The truest, most promising motivation for mastering a field or a craft lies in the beauty of the craft itself. Beauty is the greatest stimulus for creativity and imagination. It makes all things gentle and easy. Technical competence follows as the night the day.

I also disagree that competition is a bad thing. Competition is often fun and exhilarating. It has stimulated humanity's greatest achievements. The bad kind of competition tends to be competition over artificial goals (such as grades). But competition over real goals - getting to the moon, setting a world record in sprinting, building the world's best search engine - can be a tremendous driving force.

The issue is over where one directs creativity. Asking "Am I the best astronaut in the world?", for example, is less fruitful than searching for the neatest way is ensure all space tools are returned to the space station.

While I completely agree on your argument, I don't see many people driven by the beauty fo the craft itself. My guess is that competition and shortcuts are simply much more effective in quickly reaching success.

The sad fact might be that it is perfectly possible to master a field or craft without a passion for the subject. Simply because passion is not competitively passable.

It's hard not to draw a line directly between exam-based curricula and these sorts of techniques.

from the comment to which this reply is attached: Chinese college students

I take it that both of these statements refer to an ethnic group specified as "they," that is to people who have a different ethnic identity from the person posting the statement. I too am not Chinese, but I am a speaker of the Chinese language and am married into an (ethnically) Chinese family and have lived in east Asia for six years and I think these statements are too superficial and based on insufficient acquaintance with Asian-American and Chinese people. There is plenty of pursuit of art for art's sake and desire for deep understanding of a subject among Chinese people. Perhaps this is not noticed by Westerners who have not had enough curiosity about Chinese language and culture to have had many deep encounters with the behavior of Chinese people.

Many of the Chinese students I have met over the last month have expressed this same concern (without and without provocation) that educational systems in China stress too heavily testing and rote memorization. Additionally, at least at PKU, there is an increasing motion toward "western" teaching and evaluation methods, especially in post-graduate studies, which are considered an improvement. The same critiques have been provided by American college students, of course, but comparatively the systems seem to suggest that American colleges produce more "real life" experiences which aid students especially in research settings.

I agree entirely that there is plenty "art for art's sake" practiced every day here. A simple example includes the man who teaches his child calligraphy several mornings each week outside painting it in water on the concrete. My Chinese isn't strong enough to have a deep conversation with this man, but it was plain that he's doing it just because he loves his art and wants to show that to his son.

Finally, I'd like to refute the pigeonholing: I've studied Chinese for two years and am here now both to do research and have those deep encounters you refer to. I can't say I have anything comparable to your experience, but I also feel I'm on the side of trying not to make superficial generalizations.

Acknowledged, based on your thoughtful further reply, for which you have my thanks and upvote.

Edit: I guess I should be more careful in putting this. I like frankness and don't believe in imposing ideological rules on discourse. But I also observe that discussions around this stuff tend to be of low quality. Your comment struck me as a nice example because the first sentence seemed nasty and jarring and the rest of the comment was just fine.

I'm very sorry if what I posted came out as racial slur. It was not my intention, since I certainly do not identify myself even remotely with that kind of arguments.

Actually mastering a field or craft, or having success simply requires a lot of work.

The problem I see: to balance out a deficit, one has to work more or to delegate that work.

The advantage I see: everyone is different, so that everyone contributes different things in his field. Yes, the basic level of understanding needs to be, but everything else is open.

"Asian-Americans are renowned...for ruining grade curves in schools across the land...

As for Jews...a quarter of Jewish adults in the United States have earned a graduate degree, compared with 6 percent of the population as a whole.

West Indian blacks,...are one-third more likely to graduate from college than African-Americans as a whole..."

So Asians and Jews outperform all Americans, while West Indian Blacks only outperform American Blacks (but presumably not Americans in aggregate [1])? This hardly seems like evidence against racial differences in intelligence/achievement.

(Note: I don't have a strong opinion on racial IQ differences, just pointing out the tricky wording in the article. Unfortunately, the science on that topic tends to be written mostly by activists on both sides, and is fairly untrustworthy.)

[1] I assume that if West Indian blacks outperformed Americans, Kristoff would have mentioned it (as he did with Asians and Jews).

He doesn't say there aren't racial differences in intelligence. He is saying that irrespective of any actual differences in intelligence, some groups do better than others purely due to cultural norms.

