Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Patronizing Africa
Here's the Nigerian-American novelist Uzodinma Iweala, writing in yesterday's Washington Post:
...Such campaigns, however well intentioned, promote the stereotype of Africa as a black hole of disease and death. News reports constantly focus on the continent's corrupt leaders, warlords, "tribal" conflicts, child laborers, and women disfigured by abuse and genital mutilation. These descriptions run under headlines like "Can Bono Save Africa?" or "Will Brangelina Save Africa?" The relationship between the West and Africa is no longer based on openly racist beliefs, but such articles are reminiscent of reports from the heyday of European colonialism, when missionaries were sent to Africa to introduce us to education, Jesus Christ and "civilization."
There is no African, myself included, who does not appreciate the help of the wider world, but we do question whether aid is genuine or given in the spirit of affirming one's cultural superiority. My mood is dampened every time I attend a benefit whose host runs through a litany of African disasters before presenting a (usually) wealthy, white person, who often proceeds to list the things he or she has done for the poor, starving Africans. Every time a well-meaning college student speaks of villagers dancing because they were so grateful for her help, I cringe. Every time a Hollywood director shoots a film about Africa that features a Western protagonist, I shake my head -- because Africans, real people though we may be, are used as props in the West's fantasy of itself. And not only do such depictions tend to ignore the West's prominent role in creating many of the unfortunate situations on the continent, they also ignore the incredible work Africans have done and continue to do to fix those problems....
Whole thing here.
|7.16.07 @ 5:31PM|#
So now if you donate time/money it has to be for the "right"
reason, or at least you shouldn't be white and rich.
Well I'm out.
|7.16.07 @ 5:40PM|#
I own a good book on Africa and the problems there--David Lamb's
The Africans. It's dated (1983, I think), but I think it
provides a lot of insight. As you can guess, the big issue in most
of sub-Saharan Africa was--and is--the corruption.
I tend to think that Africa as a continent will do better once one
major power arises with a commitment to industrial development, the
rule of law, and a relatively free market. South Africa is the most
likely candidate, but Nigeria could get there, too, if it can ever
escape the tangle of its incredible corruption. Anyway, a homegrown
success story would do wonders for the rest of Africa.
T|7.16.07 @ 5:41PM|#
And yet, with all these well-meaning patronizing Westerners and
tireless Africans working away, the continent is still a fetid,
miserable, sh*thole.
Hmm. Maybe my neighborhood would suck, too, if it was run by some
half-assed combination of Bono and the World Bank.
Syd Henderson|7.16.07 @ 5:48PM|#
"Every time a Hollywood director shoots a film about Africa that
features a Western protagonist, I shake my head -- because
Africans, real people though we may be, are used as props in the
West's fantasy of itself."
He has a point here, sometimes, but it's not limited to Africa.
This is part of a tendency that makes Steve Biko (Cry Freedom),
Dith Pran (The Killing Fields) and Saigō Takamori (The Last
Samurai) supporting characters in dramas about their lives.
|7.16.07 @ 5:56PM|#
What they need is for a Nigerian city to berth a Great
Scientist, who in turn will get them caught-up in technology,
allowing them to build more modern improvements.
OK, time to go play Civ 4 now...
|7.16.07 @ 6:11PM|#
...Such campaigns, however well intentioned, promote the
stereotype of Africa as a black hole of disease and death. News
reports constantly focus on the continent's corrupt leaders,
warlords, "tribal" conflicts, child laborers, and women disfigured
by abuse and genital mutilation.
He forgot to mention the machete amputation of the hands and arms
of children (and also adults) who happen to belong to the wrong
tribe.
Oops! I'm sorry - certainly wouldn't wish to imply that there is
anything inferior about their culture.
lunchstealer|7.16.07 @ 6:18PM|#
Taktix - yeah. Seriously, If I'd been running Africa, we'd have been building the Apollo Mission by like 1800. As long as it was set on Warlord. I never really got above that. And I'm really only familiar with Civ III.
lunchstealer|7.16.07 @ 6:30PM|#
That said, some of the Grylliaders have had some success with Kiva.org, which seems a far less patronizing form of assistance.
Fluffy|7.16.07 @ 6:31PM|#
"If you don't want to be patronized, don't ask for
patronage?"
