Guess who beat Harvard? Members of the Bard’s Prison Initiative presently incarcerated at the New York Eastern Correctional Facility beat the Harvard College Debating Union team in an intercollegiate debating competition. The author of the article explains the victory in two ways. First, the prisoners weren’t stupid:
But it’s also worth pointing out the fallacy of our underlying assumptions about such a match-up — the first (and most pernicious) being that if a definitive link between criminality and below-average intelligence exists, nobody has found it.
and, second, the prisoners worked very hard.
I think there’s another fallacy at work here: that we can assume that Harvard’s team were smart and skilled because they’re attending Harvard. I think that we can assume that the Harvard students possess whatever qualities Harvard’s admissions department are selecting for. What are those qualities? We can’t be sure because Harvard doesn’t publicize its admission’s department’s criteria.
The Harvard students were probably smart enough and were no doubt skilled debaters. I doubt that they possessed acumen, something handy in a debate and the prisoners apparently had it. IMO the primary criteria that Harvard selects for are future potential earning power and connections, neither of which are particularly helpful in a debate.
The prisoners have beaten University of Vermont and West Point, too, although West Point won a rematch.
Criminals are not necessarily smart, but they are cunning. They are always looking for some way to beat the system. If you listen to a hustler’s logic for too long it will start to make sense, and once you understand how the Wall Street hustlers operate, you might agree.
We are all hustling in our own way, and we justify it using our own reasons. In the end, logic is logic.
The members of the Harvard debating team are probably far more representative of Harvard and other elites schools, than the prison debate team is representative of prisoners. As a general manner, I think criminals, particularly violent criminals as we have here, have been shown to have below average IQs. Btw/ 80 and 90 points.
Criminals are often impulsive and make different assumptions or long-range choices than normal my people. What I think Dave is accurately describing as acumen is the prisoners making an unconventional debate strategy. Also might be relevant that criminal decisionmaking is often influenced by drugs and alcohol, and a cleaned-up convict might not face the same impairments in prison.
But the thing I wonder about with the Harvard debating team is the concept of “fluid intelligence.” I would guess that many of its members have debated since high school against people with similar backgrounds. They’ve done well at it and have learned information and honed knowledge in that environment:
“Fluid intelligence is the capacity to think logically and solve problems in novel situations, independent of acquired knowledge. Fluid intelligence involves the ability to identify patterns and relationships that underpin novel problems and to extrapolate these findings using logic.
“On the other hand, crystallized intelligence is the ability to utilize information, skills, knowledge, and experience in a way that could be measured on a standardized test. Crystallized intelligence represents your lifetime of cerebral knowledge, as reflected through your vocabulary, general explicit knowledge and Trivial Pursuit types of declarative memory of people, places, things…”
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201312/too-much-crystallized-thinking-lowers-fluid-intelligence
I think PD is right. Essenstially, the Harvard team lives in the elite bubble which makes it hard for them to consider viewpoints that are obvious to others. The prison team is likely much more diverse and, tactically, they probably have more time to spend on debate practice and preparation that the Harvardites.
I strongly suspect that the Harvard team was entirely composed of young people who’d been giving the expected answer to every question over the period of the last 20 years. Always giving the expected answer is very limiting.
You also need to remember that debate as it exists now has very odd rules. I have judged at tons of contests at speech and debate events, but i still refuse to judge the actual debates. Noah Millman has written about this if you are interested. Anyway, being able to think out of the box could certainly be a real asset.
As to the Harvard kids, Harvard gets so many applicants they can take what they want. Their kids do well on the Putnam, so they are getting some bright kids. That said, I would guess that a significant percentage are selected with past and future donations in mind.
Steve
@PD Shaw
The distinction between violent and non-violent crime does not carry over to the criminal. A criminal may have been arrested, convicted, or plead-down to a non-violent crime even though he is a blood-thirsty killer. It happens all the time.
The studies nice college educated people do by asking criminals questions should be thoroughly reviewed. Criminals lie, cheat, and steal. It is their job is to not be honest. Each morning they wake-up, get ready for work, and for eight hours, be dishonest, and they do not lose their job behind bars. Actually, they work overtime, and f*cking with people is one of their few pleasures.
