Advertisement

Genetica

, Volume 99, Issue 2–3, pp 97–108 | Cite as

On models and muddles of heritability

  • Peter H. Schönemann
Article

Abstract

One reason for the astonishing persistence of the IQ myth in the face of overwhelming prior and posterior odds against it may be the unbroken chain of excessive heritability claims for ‘intelligence’, which IQ tests are supposed to ‘measure’. However, if, as some critics insist, ‘intelligence’ is undefined, and Spearman's g is beset with numerous problems, not the least of which is universal rejection of Spearman's model by the data, then how can the heritability of ‘intelligence’ exceed that of milk production of cows and egg production of hens?

The thesis of the present review paper is that the answer to this riddle has two parts: (a) the technical basis of heritability claims for human behavior is just as shaky as that of Spearman's g. For example, a once widely used ‘heritability estimate’ turns out to be mathematically invalid, while another such estimate, though mathematically valid, never fits any data; and (b) valid technical criticisms of flawed heritability claims typically are met with stubborn editorial resistance in the main stream journals, which tends to calcify such misinformation.

heritability estimates IQ model tests Spearman'sg twin research 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bock, R.D. & E.G.J. Moore, 1984. The Profile of American Youth. Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  2. Crouse, J. & D. Trusheim, 1988. The Case Against the SAT. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  3. Donlon, T.F., 1983. The College Board Technical Handbook for the Scholastic Aptitude Test and Achievment Tests. CEEB, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Estes, W.K.E., 1992. Ability testing: Postscript on ability tests, testing, and public policy. Cognitive Science 5: 278.Google Scholar
  5. Falconer, D.S., 1960. Introduction of Quantitative Genetics. Oliver Boyd, Edinburgh and London.Google Scholar
  6. Fisher, R.A., 1918. The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 52: 399–433.Google Scholar
  7. Frank, G., 1983. The Wechsler Enterprise. Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. Galton, F., 1908/1974. Memories of my Life. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  9. Herrnstein & Murray, 1994. The Bell Curve. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Hirsch, J., 1981. To 'unfrock the charlatans'. Sage Race Relations Abstracts 6: 1–67.Google Scholar
  11. Holzinger, K., 1929. The relative effect of nature and nurture influences on twin differences. Journal of Educational Psychology 20: 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Horn, J.L. & S.M. Hofer, 1993. Continuation to the Doctorate Degree and the predictive validity of the GRE assessments. The Graduate School. The University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  13. Humphreys, L.G., 1968. The fleeting nature of the prediction of college academic success. Journal of Educational Psychology 59: 375–380.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jinks, J.L. & D.W. Fulker, 1970. Comparison of the biometric genetical, MAVA, and classical approaches to the analysis of human behavior. Psychological Bulletin 73: 311–349.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kempthorne, O., 1978. Logical, epistemological and statistical aspects of naturenurture data interpretation. Biometrics 34: 1–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. King, J.C., 1981. The Biology of Race. Berkeley University of California Press.Google Scholar
  17. Loehlin, J.C. & R.C. Nichols, 1976. Heredity, Environment, and Personality. University of Texas Press, Austin and London.Google Scholar
  18. Maraun, M.D., in press 1996. Metaphor taken as math: Indeterminacy in the factor analysis model. Multivariate Behavioral Research.Google Scholar
  19. Newman, H., F. Freeman & K. Holzinger, 1937. Twins. A Study of Heredity and Environment. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  20. Nichols, R.C., 1965. The National Merit twin study, in Methods and Goals in Human Behavior Genetics, edited by G. S. Vandenberg. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Osborne, T., 1980. Twins: Black and White. Foundation for Human Understanding, Athens, GA.Google Scholar
  22. Plato, 1928/1956. The Republic. Penguin, London.Google Scholar
  23. Plomin, R. & C.S. Bergeman, 1991. The nature of nurture: Genetic influence on 'environmental' measures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14: 373–385.Google Scholar
  24. Schönemann, P.H., 1990. Environmental versus genetic variance component models for identical twins: A critique of Jinks and Fulker's reanalysis of the Shields data. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/European Bulletin of Psychology 10: 451–473.Google Scholar
  25. Schönemann, P.H., 1993. A note on Holzinger's heritability coefficient h 2. Chinese Journal of Psychology 35: 59–65.Google Scholar
  26. Schönemann, P.H., 1994. Heritability, pp. 528–536 in Encyclopedia of Human Intelligence, edited by R. Sternberg. MacMillan, New York.Google Scholar
  27. Schönemann, P.H., in press 1996. The psychopathology of factor indeterminacy. Multivariate Behavioral Research.Google Scholar
  28. Schönemann, P.H. & R.D. Schönemann, 1991. We wondered where the errors went. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14: 404–406.Google Scholar
  29. Schönemann, P.H. & R.D. Schönemann, 1994. Environmental versus genetic models of Osborne's personality data on identical and fraternal twins. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/Current Psychology of Cognition 13: 141–167.Google Scholar
  30. Schönemann, P.H. & W.W. Thompson, 1996. Hitrate bias in mental testing. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/Current Psychology of Cognition 15: 3–28.Google Scholar
  31. Scott, J.P., 1987. Why does human twin research not produce results consistent with those from nonhuman animals? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10: 39–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Seymour, R.T., 1988. Why plaintiff's counsel challenge tests, and how they can successfully challenge the theory of 'validity generalization'. Journal of Vocational Behavior 33: 331–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shields, J., 1962. Monozygotic Twins Brought Up Apart and Brought Up Together. Oxford University Press, London.Google Scholar
  34. Spearman, C., 1927. The Abilities of Man. Their Nature and Measurement. MacMillan, New York.Google Scholar
  35. Steiger, J.H. & P.H. Schönemann, 1978. A history of factor indeterminacy, pp. 136178 in Theory Construction and Data Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by S. Shye, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  36. Taylor, H.F., 1980. The IQ Game. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick.Google Scholar
  37. Thorpe, W.H., 1978. Purpose in a World of Chance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York.Google Scholar
  38. Wahlsten, D., 1990. Insensitivity of the analysis of variance to heredityenvironment interactions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 109–120.Google Scholar
  39. Wilson, E.B., 1928. Review of 'The Abilities of Man, Their Nature and Measurement' by C. Spearman. Science 67: 244–248.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter H. Schönemann
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychological SciencesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations