Robert Plomin on heritability of behavior

[ApostateAbe]

The psychologist Robert Plomin sent me one of his papers on Research Gate after I requested it, so I decided to listen to his YouTube video. Good decision. It is an interesting 45-minute fast-paced ambling all over the field of behavioral genetics and the politics surrounding it.

 

[Perspicuo]

I'm on minute 16:02 and paused to take a break.

It's very good.

After that it's gotten better and better. I have to stop at 33:15, as tomorrow I have to get up early.

 

[ronburgundy]

It is interesting that you like Plomin. He does argue forcefully for the validity of general intelligence and the importance of genes. However, in that video does he go into his central argument about education? I have not seen your video, but I know his work more generally.

His argument about education is that Genes and "g" predict school success as well as they do because of the artificially narrow and inflexible learning opportunities and methods that schools force kids into. A huge portion of the genetic impact is not in determining the amount a person can learn but in determining the process by which they learn they most. Thus, if schools only provide the same singular process for learning to all students, then differences in how students learn best will be become differences in the amount that they learn. Change the schools and vary the methods of instruction and you will decouple much of the impact that genes and "g" have on the amount students learn.

The current teaching methods are narrowly geared toward methods that high IQ kids can take most advantage of, leading to a rich get richer effect that inflates the influence of genes and 'g' on learning. This is why genes account for far less variance in the earlier grades and becomes more and more predictive in latter grades. Prior to school, learning environments are non-standardized and free to vary, and kids are free to gravitate toward approaches that suit them best. Even in early grades, there is more unstructured learning time where different kids get some choice over how they spend their time.
But increasingly the classroom gets more and more rigid with all kids being forced to sit and listen to the teacher and engage in identical activities. By high school, they have spent a decade in such inflexible learning environments, and that lack of environmental variance inherently means that the potential role for environment on learning has been hindered, thereby inflating the % of variance in learning due to genes and g.

The direct logical implication is that genes and g are far less important for informal learning and less structured and more variable environments that people are free to select to suit themselves. Plomin advocates for more variety and freedom in the classroom, for both teachers and students, which will improved overall learning and reduce the learning gap between those with high and low IQs.

Also, Plomin does not at all share your views about the role of genes in racial differences in IQ.
He agrees fully with the arguments I have made to you, such as when he says that "within a group, genes may explain a lot but the difference between that group and another could be wholly down to environment if one of them is discriminated against or kept in poverty."

In this regard, Plomin is like the majority of scientist with expertise in the area. He is one of the 52 well know cognitive scientists who wrote and signed a paper back in 1994, laying out the mainstream most widely accepted ideas in the field regarding IQ. The article went to lengths to point out that the evidence for genetic influence only applies to within-group differences. The discussed all such evidence solely within the section titled "Source and stability of within-group differences", and in their general conclusions section went out of their way to point out that the theory that IQ differences are "partly genetic" is only accepted among experts as it applies "within races". In the section on "Source and stability of within-group differences", they (including Plomin) state the following:


[P]

The reasons for these IQ differences
between groups may be markedly different
from the reasons for why individuals differ
among themselves within any particular
group (whites or blacks or Asians). In fact, it
is wrong to assume, as many do, that the reason
why some individuals in a population have
high IQs but others have low IQs must be the
same reason why some populations contain
more such high (or low) IQ individuals than
others. Most experts believe that environment
is important in pushing the bell curves
apart, but that genetics could be involved too.

[/P]

Note the strong difference in probability shown in their deliberate phrasing. The mainstream view about black-white difference in avg IQ, even among those you often cite for the importance of genes is that environment "is important" whereas genetics merely "could be involved", which means nothing more than that genes cannot yet be ruled out as having some degree of influence. That mainstream view among relevant scientists has not changed in the last 20 years, because they understand that like the like the evidence at that time, all the new evidence for genetic influence applies only to within-group variance and not to between group differences.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Yes, ronburgundy, Robert Plomin is a moderate, and he does not argue in favor of the genetic responsibility of the racial IQ gap, though he allows that possibility, which seems to be common in the field, as you proved, though even acknowledgement of the possibility is strictly taboo among the public. Linda Gottfredson is a figure very often identified as defending Jensenism, but even she signed the statement with 52 signatures (she led the project). Even the moderate position of uncertainty is the target of political attacks, and Robert Plomin talks about it in the video at length. He identifies as being on the opposing side of Leon Kamin and appalled by the explicit political motivation of what should be science. At minute 24, he laments that so many articles in the popular press linked behavior genetics to Nazis and eugenics. The sentence of Plomin that you quoted, "within a group, genes may explain a lot but the difference between that group and another could be wholly down to environment if one of them is discriminated against or kept in poverty," was taken from a Guardian newspaper article on the topic that likewise linked his research to "the shadow of Nazi attempts to breed a master race." Without that quote, Plomin would seem to have a weaker defense from the political charge against his science.