I think Bubba has it right here.
OF COURSE wealthy individuals give to Africa so they can feel
superior. So what? One might argue that a set of social
arrangements that provide non-material inducements for the wealthy
to provide material aid was a GOOD thing.
Wealthy people have always involved themselves in causes in order
to make themselves feel good. If what the author is demanding is
that wealthy people provide his continent with aid, but refrain
from feeling good about it, and refrain from indulging a mental
paradigm where they are the protagonist in a story of beneficence,
well - nah gohn happan. And I don't even really see that it SHOULD
happen.
|7.16.07 @ 6:36PM|#
All:
Sorry to thread-jack, won't mention Civilization again.
lunchstealer,
If your computer can run Civ IV, get it.
Whereas the other versions were just building a little on the
previous version,
Civ IV is to Civ III as laying eggs is to fucking...
David Ross|7.16.07 @ 6:42PM|#
This site has excerpted the IQ distribution map from "IQ and the Wealth of Nations", by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen.
|7.16.07 @ 6:43PM|#
My pick for the first African country to develop fully is
Botswana.
If they stick to their present economic policies and a few other
things go well, they will be the new Taiwan.
Bee|7.16.07 @ 7:30PM|#
Civ IV is to Civ III as laying eggs is to
fucking...
How do you know that? The mind boggles.
Fluffy, in the fretful person's ideal world, noone
gets to win. Got it?
|7.16.07 @ 7:34PM|#
Dear Pro.Lib:
Check out Jan Lamprechts latest posting on RENSE. The latest crime
spree in S. Africa is blowing up ATM's with bombs and stealing the
money. The banks are stumped. Better find another candidate.
|7.16.07 @ 7:39PM|#
Civ III is to Civ IV as laying eggs is to fucking...
How do you know that? The mind boggles.
I can't say from experience, however, I can't imagine myself
enjoying the act of passing an egg out of an orifice such as my
ass...
That's just me though...
|7.16.07 @ 7:55PM|#
Guys
Many of your critiques of Iweala's are spot on...
unless, you happen to believe, as I do. that many of Africa's
problems are the direct result of centuris of exploitation by the
west. However, I'm not going to assume I know the truth better than
every one else. So I'm goign to ask an honest question of everyone,
in two parts
1) What percentage, if any, of Africa's current problems, do you
attribute to the lingering after-effects of domination bythe
west
2)If your answer to 1 is "a significant amount", what, if anything,
do yo8u feelthe indstrialized west "owes" the people of the third
world?
|7.16.07 @ 8:17PM|#
This is the modern version of "The White Man's Burden". The underlying racism is identical.
|7.16.07 @ 8:44PM|#
cbmclean,
That's a spot-on question.
There's a great book called "We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We
Will Be Killed with Our Families - Stories from Rwanda" by Philip
Gourevitch. He does quite a convincing job of showing that a lot of
the genocide was indirectly a result of modern European powers and
their propping up corrupt puppet-regimes. I'm not sure what we owe
them, but I think you could put a high percentage of their problems
to former and current western domination.
|7.16.07 @ 9:18PM|#
Cbmclean,
I don't know of any country that ever existed which had no history
of exploitation by one group of another. Such is the case with men.
Maybe countries made of angels do better.
Anyway, guilt is individual, not collective. If my ancestors
oppressed your ancestors, I don't owe you anything. If I stole $20
from you, then I owe you $20 plus interest.
|7.16.07 @ 9:35PM|#
abdul,
you seem awfully sure of the proposition that guilt is not
collective. There are many people that would disagree with you.
While I am not one, Ithink your argument would be stronger if you
provided reasoning for your assertion.
Anyway, Iwould like to examine your argument a bit more. Basically
you say, if my ancestor stole 420 from y our ancestor, I don't owe
you jack shit, but if I stole $20 from you I owe you $20 plus
interest. Fair enough, but letme pose a question. Suppose my
ancestor stole $20 dollars from yoru ancestor, and then used it to
start a business which eventually made him rich, which led to me
being bron wealthymyself. Are you saying thatI should feel no moral
compulsion to share any of my current wealth with you?
|7.16.07 @ 10:01PM|#
cbmclean --
Japan's brutal colonial rule in South Korea and Taiwan doesn't seem
to have kept them from developing after gaining independence.
