There's a fair amount of evidence for greater social pathology among whites of Southern origin. One of the major issues that Blue State liberals like to point out that is that on metrics of moral turpitude Southern whites stand out; those who promote a narrow and strident conception of ethical behavior are the most likely to transgress those very norms. Logically one might contend that in a society where there is no murder there need be no laws against it. Similarly, in our society we don't have specific laws against consumption of one's own children for food because it is such a rare occurrence, in contrast to sexual abuse and what not. So the Southern promotion of an ethic of sobriety might very well be due to the fact that social disorder is generally far closer to the surface. But in any case, we might need to go beyond the proximate scale to understand these patterns.
In Albion's Seed the historian David Hackett Fischer argues that there are "Four Folkways" which established themselves on these shores before American Independence. They are the Puritans of the New England, who are directly descended from Middle Class immigrants disproportionately from East Anglia who wished to practice a Calvinist form of English Protestantism (nobility and the poor were actually rejected as potential migrants!). In the highlands of the interior, what became Appalachia, settled the Scots-Irish, who hailed generally from the borders between England and Scotland and the Protestant colony in Ulster. In the lowlands of the South, starting in Virginia and on down toward Georgia you found settlements focused on aristocrats, often younger sons without title. Their estates were also characterized by a large underclass of poor. A symbiotic (exploitative) class relationship developed between this American gentry and their wards which recapitulated many of the cultural structures evident in southwest England, the stronghold of the Cavaliers. Finally, in the Mid-Atlantic between Maryland the Hudson river valley there was a melange of settlements of disparate origin. Fisher claims that the central organizing identity in this area was that of the religious non-conformists from the Midlands of England, such as Quakers, but he admits that the diversity of this region makes it harder to generalize, from the Dutch Patroons of New York to the Swedish settlement in Delaware. Ultimately the Mid-Atlantic Folkway is perhaps one defined by its pluralism and capitalist pragmatism, a lack of a coherent principled Folkway in some sense.
Fisher's claim is made that these Folkways serve as important explanatory paradigms across both time and space. That is, they're not simply features of the pre-1776, but they can allow us to gain insight into what makes Minnesota different from Texas. I use these two states as examples because both were settled after the period of the crystallization of the Four Folkways during the colonial period, and they are also to a large extent defined by non-British immigrants who arrived in the 19th century, Germans in central Texas and Scandinavians in Minnesota. Nevertheless, Fisher would assert that Texas is a compound of the Scots-Irish and Lowland South Folkway (contingent upon climate and economic orientation; e.g., moist southeast Texas vs. dry northwest Texas). Minnesota is part of what is termed "Greater New England." In fact, several New England states had colonies further to the West which have left their cultural stamp, such as Conneticut's Western Reserve in northern Ohio. The city of Portland, Oregon, could have been Boston, Oregon, because the two men who were arguing over its name hailed from Maine and Massachusetts.
The power of these identities over the long term in particular regions across ethnic groups is highlighted by the Boston Irish. Arriving in the 19th century the Irish were opposed by the Puritan descended Brahmins of Boston. John F. Kennedy rise was the final rebuke to the ascendancy of lineages such as Henry Cabot Lodge's. That being said, many would assert that Kennedy was simply a Brahmin himself by culture, and the famed Boston accent which he sported is a direct descendant of the dialect of East Anglia! Similarly, Germans and Scandinavians in the Upper Midwest and the Pacific Northwest also are descended culturally from the early Puritans despite their non-British ancestry, and quite often their non-British religion (Lutheran or Catholic). In fact, though I was born in an Asian country I was raised in in Greater New England, and I have to admit that I tend to carry within me cultural biases which I suspect were inculcated by a Puritan-descended outlook.
To a great extent David Hacket Fisher is claiming massive Founder Effect. This is most evident in language; western New England had a major effect on the accents of the interior regions across the North. On the other hand, the rhythm of the Minnesota accent many also derive in part from the nature of Scandinavian languages, so some synthesis also went on. But Fisher would argue that language is simply one among many cultural characteristics which persist across time and exhibit spatial variation. For example, it is arguable that Puritan New England was the first society to attain universal literacy. Today, Boston is the Athens of America and New England has a disproportionate number of America's elite universities (Four Ivy League schools as well as the top technical university, along with a host of other exception institutions such as Tufts and Boston University). The tendency toward interpersonal violence and conflict was already notable in the South, both the Uplands and Lowlands, at an early period. During the 19th century one of the major reasons that John Brown and his families were heroes in Kansas is that they were among the few Northerners who seemed capable and willing to match the Southern immigrants in violence and aggression. To this day the "Jacksonian" South maintains the greatest esteem for the martial professions and contributes a disproportionate number of soldiers to the American armed forces.
