I would imagine that has a lot to do with what you cite it to support. The conclusions here are weak where innate ability is concerned, yet I suspect that’s where you were headed. I can cite studies showing worse outcomes for African Americans for example, but I’d be a deceptive ass if I tried to pawn that of as proof off innate differences.
I can cite studies showing worse outcomes for African Americans for example, but I’d be a deceptive ass if I tried to pawn that of as proof off innate differences.
If one considers studies from around the world, across many cultures, it's pretty clear to me that there's no IQ huge disadvantage to having African genetics. Nigerian immigrants are presently kicking ass and even outdoing Asians. Immigrant from many Caribbean backgrounds do very well. Also cited by myself elsewhere, there's a study that found that the African American children of US servicepeople in Germany was basically the same as their classmates. Whatever's the cause of lowered IQs in underprivileged African American children in the US, it's not genetic.
Historical IQ studies suggest that immigrant groups can raise their average IQs by a lot. Historical studies of such groups also indicate that the degree of group assimilation and participation in society versus group isolation can have huge effects on the wealth of the group. A pattern that arises again and again, are elites of some such groups that keep their group isolated to retain subgroup power. This pattern can cause the same ethnic group to have widely disparate economic success in different parts of the world. (German immigrant communities are a good example of this phenomenon.)
The above is discussed in Thomas Sowell's Migrations and Cultures.
> If one considers studies from around the world, across many cultures, it's pretty clear to me that there's no IQ huge disadvantage to having African genetics. Nigerian immigrants are presently kicking ass and even outdoing Asians. Immigrant from many Caribbean backgrounds do very well. Also cited by myself elsewhere, there's a study that found that the African American children of US servicepeople in Germany was basically the same as their classmates.
The above is discussed in Thomas Sowell's Migrations and Cultures.
An overarching theme in Thomas Sowell's books: The world is ruled by human capital, that is: cultures and people's ideas of how the world is and should be. Thinkers like Jordan Peterson would add that the world is also ruled by various forces working below the level of consciousness, for which humans have developed religion and art to try and deal with -- which also fall under the rubric of culture.
I think it's Culture which is the dominant factor, and this is a great foundation of hope. It means that all of the greatest accomplishments of human civilizations are available to all peoples, given enough effort to transform one's understanding and way of life. Such is the power of culture, that this effort may take generations to accomplish. History bears this out. If the descendants of Irish peasants (who, during the potato famine could start out 1/2 to 1/4th as wealthy as the average US slave) could arrive at their current place in modern society, then there's basically nothing that cultural transmission can't accomplish, given enough resources and time.
The cause of sex-related ability tilt is irrelevant with regard to the consequences on STEM employment. Whether due to socialization alone, innate ability alone, some combination of the two, or causes we don't understand, the outcome is the same and the consequences are the same.
Exactly. It doesn’t matter what the causes are. The fact is it’s harming people as a whole and talented women aren’t being treated fairly. All the biology in the world doesn’t explain or fix this very real problem.
Also, we are not slaves to “biology”. We are perfectly capable of murdering each other but we don’t, because we have rules. Rules trump biology.
>The fact is it’s harming people as a whole and talented women aren’t being treated fairly.
What do you mean by this? Talented women aren't being treated fairly? Every girl has the option to choose a STEM field, but most don't. Nonetheless, women are in the majority for general enrollment at universities in Canada [1] (and I believe it is the same in the US). At my university in Alberta, we have numerous clubs, organizations, and programs supporting women going into STEM fields-- not including government-sponsored advertisement campaigns to encourage the choice for STEM. Around the world, there are countless organizations created to support and encourage women going to STEM [2], never mind various campus-specific programs and clubs especially in North America.
I don't really see how women are being harmed. Maybe most women don't want to go into STEM. Maybe the biology argument is valid? Even if it's not, where is the harm, exactly?
Thank you for choosing STEM. Be the best you that you can be. STEM does not matter what gender, race, etc just having a human brain and good ACT and SAT test scores.
I think the harm they are talking about is this metoo movement. Sexual harassment, sexual abuse, etc.
In the 1950s and 1960s women dominated computer science and math and other things and then , not enough women taking classes so the microcomputer was aimed at boys because of video games but they forgot girls play video games too.
My mother worked on a punch card system and trained by IBM and did work for the public school system on an IBM mainframe. She quit because I was born and she wanted to take care of me. But that was her choice.
That's pretty illogical. If you test positive for a virus, you'll want to think twice about taking antibiotics.
Also, we are not slaves to “biology”. We are perfectly capable of murdering each other but we don’t, because we have rules. Rules trump biology.
