I have been reading a review of The Bell Curve" by the late Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, which deals with intelligence and the distribution of intelligence. One of the things the book discusses is cognitive ability (known as g) which the authors claim can be accurately measured, and psychologists including Jensen, Eysenck and Herrnstein himself reported the results of many tests which all appeared to show that there is a small but statistically valid difference in the average level of g for different racial groups.

Herrnstein and Murray have been vilified for quoting these facts (as were Jensen and Eysenck), even though they only published facts that were well known in the scientific community. The standard accusation levelled at these psychologists is that they are "racist" - which I suppose they are if you agree that racism is saying that some races have common and identifiable differences from others.

For this reason, many psychologists now "keep their heads below the parapet" and simply don't discuss these issues. The review suggested that this was an example of the term from Papua New Guinea known as "Mokita". Simply translated this word means, "truth we all know but agree not to talk about".

I can certainly think of many other things that I could regards as Mokitas - how about the rest of us?

Um ...

If we all know them but agree not to talk about them, how can we discuss them here?

quote:

If we all know them but agree not to talk about them, how can we discuss them here? Confused

Ah, but we could name the concepts without discussing them.

Plus there will doubtless be some that are Moritkas in one society and not in another.

Alright, RE, you put the bait out there, and I'll bite. I am happy to discuss such theories here or anywhere, but I think it best we start with a discussion of whether the authors' interpretation of the test data can by any stretch of the imagination be referred to as "fact"-- or Mokita, or truth. I suggest we begin with an examination of the tests which gave rise to the data.

Aside from my objection to the example you used, I love having one little word-- Mokita-- for something we all know is true but agree not to discuss. I am currently reading "Night of the Owl" by Sciascia, written in 1962, location Sicily, subject mafia-- though the word scarcely appears, and was most definitely the operative Mokita for Sicilians, who scoffed at 'mainlanders' for 'exaggerating', 'sensationalizing', and 'fantasizing' about The Black Hand etc.

quote:

I think it best we start with a discussion of whether the authors' interpretation of the test data can by any stretch of the imagination be referred to as "fact"-- or Mokita, or truth. I suggest we begin with an examination of the tests which gave rise to the data.

I deliberately didn't say anything about the details of the testing and was, as I said, quoting from a book review. There is much more that could be said but I don't think this a the right thread to discuss the validity of the various IQ and aptitude tests used over the past century.

But one undeniable fact is that the psychologists whose names I quoted were all heavily criticised (and worse) for publishing the results of their research. More recently Dr Frank Ellis, of Leeds University (in England) was suspended (and eventually left his post) for suggesting that there was a racial difference in average IQ level. He was, in fact, expressing his support for the findings in the book I cited (The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life [1994])

Whether or not the tests and their results are accurate is not the point; it is the fact that there are findings, known by many, which cannot be discussed openly for fear of the consequences, that makes me suggest that this is an example of Motika. Whether the findings are accurate or not is irrelevent.

I would just add that one of the significant things about this particular research area is the emotions aroused by the fact that it is intelligence that is being measured. Somehow differences in intelligence seem to be equated with differences in worth, and less intelligent people are somehow deemed to be less worthy and inferior to more intelligent people. I can think of no other characteristic about which we make this kind of judgement these days. People who are more muscular, taller or heavier are not considered to be more or less worthy than those with the opposite characteristics.

Your Mafia example is probably another good one - although Sicily is not a place I have visited and so have no first-hand experience. But I can imagine that there must be places where everyone knows (or has good evidence) that the Mafia are operating but pretend it's not the case for fear of retribution.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Richard English,

We have a very good example much closer to home - on housing estates where everyone knows the identities of the teen thugs that terrorise the neighbourhood but no one says anything because to do so would make them a particular target of the threat.

I think the American translation of motika is "the [dead] elephant in the middle of the room".

quote:

it is the fact that there are findings, known by many, which cannot be discussed openly for fear of the consequences,

I understand your point, but this is a bad example. Nobody talks about it because the scientific community has gone over this before and come to the general consensus that it's just kinda dumb for a lot of reasons. The assumption that people accept the findings but just won't talk about them is wrong: they don't accept the findings.

