OpenPsych forums

Full Version: Ethnic Differences in the UK
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
I recently looked at wave 5 (age 11) of the U.K. Millennium Cohort Study. You can read James Thompson's discussion of the wave 3 (age 5) results, published by Richard Lynn here. Based on my cursory analysis and consistent with GCSE results (and, more or less, the MCS wave 4 results) there was no Black-White gap (in verbal similarities).

I find this hard to square with a non-trivial hereditarian hypothesis. Any ideas?
Presumably at some point, some high-ranking anti-hereditarian is going to pick up this data point, and then lots of more competent people will look at it. I have been waiting for that to happen. So far no luck apparently.
(2014-Aug-25, 21:19:36)Emil Wrote: [ -> ]Presumably at some point, some high-ranking anti-hereditarian is going to pick up this data point, and then lots of more competent people will look at it. I have been waiting for that to happen. So far no luck apparently.

Do you know anyone who can read Dutch? It would be nice to find more recent CITO scores, so to see if the gaps persist in Holland.
Google Translate can. :)

Otherwise, ask Nijenhuis. He is Dutch.
(2014-Aug-26, 00:55:47)Emil Wrote: [ -> ]Google Translate can. :)Otherwise, ask Nijenhuis. He is Dutch.

It's increasingly difficult for me to take seriously a significant genotypic race-IQ hypothesis, let alone hereditarians, who can't be bothered to thoroughly look into this stuff. Cross generational spatial transferability is a basic prediction. And yet the evidence for this is rather inconsistent. This situation, in turn, makes it difficult for me to take seriously much of the related IQ research. If tens of thousands of years of separation haven't resulted in large spatial genotypic IQ differences, it's difficult to believe that similar such differences emerged in a much shorter time span.

I don't know -- but I'm downgrading the priority of this overall research project quite a bit.
Think about it this way. There are literally 1000s of datasets that show substantial differences between Africans and Europeans on cognitive tests.

Now you have found one dataset that doesn't seem to show this relationship. What do you think is the most likely? 1) the relationship isn't there, 2) there is something wrong with the dataset or unlikely fluke.

If hereditarians really had to focus on every dataset with odd results, they should still be spending time on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyferth_study, don't you think? After all, it seems pretty damn solid evidence against HH.

It is to be expected that if HH is true, then given the vast amount of evidence and it's inconsistent nature, sampling error, human errors in recording, fraud, etc., that there are bound to be some pieces of evidence that make HH unlikely. The solution is to not focus on any single piece of evidence, but on the whole.

Quote:The appropriate rule for scientifically adjudicating competing explanations is Carnap’s Total Evidence Rule (Lubinski & Humphreys, 1997): Which theory accounts best for the totality of evidence and which is most consistent with the full pattern of the evidence to date? Scientifically successful explanations rest not on single studies (all of which have limitations) but on a dense nomological network of empirical evidence, ideally generated by diverse disciplines, methods, and theoretical perspectives—as has been the case for knowledge on abilities and achievements (e.g., Nyborg, 2003; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997). Some strands of evidence and inference will be stronger than others, but none are dissolved by being labeled as dangerous, divisive, or indirect. Nor is the whole body of evidence nullified by directing attention only to its weakest parts or to unfinished business, by emphasizing the ‘‘complications and ambiguities’’ of individual strands while neglecting the patterns they collectively weave, or by suggesting that it is unwise to draw causal inferences from existing patterns of evidence (‘‘leaping . . . to . . . assertions’’ p. 201) until various new frontiers have been mapped (the ‘‘direct causal chains’’ for how genes affect brains, brains affect intelligence, etc.). These are, however, common ways of minimizing or generating doubt about a body of evidence without actually having to engage it and claiming victory without direct contest.
(Gottfredson, 2007, Applying Double Standards to ‘‘Divisive’’ Ideas)

As for this particular piece of evidence, the right person to investigate is someone who is acquainted with the relevant datasets and who understands the discussion of HH. That person is not me, since I have never looked into these British databases before. I therefore leave the task to someone more qualified.

ST hypothesis has generated rather consistent results in the high quality studies (speaking here of my studies) -- those that didn't rely on suspects, but relied on final verdicts using data adjusted for age and sex. Such high quality datasets are available for Norway (2x), Denmark, Finland. All show pretty much the same result. Not high quality datasets are the Italian (based on trying to use country of origin with citizenship data) and second Norwegian dataset (using suspect status, and with other inexplicable datapoints).

I will ask Statistics Norway how much they want for data for Norway for the largest 80 or so countries of origin, that match very closely the large Danish dataset.

Piffer's studies have been generally consistent even based on small samples of SNPs.