Similarly, if foreign exploitation ("theft") of natural resources
explained Africa's woes, the lack of natural resources in Taiwan
and South Korea should have been a similar problem for their
development. If the problem was Western-backed dictatorial rule,
and Western political manipulation, well, again, South Korea should
be as poorly off as Africa.
No, if the troubles of Africa have a Western cause, that cause is
most likely the thing the West did to Africa that it did not do to
South Korea or Taiwan-provide lots and lots of development aid. If
that's so, what the West owes Africa is to stop providing the aid.
Any compensation for the damage inflicted would just be causing
more damage.
Or Africa's problems could be of its own making-that they are the
effect of domestic policy choices. Most of independent Africa spent
the Cold War as a quilt of centrally-planned socialist states, and
accordingly suffered the fate of North Korea instead of the success
of the South.
One might blame Western intellectuals for their aid and comfort to
socialists in such countries, and assess each Western nation a fee
based on (how to proportion it, hmmm, say) how long it was ruled by
a party or coalition including a party that was a member of either
the Second or Third Internationals. But the fee should then be held
in escrow until the countries adopt proper laissez-faire capitalism
(say, an Index of Economic Freedom value of 70) and be used to
finance businesses instead of being granted to the governments.
|7.16.07 @ 10:14PM|#
Warmongering Lunatic
Your point about South Korea and Taiwan is excellent. but back to
my original question, are you saying that hardly any of Africa's
current problems are the result of western influence? Certainly,
such a case could be made, as you previewed in your post, I just
want to know if you think that colonialism itself is responsible
for any of Africa's dysfunction today.
Gahan|7.16.07 @ 10:19PM|#
Perhaps an even more pertinent illustration of WL's point would be Singapore and Hong Kong, which are ex-British colonies that have managed to thrive regardless.
Gahan|7.16.07 @ 10:23PM|#
The issue of natural resources is an interesting one. To the best of my knowledge, none of the "Asian Tigers" is particularly rich in natural resources. It may be that resources are more of a curse than a blessing, as they are easily concentrated into the hands of a corrupt elite, whereas an economy based on services and other types of trade is more flexible.
James Quentin Clark|7.16.07 @ 10:27PM|#
Back in college a guy once asked me if I was "proud" to be
black. I said, "of course not!" and he was surprised. Why shouldn't
you be proud of your heritage? Think of the achievements of your
people in popular culture, art, music, sports, etc. Think of the
centuries of struggle. Don't you feel any pride?
I explained to this person that being proud of one's skin color is
like being proud of the texture of your toenails - it is irrelevant
to one's moral character. Were my melanin level to morally link me
to all black people's achievements and honors, it follows that I
would also be connected to the failures, the misery, the genocides,
the tribal slaughter, and the relative weakness of Africans to the
rest of the world.
This is collectivism. This is the philosophical root of much of
Africa and the west, and it contributes to the difficulty of
creating a stable prosperous government in that part of the
world.
Cbmclean asked a great question about the culpability of the west.
What does the world owe Africa? Materially, I would say very
little. Aside from tens of billions in aid that is dumped there
every year, Africa is a very rich continent. There is no shortage
of natural resources, land, minerals, and other commodities.
The problem is political. The west needs to set a good example and
try to inspire African regimes to change. As they clean up their
act, we trade with them as equals instead of just dumping aid and
feeling superior. Westerners are NOT inherently superior in to
Africans; as humans, we all have potential that can be tapped given
the proper form of government. If all or even most of Africa had
constitutional law, property rights, due process and other
protections, you would see productivity on par with if not greater
than in Europe or America. Look at how China and India are changing
(though both have a long way to go)
Smilin Bob|7.16.07 @ 10:40PM|#
There is a proverb we often speak in this country that this
ingrate needs to learn:
Never look a gift horse in the mouth.
"...Such campaigns, however well intentioned, promote the
stereotype of Africa as a black hole of disease and death. News
reports constantly focus on the continent's corrupt leaders,
warlords, "tribal" conflicts, child laborers, and women
disfigured...?
You know what they always say: even the most vile stereotypes
contain a kernel of truth. Except in this case it's the whole
fucking cob. I can count on one finger how many stable democracies
are present in Africa. Hell, that may even be an overestimation.