Isn't there an Italian word, omerta, for the code of silence surrounding the Mafia? It resembles mokita in sound.

I've no science to back this up, but it stands to reason that different races, having been in different environments for many generations, would develop different forms of intelligence. It seems to me that there would be a skewing of the curve towards an intelligence that's representative of the culture in which the particular test was developed.

RE (and others who may be interested), I recommend you read A Framework for Understanding Poverty by Ruby Payne. It is a quick read, and honestly you can get most of what she is declaring in the first few chapters of the book. Dr. Payne puts forth the findings from her years of study, which is that different classes have different sets of hidden rules and values. Having studied this book and several others by Dr. Payne, I can say that often times when someone of one class examines another class (tests, even?), it would seem like those people are so inadept at doing what we all know that it would make them appear less intelligent. It's not a racial line, really, it's a line of class, privilege and upbringing.

To give a very brief example, I don't know a thing about how to bail someone out of jail (but I could figure it out, given the research tools), and others may no nothing about how to accurately balance a check book or buy a house. It's a matter of how I was raised, not my innate intelligence.

I will also say this . . . that so many children who live in or near poverty start school so very much behind "the average" child that it is very likely that they would never be able to "measure up" to the "normal" range of intelligence unless they're given direct, one-on-one, intensive intervention along with an environment that values such an education.

I think there are a lot of motika subjects in our society today. Intelligence and one's aptitude in matters of intelligence is surely one of them. I doubt that it falls on lines of race, but I would not be at all surprised to see (yet again) proof that people in poverty are behind in most aspects.

quote:

it stands to reason that different races, having been in different environments for many generations, would develop different forms of intelligence

Quite true, if the different races were actually isolated breeding populations in different environments. Africans are the most genetically diverse "race" on the planet (the San and the Bantu, as I understand it, are the two most genetically different population groups despite the fact that they live right next to each other), which one would expect given that it is where the species originated. African-Americans are even more diverse, coming from multiple African groups and incorporating European and Native American ancestors as well. I've said it here before: it's like comparing the intelligence of white dogs vs. black dogs. It would make more sense to discuss the differences between the Jews and the Irish than between blacks and whites.

quote:

It would make more sense to discuss the differences between the Jews and the Irish than between blacks and whites.

Possibly. But remember the many research projects haven't simply been about black and white (which is the common assumption, it seems to me).

But, as I said, I don't think this is the right thread to discuss the validity or otherwise of the tests; it's about whether or not the common reluctance to discuss the findings is an example of Motika.

I think it is.

quote:

Originally posted by neveu:

Quite true, if the different races were actually isolated breeding populations in different environments. Africans are the most genetically diverse "race" on the planet (the San and the Bantu, as I understand it, are the two most genetically different population groups despite the fact that they live right next to each other)

True. It seems to me that their having such differences proves the point. A recent PBS show postulated that among dogs, the change from wolf to domestic dog took only a few generations, not millinea. If that's true - and the jury's still out on that - then the traits necessary for successful pack hunting would be less important than the traits that allow for trans-species pack formation, as with dogs/people instead of wolf/wolf. Isolated human groups are, as you say, never totally isolated, but do develop traits specific to a given environment, or, as CW points out, fail to develop natural traits due to negative environments.

A motika of our culture seems to be birth control. Don't abort; raise more soldiers!

Sticking with the language point...

I wonder if maybe zm (whose knowledge of world languages is way better than mine) can shed any light on whether this is a real PNG word. I've done a bit of googling and once I restricted the search to "motika papua new guinea" got a manageable number of mostly relevent references. The trouble is that there seem to be very few distinct references with most of them quoting each other and a very large sample refering to the research Richard was quoting. I always get deeply suspicious when scores of sites have identicle wording of something and that is the case here.

Just to make it clear: I had never heard of the word prior to reading this review.

