 10%. In both decades, the absolute value of the decline was roughly 10%. Only the relative decline for the former was 20% while the latter was 50%. Therefore, I find the statement of poverty declining by 50% misleading.

Ross et al (1987).

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2061394?seq=12

 

One last thing, considering this post is already too long, the logic that the IRS collecting the 175 billion due to them by the 1% would solve poverty in the US is also incorrect if it doesn't take into account cost-push inflation(do some independent research to if you want to learn what that is).

Edited April 1, 2023 by Tibarn

[Tibarn]

On the topic of poverty,  a stronger indicator of future poverty is being born with low IQ. It is much more predictive than SES or race or education.

Most of the debate around poverty is mired in sociologist's fallacy. Basically social scientists concocting elaborate hypotheses (often with unnecessary abstraction) without taking into account biological factors. 

 

Edited April 1, 2023 by Tibarn

[BacktoCricaddict]

@Tibarn boss, I read your detailed responses last night and was hoping to wrap my mind around them this morning.  But you deleted them :(

 

Of particular interest was the last graph you posted regarding IQ and poverty.  I am a bit skeptical of the implication that the correlation between low IQ and poverty is a cause and effect relationship - that low IQ is the cause of poverty.  Conversely, my readings suggest the opposite cause-effect relationship - that growing up in poverty causes an average drop-off in IQ of 13 points or so.  Being that IQ tests can be prepared for, it seems plausible that poor families cannot afford the time or money required to coach kids and give them the exposure to perform well in IQ tests. (https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/do-iq-tests-actually-measure-intelligence).

 

On a related note, IQ test validity has itself been called into question

 

 

 

 

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

23 hours ago, Tibarn said:

On the topic of poverty,  a stronger indicator of future poverty is being born with low IQ. It is much more predictive than SES or race or education.

Most of the debate around poverty is mired in sociologist's fallacy. Basically social scientists concocting elaborate hypotheses (often with unnecessary abstraction) without taking into account biological factors. 

 

 

Do you have a reference?  Thank you!

[Tibarn]

4 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

@Tibarn boss, I read your detailed responses last night and was hoping to wrap my mind around them this morning.  But you deleted them :(

I wanted to edit the posts to reduce the condescension toward the author of the article. I don't think he was showing maleficence when he was writing the article, I think he was just misinformed/misguided(in my view), so I wanted to tone down the post. I will try to respond to your current post when I have more time.

Quote

Do you have a reference?  Thank you!

 

The graphs on Poverty, SES, Education and IQ are from Chapter 5 of The Bell Curve by Richard Hernnstein and Charles Murray, starting on page 150 of the ebook. 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2023 by Tibarn

[BacktoCricaddict]

ChatGPT rocks the IQ test

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/i-gave-chatgpt-an-iq-test-heres-what-i-discovered/

 

On general comprehension, ChatGPT answered correctly questions typically posed in this form: “If your TV set catches fire, what should you do?” As expected, the chatbot solved all the arithmetic problems it received—ploughing through questions that required, say, taking the average of three numbers.

So what finally did it score overall? Estimated on the basis of five subtests, the Verbal IQ of the ChatGPT was 155, superior to 99.9 percent of the test takers who make up the American WAIS III standardization sample of 2,450 people. As the chatbot lacks the requisite eyes, ears and hands, it is not able to take WAIS’s nonverbal subtests. But the Verbal IQ and Full Scale IQ scales are highly correlated in the standardization sample, so ChatGPT appears to be very intelligent by any human standards.

 

 

[Prakat]

HR: Hi chatgpt, I need to fire half my staff. Can you write a 1000 word letter that softens the blow?

 

AI: Sure, here you go.

 

Later that day…

 

Worker: Hi chatgpt, can you summarise this letter I just received from management?

 

AI: Sure, you’re fired.

[BacktoCricaddict]

 

[bharathh]

8 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

Although MLK's time was a different time, this ages very poorly today.

