FREE ESSAY ON RACIAL DIFFERENCE IN INTELLIGENCE

RACIAL DIFFERENCE IN INTELLIGENCE

Is there a racial difference in Intelligence? 
Is There a Racial Difference in Intelligence? Starting with birth, most Americans are
consistently measured and their abilities consistently assessed. While no clear
definition of intelligence has been adopted universally, in general, definitions stress
either an ability to adapt to environment, the capacity to learn, or the ability to think
abstractly. Like the 
word "love," intelligence remains a term we all have a feel for but cannot quite pin
down.
Today, this undefined ability has become one of the most controversial topics in
psychology. Psychological researchers have resisted racism by denying the existence of
innate differences between races, such as intelligence. Many argue that this debate has
dire consequences for both the scientific and psychological fields and needs to be based
on objective empirical evidence versus political agendas. "Blacks are born stupid, even
dumber than Poles,"…"Jews are smart,"…"Country hicks are easily taken by
city
common," "Women can't handle mathematics well enough to be good scientists." Sound
familiar? They should. Society has shot through with tons of prejudices about the
comparative intellectual capacities of different groups. And science" has tried hard to
confirm or disprove many of these folk conclusions. Why should group comparisons be made
at all? What differences have been observed? Are the IQ differences observed best
interpreted as being caused by genetic or environmental differences among groups? A
strong promoter of the belief that there is undoubtedly a racial difference in
intelligence is Phillippe Rushton. As a professor of psychology, he argues that there is
irrefutable scientific evidence of differences in intelligence between races. He feels
that these differences are genetically based, arguing that blacks consistently score
lower on IQ tests 
(the mainstream basis for intelligence testing) than whites. Many surveys of experts who
administer IQ tests, as well as behavioral geneticists, agree with Rushton that the
IQ-Intelligence barrier is genetically based. To further reinforce his genetic basis
theory, Rushton has proven that on average, blacks have smaller skulls than their white
counterparts. Since brain size can, and has been, correlated with intelligence, Rushton
feels that this proves blacks are genetically predetermined to have lower intelligence
levels. This positive correlation between mental ability and brain size has been
established in studies over the years using even the most high-tech instrumentation, such
as magnetic resonance imaging. Along with longitudinal studies following kids of
different races, time and time again scientists and psychologists, such as Rushton, have
been able to reinforce the idea of a brain size-IQ link. As I stated before, it has been
recorded over time that Caucasians seem to consistently rank above their African-American
counterparts in IQ test scores. Many contenders of Rushton's ideas argue that these
scores are merely the product of culturally biased testing materials. Rushton himself
highly contends this, stating that the tests seem to show similar patterns of
internal item consistency and predictive validity for all groups, and the same
differences are found on relatively culture-free tests. 
On the other hand of this debate, there are many supporters who firmly disagree with
Professor Rushton. One such man, Zack Z. Cernovsky, a teacher and psychologist,
argues that Rushton's data is based not on contemporary scientific research, but on
racial prejudice. He asserts that the genetic basis model for intelligence ignores the
plasticity of human beings which in itself is highly supported by empirical data.
Cernovsky also contends that Rushton uses nonscientific and methodologically inadequate
sources to support his claims about racial differences and lacks quality in his empirical
evidence. He 
blatantly compares Rushton's evidence and theories to those of the Nazi's in
Germany…"The history of science teaches us that many ambitious racists attempted
to
manufacture scientific evidence for their beliefs. Sooner or later, their charlatan style
methodology (e.g. the use of skull circumference measurement by Nazi 'scientists' during
WWII) and logical inconsistencies resulted in their rejection by the scientific community
(Slife, 184)." Cernovsky considers the research that links brain size and intelligence to
be faulty. He contends that although Rushton implied that Blacks are consistently found
to have smaller brains than Whites, some studies have actually shown opposite results.
Rushton's opponents have found that Blacks seems to be superior 
to Whites in brain weight, have excess number of neurons compared to Caucasoids and
have been found to have cranial capacities that are favorably comparable. Cernovsky
protests that Rushton repeatedly misrepresented findings of empirical evidence by Beals
et. al, trying to imply that the racial inferiority of the blacks was strongly correlated
with cranial size, whereas Beals showed that cranial size varies with climatic zones, not
race. 