Culture trumps conscious mental entities like rules. Such an idea is needed to explain many of the things we see around the world and in history. (Like, why have Jewish people been able to locally dominate in tailoring in so many instances across literally thousands of years? It's certainly not because of some kind of tailoring gene, and it's not about "rules.") A strongly cultural view basically dismantles huge swathes of Alt-Right ideology, replacing it with something else which allows for everyone to participate. However, such a view also dismantles much of the current day Far Left ideology. I think it's high time that something more rational and more fitting with evidence came to replace that, however.
For anyone interested in additional research and debate on this topic, I'd recommend watching Pinker and Spelke's excellent debate on Youtube. As some might remember, in 2005 Larry Summers was fired from Harvard for making similar comments regarding right tail cognitive abilities. Pinker/Spelke lay out great points on both sides of the issue.
Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities by Diane Halpern is another important work in this subject. It was published back in 1986, so the research on topic has been going on for decades. During that time, virtually every piece of research supports the claim that innate differences in mental abilities exist between the sexes. The extent of those differences is hard to measure, but this new paper is nothing new. It's just adding more support to an already large body of evidence.
The thing to remember about data is, it only says exactly what it says. And what it says is this: sex of an individual somehow correlates with the measure of cognitive ability used in the study.
The hidden variable here is a dominating one: the sex of the individual and how they have been socialized to practice certain skills over others. This varies by where they spent their developmental years, how their parents brought them or denied them certain opportunities, how the skills they developed align with or diverge from the test they took, and other invisible influences.
man you really have to catch these stories quick before they're blasted off the front page, i was hoping for some discussion but it looks like these stories get buried either by mass flagging or an admin.
Research like this fails to give us any insights about the difference between Nature vs Nurture.
It's highly likely men and women are conditioned and encouraged from an early age by their parents to take interest in things which the parent believes fits their gender role.
It is worth pointing out that “ability” here is being measured by standardized tests, such as SAT and ACT. This could reflect underlying differences between sexes, or that by the time people are categorized as being in the top 5% social/cultural bias has already had an effect.
The measurement of general intelligence is just about the most strongly predictive tool in Psychology.
Here's some things from Thomas Sowell's Migrations and Cultures that people don't know about intelligence as measured by groups. Polish and Italian immigrant communities went from the mid-80's average IQ to over 100 over the 1st half of the 20th century. Poles had increased their average IQ to 108. In another study, African American children of US service people growing up in Germany had the same average IQs as their classmates.
So could factors outside of genetics, like culture, have powerful effects on IQ? It certainly looks like it. Advocates of Social Justice should be looking for what these factors are. Whatever those factors are, not seeking to deliver them to underprivileged groups is like letting lead get into the water of Flint Michigan: It can mean huge differences in the IQs of growing children. Instead, what I see from the far left, is the willful suppression of such information. If it doesn't fit the political agenda and narrative, then it's a-priori a product of bigotry or bias of some kind. Sorry, but that strikes me as cynical and very odd. It's almost like someone cares more about power than the welfare of the underprivileged.
More on the specific topic of the op, the SAT and ACT certainly don't measure everything. Perhaps there is some kind of bias in workplace culture that puts too much emphasis on the skills well measured by such tests, while other kinds of skills are underappreciated? My intuitive sense, considering what tech is like, is that it's probably true.
A lot of criticism about intelligence tests are ideologically driven, because underprivileged groups score low, and in many regions that have suffered the most from colonialism, underprivileged groups score low. I think that what we will find is that being underprivileged affects intelligence quite strongly.
Sephardic Jews were at the center of worldwide Jewish culture. Their cultural contributions and success in society would suggest that as a population they were probably quite intelligent during their heyday. Today, Ashkenazi Jews are known to have a high average group IQ, higher than current day Sephardic Jews.
I suspect that ideological knee-jerk fear driven suppression of IQ research on underprivileged groups is keeping our society from realizing interventions which can help groups by driving up their average IQ scores. We have historical evidence from the US that underprivileged groups with below average IQs can be changed.
I wonder how much the ACT and SAT scores differ compared to each other. It is well known the SAT tests more learned (larger social bias) abilities than the ACT. It may provide more perspective to your point.
I'm tempted to put this in the same bucket as "the bell curve" that it uncovered a factoid, but one which shifts the centre overlap of two curves by a statistically significant (ie, measureable) amount, but does not strongly suggest that close to normal people on average have a difference which matters a damn.
Many of us outside google believe that google employs too many people who think they are Mensa, and so self-identify in the far right side. Sorry guys, but I hate to tell you this: your own curves probably don't support your arguments: you're all well within normal.