 

MLK forgot about the Chinese railroad workers who were brought in to build the transcontinental railway in the US. What benefit did they get? Yet they are one of the most successful minorities in the US. They don't need sops - nor do they cry victim for everything that happened 200 years ago.

 

Same with the Japanese minorities that were rounded up during WW2 and put in detention camps. Most lost everything they had worked and lived for. They started from scratch against massive hostility and are yet one of the most successful people in the US. Not even going to mention the hundreds of thousands of migrants from other Asian countries like Korea and India that were not given anything and yet are the most successful as a group in the US today. They were given 0 and yet found success.

 

Black Americans will never succeed until they put this constant victimhood behind them. In the last few decades, no other group has been given more opportunities to succeed in the form of loans, grants, scholarships, preferential hiring for jobs, promotions, etc. in the name of affirmative action. Yet they can barely succeed. Rather they just get more entitled - not more successful. 

[Tibarn]

1/3(I am reserving the next 3 posts and editing with an answer afterwards)

*Disclaimer, I am not a psychometrician, I am a biologist, so there may be some gaps in my knowledge of this subject. 

*I tested it, and the images I posted are only working on ICF legacy theme, so one should use that theme if one wants to read the posts

 

I finally got some time to write a response so here it is:

 

Quote

Of particular interest was the last graph you posted regarding IQ and poverty.  I am a bit skeptical of the implication that the correlation between low IQ and poverty is a cause and effect relationship - that low IQ is the cause of poverty.  Conversely, my readings suggest the opposite cause-effect relationship - that growing up in poverty causes an average drop-off in IQ of 13 points or so.

Psychological measures are generally a combination of several components: Additive Genetic, Non-additive Genetic, Shared Environmental, Unshared Environmental components, and possible Measurement Error. Therefore, the vast majority of psychologists would agree that, in this case IQ, both environmental and genetic components(nature and nurture) influence the variation. I think the correct question is only to what degree is the variation from the genetic vs the environmental components.

 

The estimated genetic component of IQ falls in the .75 to .85 range into adulthood, so the variance in IQ is explained roughly .75-.85 by genetic components. The balance, which is .15-.25, comprising of shared environmental, unshared environmental, and any possible measurement error, explains the remaining variance. Looking at the numbers, the variance is possibly as high as 85-15 genes-environment/measurement error.

 

References below:

 

Vinkhuyzen et al(2012)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3276760/

 

Heritability estimates of general intelligence in adulthood generally range from 75 to 85%, with all heritability due to additive genetic influences, while genetic dominance and shared environmental factors are absent, or too small to be detected. These estimates are derived from studies based on the classical twin design and are based on the assumption of random mating. Yet, considerable positive assortative mating has been reported for general intelligence. Unmodeled assortative mating may lead to biased estimates of the relative magnitude of genetic and environmental factors. To investigate the effects of assortative mating on the estimates of the variance components of intelligence, we employed an extended twin-family design. Psychometric IQ data were available for adult monozygotic and dizygotic twins, their siblings, the partners of the twins and siblings, and either the parents or the adult offspring of the twins and siblings (N = 1314). Two underlying processes of assortment were considered: phenotypic assortment and social homogamy. The phenotypic assortment model was slightly preferred over the social homogamy model, suggesting that assortment for intelligence is mostly due to a selection of mates on similarity in intelligence. Under the preferred phenotypic assortment model, the variance of intelligence in adulthood was not only due to non-shared environmental (18%) and additive genetic factors (44%) but also to non-additive genetic factors (27%) and phenotypic assortment (11%).This non-additive nature of genetic influences on intelligence needs to be accommodated in future GWAS studies for intelligence.

