Condemn first, read later

I've recently been reading through a couple of books from three controversial academics - DNA by James Watson and the infamous Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Hernstein.

One of the most striking things revealed in both books is that none of the three academics are particularly pre-occupied by race issues, despite all three being condemned for rank racism by the mainstream media.

When the Bell Curve was first published in the mid 1990s, various critics in the media were quick to condemn Murray and Hernstein for suggesting there were significant IQ differences in the U.S between Blacks and Whites. However, only one chapter in the book is actually devoted to race issues. Most of the book deals with IQ differences among whites, and the many policy implications of the unchanging distribution of IQ scores after over half a century of universal public schooling.
Nor, does the book necessarily advocate right-wing approaches to dealing with the social and economic problems caused by IQ differences. Despite the fact that Charles Murray is a self-confessed libertarian, in the Bell Curve he doesn't necessarily advocate reducing government spending on public education or other right -liberal policies. A 1920s-style Fabian socialist like George Bernard Shaw would probably be less offended by its public policy discussions than the majority of today's neo-conservatives and libertarians.

Arguably the most interesting finding in the book, in my view, is the declining level of education among high IQ students, rather than those at the bottom of the Bell Curve. As the authors point out, dumbing-down modern schooling has actually improved the academic performance of most average IQ children, but at the same time it's undermined the education of the smartest pupils, who are now no longer challenged as much as they used to be.

If the book had been written in 1904 instead of 1994, the press would have no doubt spent more time talking about its relevance to the decline of elite education rather than its single chapter on racial differences.

In the same way that Samuel Huntington's Clash of Cilivisations was simplistically criticised as a work of Islamophobia, the Bell Curve has been written off as a white supremacist book about racial IQ differences. Indeed, in some ways the Bell Curve is something of a anti-managerial work, in that it questions the value of the one dimensional BMA- type education criticised in more left-leaning books like John Ralston's Saul's Voltaire's Bastards.

Reading through half a dozen chapters of Watson's DNA (first published in 2003) he certainly doesn't give the impression of being the far-right racist he's been labeled in the popular media over his recent African IQ comments. For example, he describes the early-20th Century eugenics movement in the U.S as a "pseudo-scientific vehicle for the notably unscientific prejudices of men like Madison Grant and Harrry Laughlin," and criticises the 1924 Immigration Act (unfairly in my view) for restricting refugee immigration in the 1930s.

About the only right-wing comment I noted in the book was Watson's interesting observation that despite the popular perception, Republican administrations are no stingier than Democratic ones when it comes to investing in scientific research.

Genetics and Business

A recent article in Christchurch’s Press entitled “Mental stamina gives edge”(Saturday, January 13, not online) points out that management theory over the last 30 years has not given sufficient consideration to genetic factors.

According to psychologists, having a high level of “mental energy” is essential for success in business and “positive” mental energy comes from interest and curiosity.

Generally, it is people with high IQs who have high levels of curiosity and who can sustain interest in mentally demanding challenges, and twin studies indicate that IQ is largely a genetically determined factor. Similarly one of the other main factors in business success is a low level of neuroticism, which is also determined by genetics.

According to Amanda Sinclair, a professor of management at the Melbourne Business School, “mental stamina” is not a very glamorous characteristic and in business management people don’t tend to associate with the “dazzle of leadership”. Sinclair states that research into “mental stamina”, has been downplayed as a significant factor in business leadership because it has not been fashionable to think of leadership as being genetic.

The author of the article goes on to point out that business schools have an investment in the belief that leaders are “made not born”. In recent decades there has been an enormous amount of investment in business school training with MBA programmes seen as essential for training managerial elites.

However, if leadership and management ability are largely determined by native intelligence and temperament, then society shouldn’t be putting so much time and money into generic business management training. Hopefully, this means that elites in business and government can now spend more time acquiring real world experience in the specific fields in which they intend to work.