Then there's the entire failed history of trying to raise g thru compensatory education. Pretty much a big failure. It works for children, maybe (negative g-loading, cf. Nijenhuis et al, 2014). It fizzles out.
I believe Chuck is making a big fuss, more than this subject deserves. Just saying the BW gap is small in the UK without an interpretable environmental explanation cannot be accepted as an argument for environmental hypothesis. At the same time, Chuck failed to find any plausible explanation of the trend (if my memory is correct). So he is still asking a question worth answering.

Of course, it's just the verbal skill we are talking about, and I'm disappointed. Is there no figures for full IQ in that survey data ? I couldn't find anything else from the files he shared with me. (if someone wants it, email Chuck or me; we have the files, merged and collapsed, because they were initially a big mess.)

One possibility to disentangle this question, is to look at other european countries. I can easily believe that more egalitarian countries such as Scandinavian countries can be more effective at closing the racial gaps. What we need to know is the black-white IQ gap in these countries. It is known by many economists that the UK and the US share some resemblances, compared to the Scandinavian countries. Suppose you find racial gaps of about same magnitude here, then the small racial gaps become at odds with this pattern.

(2014-Aug-26, 02:46:33)Emil Wrote: [ -> ]If hereditarians really had to focus on every dataset with odd results, they should still be spending time on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyferth_study, don't you think? After all, it seems pretty damn solid evidence against HH.

I have noted elsewhere this is the wrong interpretation of that study.

That study shows nearly no difference between the BW and WW children. Biracial scored equally well with white adoptees. When looking at the gender groups, something unexpected happens (Jensen, 1998, p. 482). There was an extremely large male-female gap in the white group. The white girls had a 8-points deficit with regard to the white boys. No such difference was found in the biracial groups. But generally, there is no difference in IQ between males and females in childhood (Rushton & Jensen, 2010, pp. 24-25), thus calling into question the Eyferth sample (Mackenzie, 1984, p. 1229). In adulthood, there might be an advantage for the males, but it is not clear whether or not this advantage is g-loaded (Jensen, 1998, pp. 536-540; Flores-Mendoza et al., 2013, Table 1). In reality, the BW-WW difference is null only because the white girls scored extremely low; when comparing the boys however, the BW-WW difference is consistent with the hereditarian hypothesis (HH).

I remember Chuck noted the same oddity in his blog "abc102.wordpress".

Quote:Then there's the entire failed history of trying to raise g thru compensatory education. Pretty much a big failure. It works for children, maybe (negative g-loading, cf. Nijenhuis et al, 2014). It fizzles out.

The argument is not necessarily correct. One can still argue that these studies are conducted in the US, and in the UK, the environment is different. In what way, I don't know, but if they want to argue this, they have to prove it. So far, it should be safer not to generalize studies in country A to country B, even though I believe they can be generalized to other european countries. The US seems to differ only in inequality (and perhaps mobility) compared to the european countries, partly because they are less egalitarians.
Quote: MH: This is handwaving move. Not argumentation. Remember we are talking about the Millennium data. For what I have read, that data is no joke. You can't dismiss it like this.

This is the best recent data point there is. The sample is not perfect but it is much better than those typically cited by Lynn. Speaking of which, in context to the Wave 3 results, Lynn and Cheng said:

"Second, the three groups of Africans obtained lower IQs than the whites with IQs of 96.68 (Black Caribbeans), 90.02 (Black Africans) and 91.95 (Other Blacks). These IQs are higher than those in the 22 previous studies summarised by Lynn (2006) in which Africans obtained a median IQ of 86. These results suggest that the intelligence of Africans has increased relative to that of whites in recent years. However, this apparent improvement may be in part attributable to the young age at which the children were tested."

And they were wrong. Instead of increasing with age the U.K B/W gaps decrease in line with a genetic difference hypothesis of 0.

(2014-Aug-26, 03:45:56)menghu1001 Wrote: [ -> ]I believe Chuck is making a big fuss, more than this subject deserves. Just saying the BW gap is small in the UK without an interpretable environmental explanation cannot be accepted as an argument for environmental hypothesis. At the same time, Chuck failed to find any plausible explanation of the trend (if my memory is correct). So he is still asking a question worth answering.

It's not just that it's small, it's that there was a marked secular evaporation at least when we place birth cohort on our x axis and trust Lynn's data.

As for the survey, technical information can be found here. Two other cognitive related tests were given: CANTAB Spatial Working Memory (Memory task) and CANTAB Cambridge Gambling Task (Decision making task). But I have no idea about the psychometric properties of these or how to compute standard scores for them (which aren't give). We do know, however, that similarities are a fair measure of g and that there is a moderate to large US B/W gap in these.