On google-scholar I found a site (now defunct) whose google-blurb says, "... For example, the Kiriwina language of New Guinea has a word mokita which means 'truth everybody knows but nobody speaks' (Hunt & Agnoli, 1991, p. 377 ... " Probably refers to Hunt, E. & Agnoli, F. (1991) The Worfian hypothesis: A cognitive psychology perspective. Psychological Review, 98 (3). pp 377-389, but I haven't yet found the full text. The cite appears to be a correct citation of that work, for I've found simlar citations to it elsewhere in print.

quote:

But, as I said, I don't think this is the right thread to discuss the validity or otherwise of the tests; it's about whether or not the common reluctance to discuss the findings is an example of Motika.

I think it is not. That was my point. The reluctance to discuss it isn't because it is a "truth we all know but agree not to talk about"; the reluctance to discuss it comes from the fact that it has been discussed and rehashed for decades and that the vast majority of mainstream evolutionary biologists, psychologists and sociologists consider it old and settled and a dead issue. Try discussing Joseph Newman's energy machine with a physicist and you'll get much the same response.

Maybe the New Guineans have a word for a chronic argument about which one side says "we never talk about this" and the other side responds "Christ! We've been over this a million times!"

Yes, I agree with people here that your example, Richard, isn't an example of motika (is it capitalized?). It surely isn't universally agreed (and therefore the "truth") that there are significant differences in the cognitive abilities of different racial groups. That would have to be the case, at least according to the definition posted.

Bob makes an interesting point. Is it a word? It's not in the OED.

Neveu gave an excellent translation of the word: Elephant in the room. When Morgan was posting here, but was dying of cancer, we all knew she was dying, but no one wanted to mention it. I remember receiving a PM from a member once who said that we're all avoiding discussion of the elephant in the room. That situation would seem to me to define Motika.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

Isolated human groups are, as you say, never totally isolated, but do develop traits specific to a given environment

But no one denies that. The question -- well, one of the many questions -- is precisely what environment was such that the ability to do little puzzles conferred a powerful selective breeding advantage over, say, the ability to rape and pillage properly?

quote:

Yes, I agree with people here that your example, Richard, isn't an example of motika (is it capitalized?).

The word was capitalised in the passage I read. So far as the example is concerned, I think it fair to suggest that it is an example of Motika, although I am at fault in being less than clear when I paraphrased the article. "Everybody", in the original passage, was referring to those in the particular scientific community that are involved in these studies. Of course, semantically "everybody", when undefined, would mean the entire population of the world - but it is rarely used in this way. Just as we might say, "everybody wants to go to the pub tonight" we know we don't mean the entire world, just our present gathering.

I used this particular example because it was the only time I have ever seen the word used. I hesitated to post it since I knew that there would be a grave danger (as has to some extent happened) that people would pick up on the IQ/Racial types aspect and not the philological aspect.

I agree that there is much to be discussed in the actual research findings but I don't think that this is the thread (or even the forum) for such a discussion - which would, I feel quite sure, be rather like a smoky candle, producing far more heat than light.

While I don't think that the example Richard cited was a good example of Motika (as it was defined), the reviewer calling it Motika is a good example of original sense of begging the question.

quote:

...which would, I feel quite sure, be rather like a smoky candle, producing far more heat than light.

That's because this particular candle was burned to a stump ages ago.

quote:

That's because this particular candle was burned to a stump ages ago.

There I feel I have to disagree. There has been relatively little discussion of this topic since most of those psychologists who have tried to air it have been silenced. As I mentioned, Dr Frank Ellis was only recently made to resign his position for suggesting that there was a racial basis for variations in intelligence.

The findings of Hans Eysenck (whom I actually met some years ago and found him to be a delightful, thoughtful and softly spoken man, who had certainly seen his fair slice of prejudice against him and his own race), are not discussed in many circles simply because of one of his research projects which dealt with racial variations in intelligence.

Neither of these examples prompts me to believe that the matter is, or has been, properly discussed. It has, as you imply, often been criticised and the findings debunked - but that is not the same as proper debate. Proper debate requires that both factions produce their researched evidence and look at the facts and issues, no matter how much the opposing views may offend the participants. Sadly I believe that rational debate is near to impossible when emotive subjects are being discussed.