At the university level, this should also give them the opportunity to address their cultural and scientific ignorance by taking more papers in subjects like history and the natural sciences.

Genetics and Health

Last weekends’ Press has a large feature article, "The Health Gap", which addreses the topic of Maori health statistics. The article outlines numerous instances in which Maori health outcomes are significantly worse than those for European New Zealanders.

However, nowhere in the several thousand-word article is the word genetics mentioned. For example, it is stated that “half of all Maori are smokers compared with one in five non-Maori”, yet no reference is made to recent studies that suggest Maori may have a genetic predisposition to smoking.

High Maori smoking statistics are put down to the “stresses” of poverty and “lifestyle choices”.

In the case of smoking, there is a good argument that central government should be doing more to help Maori overcome smoking addictions. Smokers pay heavy compensatory taxes to the rest of society and low income Maori would be better off medically and financially if they weren’t spending so much on cigarettes.

The author also states that Maori children are twice as likely to be obese as Caucasian children. There is a lot of evidence that people of Polynesian origin tend to have heavier builds and slower metabolisms, which strongly predisposes them to obesity. A predisposition to obesity also means that Maori are more prone to obesity related illnesses like diabetes and heart attacks -so why isn’t this mentioned in the article?

It is also pointed out that Maori have higher rates of certain types of cancer, such as gall bladder cancer.

The problem with glossing over genetic factors in health statistics is that it tends to increase political divisions without improving health outcomes. From a right-liberal perspective it appears that Maori are choosing to be overweight, smokers who have a blasé attitude to cancer. Conversely, from a left-liberal perspective Maori appear to be victims of a prejudiced health system.

The media message seems to be that Maori health problems are mainly due to bad lifestyle choices and that in any case Maori are unlikely to receive optimum care because the medical system is riddled with institutional racism.

Consequently, it is hardly surprising that many Maori have a chip on their shoulder about visiting a doctor – nobody likes to receive a morale sermon from somebody they don’t think is competent or doesn't care about their patients.

Certainly educational/intelligence levels also play a part in health care. People who are more persistent, more compliant and more knowledgeable are likely to get better value from public health systems.

Given that there are relatively few Maori doctors and that Maori have less confidence in western science than Caucasians and Asians, Maori people are less likely to receive optimum care in some situations.

However, if both doctors and patients are made aware of genetic differences in medicine, then doctors will be able to provide more focused care and patients from minority backgrounds will have a better idea about their specific health needs.

Binge-Drinking Culture

Northern Europeans has long had a penchant for binge-drinking.

Whereas Southern Europeans tend to be bought up to drink alcohol in moderation, North Europeans have long preferred to bloater themselves on pints of beer before stumbling home to await the next morning’s hangover.

To people of North European origin, food takes up valuable stomach space that could be productively filled with Guinness or Lager.

Scientific studies are now showing that Mediterranean people may well have genetic traits that make less prone to binge-drinking, since alcohol has been widely available in the region for thousands of years.

Since the late 18th century, North European countries have applied heavy taxes on alcohol to control drunkenness, which reached its most infamous excesses in England during the era of ultra-cheap gin, depicted in Hogarth paintings.

Subsequently, Anglo-Celtic colonies like New Zealand and Canada have long had strong temperance movements and strict government regulations on the use of alcohol.

In 1999 New Zealand’s socially liberal Labour Government decided to lower the drinking age to 18. However 7 years later it now seems that Parliament is set raise it back up to 20 again. According to Police and Hospitals, levels of anti-social behaviour, hospitalisations and attacks on police have increased significantly since the drinking age was lowered.

However, two other factors are also playing a part in drunkenness – credit and modern “ladette" culture. Until recently, few people under 21 had access to enough money to be able to go out and get drunk on a regular basis. Now thanks to credit cards and student loans the young party hard (as the young do) and pay later.

