Aspergers and Chunking

I was reading Ungifted: Intelligence Redefined by Scott Barry Kaufman. I came across a section about Aspergers. The more I’ve read about it over the years the more I suspect that I have some form of it.*

A theory on Autism is that it is strong focus on details which can lead to not seeing the forest for the trees, but if high functioning enough this can be compensated for. The Aspie takes in so many details that this can lead to distraction and cognitive overload. There are two primary ways of dealing with this. First, Aspies might limit their interactions and narrow their focus to create a more manageable space in which to think and to feel more comfortable. Second, Aspies often learn to chunk information.

The second method is what I learned as a child when I was living in Deerfield, Illinois (a wealthy Jewish suburb of Chicago; more on this below). I was having trouble with reading and I stuttered. I had a hard time saying what a word was or even recalling the names of my friends, but I could describe what I meant when I wasn’t stuttering and the only reason I was stuttering was because I couldn’t recall.

I went to speech therapy, but even the therapist wasn’t sure my precise problem. This therapist and my mom, who also was a speech therapist, went to a talk given by Diane J. German from Northwestern University who maybe was working on her PhD dissertation at the time (my mom thinks this was in 1982 since I was diagnosed in first grade when I was 6 years old). She is now a professor emeritus at National Louis University. At the time, German was working on a new test for word recall issues. Here is an article about her work:

“The look on these children’s faces captures the problem in the most compelling way,” says Diane German, the principal researcher, who specializes in disorders of word-finding and a special education professor at National-Louis University in Chicago, Illinois. “They really struggle when they have to read a simple word like ‘nest’ out loud. Some grimace, others look stuck. Some just blurt out an answer that’s almost always wrong. Yet when asked to point to the same word on a page, they almost always get it right. Clearly they’ve got a problem and need help, but it’s not that they lack reading skills.”

One child in the study, previously diagnosed with these “word-finding” difficulties, couldn’t say “cocoon” as he tried to read a story aloud. When he got to the word, he stumbled and added, “You know, it is that brown thing hanging in the tree.”

“Clearly, this child had managed to ‘read’ the word to himself and comprehend it, or he could never have come up with that kind of description,” explains psychologist Rochelle Newman, co-author of the study and a University of Maryland professor of hearing and speech sciences. “He just couldn’t retrieve the sound pattern of the word.”

(Another piece by her: “Ask Yourself, Are You Doing Enough for Your Learners with Word Finding Difficulties?)

They immediately recognized that German was talking about my issues. German was looking to do a study. So, my mom did some of the testing for German’s study, but my mom recalls German coming to our house and testing me herself. That is how I became one of the kids used as a subject in her study. And that was the beginning of how I, unlike so many other kids, escaped the trap of sub-par remedial education and a life of low expectations.

My mom and the therapist learned about this new field of word recall issues. Before that time, no one was discussing any of this and speech therapists weren’t being taught about it. It was serendipity that I was beginning school at the time and nearby where this new field was being developed. With this new knowledge, my mom worked with my therapist to help me with word recall (along with a learning disability therapist, Diane Redfield, who taught me to read).

One of the things that helped me the most was the information chunking. My mom explained that this had to do with not just grouping similar words. It has to do with looking at words from every angle in order to understand its different aspects. It is a shifting of perspective and a breaking down into component parts. This is what allows word groupings to be useful. Grouping words goes hand in hand with chunking information. The more kinds of groupings and chunkings the increased capacity to think and communicate clearly.

I had an example of this just last night. I was thinking of early 20th century anarchists and I was trying to recall one specific person. From the word ‘anarchist’, I thought of women’s clinic. Then from that I connected to the last name Goldman. Once I had the last name, I could recall the first name and so had the full name: Emma Goldman. I couldn’t just pull the name out by itself. I had to go through a process to get to it.

That isn’t my only method. I also use something similar to chunking that is more on a feeling level. I get an overall sense of something, a person or an idea or whatever. Once I have that sense, I just have to switch into the right state of mind and slowly feel into it. Anything I’m familiar with has a feeling-sense associated with it. This form of recall isn’t always efficient, but it works when I can’t use a direct chain of connections. This feeling-sense is very useful in general, though, for it allows me to chunk info in larger ways and helps me in feeling out patterns by sensing resonances.