There are a few issues with Fisher's thesis though. Let's take the major facts correlated across time and space as givens, that New England characteristics noted during the 17th century can be observed today in the 21st. What else could explain the patterns? Perhaps immigrant streams were biased toward regions which were more congenial to their own orientation? East Anglia has long had relations with other North Sea nations such as The Netherlands and Norway, so the cultural Zeitgeist of the Upper Midwest might have been more congenial to Scandinavian migrants than the South. But it seems that this doesn't work so well for explaining the Boston Irish and European migrants who arrived in northern cities during the phase of industrialization; this wasn't selection for cultural congeniality but economic opportunity. The major region of the South which received large numbers of 19th century immigrants would be Texas, which though diverse and peculiar, is still recognizably Southern. Are its German immigrants similar to the Germans of Illinois, Wisconsin and Missouri? In actuality things are probably not as stark in terms of replacing ancestral culture as one might assume from accent; Peter Richerson and Robert Boyd have reported work that suggests that German descended farmers in Illinois tend to exhibit different patterns of economic optimization than Anglo-Saxon descended farmers. The culture of the latter did not wholly replace the ancestral one of the former, though I think that one might assert that German & Anglo-Saxon farmers in Illinois have more in common with each other than with their co-ethnics in Texas.
But at this point I want to move to something else. A post, Colder climates favor civilization even among Whites alone, claims that there are environmental factors which are perpetuating the differences among the Four Folkways:
As you can see, hotter average temperature is associated with lower White IQs, fewer degrees being awarded to Whites per capita, and a higher percentage of the White population being imprisoned. The relationship looks pretty linear in each case, and the data are on an interval scale, so we check the Pearson correlation coefficient: between White IQ and temperature, it is -0.48 (p = 0.0005, two-tailed); between degrees to Whites and temperature, it is -0.57 (p = 0.00002, two-tailed); and between percent of Whites in jail and temperature, it is +.40 (p = 0.005, two-tailed). Even conservatively correcting for three independent hypotheses still leaves all results significant (and IQ and getting a college degree are not even independent). At any rate, average temperature accounts for 23%, 32%, and 16% of the variance in White IQ, degrees to Whites, and percent of Whites in jail, respectively....
Here's the possible causation:
If it is causation, as seems likely, the mechanism could be anything. Pathogen load is surely part of it, hence the fields of study called "tropical disease" and "tropical medicine." Also, you might sweat too much in hotter environments, bringing you closer to dehydration. As mild as these effects may seem, when accumulated over the course of development, they could result in your body spending more resources on bodily maintenance than on luxury items like IQ and toil. Heat could also just make you more fatigued -- that wouldn't affect IQ, but it would affect your work ethic, making you less likely to complete college and more likely to pursue quick fixes like crime to get what you want.
The idea that climate and civilization are related are as old as the Greeks. It's a complicated topic, but the economic historian David Landes in Wealth and Poverty of Nations has made the case that hotter climates tend to be so enervating as to drain productivity. Primitive technologies can usually increase heat in colder climates, but before air conditioning keeping cool was a difficult proposition. Landes and others have argued that the economic boom of the American South is directly related to the spread of air conditioning, which removed a major environmental impediment toward optimal productivity. The ecological problems with the Lowland South are noted in Albion's Seed; whites in these regions were subject to far greater disease mortality, and their total fertility was far below that of New England.
Even with air conditioning and modern technology I'm not sure that all the various factors of warmer climates have been removed from the equation. For a large organism such as ourselves it may be that optimal temperature and climate is importance on the margins when it comes to activities which might be applicable to a post-Industrial economy. But I also think that Fisher's Founder Effect thesis needs to be extended: the frugal New England cultural ethic which demanded a strong level of communal participation might not have succeeded well in the disease ridden South. Too many people might be ill, or, gatherings of humans could spread communicable diseases, and so forth. Over the generations the initial differences might also have compounded through cultural evolution. If the enervating climate of the American South produced a slightly duller populace then the cultural development might have reacted in a manner so as to generate a positive feedback loop perpetuating norms which lead to relative dullness in relation to their potentiality. The inverse situation might apply to New England. Additionally, we can't ignore the contingent factors. Civilization arose in moderate climates but seems to have moved north more easily than south. The shift north could be due to the fact that technologies to perpetuate warmth were easier to produce than those to generate cold.