While it is common knowledge that women can’t alcohol as well as men, the media loves to project images of leather clad, high-kicking females that can do anything men can do. Meanwhile back in the real world, alcopop guzzling young women are more likely to be seen floundering in high heels, puking in gutters and being sized as prey items by rogue taxi-drivers (often with dubious immigration papers).

This trend is already starting to impact on long term health outcomes with an increasing number of women suffering from alcohol related medical problems (see here).

Although their may be a good case for raising the drinking age, it would be nice if the country could start discussing some of the deeper causes of excessive binge-drinking like genetics, feminism and easy-credit. However, at present all these topics are largely no-go areas for the liberal media and its neo-conservative puppet masters.

Some Thoughts on Economics and IQ

According to the controversial psychologist Richard Lynn, the secret to a successful capitalist economy is a population with a high IQ. However, maintaining a successful economy may also be about recognising and dealing with IQ weaknesses.

In IQ studies, Western countries tend to come out on top in measures of verbal intelligence. Conversely, people in East Asia tend to have higher non-verbal IQs. The verbal IQs of English speaking western countries like Britain and the United States are further boosted by an Ashkenazi Jewish population with an average verbal IQ (according to Philippe Rushton) of 107.5.

The IQ patterns of Western and East Asian countries seem to match their respective economic fortunes over the last few decades. After a period of industrial decline in the 1970s, the English speaking West has enjoyed a high rate of growth over the last 12-15 years, in part, by shifting from manufacturing into services, software and media products, ie, just the sort of economic output requiring a high verbal IQ.

In contrast, industrialisation benefits from a population with a high non-verbal IQ, and so it seems likely that China’s extraordinarily rapid rate of industrialisation is at least partly due to the high performance IQ of its population.

However, there is a danger in letting people fashion the economy in their own image without industrial planning. The English-speaking world seems to have forgotten the message that all wealth ultimately comes from production. In English-speaking western countries, there has been an explosion in jobs requiring a high verbal IQ that don’t really add to GDP. People such as real estate agents and public relations staff readily come to mind. Subsequently, productivity levels have stagnated while serious trade imbalances have built up with more industrialised Asian countries.

The Japanese seems to have the opposite problem. They have perhaps over-emphasised production and neglected their service economy. Even though Japan is highly efficient in manufacturing, its banking and distribution sectors are surprisingly antiquated. Subsequently, as manufacturing has peaked, the whole economy has stagnated. The Japanese have perhaps become too reliant on activities requiring a high performance IQ.

The IQ problem in developed countries is going to become more acute as their populations start aging. Hence it is important that western countries maximise opportunities for those with atypical IQ profiles.

In the West, it is important that workers with high performance IQs are lured into productive jobs and get the best available training and incentives. In New Zealand, it is absurd that maths teachers aren’t paid more than arts teachers, even though the former are in serious under-supply. Similarly, many of the countries best scientists are driven away by lack of government spending on scientific research.

Perhaps the most important thing in making the most of a nation’s intelligence, is good intelligence- acknowledging the importance of IQ in many life outcomes and taking steps to record it on a national level.

Maori 'Warrior Gene' Controversy

There has been an interesting range of responses to Dr Rod Lea’s theory about Maori having a ‘warrior gene’ for aggressive behaviour.

TV had the most in-depth coverage with Dr Lea being interviewed by John Campbell. Surprisingly, Campbell handled the interview in a pretty unemotional, low-key way, giving Lea plenty of time to respond to his questions. This suggests that TV3 is perceptive enough to realise that there are going to be alot more stories about genetic differences between races and that a lot of politically incorrect findings are likely to emerge.

Perhaps it is beginning to dawn on some liberals that their worldview is now diverging from that of modern science.

However, The New Zealand Herald ran a comments board about the story on its website and anti-scientific hysteria was rampant. It was clear from almost all the responses that any scientific findings that conflict with mainstream liberal values must be automatically discounted. Not a single comment was posted in support of Lea or his research findings.