It's along the lines of genius being "1% inspiration and 99% perspiration". The point put forward is that any natural variations in the inspiration part are dwarfed by sufficient application of the perspiration part.

But lets ignore that. Going from his examples, cultural norms can help some blacks outperform other blacks. But it doesn't actually allow blacks to outperform whites. If his examples are representative, the natural variations of the "inspiration" part are actually similar in size to the "perspiration" part of the equation.

Actually it is not possible to prove or disprove that from the data presented (which is not data at all), but one can envisage data that is consistent with his position. For the sake of argument, say Asian-American kids study 20 hours a week, Caucasian kids study 10 hours a week, West Indian origin black kids study 5 hours a week, and African American kids study 3 hours a week. Then both his statements would be correct - performance is related to study hours, not innate talent, and West Indian kids would outperform other black kids but not white kids.

[Of course we are grossly oversiplifying, the suggestion is that wider cultural norms such like intactness of families are the contributor, not just study hours].

I don't know whether he is right or not, but it's not possible to decide he is wrong by the fact that are included just in that article.

I must have missed something. Couldn't he just as easily have said "These three groups may help confirm the fact that success is a product of intrinsic intellect, for they represent three different races and histories, with different average levels of intellect, which strongly correlate with their outcomes."

Was this a parody?

Now, go back and re-read the New York Times piece.

How many fallacies did you notice?

From the article:

"In any case, he says, the evidence is overwhelming that what is distinctive about these three groups is not innate advantage but rather a tendency to get the most out of the firepower they have."

Stephen Pinker argued very persuasively in The Blank Slate that this is not the case. Brains are malleable to some degree, but genetics are still very important. One of the more convincing pieces of evidence is the similarities in the abilities of twins raised in separate families. He recounted case studies in which identical twins who had never even met each other both had the same proffession, favorite hobby and even shared odd habits, such as wearing a rubber band around their wrists

More bluntly, if intelligence "owes little or nothing to genetics", why is it that children acquire an understand of the language spoken in their home while house pets do not?

As Chomsky's discovery of universal grammar implies, humans already have a great deal of what we need for language processing built into our brains from birth.

Of course the families of two identical twins are far from independent variables. They're both made of the kinds of people who would adopt a child in the same city at the same point in time. You haven't managed to separate the variables at all!

Any environmental correlations between twins should also be present between random adoptee pairs.

   def random_twin_like_pair(children):
        x = random(children)
        y = random([c for c in children if (c.race, c.age, c.gender) == (x.race, x.age, x.gender)])
        return (x,y)

I'm not saying twin studies couldn't be done well, I'm saying in practice most real twin studies are not large enough or well designed enough to actually control for those outcomes. There just aren't enough identical twins separated at birth to allow it to be done well.

(That's not to mention further issues like womb environment, which further muddy the issue and are very important)

Here's a summary of what's wrong with twin studies in general: http://drbeetle.homestead.com/twins.html

This sample will average out demographic variation, but the twin-induced correlations are controlled for.

Womb environment can be controlled for by comparing identical to fraternal twins.

It may be the case that most twin studies are performed badly. I'm just pointing out that most of the issues you raise are not a real problem for anyone who understands basic statistics (admittedly, this may exclude most psychologists).

The setup you describe could indeed separate genetic/genetic+environment feedback component from the purely environmental component. Albeit with caveats:

- Identical twins given up for adoption and then separated at birth are probably not drawn at random from the population.

- You can't draw any conclusions at all about which genetic variance is causing the issue, unless you restrict the demographic cross sections. So it can't possibly give you evidence that one race has a higher average IQ, for example.

- The conclusions you draw may be much more about environmental feedback than genetics - maybe with a different environment, the differences will go away. For example, maybe you've found genes that code for susceptibility to iodine deficiency, and your society hasn't discovered iodized salt yet. In that case it's hard to say that you've determined the degree to which intelligence is "genetic" except in the most general sense.

In practice, locating identical twins separated at birth is hard. Finding a representative sample of them across demographic mix is harder. Doing it again for fraternal twins to control for womb environment makes it yet more work. I'm not sure how you control for the fact that the identical twins who are given up and then separated at birth are probably a different population from random adoptees, but I don't doubt with sufficient cleverness it could be done. The problem is that real twin studies almost always fail to control all these factors, and failing to control even one factor dooms your entire experiment.

Proof of this statement? There are mathematical definitions of what size of sample is "adequate" for given effect sizes. (What are the effect sizes of some of the differences in IQ we are talking about here, and how do they compare to error of estimation in the most reliable brands of IQ tests?)