Umm ... wouldn't we have seen lower scores from the South in the days before air conditioning?
And what of civilizations that flourished in hot climates, such as ancient Egypt or, well, India?
Isn't it possible that what we're seeing here is actually a mirror version of the old claims about IQ and race, as in The Bell Curve, with the argument being transformed into, "Golly, them Southron folk with their contrary ways sure are stoopid, and here's the scine-tifick reasons why."
And what of civilizations that flourished in hot climates, such as ancient Egypt or, well, India?
well, civilization started in "hot climates," but this is a relative affair. the daily high in cairo in dec and jan is in the mid-60s. in northern india you see the same thing. OTOH, southern india the congo is ALWAYS hot. so civilization started in middle latitudes, north of the tropic of cancer but south of 30 degrees north, and spread in all directions. the point i'm trying to make is that mass advanced society might be able to spread north more easily than south because of ecological constraints. the same might apply to altitude; "tropical" civilization often has a highland focus (peru, guatemala, java, great rhodesia). why?
Umm ... wouldn't we have seen lower scores from the South in the days before air conditioning?
IQ testing is a 20th century thing. in any case, we did see lower literacy. the explanations are always vacuously cultural, but the point here is that there might be ecological explanations for why particular cultures turn out the way they do, like with toxoplasmosis.
Isn't it possible that what we're seeing here is actually a mirror version of the old claims about IQ and race, as in The Bell Curve, with the argument being transformed into, "Golly, them Southron folk with their contrary ways sure are stoopid, and here's the scine-tifick reasons why."
they're stupider, we know that, on average. the question is why. you just want to acknowledge they're stupider and not try to explain it? i don't get it.
Been a while since I studied American history, but wasn't Georgia originally a British penal colony? (Talk about founder effect!).
As a long-time resident of New York, Boston/Cambridge, and Silicon Valley, and a short-term resident of Atlanta, I would have to say that heat isn't the only issue here. (them southron folk sure are stoopid).
Shouldn't the mock comments on southerners be said in a New England accent? "Them Suthurnahs sure ah wicked stoopid."
Been a while since I studied American history, but wasn't Georgia originally a British penal colony
yeah. a disproportionate number of the settlers to lowland south were there because that was the end of the line. if they weren't convicts, they were the extreme poor who had nothing to lose in indentured servitude and might make out once their freedom was won. in contrast, new england was settled by farmers, artisans and professionals who were neither from the titled nobility or the underclasses.
I would have to say that heat isn't the only issue here. (them southron folk sure are stoopid).
yeah, there could be other things, but those things might relate to initial differences. that is, replicating british middle class civilization might have been easier in new england than south carolina because the latter was climatologically on the marigns vis-a-vis the former. if you're just trying to stay alive it means fewer long term capital inputs. it might change the entire set of norms which define a region. the worldiness of mainline religion might not result in a world of more utility, but might be an outcome of a world with more utility! that is, the disease-ridden south naturally would produce other-worldly focused religions because the world sucked. similarly, environmentalism tends to flourish where the environment isn't shite; if the wilderness consisted of stinky mosquito infested swamps you might be less inspired by the great wide open spaces.
In his rebuttal to The Bell Curve, Gould pointed out the single greatest flaw of IQ tests: They're rooted in cultural assumptions.
As a measure of one specific kind of intelligence they might have merit, but to take anyone's IQ score and use it to project onto him or her the label of stupid is more than a stretch; it's quite possibly unfounded.
For instance (to use an extreme example), if I were to take in IQ test in China, I would rate as sub-human in intelligence. For obvious reasons that finding would be deeply flawed, and the term stupid a vast injustice.
True, but widespread air conditioning was developed later in the 20th century (1920s-30s for businesses, with home window units becoming prominent in the late 40s) than was IQ testing (1905).
We're probably also overlooking some obvious communities which might not fit the mold, such as the metro areas in Florida. There are also plenty of other geographical locations in the US which have very hot summers. Take Tucson, AZ., which has summertime highs in the 120s, also has one of the best universities in the area; and it would intrigue me to see what the results might be in parts of Hawaii.
Rather than looking at the possible environmental factors we might want to consider the validity of the metric itself; and we could also be overlooking the legacy of the American Civil War, from which the South has never genuinely recovered.
I seem to recall similar IQ problems being reported in rust belt towns in the 1970s and 80s; Milwaukee, for instance, or Detroit, as well as the poverty-stricken areas of New York. Those regions were not subjected to endemic excessive summer heat like parts of the South, and yet I believe the prevalence of low IQ scores among blacks in those much more temperate zones was used to justify the suggestion of racial stupidity. This report just seems a little too close to those which have gone before it.