Neo-conservative commentator Alan Duff has been less hysterical but also makes little sense. Duff tends to blame Maori violence on welfare and illiteracy, and argues that the gene theory can be 'reputiated'. If the threory is scientifically wrong then Duff is free to ignore it. However, he then states that:

'...the last thing we need is another excuse, or another reason for Maori
dominating in the violence stakes and all the bad stats.'

Duff seems to be suggesting that scientists should only publicise 'good news' and that 'bad news' should be brushed under the carpet. Society's job is to decide what to do with scientific findings not to deny they exist. According to Duff's logic we should also hid the facts about global warming since 'bad news ' is bad for the global economy.

Interesting, some Maori have taken the view that there may be some truth in Lea’s findings and have decided to take a positive spin on the theory. They are claiming that the gene may have helped Maori to discover New Zealand and survive in a difficult environment. Again though, you can’t pick and chose scientific facts. If a genetic disposition has a positive side it is will often have a negative side as well. This is something modern liberal society has yet to acknowledge.

Psychometrics and Welfare

There is currently a lot of debate in New Zealand about reforming the welfare system, with the left arguing that welfare problems are a product of environmental factors, and the right arguing that the ‘welfare culture’ undermines individual willpower. There is little talk though, about genetic factors in welfare dependency, and the role psychometrics can play in social welfare policy.

Today’s workplace is an increasingly complex and competitive environment with few sheltered government jobs. In the 1960s it was government policy to create jobs for those with marginal capabilities. In the present economic climate this is not really feasible because of the decline of low-skilled work in factories, farms and offices. Today we need to know how many people on welfare can actually fill essential government vacancies and private sector jobs. However, the Government can’t make fair assessments about welfare recipients unless it has some reasonably objective means of assessing their capabilities.

IQ testing is a good predictor of success in many areas of life including success in job training and in government work, and is frequently used by the U.S military, which has to assess large numbers of applicants from low socio-economic backgrounds. At present, Work and Income Support only assesses applicants work interests and not their actual work capabilities. However, just because someone wants to do a particular type of job doesn’t mean they can- a fact that the military is clearly well aware of.

It is estimated that around 5 percent of the general population have learning disorders of one form or another and this percentage is likely to be much higher among those on welfare benefits. IQ testing can also be good for indicating the presence of learning disabilities. More often than not, a large gap between the verbal and non-verbal scores on an IQ test indicates the presence of a learning disability, while low scores on particular subtests, such as coding, often indicative of an attention disorder.

Ideally IQ testing should be employed at the secondary level as this would allow schools to give better career guidance and would not bias test results. Although testing could be done on long-term welfare beneficiaries it is possible that some welfare recipients might try to undermine the testing by deliberately trying to achieve low scores. Psychometricians are also developing ways to tests people’s reactions and ability to make quick decisions which is important for many jobs- particularly those involving the use of dangerous machinery.

Many of the long-term unemployed are now moving off unemployment benefits and onto sickness benefits with a big increase in people claiming sickness benefits for mental disorders. Increasingly, governments are responding by providing subsidised counselling for disorders like anxiety and depression. Before sending people to counselling for subjectively defined disorders like ‘depression’ welfare providers should test for the presence of learning disorders which often cause such affective disorders and which are easier to objectively assess.

The increase in sickness benefits could also be partially offset by introducing a sub-category of sickness benefit that requires recipients to look for part-time work. It is likely that many people with mental health disorders lack the mental stamina to undertake full time work but may be quite capable of working on a part-time basis. Indeed, they may benefit from the mental and physical stimulation from regular, part-time employment.

As it is currently conceived, the New Zealand welfare system is based on poorly defined, subjective criteria derived from outdated, ‘blank slate’ thinking about human abilities. It is time for the Government to adopt a modern, scientific approach to welfare that goes beyond the current thinking of the liberal left and the libertarian/neo-conservative right.