Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Wednesday, 8th October 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Working classes are less intelligent, says evolution expert



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 22 May 2008
WORKING-CLASS students have lower IQs than those from wealthier backgrounds and should not be expected to win places at top universities, an academic has claimed.
Bruce Charlton, an evolutionary psychiatrist at Newcastle University, has written a paper asserting the reason why fewer students from poor families are admitted to Oxford or Cambridge is not because of social prejudice, but lack of ability.

He
suggests that low numbers of working-class students at elite universities is the "natural outcome" of "substantial" IQ differences between classes.

He told The Scotsman yesterday, in an interview conducted by e-mail at his insistence: "Poor people have lower average IQ than wealthier people... and this means that a much smaller percentage of working-class people than professional-class people will be able to reach the normal entrance requirements of the most selective universities."

Dr Charlton said the average child from the highest social class is up to 30 times more likely to qualify for admission to a highly selective university than the average child from the lowest social class.

His claims could trigger an outcry similar to that faced by the Nobel prize-winning geneticist James Watson, who was forced to apologise after claiming that African and Caribbean workers were "demonstrably less able" than white ones.

However, Dr Charlton argues it is precisely the fear of creating controversy that prevents other academics taking the same line.

He said: "That is why such obvious scientific truths have not so far been stated clearly, or have actually been denied.

"(This theory is] accepted among those who know and understand the research."

He goes on to question the government's drive to get more students from poor backgrounds into top universities.

"The UK government has spent a great deal of time and effort in asserting that universities, especially Oxford and Cambridge, are unfairly excluding people from low social-class backgrounds and privileging those from higher social classes. Yet in all this debate, a simple and vital fact has been missed: higher social classes have a significantly higher average IQ than lower social classes."

Ministers insist the debate should be focused on helping young people realise their potential. Bill Rammell, Westminster's higher education minister, said: "These arguments have a definite tone of 'people should know their place'.

"There are young people with talent, ability and the potential to benefit from higher education who do not currently do so. That should concern us all."

Sally Hunt, general-secretary of the University and College Union, warned: "It should come as little surprise that people who enjoy a more privileged upbringing have a better start in life."

ANALYSIS

IQ, OR intelligence quotient, measures the ability to perform abstract reasoning and speed of learning.

But a debate rages over whether IQ tests are completely accurate and if their results are a reliable indicator of somebody's true level of intelligence.

Although tests may assess analytical and verbal aptitude well, they are not an accurate test of creativity, practical knowledge and other skills involved in problem-solving.

Many see IQ tests as an assessment of an individual's problem-solving ability, rather than general intelligence.

Others argue that they just show how good the individual is at IQ tests, especially during childhood.



The full article contains 544 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 21 May 2008 11:33 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 22/05/2008 00:32:56
"Bruce Charlton, an evolutionary psychiatrist...."

LOL The article might has well have said:

"Bruce Charlton, an evolutionary new age guru..."

or

"Bruce Charlton, an evolutionary tea-bag reader....."

Psychiatry isn't a science. (Well known physicist Richard Feymann described it so, comparing it to 'witch doctoring' - which is a bit of an insult to witch doctors) It has as much real hard science underpinnings as teabag reading or new age gurus - namely zero - though you always get those who somehow think these 'disciplines' have some sort of underpinning.

Whether what he says is true or not I don't know. However poorer people are more likely to go to a state school and get, in general, an inferior education compared to the independent sector.
2

truthsleuth,

22/05/2008 00:34:51
The definition of all Psychiatry/Psychology

The science of Nuts
Practiced by nuts
but nor for peanuts.
3

Scullion,

Canada 22/05/2008 01:47:11
When I read articles such as this, I give a hearfelt thank you to my parents who emigrated from that class ridden, soul crushing little island 40 years ago.
Come to Canada and rise on your merit and effort.
4

Mist001,

Marseille 22/05/2008 01:52:45
I'm smarter than this professor though. I know not to say things that I can't back up.

Now, who has the balls to pull him up for advocating Eugenics?

Michael.
5

Guga II,

Rockall 22/05/2008 02:44:00
#3 Scullion. I agree, it is a class ridden, soul crushing lttle island, and we have 300 years of foreign misrule to blame for its crushing effect on Scotland.
6

Mist001,

Marseille 22/05/2008 03:08:08
Maybe it's because I'm working class, but am I missing something here?

A year or so ago, a professor at Edinburgh University lost his position because he put forward the theory that non caucasians weren't as clever as caucasian people. In other words, black people aren't as clever as white people.

So here's this clown saying the same thing about rich and poor people but because he doesn't mention creed nor skin colour, he gets away with it??

Surely it's the same intent, only he's worded it differently?

Someone seriously has to pull him on this.

I'm sickened to the bone by his views.

Michael.
7

Jock Scot,

East Lothian 22/05/2008 04:24:08

#5 Guga II,

It never fails to amazes me how so many nationalists seem to regard Scotland as it has evolved since 1707. Scotland has since the Union experienced intellectual enlightenment, pioneering revolutions in science, industry and finance, all to the benefit of the British Empire and the UK.



8

Fanling,

Switzerland 22/05/2008 04:49:59
Aye, evolutionary psychiatry is a wonderful thing. Like all psychiatry, it's a speculative mind game which places guesswork at the top of the tree. You can fit the theory to whatever twist your rabid imagination takes you.

I was born into a poor(ish) household - but with plenty books available - and importantly had a great primary education. High school was the pits. Bad, unmotivated teachers who taught via shouting and liberal cowardly use of the belt.(Not all but most.)