For example, I would draw a parallel with the emotive issues of creationists versus evolutionists, where I suspect that many of those who seek to deny evolution use only the Bible as their source material and refuse even to consult other references (except maybe to find ways in which they can debunk them).

quote:

There has been relatively little discussion of this topic since most of those psychologists who have tried to air it have been silenced.

Richard, have you ever actually tried to silence an academic? It's not as easy as you've been led to believe.
I can't speak to its popularity among travel agents, but among psychologists, sociologists and evolutionary biologists this discussion has been going on for a hundred years. The Bell Curve was a best seller and made Murray and Herrnstein's estate millions. In just the last week I've seen popular press articles about research on ethic distribution of genes affecting brain development, relative IQ's of first-borns vs. later-borns, and an article about why Ashkenazi jews are smarter than everybody. And people on this board certainly seem willing to engage the subject. I know I am. So your assertion that this is a taboo subject is utter rubbish.

quote:

The findings of Hans Eysenck are not discussed in many circles simply because of one of his research projects which dealt with racial variations in intelligence.

Nope. Eysenck's findings aren't discussed because they are old and flawed and more recent studies have learned from his papers and fixed the flaws and those are the ones people consider definitive at this point, and these will in turn be forgotten as newer, better studies are done. That's the way science works, but unfortunately many old professors tend to forget this and continue to think their youthful triumphs are definitive. My own Ph.D advisor was famous for interrupting every presentation to tell the presenter that he had done their experiment 30 years ago.

quote:

Proper debate requires that both factions produce their researched evidence and look at the facts and issues, no matter how much the opposing views may offend the participants.

Well, duh. What do you think academics do all day? There is a whole literature out there for anyone who cares to read it. To be fair, though, if all one is aware of is newspaper articles and best-selling books, then I can see how one might get that impression. Bestsellers and news stories tend strongly towards the fringes of established science, and I think this is true in almost every field.

quote:

Sadly I believe that rational debate is near to impossible when emotive subjects are being discussed.

I have to say it again: what do you think academics do all day? They engage in rational debate on topics about which they are very passionate and emotional.

quote:

For example, I would draw a parallel with the emotive issues of creationists versus evolutionists, where I suspect that many of those who seek to deny evolution use only the Bible as their source material and refuse even to consult other references (except maybe to find ways in which they can debunk them)

I would draw a parallel with Faked Moon Landing conspiracy theorists: you show them the vast amount of evidence that we did land on the moon and they point to an odd shadow on a grainy photo and say "How do you explain that, then, eh?"

quote:

So your assertion that this is a taboo subject is utter rubbish.

The assertion was in the article I cited. And, yes. I am well aware that this is not new research - but people are still being punished for discussing it. Dr Ellis was the most recent. If unfettered debate were allowed he would not have been disciplined for stating his views.

Of the people on this board, only you seem to want to debate the topic of the connection, or lack thereof, between race and intelligence. I have tried hard to avoid it.

quote:

I would draw a parallel with Faked Moon Landing conspiracy theorists: you show them the vast amount of evidence that we did land on the moon and they point to an odd shadow on a grainy photo and say "How do you explain that, then, eh?"

That is another very good example of people trying to deny a factual matter by choosing to pick holes in certain parts of its reporting.

But I have said as much as I intend on this topic. I said I wouldn't debate the truth, of untruth, of the theory of racial/intelligence association and you are tempting me to do just that.

quote:

Of the people on this board, only you seem to want to debate the topic of the connection, or lack thereof, between race and intelligence. I have tried hard to avoid it.

Let's recap:

You started this thread.

You asked if the reluctance of scientists to talk about race and intelligence was an example of motika.

Bethree5, not I, suggested "we begin with an examination of the tests which gave rise to the data."

I said it was not an example of motika because it's not a truth that everyone knows but won't talk about. In order to support this argument, I pointed out the fact that this discussion has been going on for some time, there are lots of publications, new publications continue to be generated, hence there is no stifling of debate. Furthermore, I pointed out the empirical fact that mainstream psychologists, sociologists and evolutionary biologists do not consider it a fact that there are measurable differences in intelligence among racial groups. Thus it is not an example of motika.

Then you claimed that, based on two anecdotes, that debate is stifled and what a pity it is that rational discussion is impossible.