I'm not trying to make this a hornet's nest; I'm simply questioning the validity of the study, its methods and, perforce, its conclusions.
I love this thread. I feel as though I've stumbled into a parallel universe where people can actually say what they're thinking.
I'd hazard a fairly direct and simple explanation from my own experience -- when I'm hot I'm aware that my body is working hard to cool me down; it becomes more difficult to focus and think. This could have a circumstantial impact on test performance.
martin
rationalphilosophy.net
warren, IQ testing might be biased, but if someone is retarded enough to score a 65 (that is, they're literally retarded), it's telling you something real about their will or ability to analyze IQ tests, and those correlate to other things. i'm sure southerners have more "gun intelligence," or "nascar intelligence," than northerners. oregonians have more "wood intelligence" than non-oregonians, and californians have more "car intelligence" than new york city residents.
For instance (to use an extreme example), if I were to take in IQ test in China, I would rate as sub-human in intelligence.
the analogy is so extreme as to be useless. southern americans speak a dialect of english, and watch the same television shows, or can. there are cultural differences, but not so extreme as to suggest that the comparison with the chinese is warranted. i've been to the south; they're different, but not THAT different.
We're probably also overlooking some obvious communities which might not fit the mold, such as the metro areas in Florida.
we're talking about average differences. of course the research triangle, austin, etc., are going to be different. additionally, these regions have large out-of-state-origin populations so they're not cultural reflective of the broader region.
Well, the Cajuns did pretty well in mosquito infested swamps, but they went with the flow (as it were), and adapted their lifestyle instead of trying to change the environment. (Cajuns are of interest to me because they are the only other group besides Jews who get Taysachs, but that's another blog).
What Warren was trying to convey to you is that it is now distasteful to discuss diversity, even if you're trying to explain it. Sort of like farting in church - everybody knows, but nobody would be crass enough to comment (and I am proud to be a member of what is probably the only religion that has a specific codified recommendation on how to deal with that event). The second half of that is to then say "well, there are all sorts of other aspects of intelligence they're good at. (Wait for it - it will happen).
New England gets that community thing in a way I have never seen anywhere else, even in Japan, where they are in theory known for collective sensibility. In California we bemoan that there is no First Night celebration (now a tradition in Boston), but when they tried it here it was unworkable. The closest thing is Burning Man, and that has to create an artificial (and pay-to-enter) city to make it work.
Puritan work ethic or bad-but-not-terrible climate? Or ragweed pollen vs. average daily temperature, or pellagra? Or farmland that was hard to work but responded if you and your neighbors pulled stumps together? I would note that the Iroquois had a cooperative democracy long before Europeans showed up, while tribes living along the Pacific coast were described by traders as lazy and hedonistic.
ok, you beat me to it (but I got my car intelligence at MIT, not in California)
I would note that the Iroquois had a cooperative democracy long before Europeans showed up, while tribes living along the Pacific coast were described by traders as lazy and hedonistic.
civilization destroyed democracy. i am one who thinks that modern western civilization in some ways is resurrecting hunter-gatherer values after a 5-10,000 year interlude of traditionalist agricultural constrains which arose with the transition of the neolithic. you can see the pattern of the centralization and destruction of democratic-republican institutions in other societies as well outside of the west (e.g., india and even china!).
the pacific coast tribes were a peculiar case because of their ecological circumstances. the salmon runs were such a surplus that you produced a hunter-gatherer culture with stratification and a leisured class.
Well, the Cajuns did pretty well in mosquito infested swamps, but they went with the flow (as it were), and adapted their lifestyle instead of trying to change the environment. (Cajuns are of interest to me because they are the only other group besides Jews who get Taysachs, but that's another blog).
i think some irish and quebecois get it too. the cajun-quebecois comparison is one i'm going to explore, since they're from the same original greater acadian cultural complex but the ecology is radically different.
the pacific coast tribes were a peculiar case because of their ecological circumstances. the salmon runs were such a surplus that you produced a hunter-gatherer culture with stratification and a leisured class.
Still are ... Still have one ...
Not necessarily. It's certainly saying something about that person's ability to parse the test, of course, but if the test is biased toward (for instance) symbolic logic, all you're really getting is a measure of the person's ability to handle symbolic logic.
The point being, though, that cultural differences can and will affect IQ test performance.