It may be the case that most twin studies are performed badly.

That would definitely be an important matter to look at.

Many twin studies, particularly those done in the past few decades have been rigorous. And the correlation in IQ, career and age of marriage between such twins, are far higher than those of siblings, or adopted siblings growing up in the same house.

There may be a political reason for rejecting the role of heredity or the large body of research supporting it, but there isn't a scientific one.

Heritability is very specific measure, and it does not mean "genetic". Zip codes are highly heritable; number of arms is not heritable at all. I refer you to a great article on the subject of what "heritable" really means in this context:

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/520.html

Larger twin studies have incorporated Structural Equation Modeling since the 80's. The number of such studies and the amount of data is substantial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_studies#Criticism

The author works as a professor of statistics, and his work is specifically in the field of uncovering the latent variables which underly human achievement. His arguments seem cogent and clear to me. Just because he comes to different conclusions from you does not mean he "has an axe to grind", which is a purely ad hominem accusation. Where do you think he makes a mistake?

As for his credentials, he's an associate prof with little to no background in biology, psychology or the study of the brain.

Steven Pinker, on the other hand is a full professor at Harvard (formerly MIT), and is the world's premier on the subject he's writing on.

Once you include a sample with non-trivial variance (a sample including humans, snakes and spiders), you discover that number of arms is almost 100% heritable.

You can measure quite decent heritability from entirely random traits:

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html

n = ?

Where are these studies published? (That is, what is the primary source for observations of the twins by researchers who met them personally?)

A lot of these gee-whiz stories, I fear, expand in the telling. What was documented as the twins were directly observed by researchers? Which twins? Where?

Expand on that thought, please. Is your disagreement with the word "measure," with the word "intelligence," or with both?

IQ is useful, and only useful, in its "industrial" capacity, meaning where it's used statistically over large sample sizes. To explain this better, let's use the analogy of a Beauty Quotient (BQ). It would be calculated to give a higher value to large eyes, high cheekbones, etc. This could be used in aggregate to understand why so many female models come from the Czech Republic, but to apply it individually is meaningless. There are people with big eyes and high cheek bones who look like freaks of nature, and people with smaller eyes and lower cheekbones who are stunning. BQ doesn't exist because what it would measure is self-evident; you could just look at someone saying, "I have a BQ of 180! I'm gorgeous!" and agree (or laugh). IQ, however, measures something that can't be so quickly assessed, and so many grasp onto it to validate themselves. That's an abuse of the purpose and displays a lack of understanding of the difference between qualitative and quantitative, thus my jibe at losing 80 IQ points.

Your comment is a self-negating insult. If IQ does not measure intelligence, than saying "you lose 80 points" is not derisive.

It's easy to spot. They mention mean IQ's without bothering with the bare minimum needed to make that information useful (standard deviation). Even people in business math learn that mean without a SD is fairly worthless, but even more so when you're trying to compare two means. I refuse to listen to people who refuse to meet the bare minimum requirements of proper scientific reasoning.

The reverse is easy to spot too, an honest analysis will simply show you the model they are using and explicitly state what assumptions are built into that particular model. an honest debate can follow.

The real issue is that people think success is a determiner of human worth. So, if people are inherently less capable of being successful than others, they think they are inherently less of a human. The IQ debate is really a debate about what determines human worth.

Scholastic achievement is closely related to tested IQ. The SAT is a not-so-thinly veiled IQ test. Every American is taught by the educational establishment that both scholastic achievement and the SAT are very important to our future. For the first twenty-two years of our life, we get graded continuously on scholastics, but rarely on character. In all, we are raised to be obsessed about IQ, and we are caught in the midst of a political battle where trillions of dollars are at stake.

[1] Note - I do not impute cynical intent to the actual individuals comprising the educational institutions. Institutions promote themselves via selection effects. True believers who believe what's good for Harvard is good for the country will fill the ranks of Harvard and enter leadership positions. Cynics will find jobs elsewhere. Thus an institution will fill with people who sincerely believe in promoting the institution, whether or not the institution actually is doing any good. Thus the actions of an institution as a whole can be self-serving at the harm of the whole, while the individuals comprising it are sincere. Other institutions besides academia have the same effect, see for instance, the 16th Century Catholic Church.

I think you are on to something.