Over the ensuing years I earned three university degrees, thanks to that early grounding. Social class had f*ck all to do with the end result. Psychiatrists really need to get a grip on evolution.
9

Guga II,

Rockall 22/05/2008 06:01:51
#8 Fanling. You did better than me mate, I only managed two degrees. Obviously my family was a lot poorer than yours, at least going by the garbage that character spouts.
10

Hamish Simpson,

22/05/2008 06:17:52

It is not a problem that the working class are less inteligent. We cant all be high flying execs and Scotland needs people who feel challenged and exercised by cleaning the toilets, driving a bus or working in the public sector.
11

Pilrig.,

Livingston 22/05/2008 06:18:50
Wee Bruce went on to have a very good job cos mummy and daddy packed him off to a good school, away from the urchins down the road whose parents kept coal in their bath
12

Hamish Simpson,

22/05/2008 06:21:23

Pilrig,

Living in Livi, you must be surrounded by urchins - how do you cope?
13

Thomas Aikenhead,

Edinburgh 22/05/2008 06:40:07
in 2007 a UNICEF report on child poverty placed the UK last out of 21 developed nations, despite having the fourth largest economy in the world.

Perhaps the fact that working class children grow up in abject poverty may impact their ability to get to Oxford or Cambridge.

In Denmark 2.5% of children grow up in poverty, in the UK it is 25% i.e. ten times more.

They didn't have the benefit of North Sea oil in Denmark.
14

eric,

22/05/2008 07:31:04
Children of the revolution.OFF with their heads.
15

911 was an inside job.,

22/05/2008 07:58:05
I'm grateful to my ancestors for making me middleclass. God bless the middleclasses. This is why the New World Order (incl. Gordon Brown) wants to get rid of us. We're a threat to them!
16

hertscot,

22/05/2008 08:12:53
What a dick this guy is, evolution has nothing to do with access to private education and expectation, total b*ll*cks.

#15, the middle class are a threat to no one, yes they are getting places at 'good' universities, but gaining a 3.3 in humanities is not exactly pushing intellectual barriers.
17

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 22/05/2008 08:17:33

D'oh, D'oh, D'oh!,...D'ih, D'ih, D'ih!


My uncle used to love but she died
A chicken ain't chicken 'til he's licken good and fried
Keep on the sunny side
My uncle used to love me but she died

who'll bid me quarter, thirty cents for a ring of keys
three sixty-five for a dollar bill of groceries
I'll have me a car of my own someday but 'til then I need a ride (thanks Steve)
my uncle used to love me but she died

My uncle used to love but she died
A chicken ain't chicken 'til he's licken good and fried
Keep on the sunny side
My uncle used to live me but she died

Hamburger cup of coffee lettuce and tomato
two times a dime to see a man kiss the alligater
one more time around free on the ferris wheel ride
my uncle used to love me but she died

My uncle used to love but she died
A chicken ain't chicken 'til he's licken good and fried
Keep on the sunny side
My uncle used to live me but she died

Apples are for eatin and snakes are for hissin
I've heard about a'huggin and I've heard about kissin
I read about it free in a fifty cent illustrated guide
My uncle used to love me but she died

My uncle used to love but she died
A chicken ain't chicken 'til he's licken good and fried
Keep on the sunny side
My uncle used to live me but she died

Well my uncle used to love but she died
A chicken ain't chicken 'til he's licken good and fried
Keep on the sunny side
My uncle used to live me but she died
18

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 22/05/2008 08:27:34
D'oh! Am I 'Thick' or What,?
19

Boy Wonder,

22/05/2008 08:58:29
The man's real name is Bruce Charlatan!! And his "study" has more holes in it than a colander!

I have a PHD in biochemistry, my partner has two degrees and is also a specialist teacher. Most of my friends have high degrees of education and went to University ... and all of us came from the "poor working-class" background so despised by this charlatan! And we had to work hard to achieve our qualis!

The "upper" and "middle-class" students we knew all had one thing in common ... money to get poorer students to write their papers for them! And I saw a lot of that going on!

Stick that in your next study, Brucie ... wealth allows you to cheat!


20

Boy Wonder,

22/05/2008 08:59:19
#18. No "what" about it, Chuckles. Definitely the former! :D
21

Dougie, Edinburgh,

22/05/2008 09:06:02
#1, #2
I agree there’s a huge amount of rubbish in psychology/psychiatry. We’ve got Sigmund Freud to thank for much of it. Evolutionary psychology however sprouted from applying typical evolutionary adaptionist principles to behaviour, it has no relationship to Freud’s pseudoscience. For the purposes of understanding this article however, all we really need to know is that intelligence is largely inherited (assuming a minimal standard of environment) - something which psychometricians have demonstrated sufficiently that there’s no longer any doubt about this fact.
22

Dougie, Edinburgh,

22/05/2008 09:06:49
4 Mist001, Marseille
You write he’s making a claim he can’t back up. Don’t you think that’s what his paper does? Instead of telling us about your emotional response to his suggestion, why not tell us why he’s wrong?
23

Dougie, Edinburgh,

22/05/2008 09:07:08
13 Thomas Aikenhead,Edinburgh
A lot of the poverty in Britain comes from immigration. There are very poor areas in England where there are few native English people, very high unemployment and criminality. Denmark has limited immigration relative to Britain. Another problem we have in Britain is an underclass of people who reject what educational and work opportunities are available. Such a class of people exist in all countries of course but in Britain it’s especially large relative to elsewhere in Northern Europe.
24

Dougie, Edinburgh,

22/05/2008 09:08:17
Almost all the comments on this article are vilifying Bruce Charlton but his claims are both common sense and backed up by intelligence test results.