That aside, as noted there are other considerations, such as reduced levels of higher education, more incarceration and, one presumes, considerably more poverty per capita. However, as I mentioned, there are other hot places in the world which don't seem to suffer from these conditions, so associating heat with intelligence, will to succeed or simple joie de vivre seems quite a leap, regardless of how social, economic or intelligence factors are measured.
(On the other hand, cold nations such as Finland and Norway seem to report the highest rates of social happiness, and seem to have considerably better-educated and more civil societies. Whether that means something about temperature and its effects on population success is probably speculation, but the study mentioned in this post is interesting from that point of view.)
Not sure civilization per se destroyed democracy, but rather those parts of it that allowed people to live in groups of more than about 30. (Sewers, for example). Our social and cultural sensibilities are fine-tuned for small bands. This is why much of advertising works as it does. Rationally, I should care less that uses , but my primate brain wants to do what the dominant band members are doing.
It's certainly saying something about that person's ability to parse the test, of course, but if the test is biased toward (for instance) symbolic logic, all you're really getting is a measure of the person's ability to handle symbolic logic.
right. if you can't handle symbolic logic, you're a tard in my book. but from now on, let's just do the appropriate search and replace. from now on in this thread i will refer to "symbolic logically deficient" and "symbolic logically fluent." same diff to me.
that was - "Rationally, I should care less that *random movie star* uses *random brand of soap*, but my primate brain wants to do what the dominant band members are doing."
However, as I mentioned, there are other hot places in the world which don't seem to suffer from these conditions, so associating heat with intelligence, will to succeed or simple joie de vivre seems quite a leap, regardless of how social, economic or intelligence factors are measured.
the ideal is compare within nations. north-south in australia for example, or india. because all conditions aren't controlled the prediction won't be perfect, but the point is to tease out parameters which might load the die into making people symbolic logic tards.
That wasn't what I was attempting to express.
The study referenced here isn't a discussion of diversity; it's an analysis of effects and discussion of causes for several rather grim facts about life in certain parts of the Southern US. To label high crime, low income and lack of education as diversity is to abuse the term as I understand it (diversity as something to be celebrated).
What I'm trying to express is that an IQ test result is not, all by itself, much of a valid measure of anything except the respondent's skill at taking the IQ test.
What I'm trying to express is that an IQ test result is not, all by itself, much of a valid measure of anything except the respondent's skill at taking the IQ test.
yes, but concretely if i talk to a dude who has an IQ of 75 and one who has one of 135 i can predict the sorts of conversations i'm going to be able to have with the symbolic logic deficient vs. symbolic logic fluent. it matters.
This is what happens when scientific terminology and current correctness collide. Diversity is diversity. No emotional overtones implied. Look it up.
(Sorta like evolution is just a *theory*, as noted by people who have never heard of a hypothesis.)
Ha!
Okay, that's a good point -- but I don't know how well that works in a nation which takes up as much surface area as the US does, and which seems to have such vastly disparate cultural cliques.
For all our talk about being united and basically the same, there's a pretty big difference between, say, a native-born Minnesotan and a native-born Washingtonian, and there are regions where the cultural differences are hugely magnified.
Apart from species, for instance, there probably isn't much in common between a San Franciscan and a native of the Black Hills. So how much divergence can we have before we begin to question the validity of a "standardized" IQ test as applied to differing populations?
Whoops, maybe I need to take it all back. Just got this from RSS. It's a picture of a billboard in Florida.
Please Don't Vote for a Democrat on PHB
Didn't expect my arguments to be shot down this effectively. Sigh.
The New England states and adjoining areas (NY, Pennsylvania) also had a lot of shipping activity: more outsiders, more well-traveled citizens, more commercial activity. The Appalachians were isolated and operated on a subsistence economy; the southern states were primarily agricultural, doing business with the outside world mostly during brief harvest intervals (except for a couple of port cities such as Charleston & New Orleans, regionally famous for their cosmopolitanism).
Once these factors are allowed for, I doubt much of Fisher's thesis would remain. (NB: as a southerner, I do concur with the idea that heat + humidity = torpor - but I also find northern winters produce near-paralyzing inactivity, except for wood-chopping...)
there's a pretty big difference between, say, a native-born Minnesotan and a native-born Washingtonian,
this is a bad example; there's a lot of similarity between the upper midwest and pacific northwest, and lot of a contemporary cross-migration. there are even scandinavian towns like ballard, WA, and astoria, OR. seattle's old ethnic neighborhoods were strongly scandinavian.
but I don't know how well that works in a nation which takes up as much surface area as the US does, and which seems to have such vastly disparate cultural cliques.
the south is different. i've lived in greater new england, the great lakes and pac. northwest. some differences, but when i visit the south it is VERY different. i think the south vs. non-south is the most salient difference, and then between new england and the rest of the north because new england has such local diversity due to its long residency.
in any case, common sense works against slippery slopes. it's a matter of opinion as to what does or doesn't count as cultural differences. perhaps french-speaking cajuns, but i doubt english speaking southerners are THAT different. that being said, even the fact of their different values are of note in producing more tardation. the question is, are those values arbitrary? i'm not sure they are. are they historically contingent, as fisher asserts? to some extent. but are they perhaps ecologically constrained? i think that is an open question we need to explore.