Richard Nisbett cites each of these groups in his superb recent book, “Intelligence and How to Get It.” Dr. Nisbett, a professor of psychology at the University of Michigan, argues that what we think of as intelligence is quite malleable and owes little or nothing to genetics.

Nisbett actually writes, "The evidence of the adoption studies indicate that postnatal environmental factors - biological and social ones combined - probably outweigh the genetic ones" (p. 79). On another page, "The environmentalist camp estimates heritability to be .50 or less... And I agree with these scientists - in fact I suspect heritability may be even lower than .5" (p 21)

In both quotes Nisbetts uses couched language to suggest that heritability may be lower than .50. Kristof then morphs this this into, "owes little or nothing to genetics." That's a lot different than what Nisbett said.

And of course, Nisbett is a member of the environmentalist camp. Kristof fails to acknowledge that many others who have studied the evidence strongly disagree with Nisbett's conclusions.

“I think the evidence is very good that there is no genetic contribution to the black-white difference on I.Q.,” he said,

I read Nisbett's case. Personally I found it much less convincing than articles that have suggested some genetic contribution: ( http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/ , http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/02/race-iq-and-ses.php , and http://members.cox.net/bvv/h2b.html )

As for Jews, some not-very-rigorous studies have found modestly above-average I.Q. for Ashkenazi Jews, though not for Sephardic Jews.

Again, this also supports the case for genetics. Harpending and Cochran argue that the selection for Ashkenazi intelligence occurred from 1000 AD to 1800 AD, long after they separated from the Sephardic Jews. Read the book "The Ten Thousand Year Explosion" to learn more: http://www.amazon.com/000-Year-Explosion-Civilization-Accele...

One large study followed a group of Chinese-Americans who initially did slightly worse on the verbal portion of I.Q. tests than other Americans and the same on math portions. But beginning in grade school, the Chinese outperformed their peers, apparently because they worked harder.

Cross group studies that use early-childhood comparisons can mislead, because different rates of development can alter IQ measurements. For instance, if group A on average will have a lower adult IQ, but a faster rate of childhood development, the children of group A may have an equal or higher IQ than average at a young age.

It's also noticeable that in twin studies environmental differences matter much more at an early age, and then gradually disappear over time: "Another way to demonstrate the vanishing nature of the shared environment is to look at non-twin siblings. When reared together, their IQ correlation is 0.49 in adulthood. When reared apart, their IQs correlate at 0.24 as children, but this rises to 0.49 in adulthood. Unrelated children, reared together (adopted) correlate at 0.25 in childhood and 0.01 in adulthood." http://members.cox.net/bvv/h2b.html

It’s that the most decisive weapons in the war on poverty aren’t transfer payments but education, education, education.

Since 1930 government spending on education has risen from 1.5% of GDP to 6% of GDP. That equates to an extra $6,000 per household spent on education. Today 40% of Americans are either in school or working for the education industry. Yet despite this incredible increase in education, measurements of both vocabulary and numeracy have been flat ( http://www.miller-mccune.com/article/349 ).

So even if IQ could be improved through the environment, the policy implication that we should spend more on education does not follow.

What evidence does Kristoff present that spending more on education will make a difference? What dramatic change does he propose to actually make education work as advertised?

One study found that a child of professionals (disproportionately white) has heard about 30 million words spoken by age 3; a black child raised on welfare has heard only 10 million words, leaving that child at a disadvantage in school.

I hear this study cited more and more. The education establishment needs a new explanation to help account for the continued failure of education spending. Why hasn't spending $800 billion a year on education made a whit of difference in vocab? Well, because we forgot the tots! Perhaps if we increase spending to $1 trillion a year so that we can give toddlers 8 hours a day of vocab immersion, the dream of true equality - as envisioned by authors like Aldous Huxley - will finally be achieved.

The next step is intensive early childhood programs, followed by improved elementary and high schools, and programs to defray college costs.

I jested in the previous paragraph, but there is a real tragedy here. Six thousand dollars per family is no joke. If differences in achievement stem mostly from genetics, than education spending is really a transfer of wealth from hard working carpenters, machinists, engineers, etc to high IQ teachers and administrators. Thus increasing schooling even more will not wipe out the academic achievement gap, but it will widen the income gap between college grads and the laboring class. After the gap widens more, people like Kristof will then use this as evidence that we are not spending enough on education. This cycle has been in place for 80 years, and it is rotten to the core.