I pointed out that one of your examples is specious (I have since looked up the case of Frank Ellis. He was a lecturer in Russian and Slavonic studies. He was not fired: he took early retirement in order to avoid a disciplinary hearing. What a brave man. Interested readers can read the text of his letter here and draw their own conclusions). I pointed out that there is a century of rational discussion this subject available to anyone who cares to actually read it, and that this discussion continues to this day.

I have not, anywhere in my responses to you, directly addressed the relationship between race and intelligence, and have confined myself to demonstrating those two simple points: there is no stifling of debate despite the howls of conspiracy theorists, and that mainsteam psychologists, sociologists and evolutionary biologists do not consider it an incontrovertible fact there are inherent intelligence differences between races.

quote:

But I have said as much as I intend on this topic.

Well, nobody is stifling you. And I'm always here if you ever want to talk.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: neveu,

Of the people on this board, only you seem to want to debate the topic of the connection, or lack thereof, between race and intelligence. I have tried hard to avoid it.

That's because I wouldn't debate the weight of a sparrow's fart with you, Richard. It has been my observation that you simply want to anger people, and, after having done just that, you express astonishment that anybody could be angry with you. BTW, you've been doing a wonderful job of it, recently. But, as Shmuel Gelbfisz once famously stated "include me out!"

[Fixed typo.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

A few points:

The word is mokita (not motika, which appears many times in this thread, including the title).

I'd say that disagreements in academia are sometimes not entirely rational, free from prejudice, taboos or professional penalties for expressing unpopular views. No comment on whether Richard's example is such a case.

Certain traits (skin color, hair texture, eye slant) differ between the races. I won't speak on whether the trait of "intelligence" so differs, or whether discussion of that particular subject is in any way taboo or stifled. I hope we'll all avoid those questions.

In today's paper, an example of mokita:

Last October, Jack Straw, then the leader of the House of Commons and a former foreign secretary, touched off a furor in Britain when he suggested there was something amiss with the growing trend among Muslim women to wear the face-covering, head-to-toe garments commonly known as the niqab. "Insensitive and surprising," sniffed Simon Hughes, party chairman of the Liberal Democrats, about Mr. Straw's remarks. "A dangerous doctrine," added Oliver Letwin of the Tories. "Jack Straw has unleashed a storm of prejudice and intensified division," opined columnist Madeleine Bunting in the Guardian.

And what dangerous, insensitive, prejudiced and divisive thing did the Right Honorable Member say? He said that wearing the veil was "bound to make better, positive relations between the two communities more difficult." He said he "would rather" Muslim women do away with the niqab entirely. He said that "seeing people's faces is fundamental to the relationships between people," and he asked his niqabi constituents to remove their veil when meeting with him in his office--a request with which they had, apparently, been happy to comply. He said he hadn't meant to be "prescriptive," that wearing the veil was "a matter of choice," but that it was nevertheless "important to put out on the table something which is there in any event."

Edit, regarding the comment immediately below: neveu is correct. I had realized that, and was deleting the reference to him, at the same time as he was responding to it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: shufitz,

quote:

I'd say that disagreements in academia are not always entirely rational, free from prejudice, taboos or professional penalties for expressing unpopular views. (To the extent neveu suggests otherwise, I disagree.)

I would never suggest anything of the sort. I would argue, however, that the process, over time, generally comes to a consensus and the academic world moves on, even if the rest of the world doesn't. Questions that are precise and testable tend to come to consensus faster than questions that are ill-posed and pointless.

quote:

Of the people on this board, only you seem to want to debate the topic of the connection, or lack thereof, between race and intelligence. I have tried hard to avoid it.

For me, it's that we've discussed this before, at quite length if I recall, and further discussion is a no-win situation.

quote:

It has been my observation that you simply want to anger people, and, after having done just that, you express astonishment that anybody could be angry with you.

I'm sorry if you feel that. It is never my intention to anger people. I am aware, though, that I am prepared to make statements that others will disagree with - and I am often prepared to back them up - usually with facts.