The New England states and adjoining areas (NY, Pennsylvania) also had a lot of shipping activity: more outsiders, more well-traveled citizens, more commercial activity. The Appalachians were isolated and operated on a subsistence economy; the southern states were primarily agricultural, doing business with the outside world mostly during brief harvest intervals (except for a couple of port cities such as Charleston & New Orleans, regionally famous for their cosmopolitanism).
the upper midwest is agricultural. after the initial migrations of germans, scandies and british stock there wasn't much secondary settlement. in fact, some of these states have a problem whereby their educated young move to chicago too much.
i agree that some of your assertions have some weight though. after all, virginia, the research triangle, the post-industrial tech cities of texas, etc., are all being changed by migration from other areas.
Didn't expect my arguments to be shot down this effectively. Sigh.
just reinforces your point about different types of intelligence. that's conservative intelligence you see.
Warren, we can all agree that IQ tests aren't the end-all measure of all aspects of being a "good" human being. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, nothing is.
IQ happens to be a decent measure of most of the operations involved in modern, western rational thinking at least at a low level, and so we use it. If it really makes a difference to you, replace "stupid" with "somebody who's more likely to suck at modern, western rational thinking", and voila, problem solved.
It would be interesting to do the same analysis for China&India which are I think sufficiently big countries and perhaps somewhat less peculiar then the US in terms of not being founded as colonies.
It would be interesting to do the same analysis for China&India which are I think sufficiently big countries and perhaps somewhat less peculiar then the US in terms of not being founded as colonies.
the stereotypes aren't that southerners are stupid there; au contraire. OTOH, for india one might make the case that since it is so warm that that parameter is less important as a variable than altitude. but yeah, interesting considerations. han chinese expansion was initially stymied by disease, but it seems that the south chinese, especially the fujianese, have a reputation for frugality and cleverness. another comparison would be hokkaido vs. kyushu.
Huh. Universal bumpkinism? A Noachian déluge of dumbth with just some shifts for cultural assumptions? Hadn't thought of that.
neat post, razib.
southern weather is abominable and pestilential, and makes us a little more homicidal in august than we are in november.
but it's also great for growing cash crops. which could, in theory, lead to the growth of a plantation-owning upper class with class interests like maintaining a permanently impoverished underclass (to include slaves) as a steady supply of cheap labor. we had an aristocracy, massive inequality, before the civil war rolled around, and reconstruction didn't do poor whites any good.
climate plays a role in why the south lags other regions in measures of intelligence, but it's a mixture of direct and indirect effects. no attention seems to be paid on this thread to the way climate shaped southern development over the long term, and what the resulting social structure could mean in terms of poverty. which is higher in the south than in any other part of the country.
no attention seems to be paid on this thread to the way climate shaped southern development over the long term
that's false. i allude to it multiple times. but the historical reality of the southern mode of production is well known. the possible upstream effect of climate has been less discussed; so we discuss it here. also, there is 'the ascendancy' in the uplands, but many of the dynamics of the 'deep south' and 'black belt' don't apply necessarily to appalachia.
Sounds like Warren is simply denying that IQ measures anything useful. My understanding is that IQ (g) has repeatedly found to be not only real, but a primary predictor of performance for most tasks. Almost everything that involves a cognitive component.
I know there has been a systematic assault by ideologues on the idea of IQ (g) -- primarily to avoid the uncomfortable dilemma of variation in IQ between ethnic and racial groups, or between men and women. Of course, the hard-core ideologues will want to deny the existence of race, ethnicity, and gender, too.
Denying the existence of IQ seems like denying the existence of weight, or hearing acuity, etc. It's simply a measurable attribute of a human being. And can be used to predict future performance with a fair degree of accuracy.
...
Couple questions:
Do individuals show significant IQ variation from season to season? Or from locale to locale?
At what age is IQ set? Around puberty? Earlier?
