My thanks to Rudy Fichtenbaum for his thoughtful and thought-provoking critique
of my earlier post on this topic. I wish to reply to several of his points. I
apologize for not quoting him directly--my mailer does not allow this.
First, RF notes that IQ scores benefit from training, and concludes that they
are therefore unreliable. In a narrow sense, reliability of a testing procedure
only requires that individuals retested under controlled circumstances, i.e.,
absent significant environmental influences, obtain scores which do not differ,
in a statistical sense, from earlier scores. But reliability can be construed
in a broader way. Suppose we gave strength tests to a number of randomly
selected individuals at a point in time, evaluating, say, their ability to
bench-press barbells. We would no doubt find differences among them. Then we
subjected them all to comparable programs of weight training and tested them
again after six months. Would we conclude that the bench-press was an
unreliable test of strength if we observed that all, or almost all, of those
trained could lift more weight? I don't think so. Rather, we might want to see
if the ordinal ranking of our subjects was (approximately) maintained. If so,
I would regard the test as reliable. The question would still remain, of
course, as to whether the ability to bench-press is really a test of strength.
More directly to the point, neither M&H nor I argue that CIQ test scores are
not affected by environmental/social/cultural factors. What we do maintain is
that there is a significant genetic component to these scores.
Second, and this relates to the insightful posts of Allan Isaac, M&H's basic
point is that there is a genetic component to poverty. Some people are simply
less well suited than others to the particular
social/cultural/political/economic/institutional milieu in which we live.
Government programs which stop short of remaking that institutional environment
cannot succeed in eliminating the Formosan termites of poverty. Redecorating
won't do the trick; remodeling won't be enough; even major repairs and
renovations might not suffice. We might well have to consider demolishing the
structure and rebuilding, if we really want to want to root out these
destructive pests.
Finally there are the ugly charges of racism. I view racism as a very serious
charge, one that should not be leveled at anyone until all reasonable
alternative motivations have been eliminated. Based on CIQ test results, it
appears that there is a link between racial characteristics and economic
success--in our economy. Assuming the statistical validity of this link, two
conclusions are possible:
1) CIQ tests are racially biased. This is the case I discussed in my
earlier post. If this is true, then any linkage between race and economic
performance inferred from these tests is invalid, and M&H's work provides
evidence of residual institutional racism in our society.
2) CIQ tests are not racially biased. If this is the case, the conclusion
that race is linked to economic success, given the institutional environment, is
unavoidable. THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT AFRICAN-AMERICANS ARE GENETICALLY
INFERIOR TO EUROPEAN-AMERICANS!!! REPEAT--THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THE GENETIC
SUPERIORITY/INFERIORITY OF ANY RACIAL OR ETHNIC GROUP!!! It links genetic
makeup to adaptability to a specific environment. Suppose it is a "White man's
world." It is not racist to expect, nor should anyone be surprised to find,
that White men are better adapted to live in it than are Black men, White women,
or, for that matter, kangaroos!
The dilemma remains. Regardless of what they measure, high CIQ test scores are
linked to economic rewards, and we all must play the poker game of life with the
hand we were dealt--or draw, at most, three cards, face down, from the deck. If
we think high CIQ should be rewarded, then we should stop trying to make the U.S.
into Lake Woebegon, where all the children are above average. If we don't, then
we had better prepare ourselves for a major remake of our society, from the
Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) up.
Ray Miller