Can we say confirmation bias Mr. Rushton? Cernovsky also argues that Rushton's
research has been censored not because of political incorrectness, but because of its
poor scholarship. While Rushton's research did find that the brain and cranial size of
one's head are correlated with intelligence, he failed to mention how small of a
correlation he actually was able to prove. This misconstruing of empirical evidence drove
Cernovsky to call Rushton's writings "pseudoscientific" and state that he "perpetuates
lay public's
misconceptions and promotes racism (Slife, 185)." The social implications of Rushton's
theories may seem to be doing more harm than good. To demonstrate that blacks are less
intelligent and, perhaps, to allege that this is genetically given, with only
environmental modifications, Rushton refers to his own biased review of brain size
studies. Yet, it has been shown that the theories favoring hereditarian over
environmentalists explanations tend to be based on poor methodology. In summary, although
Rushton's writings and
teachings instill the vision of Blacks as a smaller-brained, less intelligent species,
his views, in Cernovsky's mind (as well as mine), are based on neither bonafide
scientific evidence or contemporary scientific methodology. His belief of the
evolutionary inferiority of Blacks seems to be supported by no "real" strong empirical
evidence. Cenovsky conclusively states, "Further empirical data in this field is
necessary: Authoritarian statements 'about the reality of racial differences,' based on
conveniently selected trends in the data, do not qualify as a scientific contribution
(Slife, 185)." 
I do feel that Cernovsky's article lacked a clear style as well as evidence and
reasoning.
He seemed to contest Rushton's composition the entire time and never really appeared to
present any evidence of his own. There were hardly any statistics backing his claims,
making his argument, in my eyes, much weaker than Rushton's. In addition, since his
article was mostly rebuttal to Rushton's, Cernovsky lacked style and organization within
his own. This also cheapened the credentials of both him and his argument, to me.
Although, in Cernovsky's defense, I do praise him for his realization that much more
evidence is needed and that nit-picking of facts to prove one's point is highly
unethical. From reading the two articles above I could not yet take a stand on this
issue. I felt that both authors were very bias, highly emotional and that the empirical
evidence presented seemed to be manipulated on both ends. In order to make a final ruling
on my response to the question originally posed, is there a racial difference in
intelligence, I decided to do 
some further research. These outside sources seemed to put a lot of the previous
statements into perspective and give a clearer all-around presentation of the material.
These readings included: The Race Bomb: Skin Color, Prejudice and Intelligence by Ehrlich
& Feldman (1969), The Bell Curve Wars: Race, Intelligence and the Future of America by
Fraser (1995), The Undiscovered Mind: How the Human Brain Defies Replication, Medication
and Explanation by Horgan (1999), The Fallacy of I.Q. by Senna (1973) and Race,
Intelligence, and the Brain: The Errors and Omissions of the 
Revised Edition of S. J. Gould's The Mismeasure of Man (1996) Personality and 
Individual Differences by Rushton (1997). While our focus surrounds fact not faith, when
all is said and done, it is impossible to escape the conclusion that some of the research
on group differences in intelligence could possibly be motivated by a desire to affirm
the superiority of one group over another. Factually however, as stated in The Bell Curve
Wars: Race, Intelligence and the Future of America by Fraser, while Blacks on average do
score lower on IQ tests than Whites (the average IQ for whites is 100, the average for
Blacks is somewhat lower, ranging from 80 to 90) and despite the consistency in these
basic findings, it is nonetheless clear that the variation within groups is much greater
than the differences between them. In The Race Bomb: Skin Color, Prejudice and
Intelligence by Ehrlich and Feldman, they state that they believe Blacks may be caught in
a self-fulfilling prophecy - by us convincing black children, their parents and their
teachers 
that they are innately, immutably inferior. Maybe society has "programmed" Blacks to
perform in the way that they do? Additionally, these researchers stated that at least
some of the differences in intelligence that exist between urban and rural children or
Blacks and Whites are due not to genuine differences in ability, but in their abilities
to profit from their environments. Many different empirical studies on this issue, while
come together on their end result, have correlation and causation statistics, which vary
quite largely. Additional findings suggest that cultural values influence the salience of
objects in the environment, and therefore tests are never assessing underlying
intelligence per 
se, for performance is always influenced by the content of the item. While this may
not be empirical evidence, which has been statistically recorded, formulated and
hypothesized, I do feel that this argument does present an alternative reason for the
known difference in IQ scores between races. As seen, IQ tests seem to measure rather
than account for differences these differences. If certain groups of people score poorly
on tests because of inadequate environments, it is not the test that is unfair, but the
social 
order that permits individuals to develop under these inferior conditions. Each
individual should be considered on a case by case basis - society as a whole should
judging and dealing with individuals on their own merits instead of on their membership
in any "racial," ethnic, religious, sexual, or other group.. At the present time,
biological intellectual capacity cannot be measured directly. Such a measure would
require assessment of the genetic component of performance, the genotype. In The Fallacy
of I.Q., Senna explains that from conception on, the genotype is modified by
environmental 
factors. Thus, an individual's genetic potential is always being expressed though
behavior acquired in a social and cultural setting, his phenotype. A person's performance
on an "intelligence" test is phenotypic behavior. In accordance with this "phenotypic"
factor, transracial adoption studies provide evidence against the heritability of racial
differences in IQ. For example, in the well known Minnesota Adoption Study, by age 17,
adopted children with two White biological parents had an average IQ of 106, adopted 
children with
one White and one Black biological parent had an average IQ of 
99 and
adopted children with two Black biological parents had an 
average IQ of 89
(Rushton, 1997). Here, environment obviously played a grand role 
in these
children's IQ's. To put it in a nutshell, the notion that group 
differences in
average IQ are due to differences in genes for intelligence is 
hard to prove by
empirical evidence. In my opinion, the emphasis on heritability 
in the race-IQ
debate is purely a red herring promoted by those who do not 
understand the
proper use of the empirical data and statistics. Through this 
analysis, one can
see that this question is not one that can be easily answered. 
