Scientific American Mind for April / May 2008 carries a story titled" The Social Psychology of Success" But it should be called "Stereotypes on the Brain."

Here are SOME of the studies cited in the article.

Women who were made aware of the fact that females generally scored worse on tests of mathematical ability than men performed worse than women who were not made aware of this.

Fair enough you might say. It shows the negative effects of stereotyping.

However:

Asian women who were told that Asians generally scored better on tests of mathematical ability than Caucasians IMPROVED their performance compared to a matched sample that were not given any information about the performance of sexes or races.

It seems that thinking of yourself as Asian rather than female improves your ability to solve maths puzzles!

It is well-known that on average Blacks score poorly on IQ tests when compared to Asians and Caucasians. Blacks who were given a test were divided into two groups. One group was told the test measured IQ. The second group was given no information about the nature of the test. The second group performed better.

Maybe the label on the test is important!

If White golfers believe they are being compared to Black Golfers they perform better if they think golf tests strategy but worse if they think it tests athletic prowess!

It seems that stereotypes work two ways.

It also depends who you believe you are being compared against.

This illustrates yet again why purely genetic answers to racial and ethnic differences in average levels of ability are probably wrong.

The extent to which people internalise stereotypes may hinder – or help!

Wow, you change your mind fast. And all it takes is an article in Scientific American? Maybe I should publish editorials there, nobody seems to want to listen here.

"It is well-known that on average Blacks score poorly on IQ tests when compared to Asians and Caucasians."

In the 1960s, some psychologists developed a test written in :"Jive" language, the Blacks out-performend the Whites.

Bugsy,

I am not aware that I've changed my mind on anything. My position on measured average aptitude differences between ethnicities being due, in part, to genomic differences has been the same since 1966. Right now it is not possible to provide a conclusive answer.

That means I neither dismiss nor embrace the hypothesis of average genomic differences contributing to average differences in aptitudes.

If you ask me to speculate I shall say this.

--We now know there are genomic differences between ethnicities.

--These are known to affect everything from lactose tolerance to blood chemistry.

--It would be a weird coincidence if none of these genomic differences affected brain structure.

--We shall probably know for certain by about 2020.

If you ask me to speculate further I would say that, for reasons that I cannot go into in 350 words, I am increasingly sceptical of twin studies that purport to show that 70% of intelligence differences are due to genomics. It is possible, as James Flynn of the University of Otago asserts, that genomics accounts for about 25% of intelligence differences between individuals.

However the Scientific American article – it was not an editorial – illustrates once again that caution is needed when interpreting test scores. Apparent ethnic differences may be due to influences that have yet to be discovered.

Olive,

I'm sure it would be possible to devise a test written in cockney rhyming slang that would show every cockney was a genius.

The point is whether tests written in jive, or cockney rhyming slang, would measure something that correlated with real world outcomes. There is now a mountain of evidence that demonstrates that in industrialised societies people who do well on IQ tests, on average, earn more, live longer and are healthier than those with low scores.

Whether these favourable outcomes are due to something we could call "intelligence," or something else, is another question.

Meyer said: "I'm sure it would be possible to devise a test written in cockney rhyming slang that would show every cockney was a genius."

It's called 'comprehension'. If I do medicine in Egypt I'm gonna struggle with comprehension because my ability to actually comprehend 'Egytian' is greatly limited as compared against New Zealand english from which I was raised on. Include 'Egytian' medical terminology and interpretation then you've got me struggling against multiple factors including the occasional hangover....

Comprehend?

Steve it is interesting and probably correct. It would be very surprising if there were large “measurable” differences in IQ in different groups of people through out the world. Humans have not lived apart for long enough for this phenomena to take place. Although some have claimed Africans and Aboriginals are less intelligent the research you point too and then fact that lamarckism is a known pseudo science (your grandparents reading lots of books will do nothing to improve their childrens/grandchildrens iq) reinforce that fact that in IQ terms we are all (on average) very equal or at the very most 1-2% difference which is in reality nothing.

Some people say IQ is a total waste of time I read an article (wish I could quote it) by a scientist who did nine IQ tests in a row. His IQ went up in 8 of the 9 tests so he concluded that the more IQ test you do the higher your IQ is. Like the more maths tests you do the better you become at maths.

The also say that IQ is a result of culture. A study in Norway found that the eldest son had an average IQ of 2.8 higher then the next born son.

http://www.livescience.com/health/070703_bad_IQ.html