|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 08/13/2011 : 17:41:12
|
I did a review of "Intelligence and How To Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count" by Richard E. Nisbett. Posted to my parenting blog here.
Edited to add, here's a link to the radio interview with the author that inspired me to read the book in the first place.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
Edited by - marfknox on 08/13/2011 17:46:48
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2011 : 16:23:38 [Permalink]
|
Someone commented on my blog linking to a highly academic review of Nisbett's book.
| Nisbett's book is pseudo-scientific. He misrepresents the relevant research. See this review. |
Here is what I responded:
jlovborg, to say that Nisbett's book is "pseudo-scientific" is going rather far. There are plenty of books and articles out there written by non-scientists which claim to be scientific, and Nisbett doesn't fall into that category. He has a PhD in Social Psychology from Columbia and has taught at Yale and the U of Michigan, and his book was about topic within his field of expertise. A far cry from ghosthunters, homeopathy, or the power of crystals, which is the sort of stuff I think of when I hear the term "pseudoscience."
The review you linked to more makes the case that Nisbett is overly-optimistic and overly certain about his conclusions than misrepresenting research. I thank you for linking to it as it does meaningfully add to the conversation. But it hardly refutes Nisbett's general conclusions. Did you read Nisbett's book? His conclusions are hardly very specific. He seems more to just be countering assumptions in mainstream thought that intelligence and achievement is almost entirely attributable to genes. Frequently in his book, Nisbett decries the lack of sufficient research and calls for more research!
I am slightly annoyed that you linked to a review written for experts, and refrained from putting the criticisms into your own words. Nisbett's book was written for the layman, and that book review was clearly not. Being a layman myself, I had great difficulty translating what I read in that review into terms I can understand given my own limited academic background. Let us not compare apples to oranges. |
I really had a lot of difficulty understanding everything in the review the commenter linked to. I based my response largely on the conclusions. Maybe someone here can understand it better and translate it into laymen's terms or give your own response? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2011 : 20:31:00 [Permalink]
|
The reviewer, James J. Lee, seems to think that Nisbett's "premature conclusions" are motivated primarily by a fear of what might happen if intelligence were to be found to be mostly genetic (eugenics and the like).
What Lee says is that Nisbett's calls for more research are based on shoddy argumentation, even though more research is clearly needed. Nisbett (according to Lee) claims that twin studies of IQ are biased to find too much correlation between genes and intelligence, but Lee pokes all sorts of holes in those arguments. Nisbett also tries to find fault in studies which correlate intelligence with race, and Lee finds plenty of flaws in Nisbett's claims there, too.
I think to really interpret this review well, one must have read Nisbett's book, and I haven't. Perhaps, marf, you could ask some specific questions about what you're not understanding in Lee's review, and the rest of us could try to give you a better foundation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2011 : 21:40:13 [Permalink]
|
Let me see how much I can remember in terms of specifics; I took the book out of the library and don't have a copy on me anymore.
Regarding the twin studies, Nisbett seemed to argue not so much that they were flawed because of bias, but rather, they were flawed because the twins were placed in homes which were too similar with regard to economic status.
Nisbett acknowledges several times that genetic advantage plays a significant role in determining IQ and achievement among people above a certain economic threshhold. His argument is that people living in whole communities under a certain economic threshold are at an extremely large disadvantage when it comes to IQ and achievement ("achievement" was mostly measured by not just grades and graduation rates in school, but also liklihood of ending up in prison, liklihood of ending up divorced, and career path - either higher paying professionals or doing low-paying menial work.)
Back to the twin studies, I am lead to think Nisbett is on to something in his criticism of them as evidence of the importance of genes in determining IQ and achievement simply because I have a hard time believing that when twins are placed in separate homes that often enough one is placed in a seriously economically disadvantaged community while the other is placed in a middle class community. I doubt the placement is so random, and if it is not random and there is no control, how can we factor in the influence of serious economic hardship?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2011 : 22:09:18 [Permalink]
|
I just attempted to read the review again. Again, I have a great deal of difficulty deeply comprehending the specifics. However, I understand the conclusions and general criticism, and it seems that overall the reviewer regards Nisbett as having greater certainty than I interpreted Nisbett having. For instance, I did not take from my reading of Nisbett's book that race places no difference in IQ. Rather, I gathered that none of the studies done so far prove that race is a significant factor in determining IQ, while there are some studies which convincingly point to environment as a major factor in determining IQ. And by "environment" Nisbett never gets into too many specifics about what all those factors could be. Obviously there are tons of factors in the environment. Nisbett mentions many specific possible factors, but he never points conclusively at any one factor as being responsible for particular differences in IQ. He simply argues that environmental factors are clearly a big influence on IQ, while also arguing that the claim that IQ is mostly determined by genes alone has been overblown and isn't nearly as well supported as many experts in the study of intelligence have claimed. Nisbett's calls for "social engineering" are also rarely specific. He mentions a handful of things that work, but mostly he calls for more research, specifically more scientifically rigorous research.
The firmest claim I recall Nisbett making is this: if society finds a way to reduce poverty through effective social programs and public education, that will positively impact IQ and levels of achievement within the population at large. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/04/2011 22:10:55 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 21:13:43 [Permalink]
|
The same guy commented again on my review. Here's his comment and my response:
jlovborg said...
Nisbett is a social psychologist, so he is not an expert on intelligence or behavioral genetics. He has never published a single article in any refereed journal specializing in psychometrics or behavioral genetics. His book is not within his field of expertise, and it shows.
Nisbett misrepresents and selectively cites evidence to support his preconceived conclusions. His arguments against genetic influences on intelligence are nothing new, in fact they are regurgitations of academic Marxist critiques of behavioral genetics from the 1970s. Mainstream science has long ago rejected such anti hereditarian views due to multiple lines of evidence converging to show that differences in general intelligence are primarily caused by additive genetic effects. Nisbett's arguments are particularly ridiculous in light of the fact that the results of traditional pedigree analyses of heritability are currently being confirmed using genomic methods.
If you want to read a layman's book touching on the topics of nature and nurture, I would recommend "Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think" by Bryan Caplan. Caplan's thinking is line with mainstream science, unlike Nisbett's. |
Martha Knox said...
jlovborg,
Your criticisms of Nisbett's book go a great deal father and are quite different from the review you linked to. I have no way to evaluate your claims. What do you base them on? What are your credentials? The article in Science Daily you linked to refers to one study which found that "40% to 50% of people's differences in these abilities could be traced to genetic differences." Indeed, Nisbett doesn't deny that genetics play a role in intelligence. He states clearly and several times that he is arguing against the idea that the vast majority of difference, 90% or more in fact, is due to genetic differences. He also clearly makes the point that genetic differences make a bigger difference among people over a certain economic threshhold.
Reminds me an article I read just today about child factor workers in 19th century Europe whose growth was seriously stunted from having to work long shifts 6 days a week in a highly stressful environment. These children's average height by age 18 was dramatically lowered to an average of 62 inches. To compare height to intelligence, no one would argue that genes don't play a huge role in determining height. But at the same time, we also know that certain conditions, particularly prolonged harsh conditions during childhood can and do negatively impact height. No diet, no exercises, or anything else in Danny Devito's childhood would have resulted in his becoming as tall as Michael Jordan. However, had Michael Jordan grown up a factor worker in 19th century Europe, he most certainly would not have grown to be nearly as tall as he is. What Nisbett argues about intelligence is pretty much the same: that what we are able to do to boost intelligence once people are over a certain quality of life threshhold is somewhat minor, but under a certain threshhold, the disadvantages can be great. |
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Intelligence and How To Get It by Nisbett