The condescension that this idiot senses from the presence of Bono
is the least of Africa's worries.
For Christ sake they have a guy in power in South Africa who still
claims HIV is not the cause of AIDS and he wonders why that disease
is such a problem on the continent. And no one, I repeat no one in
a position of power in Africa, has stepped forward to condemn
Robert Mugabe for turning the breadbasket of Africa into a basket
case. I guess the surrounding kleptocrats have his back.
Africa is the most resource-rich of the continents. I think the
embrace of Marxist economic policies by a large percentage of the
countries has just a wee bit more to do with the poverty than past
colonialism. It seems some are more interested in kidnapping
oilworkers than they are reaping oil profits.
As to the question of what we owe these people, we have poured so
many trillions of dollars of aid into this country, it would be
patronizingly racist of us to not ask why the people on the
continent can't seem to fix things for themselves.
|7.16.07 @ 11:05PM|#
The biggest story in the next few decades for African economic
development will be China. Chinese companies are developing a LOT
of projects in Africa. $40 billion in trade and growing.
Also, I think it's a bit of a mistake to just say "Africa." There
are about 50 different Africas, and there are some success stories
peppered in through there.
The Wine Commonsewer®|7.16.07 @ 11:55PM|#
As a patron of fine and not-so-fine wines I am in a position to
offer Nigerian-American novelist Uzodinma Iweala some delightful
cheese to go with his WHINE.
Jesse identified this guy as Nigerian-American but he certainly
seems to do a lot of self-identifying as an African.
BTW, I can't stand Bono's self righteous posturing neither. But
that doesn't change the reality of Africa's problems.
Grotius|7.17.07 @ 12:04AM|#
The author has a point if I understand him or her correctly. Objectifying people can do great damage to them.
|7.17.07 @ 12:08AM|#
Dith Pran (The Killing Fields)...
Really...I can't even remember who the white guy was in that
movie.
|7.17.07 @ 12:23AM|#
2)If your answer to 1 is "a significant amount", what, if
anything, do yo8u feelthe indstrialized west "owes" the people of
the third world?
Jack shit.
The reality is that the more the west "helps" 3rd world countries
the worse off they become.
In policy terms this means the west "owes" the third world the
right to free trade and nothing else.
Paul|7.17.07 @ 12:30AM|#
And if one red cent of my money makes its way to Zimbabwe, I'm gonna get medieval. I don't give change to crack addicts on the street and I won't knowingly prop up a tin-pot dictator who still believes in the quaint idea that price controls are the way to fix inflation.
|7.17.07 @ 12:33AM|#
While I am not one, Ithink your argument would be stronger
if you provided reasoning for your assertion.
If my dad kills someone he goes to jail.
This is justice
If my dad kills someone I go to jail.
This is injustice
OK I am ready for your next stupid question.
|7.17.07 @ 1:32AM|#
I for one am awaiting with baited breath Grand Chalupa's opinion on this topic...
|7.17.07 @ 1:34AM|#
If what the author is demanding is that wealthy people
provide his continent with aid, but refrain from feeling good about
it, and refrain from indulging a mental paradigm where they are the
protagonist in a story of beneficence, well - nah gohn
happan.
Yep, exactly right. Oddly enough, though, the above sounds a lot
like the fundamental request of the protagonist in the religion
most central in the development of The West.
|7.17.07 @ 1:59AM|#
Joshua Corning-
I agree with you, if your father kills someone and you go to jail,
that would be injustice. But lets say your father is a farmer, and
he steals money, which he uses to improve his farm. Years go by,
and you inherit the farm. Does that change anything for you? I
relaize thatthi sis an amlost laughable oversimplification, because
it's a debateable point whether our ancestors (and by our, I mean
western europe and those settler colonies descended from it)
"stole" anything from Africa.
|7.17.07 @ 2:00AM|#
wow and after re-reading my post I realize that my typos make me look like a retarded monkey. I need to proofread my stuff.
|7.17.07 @ 2:33AM|#
cbmclean -
By and large (and yes, I'm hedging), I believe colonialism is not a
significant factor, because colonialism doesn't seem to have
consistent explanatory power.
