Race and IQ - Validity of "race" and "IQ"

Validity of "race" and "IQ"

The concept of intelligence and the degree to which it is measurable is and has been a matter of discussion. In Psychology, a psychology textbook by Schacter et al., the argument is made that while there is a general consensus within western science about how to define intelligence, the concept of intelligence as something that can be unequivocally measured by a single figure is not universally accepted. A recurring criticism is that different societies value and promote different kinds of skills and that the concept of intelligence is therefore culturally variable and cannot be measured the same in different societies. Consequently, some critics argue that proposed relationships to other variables are necessarily tentative.

In fields such as psychology, medicine, economics, political science, criminology, and other research on group differences, intelligence is commonly measured using intelligence quotient (IQ) tests. The statement "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" argued that "IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes ... Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance". Most of the research on intelligence differences between racial groups is based on IQ testing. These tests are highly correlated with the psychometric variable g (for general intelligence factor). Other tests that are also highly correlated with g are also seen as measures of cognitive ability and have sometimes been used in the research. US examples include the Armed Forces Qualifying Test; SAT; GRE; GMAT; and LSAT. International student assessment tests that have been used include the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, Programme for International Student Assessment, and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study.

Also the concept of race as a meaningful category of analysis is hotly contested. The authors of two articles in two encyclopedias, the Encyclopædia Britannica and the Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society, argue that today the mainstream view is that race is a social construction that is based not mainly in actual biological differences but rather on folk ideologies that construct groups based on social disparities and superficial physical characteristics. Sternberg, Grigorenko & Kidd (2005) state that the overwhelming portion of the literature correlating race with identity has tacitly adopted folk definitions of race. The American Anthropological Association in 1998 published a "Statement on 'Race'" which rejected the existence of "races" as unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Others argue that this view is restricted to certain fields, while in other fields, race is still seen as a valid biological category.

Race in the studies is almost always determined using self-reports, rather than based on analyses of the genetic history of the tested individuals. According to psychologist David Rowe, self-report is the preferred method for racial classification in studies of racial differences because classification based on genetic markers alone ignore the "cultural, behavioral, sociological, psychological, and epidemiological variables" that distinguish racial groups. Hunt and Carlson write that "Nevertheless, self-identification is a surprisingly reliable guide to genetic composition. Tang et al. (2005) applied mathematical clustering techniques to sort genomic markers for over 3,600 people in the United States and Taiwan into four groups. There was almost perfect agreement between cluster assignment and individuals' self-reports of racial/ethnic identification as White, Black, East Asian, or Latino."

The notions that cluster analysis and the correlation between self-reported race and genetic ancestry support a view of race as primarily based in biology is contradicted by most anthropologists. For example C. Loring Brace and geneticist Joseph Graves, have argued that while it is certainly possible to find biological and genetic variation that corresponds roughly to the groupings normally defined as races, this is true for almost all geographically distinct populations. The cluster structure of the genetic data is dependent on the initial hypotheses of the researcher and the populations sampled. When one samples continental groups, the clusters become continental; if one had chosen other sampling patterns, the clusters would be different. Kaplan 2011 therefore concludes that while racial groups are characterized by different allele frequencies, this does not mean that racial classification is a natural taxonomy of the human species, because multiple other genetic patterns can be found in human populations that crosscut racial distinctions. In this view, racial groupings are social constructs that have also a biological reality which is largely an artifact of how the category has been constructed.

Earl Hunt agrees that racial categories are defined by social conventions, though he points out that they also correlate with clusters of both genetic traits and cultural traits. Hunt explains that due to this, racial IQ gaps are caused by these variables that correlate with race, and race itself is rarely a causal variable. Researchers who study racial disparities in test scores are studying the relationship between the scores and the many race-related factors which could potentially affect performance. These factors include health and wealth, biological differences, and education.