I've tried to stear clear of the intelligence/racial origin debate since I knew it would arouse all sorts of passions - as it has. I was interested in the use of the word "Mokita" or "Mokita" (whichever is correct).

I am pleased that some have come up with good examples, and the furore over Jack Straw's "veil" incident is a good example. Indeed, there have been ramifications of the problems of wearing religious symbols since the veil incident and they are often good examples of Mokita. The wearing of the veil causes disquiet amongst many people in the UK - but few people are prepared to discuss the issue for fear of being accused of racism. Those who have done so have often been taken to task for so doing - as was Jack Straw.

The defence of those who wear religious symbols is simply that they are religious symbols and that to prevent their being worn is tantamount of religious or ethnic discrimination - illegal in England and other countries of the UK (although the range of proscribed types may vary between countries). I have often wondered how the authorities would react if someone set up a religious sect whose claimed religious dress was nudity. Would the laws against indecent display overrule those against religious discrimination?

I'm sorry if you feel that. It is never my intention to anger people. I am aware, though, that I am prepared to make statements that others will disagree with - and I am often prepared to back them up - usually with facts.

Sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you. It has nothing to do with the truth of your statements. (In fact some of the things you argue about I agree with, and, then again, with some of them I don't.) It has everything to do with your intention. And, I have to say after a couple of years of reading you in action, I don't buy the "It is never my intention to anger people" shtik. I believe it to be your whole online raison d'être. I find your sudden self-non-awareness after you've ruffled some feathers to be disingenuous at best.

quote:

And, I have to say after a couple of years of reading you in action, I don't buy the "It is never my intention to anger people" shtik. I believe it to be your whole online raison d'être.

You must, of course, believe what you wish. I, however, am telling no more and no less that the truth. If you think I'm lying, then so be it.

I won't even take the trouble to cite the hundreds of completely non-controversial things I have posted during my time on this board (most of its existence) since you could, if you chose, check them yourself.

I am not going to argue with you.

I am not going to argue with you.

As my second least favorite president of recent memory once said: "There you go again."

Now, now, gents!! I for one am delighted to read all posts back and forth on a sensitive subject, and I can't imagine why any one of you should feel apologetic for stirring the pot! Richard's posts seems to me to be asking reasonable questions from the point of view of one who reads the papers every day and is as well or better read than many an average layman. We are privileged, I believe, to have academics who are able to provide the university perspective.

My perspective: (a)skeptical of any conclusions drawn from results of 'intelligence tests', but that doesn't keep me from being interested in the latest happenings in social sciences-- and (b)very much against, as is RE, the hushing up of certain subjects. My angle is different here; my experience with two subjects which are hush-hush in the US-- incest, and mental illness-- is that the lack of public discussion is tantamount to putting on the rose-colored glasses and setting the problem back another century.

quote:

two subjects which are hush-hush in the US-- incest, and mental illness--

I didn't realise that these topics were not aired in the USA. They're certainly not things that are part of daily conversation here but both are reasonably well discussed in appropriate circles. I get the impression that awareness of the (considerable)extent of incest has grown significantly in the past few years over here.

Mental illness quite a hot topic as there as been much emphasis on "care in the community" with the resultant closure of many of our old asylums. Indeed, the Royal Earlswood, not far from where I used to live, has now been converted into luxury apartments.

However, there have been some incidents where severely disturbed people, who really weren't properly controlled medically, have been let into the community and injured or killed innocent people. The debate is whether we have gone too far in closing our Victorian asylums.

As I left the computer yesterday, I was greatly troubled by the resentment and negative heat that seems to permeate this thread. I returned to find six more, new posts, many of them of the same unfortunate tenor.

Accordingly, and with great regret, I think it best to close this thread. This should not be taken as referring to any particular post or person. I of course have my own views, but it would be mokita to discuss them further publically, rather than privately.

Apologies to my fellow administrators for acting without consultation with you. With the rapid succession of posts today, I felt that the situation could be exacerbated if I were to wait until we have time to exchange views. If any administrator feels strongly that this thread should be re-opened, please feel free to do so. Others (and you too, of course) should also feel free to PM me with any disagreements or concerns.

<wordcrafter, most unhappily>