Trying to seek
easy "scientific" solutions to hard to solve social debates can 
create great
controversies. But it is only with continuous research, 
experimentation and
knowledge that we, as a society, can slowly move towards these 
answers.
My answer to the originally posed question, "Is there a racial 
difference in
intelligence," is Yes. I do not feel that there is much argument 
across the
board about that. Reviewing the research I found, it is 
absolutely
uncontestable that there is not a consistent difference in 
test-score means
between races. However, the origin of this difference is 
unclear. Genetics?
Environment? A combination of these two factors? Each researcher 
probably
will have a different answer. Dependant upon their empirical 
research and
own innate biases, which I feel due tend to inhibit researchers 
results, each
experimenter has their own opinion. By the evidence I have seen 
and the
empirical data presented, I feel that it is a combination of 
both factors. Both
factors play a large role in everyone and every activities. 
While part of that
answer is probably based on personal biases, beliefs and 
previous education,
it is very hard to form a answer based solely on evidence, most 
of which is
conflicting anyway. However, I do agree with Cernovsky in saying 
that much
more research is still needed to find out why there is a 
difference between the
races. 
Bibliography 
Bibliography Cernovsky, Z.Z. (July 1995). On the Similarities of 
American
Blacks and Whites: A Reply to J.P. Rushton. In B. Slife (Ed.), 
Taking Sides:
Clashing Views on Controversial Psychological Views, 184-187. 
Guilford,
CT: Duskin/McGraw-Hill. Ehrlich, P.R., & Feldman S. S. (1969). 
The Race
Bomb: Skin Color, Prejudice and Intelligence. New York: The New 
York
Times Book Company. Fraser, S. (Ed.). (1995). The Bell Curve 
Wars:
Race, Intelligence and the Future of America. New York: Basic 
Books.
Horgan, J. (1999). The Undiscovered Mind: How the Human Brain 
Defies
Replication, Medication and Explanation. New York: The Free 
Press.
Rushton, J. P. (1994). The Equalitarian Dogma Revisited. 
Intelligence, 19,
180-183. In B. Slife (Ed.), Taking Sides: Clashing Views on 
Controversial
Psychological Views, 180-183. Guilford, CT: Duskin/McGraw-Hill 
Rushton,
J. P. (1997). Race, Intelligence, and the Brain: The Errors and 
Omissions of
the Revised Edition of S. J. Gould's The Mismeasure of Man 
(1996)
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 23, No. 1, 169-180. 
Senna, C.
(Ed.). (1973). The Fallacy of I.Q. New York: The Third Press. 
Slife, B.
(2000). Issue 10: Is there a Racial Difference in Intelligence? 
Taking Sides:
Clashing Views on Controversial Psychological Views, 11, 
178-179.
Research Should Be Done On Race Differences In Intelligence 
Should research be done on race differences in cognitive ability? The position that I
have taken is, Yes, or to be more accurate, Yes, in accordance with .... 
Yes, in accordance with research that is justly motivated, ethically performed, and
sufficiently communicated. 
Note that the requirements do not include: and be pertinent to racial differences from a
purely environmental perspective. I feel that research on racial differences should be
done from any perspective that might grant us information on the subject matter. I also
feel that the stated qualifications should apply to any research done on this topic.
Ignorance is never to be preferred to knowledge (Harrington, 1990, p. 156). 
People have avoided the topic of racial differences for many reasons. Some people sense
that racial differences are unpleasant matters not to be referred to in a polite society.