There are a lot of military brats (I was one) that get moved across the country every couple years. I'd think the deleterious effect of a hot climate could be pulled out of the test score data of military brats. 3 years in the northeast, then 3 in the midwest, then 3 in the south.
Well, at least now I can blame my Dad's deployment to Florida for why I'm not as smart as I could have been! If only we'd stayed in Michigan. I think I'll sue for lost earnings!
"Do individuals show significant IQ variation from season to season?"
Diet is an extremely important factor; preservable foods lack many necessary nutrients found only via the harvests!
A fun video from TED: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/dean_ornish_says_your_genes_are_not_…
"Or from locale to locale?"
Well, yah!
"At what age is IQ set? Around puberty? Earlier?"
Everything is customizable: As the teen of short stature may become above-average in height late in life; yes, periods of neurological growth vary!
Studies have pinned certain points [ages]: 2,3,4,5,6,10,13,15,18,20, and 25, respectably respectively. It is possible to keep the brain in a wonderfully vibrant state through the use of herbs (http://www.newchapter.com/products/neurozyme), medications (http://www.antiaging-systems.com/iasstore/acatalog/hydergine.html), and lifestyle choices.
"There are a lot of military brats (I was one) that get moved across the country every couple years. I'd think the deleterious effect of a hot climate could be pulled out of the test score data of military brats. 3 years in the northeast, then 3 in the midwest, then 3 in the south."
But those are all new experiences! Consciousness is one of the few items of existence capable of progressing from exposure to any sort of change! In this regard, it truly is based upon how the subject views the object!
"Well, at least now I can blame my Dad's deployment to Florida for why I'm not as smart as I could have been! If only we'd stayed in Michigan. I think I'll sue for lost earnings!"
It's never too late!
Brain_Evolution: "For instance (to use an extreme example), if I were to take in IQ test in China, I would rate as sub-human in intelligence."
I believe that you are referring to a language moat. Nevertheless, I feel that it is [here] important to identify the reality that nearly all the high-level geniuses of our planet have been of the Northern Hemisphere; and primarily of the European continent, secondly of Jewish ancestry.
I'm surprised there's been no defense of the Bell Curve, which was recommended at the main gnxp site. No mention of Gottfredson either. What is the world coming to?
I was so glad to see Warren mention The Bell Curve, because that's exactly what I thought of. He made those points better than I could.
It seems possible to me that the long-standing agricultural focus of the southern states has had an effect on their economy. When things get as technologically-based and hyperindustrial as we are now, agriculture is a vital but economically unrewarding endeavor. Just look at how much trouble small farmers have supporting themselves.
(http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap8.htm)
Why is this important? Your economic well-being affects your intelligence. Both because your nutrition tends to be better the more well-off you are (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080702150706.htm), and because schools in poor areas have extra obstacles (http://www.teach-nology.com/tutorials/teaching/poverty/).
Southern states have a serious poverty problem (http://maps.howstuffworks.com/united-states-poverty-map.htm), which probably has an effect on the intellectual achievements of people there. At that rate you've got that whole awful cyclical thing where poverty preventing people from reaching their full intellectual potential, which prevents them from getting out of poverty, etc.
I would say that if we're going to say southerners are "behind," we should be looking more at economic factors than the climate. Yes, it's a "simpler" explanation to say "people are dumb where it's hot," but explanations should only be as simple as they need to be. And no more, right?
It seems possible to me that the long-standing agricultural focus of the southern states has had an effect on their economy. When things get as technologically-based and hyperindustrial as we are now, agriculture is a vital but economically unrewarding endeavor. Just look at how much trouble small farmers have supporting themselves.
WHY THE FUCK DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THIS OVER AND OVER AND OVER. there are FARMERS in iowa, minnesota and the dakotas. so here's a new thesis for you geniuses: agriculture makes you dumb, if, you live in the south. ok?
Now I know why Canadians are more intelligent than Americans :).
btw, it seems that the south makes you dumb no matter your ethnicity.
I'm surprised there's been no defense of the Bell Curve, which was recommended at the main gnxp site. No mention of Gottfredson either. What is the world coming to?
christ, i'm trying to use secular liberal prejudice against white religious southerners as a wedge into getting them to be OK with IQ. and now you've gone and blown my cover.
Forgive me if someone else has mentioned this, but Stephen J Gould showed a long time ago with hard evidence that IQ tests only show your ability to solve problems on an IQ test. Also IQ tests are biased against poor people, Southerners, Irish and German Americans, bachelors, fatties, women, and basically everybody but Thurston Howell III from Gilligan's Island and 7 or 8 people who were raised in Connecticut and Vermont between 1955 and 1970.