 

[ronburgundy]

Yes, ronburgundy, Robert Plomin is a moderate, and he does not argue in favor of the genetic responsibility of the racial IQ gap, though he allows that possibility, which seems to be common in the field, as you proved, though even acknowledgement of the possibility is strictly taboo among the public. Linda Gottfredson is a figure very often identified as defending Jensenism, but even she signed the statement with 52 signatures (she led the project). Even the moderate position of uncertainty is the target of political attacks, and Robert Plomin talks about it in the video at length. He identifies as being on the opposing side of Leon Kamin and appalled by the explicit political motivation of what should be science. At minute 24, he laments that so many articles in the popular press linked behavior genetics to Nazis and eugenics. The sentence of Plomin that you quoted, "within a group, genes may explain a lot but the difference between that group and another could be wholly down to environment if one of them is discriminated against or kept in poverty," was taken from a Guardian newspaper article on the topic that likewise linked his research to "the shadow of Nazi attempts to breed a master race." Without that quote, Plomin would seem to have a weaker defense from the political charge against his science.

Yes, Plomin and the other signatories are defending the science from the leftists seeking to deny the validity of IQ and its genetic contributions.
But they are also defending the science from racists, the right, and people like you that abuse the science and make invalid inferences from existing hereditary research to the source of between group differences. They are not merely trying to deflect invalid accusations of racism against their own work. They are trying to point of the unscientific nature of the actually racist claims made by people that abuse their work. They agree with me and disagree with you that the science on hereditary impacts the relative plausibility of a genes vs. an environment account of racial differences in IQ. They would find most of your arguments here about race and IQ to be scientifically invalid. They favor the role of environment in the between group differences because that is what the science very clearly favors. The 50% role for environment overall is certain to be much larger than 50% in the between group differences, because the variance between blacks and whites in environment (which includes 500 years of culture shaping environment) are far more different between the groups than within the groups. IOW, take 2 random whites and 2 random blacks in America, and evaluate the environments of them and their ancestors and immediate communities going back a dozen generations. Each of those 4 people's cross-generational-environments will be far more similar to the second same-race person than either of the two other-race people.
This fact essentially guarantees that the influence of environment in IQ will be notably larger in between group differences than within group differences, which means a minimum of notably larger than 50% and could easily be up to and including 100%, which puts the genetic contribution at a max of notably less than 50% down to a possible 0%. This is the underlying valid scientific reasoning behind the statements I referred to in that 52 signatory paper.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Yes, ronburgundy, Robert Plomin is a moderate, and he does not argue in favor of the genetic responsibility of the racial IQ gap, though he allows that possibility, which seems to be common in the field, as you proved, though even acknowledgement of the possibility is strictly taboo among the public. Linda Gottfredson is a figure very often identified as defending Jensenism, but even she signed the statement with 52 signatures (she led the project). Even the moderate position of uncertainty is the target of political attacks, and Robert Plomin talks about it in the video at length. He identifies as being on the opposing side of Leon Kamin and appalled by the explicit political motivation of what should be science. At minute 24, he laments that so many articles in the popular press linked behavior genetics to Nazis and eugenics. The sentence of Plomin that you quoted, "within a group, genes may explain a lot but the difference between that group and another could be wholly down to environment if one of them is discriminated against or kept in poverty," was taken from a Guardian newspaper article on the topic that likewise linked his research to "the shadow of Nazi attempts to breed a master race." Without that quote, Plomin would seem to have a weaker defense from the political charge against his science.