Those are weak cites (ok: so I gave none) -one has bars wide enough to drive a low-IQ truck through. The other is "I went to IQ camp and here is my cornflake box toy" response.
Having GI is good for engineering, sure. But having maths higher than verbal skills, I think its in the margins. You want both, and people with both, and with determination and good teaching will go far. I believe good teaching and a drive to success outweighs almost everything else.
(not an engineer. I looked at my competencies and decided not to make bridges, I didn't want the burdens which come with being wrong about the bridge building)
The preponderance of the evidence is against you, but I'm not versed in grabbing psych links.
I believe good teaching and a drive to success outweighs almost everything else.
That is very powerful. I would partly agree, in that those are very powerful. I think Liana K makes a very good case that there is something societal going on.
Google employees are well to the right side of the bell curve. Go to the airport if you want to see what normal is. How many of the people there could work for Google? Then consider that those are people who can either afford to fly for leisure or whose jobs are important enough that work is paying for them to fly.
Also, I'd imagine the extremes matter more for cognitively demanding tasks.
>but does not strongly suggest that close to normal people on average have a difference
A valid point, but that does not apply to Google engineers because their hiring practices directly discriminate for ability, as they select the best ~15% of people they interview. Statistically, someone with better than normal ability is far more likely to receive a job from Google than 'normal people on average'.
I contend that even seeking to select for the best 15% they are unlikely in practice to get people who actually lie outside a range we'd consider normal. Not the least because I believe a significant number of the savant are functionally unable to survive an interview process which extends beyond the machine.
The above-normal extends from the mildly interesting to the truly unbelievable. Perhaps I'm seduced by the latter and you want to consider the former. I'd agree that google and like companies hire above-normal. I still content that the profile of ability is probably within spec of normal, even if they aim high.
I hasten to add, I doubt I'd pass a google interview. Haven't tried, don't expect to be tapped. And, I know many fine current and ex- google people and they are smart. The thing is, they all show remarkably high verbal skills, men and women both. Which makes me (bias alert: particular to general warning) wary of a measure which implies there is a detectable skew. These people, display both abilities.
You are playing word games with the phrase ‘considered normal’. The phrase has different meanings whether you consider it from a statistical (as the submitted scientific paper would) or colloquial (as you are) standpoint.
Google does not publish hiring statistics, but I genuinely believe most Google engineers are hired from the top 5% of the general population. In a statistical sense, that could be considered as above normal. However, in a colloquial sense, there is no clear definition of what is ‘considered normal’, hence you could consider persons with top engineering ability as normal. Heck you could even correctly consider everyone as normal, and therefore all Google engineers are normal.
Since this thread is about a statistical interpretation of a population in the US & India, I hope you can see how your use the colloquial sense of the phrase is misleading here.
Interesting you chose 5 and others say 15. because, 15 is close to 1 std deviation. So, my sense that at 15% its likely that people are basically normal, is a crossing point of what the statistics say as a heuristic, approximate signal, and common colloquial meaning. somewhere at 15-20% its really not a big deal to be in that space.
you went 5%. thats the tip of the iceberg. if google can succeed in hiring only from the 5% and get no fake-it-till-you-make-it, or mismeasures, Then sure: its beyond normal in any sense we know.
I'm not a believer. I don't think they can hire to that at the scale they want to be, and not break a huge barrier of cultural assumptions about scores, and measures. They can certainly hire only the top 5% or 1% by degree outcome, and I'd believe they do that too.
I am sorry, but you are still making the same mistake I pointed out earlier, conflating statistical concepts with colloquial ones. You don’t seem to understand the point I am making at all. To understand a statistical argument like the paper submitted, or respond to the statistical argument in the ‘diversity’ memo, you require a basic understanding of statistics. 5%, 15%, those exact numbers I was throwing out, are meaningless here. From a statistical standpoint, what matters is the distribution. The distribution of traits for individuals at the 50th percentile (using whatever metric), is not the same as the distribution of individuals at the 85th percentile, nor the 95th percentile. What you need to understand is that for the general population, the distributions of traits are not identical at every percentile. That is the key misunderstanding you demonstrate in your original comment. Further, your claim that “somewhere at 15-20% its really not a big deal” is not easily disprovable, but statistical nonsense (that’s a colloquial statement).
I do encourage you to re-read my comments and understand where 15% and 5% come from. They are from different populations, something which you do not appear to notice.
Sadly there’s a litany of basic mistakes in your comment. It’s not worth my teaching people high school statistics, so I won’t be replying.