Regarding MH's claim that I need an explanation, I do not believe that I do. A hereditarian hypothesis predicts differences. Lynn rightly pointed out:

Quote:The evolutionary theory does however predict that when different races occupy approximately similar environments, such as for instance in the United States, Britain and the Netherlands, the intelligence differences will remain. This prediction has been examined in twenty three societies worldwide in Lynn (2008) and has been confirmed in every case. If a multiracial society is found where these race differences in intelligence are absent, the evolutionary and genetic theory of these differences would be falsified. Those who maintain that there are no genetic differences in intelligence between the races are urged to attempt this task. (Consistency of race differences in intelligence over millennia: A comment on Wicherts, Borsboom and Dolan)

The fact that White and Black youth in the UK now show diminishing differences argues against a hereditarian hypothesis. Pointing out the consistent differences in the US -- which of course I am well aware of because I've conduced the most recent meta-analyses on these! --doesn't negate this, since these differences are in the US and can plausibly be explained by societal factors.

Generally, I would suggest that the US difference is more resilient because there are more Blacks; thus it's more difficult to lift them up. In the UK the black population if smaller at 3% and thus more amendable to environmental intervention.

Quote:Then there's the entire failed history of trying to raise g thru compensatory education. Pretty much a big failure. It works for children, maybe (negative g-loading, cf. Nijenhuis et al, 2014). It fizzles out.

Has it ever been shown that the UK B/W gaps are g-loaded? If it has, we now have a good counter-example.

Look, it's not as if this is an isolated finding from the U.K. I pointed to math and reading and GCSE results two years ago. It was argued then that the math and reading scores, ones which were found to be under substantial genetic influence in the whole population, didn't well index IQ, so I said that I would look for youth IQ data, which I did. And here it is. Of course, I also looked at PISA scores for Black African British immigrants (e.g., attached) and I found similar non-results if based on tiny same sizes (but of course Lynn has cited samples as low as n=9!).

I will take as counter evidence Dutch Cito Scores from 2012 on, since we are basically dealing with similar populations e.g., Dutch Antilleans/ Black British Caribbeans. I can't make heads or tails of the recent Jaarrapporten, which should report these. In absence of evidence of a significant Holland gap I will attribute the high U.S. Black immigrant/White gaps to 10th generation U.S. Black undertow and declare the HH disconfirmed. If it can be shown that there are still large Holland gaps, I will rethink my position above -- and entertain the possibility of a UK psychometric conspiracy to cover up gaps.

Anyone who isn't troubled by the totality of the UK evidence regarding the B/W gap isn't being intellectually honest.

(2014-Aug-26, 03:45:56)menghu1001 Wrote: [ -> ]I believe Chuck is making a big fuss, more than this subject deserves. Just saying the BW gap is small in the UK without an interpretable environmental explanation cannot be accepted as an argument for environmental hypothesis. At the same time, Chuck failed to find any plausible explanation of the trend (if my memory is correct). So he is still asking a question worth answering.

I. My explanation is: The UK is a totalitarian PC country that has devoted great energy to eliminating race differentials. And they have, over time, with use of positive discrimination. The hypothesis predicts:The B/W cognitive ability gap has been narrowing across age cohorts. It existed prior and it can be found among adults, testifying that Black immigrants weren't just super duper selected. (This hypothesis predicts, for example, that NART/PIAAC d-values -- from the samples I showed you -- should positively correlate with age.)
PISA results show large differences between natives and immigrants. This is also in Denmark and other countries with excessively nice treatment of immigrants. They improve somewhat in second generation, but they are still some 50 PISA points away from the natives. What kind of environmental explanation could possibly account for the closure of gaps in the UK, but not Denmark, Norway, Sweden? It doesn't make sense.

Anyway, I can read Dutch somewhat because it is close to German and Danish. Google Translate can make it semi-readable to people who speak English. Can you link to the report?

Lynn is wrong in the quote. No single dataset ever disproves a well-supported theory. That's naive falsificationism.
When I analyzed the PISA immigrant dataset, one of the first things I noticed was the low difference in scores between immigrants and natives in the UK, which is much smaller than that found in pretty much all the other Western countries. To me this is likely due to selective migration and has only one explanation: the geographical position of Britain and its geological status of an island. Think about it, Britain is an island far north in the Atlantic which admits immigrants only by airplane. People who can afford to fly are in general wealthier and better educated. In continental Europe we get immigrants from clandestine land routes (e.g. West Asia-Turkey-Germany) or even worse, on tiny boats manned by bandits that daily land in Sicily when they're lucky enough not to drown. When I'll hear of a rubber boat full of immigrants coming straigth from Morocco landing in Dover, then I'll reconsider my position. But until immigrants land in Britain at Heathrow like normal human beings, I will attribute these differences to the above explanation.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13