Gottfredson vs. Gottfredson

I'd like to introduce you to Linda Gottfredson, former professor of educational psychology at the University of Delaware and recipient of her very own page on the SPLC's "fighting hate" website. But if you've been reading this blog for long enough you'll already have seen me talk about some of Gottfredson's work. Specifically, last July I critiqued an article she wrote in 2013 lavishing praise on racialist psychologist J. Philippe Rushton and disparaging his detractors. But here I wanted to look at her work in "g theory" over a long period of time and try to understand exactly what she thinks about the topic.

Brief overview before I start: g theory is based around the idea that there is a single "general intelligence", aka g (note italics: that's important), that IQ tests measure (though of course some better than others). The evidence for the existence of this g (aka "g factor" or "general factor") is said to be, above all else, the positive correlations between scores on different types of cognitive ability tests--even those that are very different in their scope and subject matter. g theorists thus tend to talk about people who are very intelligent as having high levels of g, and vice versa, thus implicitly assuming that "intelligence" can be "objectively determined and measured" by IQ tests in all people everywhere in the world with no exceptions. (The "objectively determined and measured" quote is a reference to the 1904 article by psychologist Charles Spearman that started this "theory".)

So I wanted to start by trying to answer this question: does Gottfredson believe that IQ/g is a fixed quality that cannot be changed by environmental interventions, or does she acknowledge that people are not born with a fixed, immutable quantity of intelligence, and that they can be made smarter by certain environmental interventions and changes? Let's try to look at some quotes from her previous writings to get an answer to this question (all emphases are mine):

Gottfredson (1994, p. 15): "That IQ may be highly heritable does not mean that it is not affected by the environment. Individuals are not born with fixed, unchangeable levels of intelligence (no one claims they are)." 

Gottfredson (2000): "“Genetic” does not mean “fixed” or “unchangeable.” Just as genetically caused differences are not necessarily irremediable (consider diabetes and poor vision), environ­mental effects are not necessarily reversible (consider lead poisoning and head injuries). Both sources of low IQ may be preventable to some extent. Genetic screening and gene therapy, for instance, are both intended to prevent genetic disorders such as mental retardation."

Gottfredson (2003, p. 114): "No g theorist claims that g is “fixed.” This is a canard and distracts readers from the pertinent point, which is that individual differences in g become highly stable and more heritable by adolescence." 

Gottfredson (2009, p. 415): "...if you state that people’s IQ scores are stable over time or highly genetic (both true), many people will hear you claiming that intelligence level is fixed in stone from birth (false)—unless you anticipate and correct that common misunderstanding."

Seems clear enough. Linda Gottfredson doesn't think that someone's IQ/intelligence/g is a fixed number, as is evident from all of the quotes cited above. In other words, it appears that she is willing to acknowledge the malleability of intelligence with respect to social/educational interventions. But perhaps she actually believes the exact opposite: that intelligence (i.e. IQ score) is a fixed, genetically determined quantity that we can't significantly change. Don't take my word for it, though; listen to what she herself says in the very sources I quoted above: 

• "IQs do gradually stabilize during childhood, however, and generally change little thereafter." (Gottfredson 1994, p. 15)
• "There is no effective means, as yet, for raising low IQs permanently." (Gottfredson 2000)
• In the two other quotations above (from 2003 and 2009), you see her talk about how g (aka general intelligence) is "(very) heritable", "highly stable", and "highly genetic". But does that mean it's fixed, or that policy makers shouldn't even bother to change it with programs like Head Start? Well, she herself provides us with a clear(-ish) answer to this question in a 2005 paper in which she stated:
• "Jensen’s 1969 conclusion about the failure of socioeducational interventions to raise low IQs substantially and permanently still stands" (Gottfredson 2005, p. 313). This is a reference to the (in)famous paper by Jensen in the Harvard Educational Review that really got the genetic-determinist black-IQ-inferiority "debate" started 49 years ago. 

So in practice, she is saying that people's IQs tend to stay at about the same value (after childhood, anyway), even though in theory, she acknowledges that this doesn't have to happen. And in her 2000 article that I cited above, she further says that we might be able to raise people's IQs by saying, "Both [genetic and environmental] sources of low IQ may be preventable to some extent", but then switches from theoretical optimism to supposedly realistic pessimism by saying we can't currently do it permanently (or at least we couldn't in 2000).

And in 2016, she wrote, "Were the distribution of g unstable or malleable, g's effect sizes for various types of performance and life outcomes would not remain so regular, so consistent, so patterned decade after decade at the population level (cf. Gordon, 1997)" (Gottfredson 2016, p. 125; emphasis in original).

Ugh, so confusing. IQ is malleable, but it isn't, at least not by any method that exists now? I wonder which Linda Gottfredson we are to believe? This kind of ambiguity is brought to you by what Howard Gardner dubbed "scholarly brinkmanship": going really close to an extreme conclusion, very strongly implying it, but being careful not to directly state it. Here we see Gottfredson engaging in scholarly brinkmanship with regard to the idea of genetic determinism of people with low IQ and society's putative inability to do anything about it (aka "genetic fatalism", Alper & Beckwith 1993).

There's more where that came from: she often emphasizes that research on the supposed genetic basis of black-white IQ differences doesn't necessarily have any policy implications: 

Gottfredson et al. 1997 (p. 15): "The research findings neither dictate nor preclude any particular social policy, because they can never determine our goals. They can, however, help us estimate the likely success and side-effects of pursuing those goals via different means."

So she says that this research is only relevant to social policy in that it can shed light on how effective certain programs would be at achieving goals, but it can't help us make the (obviously subjective) decisions of what our goals should be. But the disingenuous part of this is that IQ-genetics-race research "neither dictate[s] nor preclude[s] any social policy"--because I can think of someone who would not agree with that statement. In fact, this person believes that research "showing" that racial IQ differences are mainly due to genetics does demonstrate that certain social policies will be doomed to fail. This person has written sentences like the following:

Much social policy has long been based on the false presumption that there exist no stubborn or consequential differences in mental capability. Worse than merely fruitless, such policy has produced one predictable failure and side effect after another, breeding widespread cynicism and recrimination...Civil rights advocates resolutely ignore the possibility that a distressingly high proportion of poor Black youth may be more disadvantaged today by low IQ than by racial discrimination, and thus that they will realize few if any benefits (unlike their more able brethren) from ever-more aggressive affirmative action [Emphasis mine].*

And:

...social science and social policy are now dominated by the theory that discrimination accounts for all racial disparities in achievements and well-being. This theory collapses, however, if deprived of the egalitarian fiction, as does the credibility of much current social policy.** 

You'll never guess who the person is who wrote these statements--unless you have been paying even a modicum of attention to the previous parts of this post, or if you skipped ahead to the footnotes from the asterisks. In either case it should be obvious that Gottfredson wrote both of the above passages. This supports the point that the SPLC made on their "Extremist Files" profile of her:

She concludes “Mainstream Science” by claiming that her ideas “neither dictate nor preclude any social policy.” But much of her career has been dedicated to the idea that because IQ determines social outcomes, and racial disparities in IQ are innate and immutable, policies intended to reduce racial inequality are doomed to fail, and may even exacerbate the problems they’re intended to remedy.

*Gottfredson 1997, p. 124-5
**Gottfredson 1994, p. 55