Charlton is talking about AVERAGE intelligence. Nobody is denying that there are highly intelligent working class people. The fact is that intelligence is largely inherited and families with genes for high intelligence largely migrated from working class to middle class generations ago - and generally, most people marry somebody with a similar level of intelligence.

BTW, going to a "working class" school is obviously going to be an impediment to educational achievement too - but think about why this is: because the average intelligence level and behaviour at such a school is worse than a "middle class" school.
25

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 22/05/2008 09:10:36
Aha BW out the 'pit' a little earlier today I see.

Quite right in what you said re; #19.

my two daughters, one a Teacher one a Dentist, brother many degrees in astro and geoPhysics,

Poor Charlie is the one that missed out on real-clever because parents moved house so many times am I moved schools to many times, which were all at differing stages of education for the same age groups, so many times I missed out and was left behind with my education.

I think some of the 'Thickest People' are the Soo called 'High Classed'
(well that's what they call themselves)
26

Dougie, Edinburgh,

22/05/2008 09:13:41
19 Boy Wonder
I don't know how you want to define "working class" but consider this. Let's assume you have very high intelligence and that you have children. Are your probably high intelligence children "working class"? Highly unlikely. Unless you're very eccentric, you've used your high intelligence to "migrate" from "working class" to "middle class".

The thing is, this process has been going on for hundreds of years but it's been especially marked since the Second World War.

High social mobility since the Second World War has concentrated genes for high intelligence in the "higher social classes" and genes for low intelligence at the bottom of the social heap. Get it?

Ironically, this is the natural outcome of the high social mobility most of us agree is desireable!
27

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 22/05/2008 10:35:35
Ahh, Dougie, you have the wrong end of the stick. The fact is that nobody has pinned down "genes for intelligence" and IQ is a poor definition of "intelligence" anyway. Moreover, there is a strong environmental component in the development of what we generally call "intelligence". People keep claiming it is inherited, but very little evidence is ever actually produced in support of this claim.

So what happens is that, as I have observed at places i have worked, working class people who are as far as I can see intelligent enough to have gone to uni never do so, because of their background and upbringing.

28

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 22/05/2008 10:35:53
#21 wrote:
"For the purposes of understanding this article however, all we really need to know is that intelligence is largely inherited (assuming a minimal standard of environment) - something which psychometricians have demonstrated sufficiently that there’s no longer any doubt about this fact."

Really? I think this is where you are showing a fundamental misunderstanding between what real science is and soft/pseudo science. And if you are referring to the work of Cyril Burt who pioneered the opinion of intelligence being hereditary, well his work is simply 'falsified'.

The reality is that there are 'studies' that demonstrate BOTH points of view (nature vs nurture). So the idea of this belief being a 'fact' is really a type of claim pseudo science likes to make, which again goes to show why no one involved in hard science takes any of these branches that seriously.
29

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 22/05/2008 10:42:23
Does this mean that if you win the lottery you suddenly become much more brainier?
30

Guga II,

Rockall 22/05/2008 11:10:20
#7 Tom. Listen Uncle, I can only assume you are not Scottish, otherwise you would know that Scotland, its people and its resources, have been exploited by our colonial masters, and they have used Scottish troops as cannon fodder in their Imperial and illegal wars.

In addition, consider the following:

"But examine the passions and feelings of mankind: bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and tell me whether you can hereafter love, honour, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land?"

Tom Paine 1737-1809
31

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 22/05/2008 11:37:56
#24 wrote:
"BTW, going to a "working class" school is obviously going to be an impediment to educational achievement too - but think about why this is: because the average intelligence level and behaviour at such a school is worse than a "middle class" school."

Nope because state schools are generally poor in comparison because of their leftish socialist underpinnings. They have always aimed at lowest common denominator teaching because of their socialist underpinnings. Independent schools have a different aim - to please the parents not a political philosophy.

When I was a kid in Manchester if you wanted to pass the entrance exams to the best grammar schools you either had to go to a private prep school or get extra tuition if you went to the state schools. You wouldn't be able to get into the best grammars solely based on the level of teaching in the state sector - it simply wasn't good enough.

I went to a state primary until I was 9/10. Then I moved to a private prep school. The difference was staggering. They were miles ahead. They were miles ahead because the school had strong discipline and an ethos of academic excellence. I actually enjoyed this school because I was being stretched - the state primary had left me bored.
32

Dougie, Edinburgh,

22/05/2008 12:07:58
27 Guthrie,Edinburgh
28 Cauchy Riemann,Wales
There is a vast amount of scientific literature linking inheritance to IQ; there is no serious scientific dispute that inheritance is largely inherited. For Western countries (where, however big the difference between good and bad environments, there's still adequate nutrition and compulsory education), a model which assumes the variation in intelligence across the population to be approximately 80% inherited matches data better than a model which assumes the variation to be 50% inherited.

The rather strange idea that intelligence is NOT inherited is quickly becoming absurd as individual genes associated with higher or lower intelligence are becoming identified. Robert Plomin found one as far back as 1998; since then there has been an avalanche of discoveries of specific genes. Here's an example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7075511.stm

Of course, awareness amongst psychometricians of the link between inheritance and intelligence existed long before the specifics of neurogenetics were understood. Such a link was obvious from twin studies and adoption studies. As popularly explained in the Bell Curve, parent intelligence is a better predictor of child intelligence than parent income.