 

O’Connell et al (2021)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289620300891

 

Abstract

 

The paper examines the effects of socioeconomic background (SES) - measured by social class, family income and parental education - cognitive ability, and gender on a variety of key outcomes from a large longitudinal study based on a representative sample of thirteen-year-olds. The data analysed comprised 6216 children who participated in waves 1 to 3 of the Growing Up in Ireland (GUI) longitudinal survey. The outcome measures drawn from wave 3, when respondents were aged about seventeen, were: examination results and several cognitive measures, life difficulties, and quality of relationships. Three regression models were compared with and without, SES measures (occupational class, household income and parental education) and cognitive ability. On academic and cognitive attainments, cognitive ability at age 13 had substantially more explanatory power than the SES measures together. On measures of adolescent difficulties and on family relationships, cognitive ability was important, but gender and to a lesser extent, household income and parental education had some effects. Claims that class background and family income are of central importance for adolescent outcomes are not supported.

Summary

The analysis focused on the effects of SES measured by social class, household income and parental education vis-à-vis cognitive ability on a range of adolescent outcomes in Ireland. Cognitive ability measured at age 13 had strong associations with educational, cognitive, life difficulties, and relationship outcomes. On the other hand, SES factors– family social class, household income, and parents' educational attainment–had much weaker effects with outcomes often considered strongly linked to SES.

 

Bouchard et al(2003)

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/neu.10160

 

Graph 1

The effect of genetics on the variance increases with age. This is known as the Wilson Effect. Note that into adulthood, the shared-environmental component influence reaches 0.

 

Chart 1

 

One last study I will share shows that Intelligence measured at the age of 13 predicted future SES of children regardless of which SES they were born into.

 

Nettle(2010)

https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/000712603322503097

 

Considering that the role of genetics in explaining the variance in the trait seems to be well upwards of .5, and that the effect increases with age, I don’t think it is likely that SES could be the main explicatory factor. Furthermore, all of the total environmental component cannot be just SES. There are many other environmental factors that are known to affect IQ such as malnutrition, pre-natal environment, and environmental poisoning, constituting both the shared and unshared environment. SES is considered a shared-environmental component.

 

This is especially true for the suggested value of 13 IQ points when one considers that the standard deviation of the IQ bell curve is set to only 15 points. Such a massive effect wouldn’t make sense for the total environmental component, let alone shared environmental.

 

If one looks at Graph 1 and Chart 1, one can even see that the effects of shared environment disappear as a child ages into adulthood, with the non-shared environment being the primary environmental influence.

 

If one looks at O’Connell et al 2021, one can see that their research suggests that while these effects exist, they are significantly weaker.

 

Therefore, I think that the evidence for low SES à low IQ is almost non-existent. The stronger genetic components as well as the declining shared-environment component suggest to me a heavy genetic influence and a supplementary non-shared environmental influence on the variance. Again, the shared-environmental effect is nonexistent/negligible into adulthood.  

 

Quote

Being that IQ tests can be prepared for, it seems plausible that poor families cannot afford the time or money required to coach kids and give them the exposure to perform well in IQ tests.

 

The issue here is that increasing performance on an IQ test doesn’t really equate to improved intelligence per se. If someone improves performance on one of the various IQ tests but their actual intelligence doesn’t increase, the increased performance on the IQ test wouldn’t have any real-world impact in terms of outcomes. 

 

The research paper and the article below explain it well, so I won’t rewrite it and instead suggest reading their explanation. It also deals with some of the data regarding education and improvement of IQ scores (along with limitations: improvements in IQ eventually reaching an asymptote).

 

Haier (2014)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3950413/

https://kirkegaard.substack.com/p/iq-can-be-increased-by-more-education?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2Fiq&utm_medium=reader2

 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Tibarn

[Tibarn]

2/3

Okay, onto the linked article:

Quote

On a related note, IQ test validity has itself been called into question

The TED-talk video doesn’t really question the validity of IQ as a measure of Intelligence. The author of the video, Dombrowski, himself mentions how it is good at measuring reasoning and problem-solving. He only has an issue with using it for what he thinks are invalid reasons. Furthermore, the same Dombrowski is also quoted in the shared Discover Magazine link saying it is a valid measure:

 

Quoting him from the article directly

Quote

Dombrowski studies the validity of IQ tests using rigorous statistical techniques. He says IQ tests do have meaning and are valid measures of intelligence — when they are interpreted correctly.

