IT'S A BROTHERSJUDD-O-RAMA

Genes' Sway Over IQ May Vary With Class (Rick Weiss, Washington Post, 9/2/03)

Back-to-school pop quiz: Why do poor children, and especially black poor children, score lower on average than their middle-class and white counterparts on IQ tests and other measures of cognitive performance?

It is an old and politically sensitive question, and one that has long fueled claims of racism. As highlighted in the controversial 1994 book 'The Bell Curve,' studies have repeatedly found that people's genes - and not their environment -- explain most of the differences in IQ among individuals. That has led a few scholars to advance the hotly disputed notion that minorities' lower scores are evidence of genetic inferiority.

Now a groundbreaking study of the interaction among genes, environment and IQ finds that the influence of genes on intelligence is dependent on class. Genes do explain the vast majority of IQ differences among children in wealthier families, the new work shows. But environmental factors -- not genetic deficits -- explain IQ differences among poor minorities.

The results suggest that early childhood assistance programs such as Head Start can help the poor and are worthy of public support. They also suggest that middle-class and wealthy parents need not feel guilty if they don't purchase the latest Lamaze mobile or other expensive gadgets that are pitched as being so important to their children's development.

This article touches on a number of issues we've been discussing over the last few weeks: nature v. nurture, twin studies, determinism v. free will and even editorializing in news articles (Weiss' statement that "early childhood assistance programs such as Head Start can help the poor and are worthy of public support" is pure opinion, unsupported by anything in the article).

The conclusion - that poor kids might not be able to express their full genetic potential - is so obvious that it's annoying that the methodology here is so poor and PC concerns so obviously limited either the scope of the study or the article. As reported, this study tells us nothing of any interest. The interesting question is what is the limiting factor. Is it nutrition? Is it the lack of role models? Is it lousy schools? Is it a street culture that punishes academic achievement? Is it all of the above? What effect is welfare reform having, if any? Was there a difference between the married poor (if any, the data was collected for a purpose that would indicate it doesn't include many married couples) and the unmarried poor? At least the article, by noting that IQ is the best predicter of achievement, seems to concede implicitly that it is not vast racist conspiracy.

The answers to these questions will show us whether government has a role and where our money is best spent. Thus, Weiss' throw away line about Head Start, a liberal shibboleth never shown to have any long-term effect. But let me ask a more fundamental question that is rarely asked anymore: if the reason is not governmental racism, why should the government take any action at all?

Finally, note the reference to class throughout the article. The United States does not have classes, we have quintiles. Posted by David Cohen at September 2, 2003 11:01 AM