33

Dougie, Edinburgh,

22/05/2008 12:24:19
31 Cauchy Riemann
Please understand I am NOT trying to suggest that the quality of school is irrelevant. It's surely one of many influences as to how well a particular individual does at school. And I completely agree that "leftish socialist" politics might damage a school's efficiency.

Let me put it this way - how well a child does at school depends not only on the school but also on the child. Obvious I hope :)

Every school has a different catchment area and hence a make up of children from different "social classes". Even with the best teachers in the world and a free hand given to them, some children are never going to do well at school. They don't have the personality and/or intelligence. Since such things are largely inherited, and since there's considerable social mobility in Britain - certainly in the past two generations - such children have tended to become concentrated in particular neighbourhoods. And hence in particular schools.

There are schools in Edinburgh from which almost nobody goes to university. From the best state schools, the large majority make it to university (and the private schools as well). Is the school quality a factor? Certainly. But so is the type of family these different schools get their children from.

Note that genes and environment often interact to reinforce each other. For example, intelligent parents typically give their children a better environment than less intelligent parents (for example sending their children to private schools). And in the same way, a school whose catchment draws from a neighbourhood with plenty of intelligent children is likely to be more intellectually stimulating than a school whose catchment draws from a neighbourhood with few intelligent children.

34

Leadenwinter,

London 22/05/2008 13:42:14
All this proves is that, for all the purported objectivity and scientific method it is always ideology rather than any other basis by which "scientific" conclusions are ultimately drawn.
Well done Dr.Charlton... the neo-cons will surely be proud.
35

Allan(handofgod137),

22/05/2008 13:50:23
Sorry leftists but john prescot tends to prove this view.
36

yockel,

22/05/2008 13:57:44
I went to a streamed 11+ era school where we were all meant to be bright and it was unusual if not extremely rare not to go on to university.
The brightest boy in the school who got a full bag of straight As just for turning up didn't even get an interview for Oxford. His dad didn't have a title or a chain of department stores and we were Northern Barbaians, apparently not worthy of consideration.
Would that be class bias, racism or good psychology?
37

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 22/05/2008 14:42:03
This is yet another instance of confusion between correlation and functionality. The shrink (sorry I can't spell psychiatrist) may be saying that there is a correlation between social class and IQ but this does not mean that your IQ is determined by your social class.

We hear so much of this type of analysis and many (often politicians and journalists) seem unable to appreciate the difference. One of the classic examples is the fact that their is a correlation between poverty and poor health. This leads some people to say that, in this country, poverty causes poor health when it is not the case. The causes of the poor health may be as a result of lifestyles that are often associated with poverty but that does not necessarily mean that it is the poverty itself which is causing the poor health.
38

Dougie, Edinburgh,

22/05/2008 15:21:11
37 yockel
You make the point that at the time you finished school, there was class based discrimination against state school children who were academically the equal of the privately educated people who used to get into places like Oxford. Very few people would argue that this was morally justifiable. The situation we have now however is no more justifiable: there is class based discrimination AGAINST privately educated students who are being rejected in favour of those who fulfil certain "diversity" criteria such as attending a poor school.
39

Vincent-W,

22/05/2008 16:41:54
Ugly George - thank goodness for an intelligent post!! Rigourous application of science and statistics often throws up counter-intuitive conclusions, or conclusions which are counter to political correctness or dogma.

In this instance I think that there are many factors which contribute to 'intelligence', genetics must play a part (however odious this is to some), upbringing must play a part, diet and probably dozens of other factors.

Also to masure 'intelligence' solely by IQ is undoubtedly wrong. However, I would expect there to be a higher correlation between 'intelligence' and IQ tests than with entry to university.

It's an observable tendency that 'likes' attract, so there's a higher probability that smart people choose other smart people, just as good looking people tend to choose other good looking people and presumably Mrs Ugly George, while clearly of above average charm, wit and intelligence, may not be an oil painting?
40

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

22/05/2008 16:49:59
It's not that the children of working class families are unintelligent but more a case of them being 'kept in their place' by their parents and peers more often than not.

I cannot remember the amount of times I have seen 'working class' mums and dads effing and blinding at their (very often) small children, telling them they are useless, f**king lazy etc.

And if they (the children) show signs of being a 'boffin' or 'nerdy' then the parents and peers drag them down - 'too good for us now eh?' or 'what, don't wanna get yer hands dirty like yer dad?'or even ''oo's a f**king teachers pet?' etc etc etc.

It is very often a case of inverse snobbery that keeps them down. If you don't encourage them they will be moulded in in your image, parents, is that what you really want for your child?
41

JoeMcT,

BlairsFantasyIsland 22/05/2008 18:36:49
Ah just what we need the opinion of a trick cyclist!

The Psycho boys are all as nutty as Freud was.

So, if you're not Oxbridge material then you are, eh, Dim?

Ever hear that Sufi proverb, "A Donkey stabled in a library is NOT necessarily wise"?