Yes, Plomin and the other signatories are defending the science from the leftists seeking to deny the validity of IQ and its genetic contributions.
But they are also defending the science from racists, the right, and people like you that abuse the science and make invalid inferences from existing hereditary research to the source of between group differences. They are not merely trying to deflect invalid accusations of racism against their own work. They are trying to point of the unscientific nature of the actually racist claims made by people that abuse their work. They agree with me and disagree with you that the science on hereditary impacts the relative plausibility of a genes vs. an environment account of racial differences in IQ. They would find most of your arguments here about race and IQ to be scientifically invalid. They favor the role of environment in the between group differences because that is what the science very clearly favors. The 50% role for environment overall is certain to be much larger than 50% in the between group differences, because the variance between blacks and whites in environment (which includes 500 years of culture shaping environment) are far more different between the groups than within the groups. IOW, take 2 random whites and 2 random blacks in America, and evaluate the environments of them and their ancestors and immediate communities going back a dozen generations. Each of those 4 people's cross-generational-environments will be far more similar to the second same-race person than either of the two other-race people.
This fact essentially guarantees that the influence of environment in IQ will be notably larger in between group differences than within group differences, which means a minimum of notably larger than 50% and could easily be up to and including 100%, which puts the genetic contribution at a max of notably less than 50% down to a possible 0%. This is the underlying valid scientific reasoning behind the statements I referred to in that 52 signatory paper.

Your argument is that the differences in environment are much greater between the groups than within the groups, therefore environment has a bigger role than genetics, and you speculate that this is one reason why the experts favor environmentalism over hereditarianism concerning the race-IQ gaps, as reflected in the 52 signatures. I have seen such an argument reported in popular media (i.e. Malcolm Gladwell) but not in academia (if such an argument exists in academia, I would like to know). The fallacy is overlooking the fact that differences in IQ is a strong causal force for differences in environment such as SES (most certainly within any race and plausibly between them). So nobody should think that IQ and SES are independent variables as though you can control for one and get the causal effect of the other. Herrnstein and Murray actually statistically demonstrated that a child born with a high IQ and typical SES has a much higher chance of becoming a wealthy adult than a child born with a typical IQ and wealthy parents. There have been many academic criticisms of the book The Bell Curve, but nobody has challenged this salient point. It follows directly from the data.

The list of people included in the "52 Signatories" article include not only Linda Gottfredson but also Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, and Richard Lynn. They are the leading figures of scientific racism concerning intelligence. Rational people on either side of the fence can agree on the uncertainty of their own conclusions.

 

[ronburgundy]

Yes, Plomin and the other signatories are defending the science from the leftists seeking to deny the validity of IQ and its genetic contributions.
But they are also defending the science from racists, the right, and people like you that abuse the science and make invalid inferences from existing hereditary research to the source of between group differences. They are not merely trying to deflect invalid accusations of racism against their own work. They are trying to point of the unscientific nature of the actually racist claims made by people that abuse their work. They agree with me and disagree with you that the science on hereditary impacts the relative plausibility of a genes vs. an environment account of racial differences in IQ. They would find most of your arguments here about race and IQ to be scientifically invalid. They favor the role of environment in the between group differences because that is what the science very clearly favors. The 50% role for environment overall is certain to be much larger than 50% in the between group differences, because the variance between blacks and whites in environment (which includes 500 years of culture shaping environment) are far more different between the groups than within the groups. IOW, take 2 random whites and 2 random blacks in America, and evaluate the environments of them and their ancestors and immediate communities going back a dozen generations. Each of those 4 people's cross-generational-environments will be far more similar to the second same-race person than either of the two other-race people.
This fact essentially guarantees that the influence of environment in IQ will be notably larger in between group differences than within group differences, which means a minimum of notably larger than 50% and could easily be up to and including 100%, which puts the genetic contribution at a max of notably less than 50% down to a possible 0%. This is the underlying valid scientific reasoning behind the statements I referred to in that 52 signatory paper.

Your argument is that the differences in environment are much greater between the groups than within the groups, therefore environment has a bigger role than genetics, and you speculate that this is one reason why the experts favor environmentalism over hereditarianism concerning the race-IQ gaps, as reflected in the 52 signatures. I have seen such an argument reported in popular media (i.e. Malcolm Gladwell) but not in academia (if such an argument exists in academia, I would like to know). The fallacy is overlooking the fact that differences in IQ is a strong causal force for differences in environment such as SES (most certainly within any race and plausibly between them). So nobody should think that IQ and SES are independent variables as though you can control for one and get the causal effect of the other. Herrnstein and Murray actually statistically demonstrated that a child born with a high IQ and typical SES has a much higher chance of becoming a wealthy adult than a child born with a typical IQ and wealthy parents. There have been many academic criticisms of the book The Bell Curve, but nobody has challenged this salient point. It follows directly from the data.

The list of people included in the "52 Signatories" article include not only Linda Gottfredson but also Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, and Richard Lynn. They are the leading figures of scientific racism concerning intelligence. Rational people on either side of the fence can agree on the uncertainty of their own conclusions.