The problem solving that occurs in prisons may not be considered intelligence, but it does occur. I would be curious to find out if the Harvard students could solve the same problems. (embroidery, gift card making, picture frame construction, note passing, assorted contraband passing, human cavity usage – using nothing authorized or an original intention)
I think I’m with TB – if I understand him correctly – on this. So many criminals (and addicts) are professional liars, schemers…….inherent story tellers. They have finely honed the craft. Being believable and believed is their core competency. It’s their unique talent for which they practice 24/7.
Oh, and so are small business owners.
Certainly there are types of smart criminals, particularly white collar criminals, but they are a small percentage of convicts. But the relationship btw/ IQ and crime has long-been studied:
“The central question of IQ-crime studies is whether individuals with less intelligence, on average, commit more crime than those with more intelligence. That is, are IQ and crime negatively correlated? The best answer, drawn from previous research, is a qualified “yes.” Delinquents and criminals average IQ scores 8 to 10 points lower than noncriminals, which is about one-half a standard deviation. IQ and criminal behavior are negatively correlated at about r = -.20 (Hirschi and Hindelang; Wilson and Herrnstein). ”
The qualification appears to be that it appears that verbal IQ is the specific component that has a strong negative correlation with crime. Performance IQ is the same as the non-criminal population.
I’m sure your broad statistics are correct, PD. But the few who are on the debate team surely are off the center of the distribution curve, with well honed skills.
In the trade Pearson’s r of -.20 is what’s called a “weak negative correlation”. How weak? A correlation of -.19 would be “no or negligible correlation”.
@Guarneri : That was my main point. The prison debate team are three violent criminals that had high school diplomas, that self-selected for an academic program, in which only one-out-of-ten were chosen, and some have gone on to Ivy League schools after their terms of incarceration were over. They may be in the top percentile of violent criminals in the country.
@Drew
Oh, and so are small business owners.
Nice try. The majority of illegal scams have a legal counterpart in the financial industry, other legal industries, or the government. Numbers schemes are the lottery, and bookies are sports betting. Loan sharking is payday loans. Money laundering is a type of financial engineering.
One is illegal and the other is legal, and anybody who understands how the illegal version works could quickly understand the legal version. Either street hustlers are as capable as the corner office type, or the corner office type are no better than a street hustler. One dresses and speaks better, but they are using the same level of skills.
For those who need extra help, here is a simpler example: One person kills another person. If it is murder, it is illegal, but if it is self-defense, it is legal. See, the same act can be legal and illegal.
@Dave, if that’s a weak correlation, then I suppose we can throw out all of the studies with weaker correlations like lead-exposure, which I believe is built on the IQ-crime linkages.
The R= -.20 is from a 1995 American Psychological Association report, which I believe surveyed the larger field of delinquent behavior. The concern is that studying convicts might just get those who were dumb enough to get caught. More fine-tuned studies have focussed on specific types of intelligence (such as verbal) and specific misconduct. Violent convicts average lower IQs than the general population, Sexually-violent convicts average lower IQs than non-sexually-violent convicts.
I have no idea what this means: no “definitive link between criminality and below-average intelligence exists.” If it means that half the general population has a below-average intelligence, yet very few in that group commit crimes, I would agree. If it means there are no observed correlations, the author isn’t curious.
@PD Shaw
I do not place any credence any of these tests. They are based upon conventional knowledge, and in my opinion, they simply confirm the test creator’s expectations.
I find them to be ambiguous, and I usually end up trying to figure out what answer is right according to the test not the best or correct one. In language, I have an extensive vocabulary, but many I originally learned in a historic context. Many of my usages are considered “arcane”, and for some reason, I tend toward British spelling. (Spell-checking fixes it, but I add “u”‘s, reverse “er”‘s, and a few others.
I used to do the New York Times Crossword puzzle in ink, and I would fly through it. People who saw me doing it were quite impressed. I have explained to many people how to it. You just do them, and after a while, you notice they use the same words and phrases. You still need to understand how the puzzle creator thinks, but once you know these otherwise unknown entries, you can fly through it.
It is an illusion, and once you know the mechanics, most people can do it.
It is better to think of criminals as cunning than smart. This also should lead one to the conclusion that you should never turn your back or believe the most cunning.
I do not like to see anybody get kicked when they are down, and even though I do not like criminals, inmates, or ex-cons, this mostly includes them. This does not mean that they are cute and cuddly. They are like wild animals, and you should not feed them or take them into your home.
If they are family, that is one thing. Unless you know they are no longer a criminal, be wary.
This was your public service announcement for the day.