Well, ye ken Noo!
42

Law Student,

22/05/2008 18:54:51
Hypothesis - 'proffesional class' people are gentically more intelligent than working class people due to evolution. I think everyone's missed two rather obvious points here - the implicit assumptions upon which this is based is that people only 'breed' with members of their own class and that 'class' has actually been around long enough to have an impact on evolution. If you think there's no 'interbreeding' between the toffs and the plebs you're an imbecile. Likewise, the so called 'professional classes' that he refers to -what, the middle class? Its only existed for a few hundred years for f*cks sake. Before that there was the aristocracy (i.e. a few 'hundred' people) and everyone else. With all that in mind - how does that tally with an understanding of the theory of evolution? It just doesn't. Indeed, the basic principle of evolution is survival of the fittest. You could argue that aristocrats, with the benefits of inherited money (i.e food, medicine and so on) never got to die just because they were stupid. Whereas, during the industrial revolution, in cities with incredibly low life expectancies for the working class due to harsh conditions - you could easily come to the conclusion that a smart person in that situation is more likely to survive and procreate than less intelligent person. Consequently, whereas evolution was not given the oppurtunity to prune the stupid from the aristocracy and thus increase intelligence amongst them, it was from the working classes. Hence, from an evolutionary point of view, you'd have to expect to find working class people more intelligent than aristocrats....(Although, I suppose thats not actually too far from the truth....LOL)

"I agree there’s a huge amount of rubbish in psychology/psychiatry. We’ve got Sigmund Freud to thank for much of it."

There's been quite a few similar comments in this post and I'd like to suggest that you don't all look at one idiot and judge all other psychiatrists by it. Freud, incidentally, w
43

Law Student,

22/05/2008 18:55:39
incidentally, was never accepted by psychiatrists in this country as he was in America and Europe. They did play with psychoanalysis, but it never had anything like the influence it had in, say, America where it was absolutely dominant. Freud was one messed up bloke. The origins of the Oedipus complex? He realized when he was about 40 that as a child he had fancied his mum - the supposed 'complex' was his way of externalizing this weirdness onto to everyone else to stop him from feeling like the complete freak he was. The truth is, most of us didn't fancy our mums when we were kids!

I have to take issue with the idea the modern psychiatry ( and 'psychiatry' is a term which should only really refer to the treatment of people with mental illnesses by a medically qualified doctor) is some kind of voodoo that isn't based on science - rubbish. The medical journals are full of studies testing hypotheses using double blind clinical trials that have the same standards as any other medical trials. People make these bold claims about psychiatry having no scientific basis and so on - yet how many of them actually know 'anything at all' about psychiatry? I mean 'anything'? Are you schizophrenic or bipolar? Do know any psychiatists? How many journals have you read? If I'm foolish enough to tell someone I'm bipolar, the chances are that within about 30 seconds that person will launch into a lecture as to why I should stop taking my pills!! WTF?!? Well intentioned, intelligent people who'd quite happily accept that they know nothing about about, say, severe asthma - and who'd never tell someone to stop taking their ventolin and steroids, start giving me lectues about a subject of which they know even less.....Whilst this might seem harmless, the fact is the streets are full of f*cked up people who would benefit enormously from psychiatric treatment - but who don't seek it out because these 'anti psychiatry' views are so widely held and expressed by people who've never had any
44

Law Student,

22/05/2008 18:56:23
people who've never had any first hand experience of severe mental illness or psychiatry. This I know from personal experience. "I think I might have gone mad" "Nah you're not mad" "So people 'are' talking about me then?" "No one's talking about you" "So.... I've gone mad then?" "Nah you're not mad." Yeah. Really helpful.
45

fredro,

bexhill-on-sea 22/05/2008 19:37:23
A brief socio-historical evolution. The church contributes to the pacification and stratification of the British Isles; out of this develop the universities, in parallel with the growth of towns-into-cities, until pure belief has to be rescued by technology, and The Peasantry becomes The Working Class; the latter, combined, the engine that supplies the physical environment within which the churches/universities can continue to dream on. Then Bruce Charlton, head in clouds, behaves as if Magna Carta, the Civil War, the Industrial Revolution and two World Wars never happened. Talk about 'le trahison des clercs'! He's like Brecht's drunken clerk-judge Azdak in 'The Caucasian Chalk Circle' - 'The working-class are stupid!'; except that Azdak said it from a position of independence to provoke into action, not to secure the featherbed of stratification that intellectual inquiry has become in Academia.
46

,

22/05/2008 19:38:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
47

Deacon Elurby,

U.S.A. 22/05/2008 19:57:06
#######
#######

Socialists/communists shall never accept
that IQ explains class differences.
Why not? Because if there exist
hereditary reasons for unequal social /
educational / financial outcomes, then
their UTOPIANISM is unjustified; that
is, all of their EQUALITARIAN social
engineering these past 100 years has
been a futile attempt at making
equal what cannot be made equal; ergo,
their HEAVEN-ON-EARTH UTOPIA
is an impossible pursuit.


#######
#######
48

Bill Ross,

Canada 22/05/2008 20:22:19
As usual, the point is missed. Most have zero clue what intelligence actually is:

Intelligence: "Those with the ability to distinguish fact from fiction and discern the true relationship between action and consequence which defines reality"

In the artificial reality the author occupies, I am sure he considers himself intelligent. Truly intelligent people immediately see through the false and gross generalization that working classes are "less intelligent". Presumably, this makes them less human than self-proclaimed enlightened souls who BELIEVE they are more intelligent.

You are only intelligent if reality agrees with you and your choices yield the desired results. Here's what happens when intelligence considers reality:

The "rule of law" is a precisely defined law. It is the highest law of mankind, stated below:

“the suppression of forceful and fraudulent methods of goal seeking”

“all are treated equally by the law”. This means ALL, including king and judges

“absolute property rights”

This in turn is based on the fact that human behavior (the topic of law) is about goal seeking. In the seeking of any goal, there are only three possible methods: force, fraud and honest trade. Any transaction that is not an honest, mutually agreed trade will cause a self-defensive response (conflict) from the victim whose survival has been affected.