The legacy of Japanese colonialism in Korea and Taiwan was as
brutal and distorting as anything the English or French did in
Africa. Ireland has a history of foreign oppression to match
anything in Africa. The Bahamas is populated by the descendants of
African slaves, exploited for its sugar cane for centuries, and
didn't get it's independence until the 1960s. All are in pretty
good shape, however.
At the same time, Ethiopia was always independent except for a
brief occupation. Liberia was admittedly distorted by the
Americo-Liberians, but it never had external rule. Yet both are
clearly dysfunctional.
Yes, you can go into most countries in Africa and point to problems
that stem from choices in colonial times. The question is, though,
would they have wound up better off under the rule of native
African kingdoms? And I don't see any reason to believe that. The
core of Africa's problems is too much Julius Nyerere and not enough
Park Chung-hee, however much nicer a guy Nyerere was.
|7.17.07 @ 3:12AM|#
Africa, for the most part, is a tribal culture that has been
meddled in for the last century and a half.
The meddling has put a wet blanket on advancement and fostered the
wide spread corruption that is rapant on the continent.
The best thing the West could do is open up our boarders to their
products and LEAVE THEM ALONE.
The geologic clock is a great reference point for realizing that
growth takes awhile. If the World stays out of Africa and let's
them figure it out they will eventually join the rest of us (50
years or so).
Schempf
Paul|7.17.07 @ 3:28AM|#
he core of Africa's problems is too much Julius Nyerere and
not enough Park Chung-hee, however much nicer a guy Nyerere
was.
Hey, you gotta give Nyerere some credit. He admitted his socialist
policies were complete and utter crap. Yeah, I know, after the
damage had already been done. Just sayin'.
|7.17.07 @ 6:57AM|#
Let's not forget that the richest and most powerful nation on Earth is an assortment of former western colonies.
|7.17.07 @ 9:09AM|#
CBMClean,
"1) What percentage, if any, of Africa's current problems, do you
attribute to the lingering after-effects of domination bythe
west"
Zero.
"2)If your answer to 1 is "a significant amount", what, if
anything, do yo8u feelthe indstrialized west "owes" the people of
the third world?"
Nothing.
|7.17.07 @ 9:23AM|#
There's a joke about the development of South Korea compared to
Zimbabwe. At an international conference, a Korean bureaucrat meets
his zimbabwean counterpart. They strike up a freindship and the
Korean asks the Zimbabwean to visit him at home in one year. The
Zimbabwean arrives and sees the Korean minister has a BMW, a
split-level colonial home, and his kids are in private
school.
"How did you afford this on a agovernment salary?" the Zimbabwean
asks.
"See that highway over there?" the Korean says, "Me take
10%."
The next year, the Korean visits zimbabwe. The Zimbabwean minister
has a Rolls Royce, his house is a mansion, and the kids are in
Swiss boarding schools.
"How did you afford all this?" the Korean asks.
"See that highway over there?" The Zimbabwean responds.
"There is no highway." the Korean answers.
"Me take 100%!" the Zimbabwean says.
Fluffy|7.17.07 @ 9:33AM|#
cbmclean -
Your point is actually not an oversimplification, and it contains
the seed of the answer you're looking for.
I think in some extremely limited instances, you could find a case
where the "debt" of a previous crime could be passed down. If I
inherit the estate of someone who has died, I can't just take the
house but not the mortgage. I have to take both the assets and the
debits. You could argue that the "debt" of slavery, for example, is
simply an impairment to title on the assets of individual estates
that wasn't realized at the time.
This still wouldn't establish collective guilt, however, which is
what we're discussing. You'd just be establishing a large number of
individual debts, passed down via estates. People whose ancestors
were too poor to have owned slaves, or who lived in an area where
slavery was illegal, or who had some intervening ancestor declare
bankruptcy, or who never realized any proceeds from slavery via
inheritance due to the squandering of the wealth created, war,
accident, etc. would not be included in the set of debtors. To
establish collective guilt, you need an analogy that ropes in all
of those people, but which does not suffer from the Proudhonistic
fallacy as a result.
|7.17.07 @ 9:58AM|#
A part of colonialism that can still be said to affect Africa
today is how the borders were drawn by the colonial powers. They
paid no respect to tribal divisions, meaning competing tribes wound
up under the same nation, often causing frictions that later
resulted in civil wars.
