g so deeply insinuated in social inequality Linda S Gottfredson PhD School of Education University of Delaware USA International Society for the Study of Individual Differences London July 26 2011 ID: 319089
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Why is" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Why is g so deeply insinuated in social inequality?
Linda S. Gottfredson, PhDSchool of EducationUniversity of Delaware, USA
International Society for the Study of
Individual
Differences London, July 26, 2011
1Slide2
Total-Evidence Rule forces opposing explanations to compete head-on
The 2 competitors— Social privilege theory Useful tool theory
2Slide3
3
Competing explanations for pervasive, persisting IQ-SES linksSocial privilege theory
IQ differences result mostly from differences in family privilegeHigher IQ and education does not reflect “merit,” but social class in disguise. Higher level jobs do not require more intelligence to perform wellIf everyone had equal opportunities in life, all could perform well and social inequality would disappear. Unequal outcomes signals unequal opportunity to develop & use cognitive talent.
Useful tool theory
IQ differences result mostly from differences in genetic heritage.
Higher
g
level reflects stronger learning & reasoning ability.
Higher
g
enhances performance in all jobs, but especially more complex ones.
If everyone had equal opportunities in life, people would perform to
very
different levels and create social inequality. Equal outcomes would require unequal opportunity to develop & use cognitive talent.
Human cognitive variation guarantees moderate social inequality in any complex, free society
Privilege perpetuates itself by pretending to be “merit”Slide4
Total evidence ruleAll types of evidence
Tasks, ages, type inequalitiesPsych, bio, neuroExper, observationalPheno & genoVariance, covariance, changes inNovel predictionsPattern of results
ConsistentConsilient MechanisticNo opportunistic omissionsSlide5
Individual differences (IDs) at issueSlide6
Causal claims—“social privilege” theory
IQ Slide7
Causal claims—“useful tool” theorySlide8
8
Which set is most consistent with the full body of evidence? Sample of 9 opposing predictions
Evidence from different fields Psychometrics Job analysis Personnel selection Neuroscience
Behavior genetics Results replicatedSlide9
1. IDs in intelligence: Trait or socially constructed?
SP
UT
Socially generated
A human traitSlide10
10
Variation highly structured, not socially constructed
g
V
Q
S
M
Others
Its phenotypic structure appears to be replicated at genetic level
More heritable
Privilege
0
Useful tool
1Slide11
2. Adult trajectory: Social or biological?
SP
UT
Adding knowledge
Biological declineSlide12
12
Fluid
g
rises, then falls with
biological
age
All fluid abilities move in tandem
IQ 100
Privilege
0
0
Useful tool
1
1Slide13
3. Trajectory of IQ heritability—up or down?
SP
UT
Down
UpSlide14
14
Genetic portion of IQ variation rises with ageFamily SES contributions to IQ variation wash away
Privilege
0
0
0
Useful tool
1
1
1Slide15
4. How does intelligence get into the brain?
SP
UT
Education
GenesSlide16
16
(genetic)
g
is
genetically
enmeshed in brain physiology
Privilege
0
0
0
0
Useful tool
1
1
1
1Slide17
5. Are higher jobs really more cognitive?
SP
UT
No
YesSlide18
18
The work is more complex
Privilege
0
0
0
0
0
Useful tool
1
1
1
1
1Slide19
6. Does g really predict job performance?
SP
UT
No
YesSlide20
20
The work is more complex
predictivevalidity of g
Privilege
0
0
0
0
0
0
Useful tool
1
1
1
1
1
1
.8
.
5
.2Slide21
7. Do social outcomes have genetic component?
IQ
SP
UT
Yes
NoSlide22
22
Acad
Yrs Occachiev educ level
Health
Subjective
well-being
% heritable:
60-70
50 40-50
% jointly with IQ:
Social outcomes moderately heritable
Privilege
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Useful tool
1
1
1
1
1
1
1Slide23
8. Is IQ-outcome covariation
entirely social?
IQ
SP
UT
Yes
NoSlide24
24
Acad
Yrs Occachiev educ level
Health
Subjective
well-being
% heritable:
60-70
50 40-50
% jointly with IQ:
40 25 20
Privilege
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Useful tool
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Covariation
also moderately heritableSlide25
25
Acad
Yrs Occachiev educ level
Health
Subjective
well-being
% heritable:
60-70
50 40-50
% jointly with IQ:
40 25 20
Privilege
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Useful tool
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Covariation
also moderately heritable
Also—
Predictions about
geno
components of covariance with gSlide26
9. Can equal training or experience eliminate IQ-performance link?
SP
UT
Yes
No
g
remains predictive—always need to learn & reason
Privilege
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Useful tool
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1Slide27
9. Can equal training or experience eliminate IQ-performance link?
SP
UT
Yes
No
g
remains predictive—always need to learn & reason
Also—
novel predictions on social interventions aimed at changing variance or covariance
Privilege
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Useful tool
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1Slide28
Nomological network for biological, functional link
All types of evidence Tasks, ages, type inequalitiesPsych, bio, neuroExper, observationalPheno & genoVariance, covariance, changes inNovel predictions
Pattern of resultsConsistentConsilient MechanisticNo opportunistic omissionsSlide29
Thank you