"The Rule of Law" is the glue that keeps all of mankind acting together in common interest, tied together by mutual dependence of trade, on an evolutionary path to excellence. Force and fraud creates conflict and destroys civilizations. Mankind is now on a devolutionary path to extinction because the co-operation once forced by "the rule of law" has been replaced by legitimizing force and fraud for those who incorrectly believe they wield power.

Rule of Law, Defined: http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c1/34

Purpose of, Reasons For: http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/v
49

Ed_from_Rhinebeck,

New York State, USA 22/05/2008 20:39:27
Does he mean smart like George Bush? Let's remember the saying at Yale "The A students teach the B students to work for the C students". If you inherit the company you are at the top and everybody else works for you. It does not mean you are smart it just means you are rich.

Yes the rich with private tutors, small class sizes, unlimited facilities learn more than the poor with low quality teachers in massively large classes with no facilities learn. Wow what a surprise. Class still exists.

Unless we are willing to give universal IQ tests and strip the money away from rich kids that score low and give it to poor kids who score high. Being not rich but smart I think this is a great idea.
50

Dougie, Edinburgh,

22/05/2008 20:42:33
44 Law Student
You've completely misunderstood. Nobody's suggesting that the "professional class" and "working class" evolved differently. The point is that due to social mobility, the more intelligent people amongst the poorer classes move upward and the least intelligent people in all classes move downward. Thus there is a differential inherited basis of intelligence amongst the social classes.
51

Dougie, Edinburgh,

22/05/2008 20:48:06
44 Law Student
Furthermore, I don't think you read my entire criticism of psychiatry. Freud wasn't just one person, he gave birth to an entire movement in psychology (and psychiatry) which it still hasn't entirely grown out of. For example he's still taught in universities. I did however make it clear that evolutionary psychology is, in contrast, based on real science.
52

Ed_from_Rhinebeck,

US 22/05/2008 20:52:09
In reading the comment I notice a difference in language usage US to Scotland. You name three classes rich, middle, working. We name just two rich and middle or rich and working. The first usage is the most common rich or middle class. Those aware/concerned about class division will say rich or working class. The idea of a third under class that no one likes is not American (it may in fact have some truth to it. The class of dumb people. The welfare class).
53

Dougie, Edinburgh,

22/05/2008 20:52:58
51 Ed_from_Rhinebeck
So if you take 100 rich kids and 100 ghetto kids, you don't think there's going to be any difference in *average* intelligence? Actually there have been hundreds of studies on this kind of question. Of course the rich kids are smarter on average. Read the Bell Curve.
54

Dougie, Edinburgh,

22/05/2008 20:56:47
54 Ed_from_Rhinebeck
"Working class" is used in two ways in Britain. One usage is to disassociate oneself from perceived "middle class" snobbery. Thus many of the above posters describe their own background as "working class". By this wide definition, most of the population would be working class. The other way it's used is as a polite euphemism for the more accurate description of "welfare class" - ironically including many people who have never worked in their lives.
55

Ed_from_Rhinebeck,

US 22/05/2008 20:58:11
There are three sources of being upper class 1) being smart 2) inheriting money 3)be of the "right" ethic group to be accepted in society. The author has made no effort to judge how much is due to each.
56

Anthony,

Glasgow 22/05/2008 20:59:52
There is a gigantic flaw which goes to the core of Mr Charlton's argument. His arguement (such as it is), would only hold water if the IQ test were a static set measurement of intelligence. It isn't. You can be coached to improve your IQ score. And who are more likely to have the motivation to do something like that? Middle class people perhaps?

It is disappointing to see this same old rubbish being presented every decade or so in new packaging, despite overwhelming evidence to discredit it. Needless to say, "experts" like Mr Charlton never address the existing evidence. Why? Because they can't.
57

Dougie, Edinburgh,

22/05/2008 21:01:41
Found a good article on exactly this topic from the Economist: it's subscriber only so I'll copy and paste

http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_NPVNJPN

Social mobility

What's it worth?
Jan 15th 2004
From The Economist print edition

The government thinks more higher education means more social mobility. It's wrong


THE belief that more education will make Britain more meritocratic and shrivel the class system lies behind the huge expansion in higher education of the past two decades and the government's determination to steer half the country's 18-30-year-olds into universities. The idea that we live in a “knowledge economy” has strengthened that notion. But recent research casts doubt on it. Education plays a smaller role in social mobility than it used to, according to research which looked at the relationship of people's education to their careers in the early 1970s and early 1990s (see chart).

58

Dougie, Edinburgh,

22/05/2008 21:01:59
Why should the impact of education on social mobility be declining? Because, according to a forthcoming paper* by three academics at Nuffield College, Oxford, employers are becoming less interested in educational qualifications. That's happening for two reasons. Part of the job of higher education is to send a signal to employers—that someone has learnt to think, to persevere, to absorb information and to present ideas. As the supply of graduates grows, and the quality of teaching in Britain's shabby, crowded universities declines, this signal is fading. At the same time, services have been growing at the expense of manufacturing, and, increasingly, the qualities that employers in the service sector want are those the middle classes acquire at home: articulacy, confidence and smartness.

To test their hypothesis that employers pay little attention to educational qualifications, the Oxford researchers analysed 5,000 recruitment advertisements and interviewed people doing the hiring. Firms, they discovered, want recruits with skills that formal education does not necessarily bring: “high touch” in the jargon, rather than hi-tech. Typical examples are management jobs in fast-growing industries such as leisure and retailing, as well as posts in public relations, in sales and customer care.

Employers themselves say much the same thing. “What our members want is office and personal skills rather than more advanced education,” says Matthew Knowles, policy adviser at the British Chambers of Commerce, a group for small and medium-sized businesses. “You see a lot of people from university who take three to six months to pick up the skills for an office job. They could do that by the age of 19 and start moving up. Instead they spend three years at college and then take a job they would have taken anyway.”