As for the economic side of it, several posts here have made the
point that any damage done could have been corrected long ago by
rational, non-corrupt economic policies. The Western Powers
actually lost money in the colonies, what with the
infrastructure they had to build from scratch.
Today, some countries are doing better than others, (of course).
Nigeria and the Central African Republic are cesspools of
corruption. Others, such as Ghana, are doing relatively well.
VM|7.17.07 @ 12:31PM|#
""Can Bono Save Africa?""
better yet - can bono go and like disappear, if it's in Africa,
fine. As long as he disappears.
(and takes Michael Stipe with him)
lunchstealer|7.17.07 @ 1:05PM|#
2)If your answer to 1 is "a significant amount", what, if
anything, do yo8u feelthe indstrialized west "owes" the people of
the third world?
Well, lets assume for the sake of argument that we just go ahead
and posit that part one is true. Western domination and
interference played a significant role in Africa's current woes. So
what should we do?
The first step is "Stop making things worse." If Western meddling
brought Africa to its current state, then our first step should
probably be to stop meddling. It's worth remembering that while a
good portion of the West's adventurism in Africa was motivated by
avarice, a good portion was motivated by a desire to 'save' Africa
by imposing then-Western-values. We now see what the
Western powers were doing - aggressive Christian conversions and
some forms of modernization - as other forms of domination only
somewhat less odious than outright military domination. However, at
the time, it was seen as 'helping', and certainly some Africans,
who saw the riches of the West and wanted a share of it, probably
even actively wanted such interference.
Such is the case today. Africa might benefit from
social-program-du-jour, but top-down imposition of aide programs
has a tendency to be temporary fixes, which rarely produce lasting
improvements. Not all African-initiated projects turn out to be
helpful in the long run, either, but I suspect that they have a
better track record.
Of course, one of the biggest problems facing Africa today seems
not to be of Western origin. AIDS is killing far too many Africans,
but the best science can tell us is that this is an indigenous
African disease, not a Western import.
So Africa is a more complex kettle of fish than 'West bad' or
'Africans primitive' narratives would indicate. Ultimately, any
solutions to Africa's myriad problems will be brought about by
Africans, and they will better be able to do this if we start
treating them like equals, and not as some charitable cause to prop
up our self-esteem.
|7.17.07 @ 1:15PM|#
(and takes Michael Stipe with him)
We're better off if several people take Michael Stipe to several
different locations simultaniously.
If we just let Bono take him, there is always a chance that he will
return. My way reduces the chance of spontanious reassembly of the
various parts.
lunchstealer|7.17.07 @ 1:24PM|#
My way reduces the chance of spontanious reassembly of the
various parts.
Unless Spike decides to get Dru another apocalyptic birthday
present.
VM|7.17.07 @ 1:35PM|#
JW - agreed!
Maybe we could form a Stipe/Bono/Moby version of turducken...
mostbo? and then send them to the agonizer...
lunch! naughty!
|7.17.07 @ 1:43PM|#
crimethink-
Do you have to ask? It would be begin with the letter I and end
with the letter Q.
|7.17.07 @ 4:44PM|#
Are you ruling out IQ as a factor?
I believe socialism, corruption, AIDS, geography, and tribal
culture to be much better explanations for the backwardness of
sub-Sahara Africa than some number from a standardized test.
Especially since most majority black countries in the Carribean
(Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad) are much better off than that part of
the world.
|7.17.07 @ 4:46PM|#
Cesar,
then how do you explain the correlation between IQ and economic
productivity?
|7.17.07 @ 4:57PM|#
Low economic productivity leads to a country without money to spend on education (or in some cases even food). Someone who has never attended school and was malnourished as a child will no doubt have a low IQ.
|7.17.07 @ 5:26PM|#
So your conclusion is that low economic productivity causes low
IQ scores. I agree that malnutrition and lack of education have an
impact in lowering intelligence.
What about the other causal direction? Do you believe IQ to be a
valid predictor of future economic outcomes?
|7.17.07 @ 5:44PM|#
What about the other causal direction? Do you believe IQ to
be a valid predictor of future economic outcomes?