Also the lingering injustices of the Civil War and stereotype threat obviously lowers the (meaningless) IQ scores of the long-oppressed farmer race we all know as Southern whites.
Also your argument sounds like THE BELL CURVE, so QED. I win at the Internet.
Thank you.
wrt. Founder effects from the British Isles
Richard Lynn wrote a fascinating paper on this top some thirty years ago:
Lynn, R. (1979). The social ecology of intelligence in the British Isles. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,18,1-12.
Using a variety of data (e.g. 20th century IQ studies and older data on origins of Fellows of the Royal Society and entrants into the Dictionary of National Biography) he concluded that the native British Isles population had - since about the 18th century - exhibited a gradient in IQ which was highest in London and reduced with distance from London, being lowest in Ireland (the gradient was about 6 IQ points, from memory).
Lynn's preferred explanation was that London was long-term a magnet for high IQ migration.
This looks broadly compatible with Razib's summary of the settlers to the USA.
Hey, do you know where I can get the state-by-state scores for that graph? I'm curious about the outliers, which I predict would be, eg, southern places with a large northern influx, like Florida where we get a lot of New Yorkers and Canadians (amongst others).
Also, do you know where to find an IQ map of US regions and/or the world? I noticed you used to have one on the old site, but it's no longer there. Something like that for the major metropolitan cities of all the regions would be cool too - I wonder if there'd be a smaller diff there?
Cool overall (from a white liberal southerner from a conservative family)
Ok, partial nevermind on that: I just found your link (via your link here) to that shows iq estimates per state (on an interactive map, too!).
Rather interesting, actually. Particularly since West Virginia is at the absolute bottom of the scale. Also, IQ seems highly correlated with coastal locations (inland and ocean). You've mentioned "iowa, minnesota and the dakotas" which do show a high general IQ - but Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Wyoming despite being at the same latitude show IQs on par with the east coast southern states - which, with the exception of Florida at .4 below 100, all have averages above 100. Maine is only .1 above Florida too.
Generally (on the east coast) the highest IQs are between Massachusetts/New York and Virginia, with gradients on either side - With the notable exception of West Virginia which bottoms out the scale despite the general intelligence level of ALL of its neighbors (which includes Kentucky and Tennessee)- a full 1.2 below the state with the next lowest score (Mississippi at 98).
The west coast, with the exceptions of Alaska and Hawaii (noncontiguous with the rest of us, for you foreigners), is fairly average, all (3) within .8 of 100. Alaska and Hawaii are high and low (101.7 and 98.2) respectively. California, at 99.2, is surprisingly lower than I expected.
Overall, the trend looks like the states just inside of the coasts have lower IQs, with a bias toward the east coast. There is, however, a huge swath of states extending westward from the great lakes and then down to Texas with all (except Oklahoma, just north of Texas) having average IQs at or above 101. This, I suspect, is the result of New Englanders migrating West towards the Great Lakes, then further west and south, along with the benefits of easy access to the major water port.
Gulf of Mexico states, excluding Texas, and eastern and southern Mississippi River states all show below average IQs, however, so it's not JUST access to a major coast or waterway. This is probably linked to the aforementioned negative correlation between IQ and those states just inland from the east/west coastal states. It may be that high IQ people in those border states tend to move to the nearby more 'cosmopolitan' (or something) states, while those in the middle feel no such compulsion for some reason (perhaps a better climate/conditions and a stronger New England influence, along with the nearby Great Lakes and Canada?)
Overall, The hypothesis of a temperature correlation does seem correct (based on this IQ map), with a few caveats. For one, I was not also looking at an average temp map as I did this, so I'm going on general intuition and knowledge of the weather patterns, and it seems there are other major contributing factors - I think a map of the major migration routes during settlement, and the placement of major universities and cities may also have a significant impact on interpretation. As well, breaking up some of the larger states (Texas, California) into smaller regions might show some hidden values - Southern California, with San Francisco, University of California system, etc, may show a significantly higher general IQ than other parts, for example. Terrain as well - I can't help but think that part of the reason for West Virginia's hugely wayward score might be due to very mountainous terrain.
bgc, i'm pretty sure that irish IQs have started to increase since lynn did that study.
[only a dumbass accuses the host who controls the means of comment production of rank idiocy, ok? ;-) ]
Democracy is really a hunter-gatheror value. True classic civilization was not democratic. This has been observed by many scientists including Jared Diamond. Guns, Germs&Steel has described it. Funny, even Karl Marx had similar observation.