59

Dougie, Edinburgh,

22/05/2008 21:02:21
Financial-services employers echo those views. Bruce Collins, chief executive of Tullett Liberty, a City broker, admits non-graduates to his graduate trainee scheme. “We want inter-personal skills, awareness, attitude, eagerness to learn: are they rounded individuals? What's their social life?” he says. “They've got to come across well, not just talk the numbers but build relationships.” The result, he explains, is a workforce where a “guy with an O-level in woodwork sits next to a guy with a PhD in mathematics”.

Marks & Spencer whittles down the 6,000 annual applicants for its 200 graduate trainee places entirely through tests of literacy, numeracy, reasoning and personality. This big retailer takes no account at all of the class or subject of degree, or the university attended.

All that chimes with the Oxford research, which showed formal qualifications featuring in only a quarter of the advertisements in the sample, typically for top-level jobs. In the “sales and personal service” category, less than 10% stipulated educational qualifications. What these posts did require were skills in communication and team-working, and personal attributes such as “good appearance”, “good manners”, “character” and “presence”. Bad luck, then, for those who come across as tongue-tied, crass or nervous, regardless of their academic achievements.

Assuming, reasonably, that job adverts reflect what employers really want, this neatly explains why education matters less than the believers in meritocracy expected. “If you are selling high-value things like real estate, you will be interacting with middle-class people and you will do better if you are familiar with their style, manners etc,” says John Goldthorpe, one of the paper's authors. “It's not much use having some graceless anorak, however impressive his or her degree. The attributes that these people have from their family background have some real commercial use. It's not nepotism. Employers know what they want.”

Mik
60

Dougie, Edinburgh,

22/05/2008 21:02:43
Mike Hill, of Prospects, a state-funded career service, says “universities are encouraging people to develop just these skills—to speak in a businesslike way, to make small talk.” One example is Hull University, where a popular module in “career skills”, includes “the world of work”, time management and how to talk in a business environment. Great stuff—but not necessarily worth spending three years at university and running up many thousands of pounds in debt.



*“Education, Employers and Class Mobility”, by Michelle Jackson, John Goldthorpe and Colin Mills, to be published in Research in Social Stratification and Mobility (Elsevier)

61

Dougie, Edinburgh,

22/05/2008 21:12:10
58 Anthony,Glasgow
He's not claiming that IQ test scores can't be improved; nobody said they're perfect; however they're a very good predictor across an entire population of a good many other important things such as educational success and earnings. So no, IQ isn't exactly the same as "intelligence" but it's the best way there is to measure it.
62

Douglas Girard,

Carmichael, CA 22/05/2008 21:33:58
Those "running" the show all over the world - politicians, lobbyists, corporate masters, generals - are for the most part college educated and considered amongst the "intelligent." If this knowledge these people seem to possess is any indication - perhaps it is time we let the 'idiots' run the show. Intelligence, coupled with power and/or control, seems to breed greed and selfishness as a byproduct. "I am smarter than you, therefore I am better than you, therefore I should tell you how to live." Damn the 'intelligent' who possess no soul. As a collective world, we should have listened to the indigenous peoples a lot more, instead we have listened to, and followed, the Imperialistic overlords who will, along with our sheepish tendencies, eventually poison the whole damn planet. BUT, whoopee, they have higher IQ's.
63

,

22/05/2008 21:35:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
64

Jock Scot,

22/05/2008 21:41:06

#30
Guga II

Tom. Listen Uncle, I can only assume you are not Scottish, Yes I am Scottish. Referring to me as Uncle Tom you presume I am from the deep south! Straighten your skirt man and get a grip this is exactly the type of ignorance and bigotry that Scotland is famous for.
Scotland as it has existed within the UK for three centuries. You would rather harp on mournfully about Culloden, than face the fact that most Scots were glad to see Charles Stuart sent packing, and many fought for Cumberland to make sure he was.

65

robertsgt40,

san antonio tx USA 22/05/2008 21:43:42
That is usually perception of the ruling class. Helps keep the competition at a distance. Self preservation at it's most acute.
66

MonaGotcha,

USA 22/05/2008 22:07:11
Wealthier people have higher IQs?

Looks like President Bush, over here across the pond, didn't get the memo. LOL!
67

boudica,

Glasgow 22/05/2008 22:17:36
What a load of Mince this socalled " Doctor" is talking... and there are Parents from all social spheres who put their children down if they dont come up to their "Standards" some children are lucky and get good opportunities, some arent so lucky but to say that the Intelligence of a child is down to how much money their parents have is pure twaddle.. no wonder he didnt do a face to face interview ....Wealthy Parents may have greater aspirations and believe me if that child fails to fufil them ..then those Wealthy Parents can be just as vicious as any other stupid parent and rip the childs confidence to bits it that child dares to fail their expectations..Bad Parenting is not restricted to the " Working Classes" and those with Money can Eff and Blind with the best of them when their little darlings fails to shine as they want them to or in fact Demand that they do..
68

JackBQuik,

St. Louis, MO 22/05/2008 22:25:17
"Dr Charlton said the average child from the highest social class is up to 30 times more likely to qualify for admission to a highly selective university than the average child from the lowest social class."
Seems like Dr. Charlton is somewhat mathematically challenged. In order for intelligence to be the sole determining factor in admission to these universities, the average child from the highest social class would have to be 30 times smarter than the average child from the working class. Last time I checked, no one on earth has an IQ of 3000. He, like most scientists, (if you can call psychiatry a science) is using data to bolster a position he already believed in and ignoring data that conflicts with his opinion. Makes me wonder if he got his degree from a Cracker Jack box.
69

Pilrig.,

Livingston 22/05/2008 22:37:00
12 - nae urchins here, gadgie. Now if had lived at Tyneside I could have got on at school and got myself a useless job such as an evolutionary psychiatrist
70

osama silverstein,

UK 22/05/2008 22:39:41
Several years of interaction with different sections of the population surely bears out this man's hypothesis. Most people probably know this but can't bring themselves to the awfulness of admitting it. The veracity or absurdity of his theory can be laid to rest by performing IQ tests on 1000 working class people and 1000 middle class people under controlled conditions. I look forward to the results of such a test. I'm surprised at the number of people arguing "I'm working class and I have 2 degrees". That does not invalidate the man's argument, any more than the fact that the white alan wells won the 1980 100m olympic gold medal means that blacks are not generally faster sprinters than whites.
71

Pilrig.,

Livingston 22/05/2008 22:43:40
24 - maybe cos the middle class schools have more resources the working class schools?
Anyway, wtf are we having this discussion ? "Evolutionary psychiatry" has as much relevance to real life as reading tea leaves.
State-funded mumbo-jumbo
72

Pilrig.,

Livingston 22/05/2008 22:47:24
32 - ah ! the Bell Curve, mair pseudo-science.
73

Ed_from_Rhinebeck,

us 22/05/2008 22:49:52
Jack if [big if] you have a Guassian distribution then 0.135% is above 3 sigma (say smart) and only 0.003% is above 4 sigma. So if you have two groups one with an average 0.5 sigma high and one with an average 0.5 sigma low the chance that a member of the lower group is above 3 sigma of the higher group is 45 times less likely than a member of the higher group being above 3 sigma. Small changes in the average of the distribution make it much much more unlikely to reach an extreme high value. For standard deviations see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation

Of course at three sigma we do not mean that he person is 300% smarter in fact we only mean they are 30% smarter (if we normalize so 1 sigma is 10 and the average is 100). So do we throw away the half of the population that is 100-130 in the high group and the 15% of the population of the lower group that is in the 100-130 range?

I think it comes down to supply and demand when an employer can draw on the whole population of the world they can throw away the 99.8% of the population that is below 3 sigma and just import really smart folks from else where. I see it ALL the time here in the US at IBM for example.
74

Pilrig.,

Livingston 22/05/2008 22:52:58
49 - your assertions have been torpedoed by the fact that George W Bush was re-elected.
75

Ed_from_Rhinebeck,

us 22/05/2008 22:57:44
This article has nothing to do with evolution. It is about sociology and/or politic science.

Does the ability to memorize 6 numbers sequences rather than 8 number sequences invalidate that person from getting an education, a job, and a part in the political process?
76

Pilrig.,

Livingston 22/05/2008 23:03:28
66 Jock-scot, congrats on showing up the bogus argument of Charlatan, sorry Charlton, that the upper classes are intellectually superior to us in the lower orders. The feeble-minded Stuart dynasty versus their bone-heided Hanoverian cousins. None of this bunch could be regarded as candidates for Mensa.
77

Larry Leija,

Albuquerque, New Mexico 22/05/2008 23:07:57
The wealthy sometimes think they are better than others. Most children from working class families can't afford better schooling. They have no choice but to go to schools that overall are inferior in intellectual stimulation and discipline. Ones genes don't ensure that you'll be smart ( can't believe some people still believe that medieval rubbish) . Good nutrition, a stimulating intellectual environment, loving parents/guardians are the ingredients to functional children. Unfortunately, being poor may rob one of good nutrition but perhaps not the environment or parental love. I'm always reminded of many poor Black and Hispanic people who have attained what was uncommonplace for their parents growing up. The statistics may be true but only because the wealthy can always prevent the poor from becoming successful as has been seen throughout history.
78

Dr. Angelito,

Beverly Hills, California 22/05/2008 23:11:34
Wow, pretty bold... You know there is just enough truth in this claim to make it, but it may not be the most intelligent thing for anyone to share.

Aside from that, remember that with REAL ROBOTS, we can now stop treating people like ROBOTS, i.e. we no longer need a "WORKING CLASS"...

Instead we need the elites, aka, the "SUPERCLASS" to FAST-TRACK the "ROBOTIC WAGELESS ECONOMY", and show just how smart they are, rescue the masses, free all from toil, then they can rightfully call themselves deserving of the title of elites.

http://RoboEco.com/no-more-workingclass



79

Ed_from_Rhinebeck,

us 22/05/2008 23:16:47
Beverly Hills we still need to limit the number of people. The planet will not support 100 billion people (that is four doubling about 120 years).
80

Pilrig.,

Livingston 22/05/2008 23:19:50
I take it you've no kids, and plan to commit suicide to reduce your pressure on the world's resources ?
81

Dr. rifraf,

Pittsburgh USA 23/05/2008 00:10:52
Essentially everything Dr. Charlton has said would probably be acknowledged as true by experts in the science of human intelligence (the field is called psychometrics). Since U Cal Berkeley's famous human intelligence expert Dr. Arthur Jensen is now quasi-retired, by most estimates the new top-expert in the world in the scientific field of intelligence is non other than Scotland's own Dr. Ian Deary of Edinburgh. I am pretty certain that Dr. Deary would agree with pretty much everything that Dr. Charlton claimed, Dr. Charlton's claims are really entire