I especially recommend their recent article on "seizing the means of knowledge production"[2], because it explains how we got here and provides examples of some sort of suspension of skepticism: «For instance, training on microaggressions, white privilege, implicit bias (coined in 1993, fyi), etc. were institutionalized in the private sector, and even among government agencies, well before there was any kind of robust empirical literature validating these constructs or showing that the proposed interventions would be effective. Indeed, the available empirical evidence now suggests that there are deep problems across the board with these ideas and approaches (here, here, here, here, here, here, here for more on this point). However, these frameworks and interventions are already so deeply entrenched – including within institutions of higher learning — that the empirical research is now almost entirely beside the point». Of course, this open-mindedness was more than matched by extreme suspicion and demand for rigour in the other direction[3], which we also see here.
Also consider that personal views of experimenters affect what results they get, with a very large effect size – larger than most effect sizes actually discovered in social science[4], which, given political leanings in sciences such as psychology[5] and the replication crisis, makes one wonder how much trust should be given even to actual long-standing scientific arguments against politically unpopular ideas. But such arguments make an incredibly small contribution to the intellectual rejection of this research.
To people who argue on the topic of race & intelligence (which is indeed the most obvious, the most politicized, but not the only point of contention), bringing up arguments like "research did not control for environmental differences" or "g factor is meaningless" or "IQ tests are not fair", I want to say: you know almost nothing on the issue, you don't understand how little you know[6], and the fact that you perceive yourself as knowing enough to make confident judgements is precisely the testament to the power ideology has over popular reporting. But it does not yet have equal power over science, which is why actual researchers have views very different from yours[7], and of course all these criticisms were understood, and many addressed, decades ago, e.g.: «A 1999 literature review re-examined the conclusions of Bias in Mental Testing using new data. It concluded that empirical evidence strongly supported Jensen's conclusion that mental tests are equally valid measures of ability for all English-speaking people born in the United States. The review further argued that misinformation about bias in IQ tests is very pervasive, and thus it is important for the empirical data in this field to be clearly conveyed to the public»[8]. If you wish to learn about it, better read «The Neuroscience of Intelligence» by Richard J. Haier from Cambridge University Press, 2016[9], it's an excellent summary. Don't rely on Youtube videos and opinionated blog posts.
I could go on and on. But in general, HN's reaction to this topic is disappointing: obviously intelligent, well-meaning and skeptical people straining their eloquence to rationalize what amounts to journalists' ignorant, unhelpful [10] and politically biased[11] opinion on science, all (I presume) out of unconscious desire to not have a stain on one's career or being considered morally corrupt.
So it goes.
1: https://heterodoxacademy.org/about-us/
2: https://heterodoxacademy.org/seizing-means-knowledge-product...
3: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10699-015-9421-3
4: http://www.lscp.net/persons/dupoux/teaching/JOURNEE_AUTOMNE_...
5: http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-...
6: http://www.gwern.net/Mistakes#iq-race
7: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961...
8: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_in_Mental_Testing
9: https://www.amazon.com/Neuroscience-Intelligence-Cambridge-F...
10: http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/09/inequal...
11: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jun/22/20040622-08...
IQ is a very strong metric predictor of pretty much every aspect of personal success, from successful marriages to income to academic achievement to interpersonal skills. By no means is the relationship deterministic, but that isn't what we mean by predictors. (Many other psychological metrics, like the nonsensical "emotional intelligence", predict nothing when IQ is included in the mix.)
1: https://www.amazon.com/Neuroscience-Intelligence-Cambridge-F...
2: https://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/0...
It might just be that I have to do more research, but my impression from the research that I've encountered (especially the twin studies) is that G (general intelligence, which IQ is designed to be strongly correlated with) is strongly correlated with genetics, and even influenced by genetics to a greater degree than by the environment; the Wikipedia (but Wikipedia in general as well) article[0] appears highly politically motivated to me. It at least greatly conflicts with the contents of this interview.
One argument on this subject that I feel is persuasive is this: "Why have African societies been much less developed technologically and intellectually (e.g. in writing, language) than Western societies for over 3000 years? Can you blame 3000 years on oppression? Furthermore, if you say the cause was oppression, why did those races let themselves be oppressed if they were equally capable?"
---
The video description for your pleasure:
There is almost nothing more important to understand about people than intelligence. It can be measured more accurately than anything else in the social sciences. It differs tremendously and importantly between individuals. It is the single most important determinant of life success. It's very existence, however, remains subject to substantive debate, most of it highly politicized.
Dr. Richard Haier[1,2] has recently written a major book on the topic, The Neuroscience of Intelligence[3], summarized in the following manner: "This book introduces new and provocative neuroscience research that advances our understanding of intelligence and the brain. Compelling evidence shows that genetics plays a more important role than environment as intelligence develops from childhood, and that intelligence test scores correspond strongly to specific features of the brain assessed with neuroimaging. In understandable language, Richard J. Haier explains cutting-edge techniques based on genetics, DNA, and imaging of brain connectivity and function. He dispels common misconceptions, such as the belief that IQ tests are biased or meaningless, and debunks simple interventions alleged to increase intelligence. "
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence [1]: Dr. Richard Haier's personal website: http://www.richardhaier.com/ [2]: his Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_J._Haier [3]: his book, The Neuroscience of Intelligence: http://amzn.to/2em55A9
But even if we step away from the beaten question of pre-uni education ROI and study the real and measured Flynn effect, we can sadly conclude that it is mostly (at least after the 1950s) about so-called[3] hollow gains. The problem with these being that they do not generalize to most tests and low-level measures of g such as reaction time. It can be argued that "Flynn IQ" can be of at least some use[3], but even then, the effect is close to saturation[4] by now, and increases to the underlying g-factor would avoid the controversy altogether.
Historically, real & massive g-loaded IQ gains tended to occur when people for the first time ceased being nutrition- and sanitation- limited during their formative years. If we sidestep the question of IQ heritability, there are lesser-known potential ways[5] of increasing g in children. Clearly, this field could use much more money and human resources allocated to it, given the unquestionably valuable prosocial outcome it could deliver.
I'm all for methods to raise g, especially in healthy adults and not just in children to be born sometime in the future, but just pushing more education into anxious highschoolers (or mid-career adults, for that matter) isn't going to cut it. Some fundamental approach based on neuroscience of learning and memory[6] is sorely needed.
1. https://skolvarlden.se/artiklar/ny-rapport-matteresultaten-s...
2. https://www.information.dk/debat/2020/02/naar-gennemsnitlige...
3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...
4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...
5. https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1096/fj.20...
6. https://www.amazon.com/Neuroscience-Intelligence-Cambridge-F...