All of this fits into why I’ve come to suspect I have Aspergers or something very similar. The one thing that demonstrated I wasn’t low IQ as a child was my ability to see patterns. This is also a talent of many Aspies. It is because Aspies see things in chunks of details that they are able to more flexibly scan for patterns. It is precisely where various chunks crossover that a whole begins to form, but this is building from the bottom up.

I do this in my thinking and writing. When taken to its extreme, I call them thought-webs. Connections form, connections build upon connections, and then a sense of meaning emerges from that. It is an organic process of synthesizing, rather than analyzing, although analyzing may follow as a secondary process. It is looking to the data to speak for itself, finding the harmony between the seemingly diparate.

It has its strengths and weaknesses. It is greatest strength is for research. My Asperger-like extraverted intuition (MBTI Ne) goes off in a million directions finding all the details until my brain is overloaded. Then begins the filtering and consolidating of it all into a unique synthesis, but that last part can be a doozy. I sometimes never get past the brain overload.

* More recently, I’ve learned of specific language impairment. It can have behavioral symptoms similar to autism, but it’s a different condition and much more common. It’s another possibility in describing my own difficulties, as much of it fits my experience.

As a side note, there is a reason I mentioned above that Deerfield is a wealthy Jewish suburb of Chicago. Here is an interesting detail of Deerfield’s history (from Wikipedia):

“In 1959, when Deerfield officials learned that a developer building a neighborhood of large new homes planned to make houses available to African Americans, they issued a stop-work order. An intense debate began about racial integration, property values, and the good faith of community officials and builders. For a brief time, Deerfield was spotlighted in the national news as “the Little Rock of the North.” Supporters of integration were denounced and ostracized by angry residents. Eventually, the village passed a referendum to build parks on the property, thus putting an end to the housing development. Two model homes already partially completed were sold to village officials. The remaining land lay dormant for years before it was developed into what is now Mitchell Pool and Park and Jaycee Park. At the time, Deerfield’s black population was 12 people out of a total population of 11,786. This episode in Deerfield’s history is described in But Not Next Door by Harry and David Rosen, both residents of Deerfield.
“Since the early 1980s, however, Deerfield has seen a large influx of Jews and, more recently, Asians and Greeks, giving the community a more diverse ethnic makeup.”

I guess it was a wealthy Jewish suburb of Chicago that has become a wealthy Jewish, Asian and Greek suburb of Chicago.

I can tell you one thing for certain. Few poor kids, especially poor minorities, are privileged in the way I was by my early education opportunities. I went to a public school in Deerfield, but that is way different than going to a public school in the inner city of Chicago. If I had been a poor black kid in a poor black neighborhood, I would have been designated low IQ and that would have been the end of it.

How many poor black kids failing in school are as intelligent as I am? The evidence points to the answer being many.

It is one thing to experience something like a learning disability or Aspergers. It is a whole other matter to deal with a learning disability or Aspergers while dealing with poverty and prejudice.

Even ignoring racism, classism by itself is a powerful form of prejudice. My mom was raised working class and she raised us with a working class sensibility. This meant she dressed us working class. My older brother was ridiculed in the Deerfield public school. It scarred him for life and it contributed to his hatred of school ever after. Part of that had to do with our having previously lived in Bellefontaine, Ohio which is a factory town at the edge of Appalachia. Apparently, we had picked up a bit of Appalachian speech, in that the rich kids in Deerfield ridiculed Clay for saying ‘zeero’ when meaning ‘zero’.

It was a clear giveaway to our class background. So, even though we were technically upper middle class because my dad was a factory manager, we were new money upper middle class and the other kids knew it. I was, at that time, fortunate enough to have been too young to understand and maybe, because of my Aspergers, too socially oblivious to care.

If such minor forms of prejudice could have such powerful impact on my brother, imagine what more severe (and systemic) forms of prejudice will do to a child. To this day, my brother remains traumatized from his childhood experience of class prejudice and, sadly, has internalized it in ridiculing his ‘white trash’ neighbors in the small working class town he now lives in. Racism and classism, they are shitty mentalities that cause much damage, but unless you’ve been on the receiving end of prejudice it is hard to understand and appreciate.

* * *

Below is part of the section from Ungifted where Aspergers is discussed.

pp. 223-226:

An alternative perspective, which has gained a lot of research support in recent years, is that autism is merely a different way of processing incoming information. 23 Individuals with ASD have a greater attention to detail and tend to adopt a bottom-up strategy— they first perceive the parts of an object and then build up to the whole. 24 As Uta Frith puts it, people with autism have difficulty “seeing the forest for the trees.” There is neurological evidence that the unique mind of the person with ASD is due in part to an excessive number of short-distance, disorganized local connections in the prefrontal cortex (required for attention to detail) along with a reduced number of long-range or global connections necessary for integrating information from widespread and diverse brain regions. 25 As a result, people with high-functioning autism tend to have difficulty switching attention from the local to the global level. 26

This sometimes plays itself out in social communications. People with ASD focus on details in the environment most people find “irrelevant,” which can lead to some awkward social encounters. When people with ASD are shown photographs with social information (such as friends chatting) or movie clips from soap operas, their attention is focused much less on the people’s faces and eyes than the background scenery, such as light switches. 27 Differences among toddlers in attention to social speech is a robust predictor of ASD, and social attention differences in preschool lead to a deficit in theory of mind. 28 This is important , considering that an early lack of attention to social information can deprive the developing child of the social inputs and learning opportunities they require to develop expertise in social cognition. 29 It’s likely that from multiple unrewarding social interactions during the course of development, people with ASD learn that social interactions are unrewarding, and retreat even further into themselves.

Kate O’Connor and Ian Kirk argue that the atypical social behaviors found in people with ASD are more likely the result of a processing difference than a social deficit, and may represent a strategy to filter out too much sensory information . 30 Indeed , people with ASD often report emotional confusion during social interactions, in which they interpret expressions, gestures, and body language to mean something different from or even the opposite of what the other person intended. 31 Many people with ASD report that the eye region is particularly “confusing” and “frightening.” 32

Indeed, the eye region is very complex, transmitting a lot of information in a brief time span. For one thing, it’s always in motion (blinking, squinting, saccadic movement, and so on). But the eye region also can depict a wide range of emotions in rapid succession. It’s likely that over the course of many overwhelming interactions with people in the context of other sensory information coming in from the environment, people with ASD learn to look less at the eye region of faces. 33 People with ASD do frequently report being distracted by sensory information in the environment, including background noise, fluorescent light, shiny objects, body movement, and smells. 34

[ . . . ]

One robust finding is that people with ASD have enhanced perceptual functioning. 40 People with ASD tend to perform better than people without ASD symptoms on IQ subtests that involve nonverbal fluid reasoning and the segmentation and reconstruction of novel visual designs. 41 Individuals with ASD also perform better than controls on the Embedded Figures Task (EFT), which requires quick detection of a target within a complex pattern. 42 The ASD tendency to see patterns as collections of details instead of as wholes helps people with ASD to segment and chunk visual information, freeing up visual working memory resources and allowing them to handle a higher perceptual load than typical adults. 43

Re: Education research exposes the theory of multiple intelligences as singularly stupid

— — —
I would separate the theory of different intelligences from the theory of different learning styles.I think they aren’t necessarily referring to the exact same thing. Also, conflating them probably isn’t helpful.
First, are there different intelligences? 
It would seem to be commonsense that some people are better (i.e., more ‘intelligent’) at doing certain activities. Even research confirms this. People can be tested separately for verbal intelligence, for mathematical intelligence, and for spatial intelligence. They have tests designed for measuring these abilities and they use them in schools.
However, this doesn’t necessarily have much to do with traditional teaching or necessarily should it. How is someone being good at sports going to help them learn to read? It’s not. A student may have natural verbal intelligence and not have natural mathematical intelligence, but that kid is still going to have to learn to do math and his verbal intelligence may not help him in any direct way.
The theory that people have different abilities is true, but the theory that these different abilities are different ways of learning isn’t proven, or not in all cases anyway. An ability can’t necessarily be applied as a learning style to learn other abilities.

Second, are there different learning styles? 

I was wondering what research has been done on this area. It’s not something I’ve looked into. However, I have spent years looking at the research on personality types and traits. I think it is a fair assessment to say that there is plenty of research supporting the theory that human brains work differently to varying degrees. There are commonalities to human brain function, but there is also much diversity. It seems obvious to me, going by the research I’ve seen and going by my own observations, that people do process information differently. This potentially could lead to different learning styles, whether or not such learning styles correlates to Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences.

This is an areas I can speak personally about. I had a learning disability as a child, still do. My learning disability just meant I learned differently, but it didn’t mean I was less smart. When I was in early elementary school, I wasn’t keeping up with the other students. They, at first, suspected I might be low IQ. But when they tested me, they found I was actually above average in IQ, at least in certain areas. For example, my ability to solve spatial puzzles was at a twelfth grade level.

So, that is my learning style. I’m very good at seeing patterns and making connections. However, I’m not good a rote memory. Traditional teaching methods didn’t work for me. Fortunately, I went to school that had a very good special education teacher who taught me a different way to learn. A main part of my learning disability is word recall. For this reason, I was behind on my reading and writing ability. One thing the special education teacher taught me was to think of similar words. If I can’t think of one word, I use another similar word. This caused me to increase my vocabulary and after that I was ahead of the other students in reading.

In my case, there was some connection between intellectual abilities and learning styles. If you tested me as a kid, I would have measured as low in verbal intelligence. But if you test me now, I would measure as high in verbal intelligence. So, what is the difference? I learned to use my other strengths (i.e., my other intellectual abilities) to compensate for my weaknesses (i.e., my learning disability, especially word recall). It would seem that word recall is a part of verbal intelligence. It would seem that my limited word recall ability means I lack a certain natural aspect of verbal intelligence. However, because I was intelligent in other ways, I could compensate. People who don’t have other types of intelligence wouldn’t be able to easily compensate. Even I, if I hadn’t had a good special edcuation teacher and parents who were teachers, might not have learned to compensate. If I had been a poor kid in a poor public school, I might have been simply categorized as low IQ and that would have been the end of it. For the rest of my life, I would have thought I was stupid.

As such, I’m a strong proponent of learning styles theory. I wish I had the opportunity to be taught differently all through school. After leaving that particular elementary school, I never again had a teacher that helped me to that extent. Despite being above average in intelligence, I always struggled with learning and so I learned to hate school. Teachers were always teaching rote memory, but I was never good at it. I dropped out of college partly because no one would teach the way I learned. The way I learn is by connecting information, by seeing or creating patterns in data. Isolated factoids are meaningless to me and it’s hard for me to remember them even if only for the short term of taking a test.

I was, however, lucky to have parents who were teachers and very helpful in my education. My mom was a speech pathologist and so she was used to kids who had minds that worked differently. So, despite school, my parents instilled in me a love of learning. I learned how to learn on my own.

Not everyone is a genius, that is true. On the other hand, not everyone who learns differently is stupid.

— 
 — — — 

Even so, I think the research supports the theory of general intelligence. 
If I wasn’t generally intelligent, I wouldn’t have been able to compensate for my learning disability. General intelligence would be the measurement across all testable cognitive abilities: verbal, mathematical, spatial, etc. I was thinking about the research showing that people who learn music early are better at math later on. So, certain aspects of intelligence would probably be more closely correlated than other aspects. I might be above average on general intelligence or maybe not, but I have no particular talent for either music or math. That side of general intelligence is separate, in my personal experience, from verbal and spatial intelligence. But I would guess that, for most people, there is a correlation between verbal intelligence and mathematical intelligence.
Verbal intelligence is, as I understand, often used as a stand in for general intelligence. In traditional education, verbal intelligence is key since almost everything is taught through language. However, there is no reason that needs to be the case. There are some autistic kids who have limited verbal intelligence and yet have vast mathematical intelligence. So, general intelligence is only a generalization and wouldn’t apply to all people. Even if general intelligence is the rule, schools still need to educate those who are exceptions to the rule.
Nonetheless, I see the risk in emphasizing differences over similarities.It fits our cultural ideology to believe that everyone is smart or talented in some way, that everyone has great potential if we could only find a way to tap into it. I’m sure there is much truth to this, but on a practical level it probably makes more sense to emphasize standardized education methods.

It can be an excuse to just dismiss general intelligence just because it is inconvenient to our ideology. I was thinking of two examples where this becomes problematic.

 – – –

The first example is differences in IQ between races.

Some people want to dismiss IQ testing because it has the potential to be used to support racist theories and those racist theories can influence public policy. But the problem isn’t the IQ tests. The problem I see is in understanding what the IQ tests represent.

IQ isn’t simply about natural ability. Kids who don’t get proper nutrition while the mother was pregnant and after they are born will tend to have lowered cognitive development. Kids who experience high rates of social stress and environmental toxins (especially lead poisoning) will tend to have lowered cognitive development. Kids who don’t have access to materials to stimulate their minds and don’t have parents with lots of free time to work on their learning will tend to have lowered cognitive ability. These types of kids are disproportionately found among the poor and minorities are disproportionately found among the poor. So, it’s no surprise that minorities on average have lower IQs when tested.

To demonstrate this, all you have to do is look at the IQ results as kids grow older. When young, there is no clear difference between the IQs of whites and minorities. The difference only shows up in later years of schooling. So, there is no evidence that the racial difference in IQ is genetic.

Because we see these racial differences, IQ testing is all that more important. It helps us to discover the causal factors in these racial differences. In understanding these causal factors, we can change them. We can take actions through public policy that increase the probability that poor children get proper nutrition, have less stressful environments, don’t get lead poisoning, and have intellectually stimulating materials and environments.

– – – 

The second example has to do with the IQ differences between liberals and conservatives.
Many different studies have found that liberals on average have higher IQs. There are many theories for why this is the case, but no one knows for sure the reasons.

Like the liberals who want to dismiss the racial IQ difference, there are conservatives who want to dismiss the ideological IQ difference. There are always people who want to dismiss inconvenient and uncomfortable data. I came across someone attempting to do that with the ideological IQ difference. Satoshi Kanazawa has proposed an explanation for why liberals test as more intelligent. In response, Shawn T. Smith has dismissed that explanation and in doing so seems to dismiss the idea of general intelligence as something IQ tests can measure or else he is just dismissing the correlation of verbal intelligence to general intelligence.

Here is an interaction that shows the conflict between the two views (from the comment section of Shawn T. Smith’s article):

RobertS (April 11, 2010 – 10:25pm): You ignored the studies Kanazawa referenced in his paper SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY “verbal intelligence is known to be highly correlated with (and thus heavily load on) general intelligence. Miner’s (1957) extensive review of 36 studies shows that the median correlation between vocabulary and general intelligence is .83.” He also cites Wolfle (1980) and Huang and Hauser 1998. My guess is your a conservative who’s offended by Kanazawa’s conclusions.
Shawn T. Smith, Psy.D. (April 12, 2010 – 8:07am): With all due respect, I absolutely did not ignore his citations. Of course verbal intelligence is heavily loaded on general intelligence. So is PIQ. This proves what?

Let me ask you: do you believe that extrapolating a Full Scale IQ score from a vocabulary test is a valid, reasonable, and accurate thing to do? Don’t tap dance. Give me a straight answer. If you do believe it is a valid thing to do, tell me why. Maybe I’ve got it all wrong.

Also, do you agree with Kanazawa that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives? If so, why?

Yes, I suppose I was personally offended, but not because I am conservative (incidentally, I described my stance briefly in my deconstruction so you would know where I stand). I’m becoming increasingly offended by the degree and amount of irrationality and intolerance in my profession, both in research and in the clinic. It does offend me to see research abused this way. It makes all of us psychologists look silly.

Here is another interaction about the same issue:

MP (November 8, 2010 – 8:16pm): I believe the original author showed a second order correlation between liberalism and verbal intelligence.

This takedown is really really nitpicky, the sort of nitpicky that that “they’re” vs “there” guy was doing earlier.

The correlation is extremely strong, so much as the data shown. The LSE guy might have overstated his case but the numbers don’t lie.

That crap about colleges = liberalism doesn’t weaken the correlation.

>>>>Second, a correlation once-removed is terribly shaky. What Kanazawa did here is akin to saying, “tables have four legs like dogs, and dogs resemble elephants in many ways, therefore tables are elephants.”

Errr no. I was taking you quite seriously until I saw this comment you made. I think your complaints are minor, but fair. But this statement is either stupid or disingenuous. He never claimed that liberals are smart. As we people who understand highschool statistics know, he’s saying there’s a correlation between intelligence and liberalism. That’s like saying a table is more similar to an elephant because both have 4 legs, than to a rock, which doesn’t.

PS: Your analogy sucks.

Shawn T. Smith, Psy.D. (November 8, 2010 – 9:56pm: You said that my criticisms are nitpicky, but you glided right past the most salient ones. For example, I criticized Dr. Kanazawa for extrapolating full scale IQ score ranges from a rudimentary vocabulary test. Do you believe that to be a trivial point?

And I stand by my criticism of second-order correlations. We in the field of psychology have become far too accepting of strained correlations, meta-analyses, and other manifestations sloppy research. You and I may differ on that point because I am a clinician and I deal in individual cases, not numbers. If you deal in statistics – not that it’s good or bad, just different – you will undoubtedly see more value in things like second-order correlations.

But back to my original question: Was Kanazawa correct in deriving full scale IQ ranges from the vocabulary test? (Yes, I realize it can be done statistically. Anything can be done statistically.)

And one more interaction:

Steven (February 1, 2011 – 4:02pm): I read the deconstruction at ironshrink.com primarily because I was shocked by the large difference and wanted to analyze the methodology. Unfortunately, what you gave was incredibly biased in its own right. I will just look at your main two premises:

1) PPVT is not a good measure of IQ

2) Liberal Colleges produce Liberals

The second one is completely illogical. I think we can agree that college graduates are smarter in general. Then you argue, of course college graduates (smarter people) are going to be more liberal, they are taught by liberals! Thus you are accepting the Hypothesis in order to disprove it.

Now the first one, which is an okay complaint, however, your emphasis on it is way too strong. Using PPVT and reporting IQ does damage the accuracy of the study, but to be fair, in order to make the study understandable to the general public IQ needs to be used. Furthermore, there have been studies that show that PPVT is a moderately good predictor of IQ, and you say it is often argued as a fairly good predictor of verbal intelligence.

Thus at best your ‘debunking’ shows that instead he should have written “Liberal are more verbally intelligent than conservatives” not merely intelligent.

Sorry, but your debunking is more biased than the study

Shawn T. Smith, Psy.D. (February 1, 2011 – 4:23pm): Good effort, but I’m not convinced.

1) PPVT is not even close to a measure of intelligence. I won’t restate my case here since I explained it in detail in the deconstruction to which you refer. Kanazawa’s attempt to connect the PPVT to full scale IQ is unsupportable. Had I tried a maneuver like that on my dissertation, I would have been laughed out of grad school. And rightfully so.

2) Evidence does not support the idea that college graduates are more intelligent than non-grads. Intelligence is a multi-faceted construct. College grads tend to do better on the verbal portion of IQ tests, and so it is no surprise that they gravitate toward an environment where verbal strength is an asset. That does not mean that college graduates function equally well in other areas of life requiring other skills. This explains why accountants and mechanics hire each other. They each play to their strengths – at least they do if they’re intelligent.

To summarize, Shawn T. Smith makes three related claims:

1) Standard methods of testing (in education, in psychological research, and in the legal field) isn’t to be trusted as a reliable and unbiased measure of general intelligence. Most studies confirm these standard methods of testing because most studies are biased in the same way. Since the studies of IQ can’t be trusted, the correlations determined by those studies can’t be trusted.
2) “Intelligence is a multi-faceted construct.” Hence, it is to be doubted that there is a singular general intelligence or, if it exists, that it can be measured by the standard methods of testing. Even if liberals were more verbally intelligent, it wouldn’t lead to the conclusion that liberals have a higher rate of general intelligence.
3) Colleges are biased toward both verbal intelligence and liberalism. As such, psychological researchers and the entire field of academic psychology is biased in the same way. Verbally intelligent, liberal psychological researchers are merely prejudiced against those who are different than them: conservatives and those who are intelligent in non-verbal ways.

 – – – 

Here is my response:

Almost all intelligence relates to verbal intelligence. Even a mechanic needs the ability to have good reading comprehension in reading highly technical manuals. If verbal intelligence correlates to liberalism, it would be expected that more successful mechanics would be more liberal on average than less successful mechanics.

Besides, college doesn’t just teach verbal intelligence. If conservatives have other types of intelligence, then they should succeed just fine in certain academic fields just as long as they have moderate levels of verbal intelligence.

I don’t understand why Smith wants to dismiss verbal intelligence. It would be hard to be highly successful in any type of job without at least average if not above average verbal intelligence. If conservatives are below average in verbal intelligence, you’d expect to find them to have below average representation on the successful end of almost all careers.

For example, owners of janitorial businesses are probably on average more verbally intelligent and more liberal than the janitors that work for him/her. A business owner needs verbal intelligence to understand all the complex laws and tax policies and needs verbal intelligence to know how to communicate well.

The correlation still remains strong and still remains relevant. All Shawn has demonstrated is that he doesn’t like the correlation. If he can prove the correlation is false, then he should do some peer-reviewed research that proves his hypothesis. Until then, his empty speculations are simply mindless complaining by an ideologue.

We must base our conclusions on the known facts. Numerous studies have confirmed the correlation Kanazawa has made. There are also conservative psychological researchers. If they disagree with Kanazawa, I’m sure the liberal psychological researchers would welcome quality peer-reviewed research to further understanding of this issue. To put it simply, put up or shut up.

I could counter Smith’s argument by pointing to all of the other studies showing a correlation between liberalism and IQ. For example:
Even Kanazawa mentions other data that corroborates his own study:
Kanazawa quotes from two surveys that support the hypothesis that liberals are more intelligent. One is the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which is often called Add Health. The other is the General Social Survey (GSS). The Add Health study shows that the mean IQ of adolescents who identify themselves as “very liberal” is 106, compared with a mean IQ of 95 for those calling themselves “very conservative.” The Add Health study is huge — more than 20,000 kids — and this difference is highly statistically significant.
But is there any point in mentioning further data? Smith doesn’t trust the methods of these kinds of studies nor does he trust the people doing the studies. Once such mistrust is allowed, discussion becomes impossible. This is similar to the danger in the education system when multiple intelligence theory is used to dismiss standard teaching methods. A conservative like Smith can say all education is biased against conservatives because most teachers are liberal and most teaching methods favor verbal intelligence. There is some truth in this, but it’s not a very helpful criticism.
What is expected? Are schools supposed to have quotas to ensure there are equal number of conservative teachers? And are teachers supposed to stop using verbal teaching methods?
Maybe it would be better to simply try to understand the data we have rather than dismiss it or attack the messenger. If we follow down the pathway Smith points to, we would find we have lost any bearings amidst all of the distrust and paranoia. Instead, we could look for reasons why conservatism correlates to lower IQ in the same way we look for reasons why poverty correlates to lower IQ. For example, we could ask:
What do conservatives parents do in raising children that is different liberal parents?
One answer is that conservative parents are more supportive of spanking. Recent research has found there is correlation between spanking and lower IQ. It’s probably similar to aspects of poverty. Spanking causes a child stress. Research also shows social stress in general correlates to lower IQ. So, conservative parents might want to rethink the conservative practice of spanking, assuming they care about their children’s cognitive development.
— — —
Here is my conclusion:
My point is that a balanced approach is required for understanding such issues. We need to take the data seriously, even when it contradicts our favored beliefs and values and especially when there is consensus among experts and researchers. Also, we need to gather as much data as possible. Sometimes there is elements of truth in opposing viewpoints, and sometimes not.
Furthermore, I’d differentiate between knowledge and practice. It could be factually proven that multiple intelligences exist and yet that doesn’t prove that this is helpful in teaching. Or it could be factually disproven that multiple intelligences exist and yet that doesn’t disprove that different teaching styles/methods are helpful to different students. We need to base teaching on what is demonstrated to work rather than on theory of what should work.