It is generally accepted by those in the field itself that they are both a reliable and valid measure of what it defines as intelligence. Whether how intelligence defined in IQ tests is the best/correct/only way to define intelligence is another question, but it doesn’t invalidate the measure, only implies that it could possibly be limited in what it measures and that there could be other intelligences or more factors to consider when describing intelligence.

Quote

 IQ tests have a dark history of being used to discriminate against racial and ethnic groups, he explains, and ultimately led to the forced sterilization of thousands of people during the eugenics movement.

 

This particular part of the article is known as a poisoning-the-well fallacy. The author basically presents adverse information about IQ research, linking the legitimate scientific research to racism/”eugenics”. This basically smears anyone who argues the merits of IQ/intelligence research being useful as being aligned with racists/”eugenicists”.

 

This same method is used by Creationists in their attempts to discredit the theory of evolution based on the racial and social-Darwinist views of Charles Darwin.

 

Frankly speaking, the whole “eugenics” smear doesn’t hold any weight. From an evolutionary biology point of view, many, if not all, government policies, are to a degree eugenic or dysgenic (depending on a person's views). This includes what is advocated for in the article in the OP. If Dombrowski chooses to be blinded by his ideology, it can’t be helped.

 

I’m not going to go into this much more, but this is a good article on the topic of “eugenics”: You’re Probably a Eugenicist: https://dissentient.substack.com/p/eugenicist .

 

Quote

Steven Piantadosi uses cross-cultural psychology experiments to study the universal nature of human cognition and language. He says he feels he has a responsibility to speak up against sloppy claims about intelligence, as he recently did in this Twitter thread.

I read through the twitter thread made by Steven Piantadosi. What his twitter thread does is that it shows issues with IQ-sampling between countries. This is already well-known. Much international IQ data from non-Western countries come from sampling done by someone named Richard Lynn. His methods have been criticized for years.

 

Here is a paper detailing some criticisms of them, if interested:

 

Dickens et al(2006)

https://rebeccasear.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/response.pdf

 

Quote

One of the biggest problems, Piantadosi says, is that someone’s IQ score can change based on the context. “IQ tests are known to be sensitive to things like motivation and coaching. This makes a lot of sense — if you try less, you’re not going to score as high. Or, if you don’t know strategies that people do, you won’t score as highly as them,” he says. “I think it’s a mistake to say that your true ability can be summarized by how much you’re willing to put into a test.”

This part of the article has two issues:

 

1)Some studies that mentioned motivation improving IQ were flawed, so there is no clear relationship between the two:

https://kirkegaard.substack.com/p/motivation-and-iq-scores?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2Fiq&utm_medium=reader2

https://rpubs.com/JLLJ/duckworth

 

2)He mentions coaching/motivation improving IQ scores, but this is once again not the same thing as increasing intelligence. Please refer to the earlier links detailing the difference in post 1/3.

 

 

Quote

But Donna Y. Ford, an educational psychologist at the Ohio State University, says this isn’t good enough.

 

“(IQ tests) are culturally, linguistically and economically biased against minoritized students, in particular Black, first and foremost, and then Hispanic,” says Ford.

This part has 2 issues:

1)

The claim of economically disadvantaged being discriminated against by IQ tests is not supported by data. Refer to Nettle (2010). Students from low SES with high IQ scores succeeded regardless of the conditions they were born into.

 

Also consider this article arguing how IQ-correlated tests like the SAT help students from low SES backgrounds.

https://robkhenderson.substack.com/p/dropping-the-sat-requirement-is-a?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2Fpovert&utm_medium=reader2

 

2a)

There are IQ tests that are language and culture agnostic, these, by definition, can’t discriminate against students based on culture/language. Some parts of IQ tests can even be done just by testing reaction time.

 

2b) Asians, a micro-minority in the West/US, perform better on IQ tests than “Whites”, despite having arguably a greater linguistic and/or cultural distance from “Whites“ than “Blacks”/Hispanics do(different cultures/languages/religion).

 

According to her logic, the test is somehow culturally/linguistically discriminatory against people who are arguably more culturally similar to “Whites” but less so to people who are arguably less culturally/linguistically similar to “Whites”.

 

That logic clearly doesn’t hold up.

 

Quote

“If these tests were not biased, we wouldn’t have different IQ scores along racial and ethnic lines — but we do. It’s an indication that there is something wrong with these tests, not with us.”

This is clearly circular logic/begging the question. She is claiming that IQ tests are biased based on the results, that all groups do not have equal IQ scores across racial/ethnic lines. That is the premise she starts with, but she provided no new evidence to suggest so other than differences existing.

 

I can point out several other arbitrary groupings with differences in IQ which have been found before:  

(Higher IQ to Lower):

Libertarians > Republicans/Democrats

Vegetarians> Omnivores

Homosexuals males > Heterosexuals males

 

By her logic all these group differences will be due to inherent biasedness of the tests toward the higher performing groups. Any time one samples different groups, there are likely going to be differences between them. If one compared the results for people separated by the category of height: 5 feet tall vs 6 feet tall, one would likely find a difference between the two groups in the measure. She is just picking her own arbitrary category, “race”, likely because it is a major political axis in the US. 

 

Once again, her logic doesn’t hold up.

 

Quote

Ford’s research, along with work by many others, shows that the use of biased IQ tests is keeping many bright minority students out of gifted education programs. Ford has been studying multicultural gifted education for over 30 years and notes that while there has been some improvement for Hispanics, she hasn’t seen any meaningful improvement in the representation of Black students.

I searched Ford’s linked research from the article for mentions of IQ. She mentions IQ twice:

 

1)

Quote

“Racial steering of White students (especially if higher income) into gifted education is supported by culture blind definitions of giftedness based primarily on IQ scores, both of which we consider to be culturally and linguistically biased against Black and Hispanic students”

...

2)

Quote

“In the majority of districts, students must obtain an IQ score of 130 or higher to be identified as intellectually gifted and/or score at or above 96th percentile on an achievement test to be identified as academically gifted in one or more content areas.”

So basically the linked research shows no new information, just the same circular logic that because less “Blacks” and Hispanics qualified for gifted-programs means that the test is biased against them. She is intent on making the issue a racial one of “Whites” vs “Blacks”/Hispanics. Unsurprisingly, she conveniently leaves out Asians.

 

She acknowledges that only the top 4 percent of students qualify for Gifted-programs, which is not correct from my reading. Only 2% of the population are typically considered in the Gifted category (over a 130 IQ), but, for the sake of this post, I will work with her number of 4%.

 

If one looks at the SAT, a g-loaded test(correlated to intelligence), here are the results from the 2022 performance in the US.

https://reports.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/2022-total-group-sat-suite-of-assessments-annual-report.pdf

 

Only 4% of students get a score of 1400-1600, so one can estimate those are gifted students based on Ford’s number. Only 1% of Hispanics and 0% of “Black” students qualified in that 4%. 25% of Asians qualified. Minorities with arguably the least cultural similarities to “Whites” somehow outnumber them 6:1(on the basis of percentage) in that category despite the test allegedly being culturally and linguistically biased.

 

I think it’s clear that Ford seems to only provide circular logic rather than some concrete evidence of discrimination. Furthermore, her argument of discrimination on the basis of cultural/linguistic bias can be alleviated by simple usage of culture/language-neutral tests and by post-test administration item-analysis.  

 

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Tibarn