Others tend to believe that such differences should be the object of appreciation and
enjoyment, rather than of analysis. Some fear that discussing intelligence in accordance
to race will promote racism. Others desire to understand the nature and origin of racial
differences, sometimes out of curiosity, sometimes with the goal of changing (some of)
them. For these people the research should be suitable. It is also important to take into
consideration what research one wants to do on racial differences, and why one is
interested. If this self-questioning 
3 
leads to the belief that the research in mind is sensible and the motives pure, there is
still 
the communication that needs to be considered. Communication to both the sensible 
nature of the research and the worthiness value of the intentions to an audience that may
manifest in both a lack of education and paranoia. It is probably impossible to make
research into racial differences totally risk free, but damage control must be
considered. 
To avoid adverse impact when discussing race differences, one should keep several
principles in mind, the first being: 
To state clearly what the results mean and what they do not indicate. When discussing the
findings in race differences it is important to keep in mind that, many people care
passionately. Most of them are not experts in interpreting research, although many may
pride themselves on being informed and literate. Unsophisticated people could possibly
misinterpret the findings and draw their own flawed conclusions, unless they are
specifically told not to. 
Another important aspect to keep in mind is to put matters in a quantitative perspective.
To not place so much emphasis on statistical significance, and put more stress on effect
sizes and variance accounted for, and the like. If the general public is informed that 2%
of the variance of some behavior is accounted for by race, they would be less apt to do
something foolish than if they were told that the racial differences is significant at
well beyond the .0001 level. The latter fact about difference is crucial to a 
scientist, since it informs him/her that there is something there to be pursued and 
4 
understood. The former fact provides a much more relevant viewpoint for the general 
public. 
The last thing to keep in mind is to be tactful. This may be the least important.
However, there is a caution. To be too tactful is to be condescending, which is, morally
speaking, at least as bad as being rude. Sometimes emphasis must override tact.
Nevertheless, other things equal, there is often a choice between stating something in a
way that will increase or that will decrease the probability of the reader feeling
aggrieved. It is sometimes just a matter of thinking a little about choices of metaphors.
The late William Shockly once made a comment about Nature, saying that color-coded groups
of individual so that statistical reliable predictions of their adaptability to
intellectually rewarding and effective lives can easily be made and profitably be used by
the pragmatic man in the street(Shockley, 1972, p. 307). This metaphor was an wrong
choice, from at least two different perspectives. First, it is equivocal in an extremely
fundamental fashion. Color coding of electrical components are to let the user know what
the internal characteristics of the devise are from the external code. This works because
the user can have faith in the manufacturer to supply components bearing a certain color
code that are consistent in the coded-for property, and distinct from components of
different colors. If electrical manufacturer did as badly as Nature apparently has-so
that components bearing 
any color code varied widely among themselves, and overlapped extensively with the
components of other color codes-users would abandon the color coding as worthless, and 
5 
resort to direct tests on the components themselves to find one that in fact has the 
properties desired. 
Another objection to the metaphor is that it is value-laden, and the values are not 
very sympathetic ones. Why should ordinary people of color, be equated to 
simple electrical components whose only role is as interchangeable parts in more complex
systems? Why should Nature be arranging things for the benefits of personnel managers? I
think that if Professor Shockly had written down the quoted sentence and then stopped to
think whether it might give a misleading impression or unintended offense, Professor
Shockly would have wound up saying it different. 
The research of race differences in intelligence requires quite a bit of courage today.
Mostly because scientists working in the area have to be constantly aware that 
their freedom to seek knowledge carries a responsibility not to threaten the freedom on
others. They must also be prepared to engage in an unceasing debate about the ethical
issues raised by their research. As for the questions, at least some of them, should be
able to be answered. So they ought to be asked. There is a most absurd and audacious
Method of reasoning avowed by some Bigots and Enthusiasts, and through Fear assented to
by some wiser and better Men; it is this. They argue against a fair Discussion of Popular
Prejudices, because, say they, tho' they would be found without any reasonable Support,
yet the Discovery might be productive of the most dangerous Consequences. Absurd and
blasphemous Notion! As is all Happiness was not connected with the Practice 
6 
of Virtue, which necessarily depends upon the Knowledge of Truth (Herrnstein, 1994, p.
vi). 
7 
References 
Atkinson, D. R. (1993). Who speaks for cross-cultural counseling research?
Counseling-Psychologist, 21 (2), 218-224. 
Claridge, G. (1990). The issue is not just race. Psychologische-Bertrage, 32 (1-2)
157-162. 
Harrington, A. (1990). Studying race differences: or The problem of value-free science.
Psychologische-Bertrage, 32 (1-2) , 151-156. 
Herrnstein, J. R., Murray, C. (1994). The Bell Curve. New York, NY: Free Press. 
Holland, N. (1989). Developing multicultural ethical guidelines for psychology.
International Journal of Psychology, 24, 643-652. 
Humphreys, G. L. (1988). Trends in levels of academic achievement of Blacks and other
minorities. Intelligence, 12 (3), 231-260.