A couple of things. First, SES is a very poor and imprecise measure of anything other than income itself, and captures only a tiny fraction of the variance in "environment".
Second, just like with the IQ-heritability relationship, models that predict future income from current IQ (thus indicating a causal impact) are driven by within-group variance for each of those variables, thus cannot speak to their relationship between groups. Because within group variance in environment in less extreme than between groups, this inherently inflates any relationship between non-environmental factors like IQ and future SES. Variance in being barred from good schools and threatened with murder for trying to improve your situation were and are tied to race in ways that are independent from SES and from IQ, yet is a variable that impedes the causal impact that IQ can have on SES.
Put another way, a black man and a white man in 1960 Alabama with equally high IQs and the same modest SES will have completely different future incomes, because the black man might get hung if he reveals his intellect or tries to improve his situation by applying it.
Also, the black person today along with their parents and grandparents and almost everyone in their community lives in a sub-culture (not defined by SES) in which most of the people around them come from 500 years of ancestors in which showing one's intellect got your killed and/or they were prohibited from most opportunities to apply that to improve their financial situation.
Those environmental causal factors are still fully in place, regardless whether the black person is born into a poor family or a middle class family.

Contrast this with two white people in the US from similar SES. They are both highly and equally free to apply their intellect to improve their future earnings and are likely to exist in a sub-culture where most people have been free to do so, and come from generations that were free to do so, especially relative to black slaves. Thus, differences in the intellect among whites was free to be applied and thus impacts future income to a much larger degree than for blacks. Thus, differences in IQ between blacks and whites are less of a causal factor in future income than they are between people who share the same race.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Your argument is that the differences in environment are much greater between the groups than within the groups, therefore environment has a bigger role than genetics, and you speculate that this is one reason why the experts favor environmentalism over hereditarianism concerning the race-IQ gaps, as reflected in the 52 signatures. I have seen such an argument reported in popular media (i.e. Malcolm Gladwell) but not in academia (if such an argument exists in academia, I would like to know). The fallacy is overlooking the fact that differences in IQ is a strong causal force for differences in environment such as SES (most certainly within any race and plausibly between them). So nobody should think that IQ and SES are independent variables as though you can control for one and get the causal effect of the other. Herrnstein and Murray actually statistically demonstrated that a child born with a high IQ and typical SES has a much higher chance of becoming a wealthy adult than a child born with a typical IQ and wealthy parents. There have been many academic criticisms of the book The Bell Curve, but nobody has challenged this salient point. It follows directly from the data.

The list of people included in the "52 Signatories" article include not only Linda Gottfredson but also Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, and Richard Lynn. They are the leading figures of scientific racism concerning intelligence. Rational people on either side of the fence can agree on the uncertainty of their own conclusions.

A couple of things. First, SES is a very poor and imprecise measure of anything other than income itself, and captures only a tiny fraction of the variance in "environment".
Second, just like with the IQ-heritability relationship, models that predict future income from current IQ (thus indicating a causal impact) are driven by within-group variance for each of those variables, thus cannot speak to their relationship between groups. Because within group variance in environment in less extreme than between groups, this inherently inflates any relationship between non-environmental factors like IQ and future SES. Variance in being barred from good schools and threatened with murder for trying to improve your situation were and are tied to race in ways that are independent from SES and from IQ, yet is a variable that impedes the causal impact that IQ can have on SES.
Put another way, a black man and a white man in 1960 Alabama with equally high IQs and the same modest SES will have completely different future incomes, because the black man might get hung if he reveals his intellect or tries to improve his situation by applying it.
Also, the black person today along with their parents and grandparents and almost everyone in their community lives in a sub-culture (not defined by SES) in which most of the people around them come from 500 years of ancestors in which showing one's intellect got your killed and/or they were prohibited from most opportunities to apply that to improve their financial situation.
Those environmental causal factors are still fully in place, regardless whether the black person is born into a poor family or a middle class family.

Contrast this with two white people in the US from similar SES. They are both highly and equally free to apply their intellect to improve their future earnings and are likely to exist in a sub-culture where most people have been free to do so, and come from generations that were free to do so, especially relative to black slaves. Thus, differences in the intellect among whites was free to be applied and thus impacts future income to a much larger degree than for blacks. Thus, differences in IQ between blacks and whites are less of a causal factor in future income than they are between people who share the same race.

You are saying, if the IQ variable has a causal effect on the SES variable within groups, it does not necessarily follow that it is the same causal effect between groups. Absolutely. But, it means such a causal effect between groups is plausible, and your initial argument makes sense only by assuming that such a causal effect does not exist.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

:mod: