[lbo-talk] IQ and politics

Miles Jackson cqmv at pdx.edu
Tue Nov 9 20:09:44 PST 2004


On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:


> The point I am trying to make here is that when we have a situation that a
> model explains a relatively small percent of variance (say, less than 20%)
> that indicates that the variables that can potentially explain most (80%) of
> the variance are not in the equation. This, in turn creates a strong
> possibility of spuriousness of the observed effects. That is to say, if we
> introduce those other variables that may potentially explain the hitherto
> unexplained 80% of the variance, the chances are the effects of the
> variables already in the equation may be "explained away" i.e. become
> statistically insignificant or even reverse its sign (i.e. from positive to
> negative).

Hmm. I realize only a few LBO wonks may be interested in this point, but Woj is confusing error variance and confound variance here. Whether the unexplained variance is 80% or 5%, the relationship between IQ and academic outcomes could be accounted for by an uncontrolled confound. Confounds--spurious relationships--contribute to the explained variance in r-squared, not the unexplained variance. Thus the amount of unexplained (error) variance is irrelevant to the question of whether or not spurious (confound) variables account for the relationship. --Typically, the "explained variance"-- r-squared--in this type of IQ research is about 10-20%. Note that this does not mean there is a strong likelihood that the IQ- academic achievement relationship is spurious; it just means that many factors contribute to variation in academic achievement (a factor can contribute to the unexplained variance here and not be a confound!).


>
> So unless someone shows me that IQ test alone explains more than, say, 60
> percent of the variance on academic achievement, or that IQ tests together
> with other variables explain that much variance and IQ still remains
> significant - I remain unimpressed by all those correlations claims.

This is an unrealistic criterion for psychological research. Human beings are complex, and human behavior is multiply determined. You will almost never find a single psychological variable that accounts for 60% of the variation in behavior (that's r = about .80!).

--Moreover, in the context of psychological research, this is a misrepresentation of the importance of "percentage of variation accounted for". Keep in mind that accounting for 15% of the variance is a large effect (e.g., the effect of smoking on risk of cancer); accounting for 6% is a moderate effect (e.g., the effect of many drug therapies on psychological disorders); and accounting for only 1% is a meaningful and small effect (e.g., the effect of asprin on risk of coronary heart disease). If IQ scores only accounted for 1% or 2% of the total variation in academic performance, that would be practically and theoretically important. As I mentioned, IQ scores typically account for 10-20% of the variation in academic outcomes.

Again, I want to emphasize that IQ tests do not measure general intelligence. However, we need to base our criticisms on scientific data and meaningful interpretations of those data.

Miles



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list