Perhaps, and I would imagine the impact is greatest on either the
very low or very high ends.
I don't have problems with IQ scoring on an individual basis,
comparing individuals to one another. But when demagogues start
comparing average IQ in one race to average IQ in another race
thats where they lose me.
|7.17.07 @ 6:39PM|#
Cesar,
I realize that issues of race and IQ are a taboo subject, so I'm
leaving race entirely out of the equation.
In 1995, the American Psychological Association reported that IQ
predicts ~16% of income variance (about +0.4 correlation) and ~29%
of job performance variance (about +0.54 correlation).
On an individual basis, it's a hit-or-miss predictor, as other
independent factors (including a good amount of pure randomness)
will still account for the majority of individual outcome
variance.
However, if you take two large samples of people, one with high IQs
and one with low IQs, the odds will become quite good that the high
IQ group will have better job performance and higher income. The
larger the sample, the higher the probability, because the random
independent factors will tend to cancel out.
When the sample size increases into the millions, the probability
approaches absolute certainty.
When you're talking about entire countries (as was studied in 2002
by Lynn & Vanhanen), average population IQ was found to account
for 67% of the variance in GDP per capita between countries (+0.82
correlation). It is obviously not a perfect predictor because of
the amount of IQ variance within each country, and the fact that
only a subset of each country's population was sampled. However, IQ
was found to be the single largest factor accounting for 2/3 of the
economic variance between nations.
Fact is, IQ (like all statistical metrics) is a much better
predictor for groups than for individuals, simply due to the law of
large numbers.
So when looking to explain why some nations are economic
basketcases compared to others, even after taking into account
other factors (history of colonialism, political turmoil, socialist
vs. market economy, natural resources, etc.), one shouldn't be too
hasty in ruling out the population's intelligence.
|7.17.07 @ 7:09PM|#
Russ R-
I trust you have greater knowledge in the area of statistics than
I. I am horrible at math--particularly statistics (despite having a
good IQ, ironically).
So, I'll trust you know more about the area of IQ statistics than
me.
I'm a historian by training so I tend to put more emphasis on
culture and geography rather than something like I.Q. scores at the
national level.
But despite that, I have one more question for you. Is it true that
someone who would score "average" on a 1920s I.Q. test today would
be quite a few points lower than 100?
|7.17.07 @ 7:33PM|#
"I have one more question for you. Is it true that someone
who would score "average" on a 1920s I.Q. test today would be quite
a few points lower than 100?"
True. There has been a general rise in average intelligence test
scores over time (approximately 3 IQ points per decade, though the
relationship is not strictly linear). It is known as the
Flynn
effect, as it was first discovered and documented by
Dr. James Flynn in the mid-80's.
This gradual increase in scores has been attributed to a number of
potential causes, but there is no conclusive explanation yet. Among
the most likely causes are increasing familiarity with multiple
choice examinations and brain-teaser type puzzles. Other potential
contributors include changes in nutrition, education,
communications, urbanization and broader life experiences.
To compensate for the Flynn effect, IQ tests are occassionally
renormed so the mean score is reset to 100.
|7.17.07 @ 10:29PM|#
Fluffy,
I enjoyed your well-wrtiien post. Iwas wondering if you could teach
me about theProudhonistic Fallacy. I've never heard of it. I assume
it's conected to Pierre-Joseph Produhon, but I'mnotsure.
Thanks
Fluffy|7.17.07 @ 11:51PM|#
CBM -
It's not an official fallacy. Just my personal term of opprobrium.
Proudhon famously asserted that all property was theft. The problem
with this assertion is that the concept of theft requires a valid
property claim to be violated, so...etc.
I think "collective guilt" theories fall apart on this same basis.
Essentially, if taken seriously they mean that in any society where
any injustice occurred at any time in the past, no one has any
valid claim to any property they own, because it's all tainted by
the injustice embedded in the sum of economic transactions that led
to the current state of affairs in property in that society. The
problem with this is that there has never been any time period
where there was no incident of injustice anywhere in the past. This
would mean that no individual has ever had any valid claim to any
property. But if no individual has ever had any valid claim to any
property, then nothing has ever been stolen, and there was never
any injustice in the past - and at this point my paradox meter goes
off and I get a headache.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245