My wife would be grateful if you could help the geneticists with their work. She's tired of me walking around the house with a shoe in my mouth.

Traits such as trainability, aggression, prey drive, docility, bite inhibition are highly heritable and difficult to modify.

good thing my current work doesn't require prey drive, aggression or bite inhibition. :)

there was an interview with warren buffett some time back speculating on how successful he would be if he wasn't born in the united states. the idea was that the inherited capital was THE biggest factor in the realization of a person's ability; by a wide margin as well.

i think he was asked specifically about growing up in some south american country although the argument probably holds for being born in a place like africa or asia.

Of course there are differences. Differences here, differences there, differences everywhere. Yet I give you a speech given by Abraham Lincoln on July 10, 1858...

"Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden.

"That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn in whatever way you will---whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro.

I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it! [Voices---"me" "no one," &c.] If it is not true let us tear it out! [cries of "no, no,"] let us stick to it then, [cheers] let us stand firmly by it then. [Applause.]"

Progressives just love to slam conservatives for being a bunch of neanderthals who reject evolution. (Because we are ALL creationists you know - every one of us.) But as soon as evolutionary theory shows them a glimpse of something that challenges one of their cherished political views, they're the first ones to attack the science and try to silence the offending researcher. When E.O Wilson released his book Sociobiology in 1975, students began organizing protests and boycotting his appearances. Some of those protests turned into near-riots. They did the same thing to Richard Dawkings the following year when he released The Selfish Gene. 30 years on, the idiots in the social sciences still cling to the "blank slate" ideal of human nature, even though Wilson, Dawkins et. al. have been scientifically validated. Sociobiology, and it's offshoot, evolutionary psychology have reached the point where they can explain a goodly portion of human behaviour. And progressives HATE it. Because they can no longer blame everything on "western consumer-driven society".

It doesn't matter how many "ready response teams" they create — humans have a way of interpreting information apart from the spin others wish to place on it.

If that weren't so, there wouldn't be any arguments about any of the things SDA normally talks about.  Like it or not, no matter how much the intelligentsia wishes to impose a particular sanctioned view of "the consensus," people will always draw their own conclusions.  The Internet will merely accelerate this process.

Garth

"You can't teach a horse calculus" remarked Robert Heinlein. (Nor me, if it comes to that.)

A genetics of intelligence or behaviour is pretty much inevitable. It will not shake out quite how many racists expect: there will be very smart darker skinned people and average IQ in China or Japan may well be greater than for white people. And, perhaps, it will occur to the more genetically gifted, that aggregate IQ is not a very interesting idea.

I don't hire a white woman or a chinese man; I hire Michele or Winston. I don't buy German Shepards, I buy Rex.

If we insist upon dealing with aggregates, groups, rather than individuals we are essentially making a huge and preventable error.

Assume for the moment that the average IQ of Caucasians is fifteen points lower than the average IQ of Asians. So what? No one with even a Caucasian brain - unless it has been eaten away by lefty dogma - hires based on the race of the person. No one grades essays according to skin pigmentation. Instead we look at the person. The individual. We look at their work, their habits, their competence for whatever it is we happen to want them for.

Only lefties, committed to the politics of group identity and affirmative action, could possibly want a less than competent brain surgeon. The rest of us will want to know his or her training, years of practice and overall outcome stats.

There will certainly be genetically determined differences between groups; but only the most limited imagination will assume that all members of a particular group will always exhibit exactly the same behaviour.

That Sean comes from a long line of shoe carriers - a revelation which, personally, I would have kept to myself - has no effect at all on his brilliance as a landscape photographer father or wit. Genes tell a lot of the plot, people tell the story.

Brilliantly argued, Jay.

Funny it doesn't seem a stretch to me that all humans are created equal and yet recognize the we are not all the same. We are all made in the image of God (equal) yet not all are the same since each of us has been given gifts that make us unique. It is only when we lose sight of the image of God idea that troubles start creeping into our society. Once we lose sight of the inate value of another any kind of evil can be justified. Just read Tommy Douglas' ideas on eugenics.

"African Americans have been discussing "opting out of genetic research until it's clear we're not going to use science to validate prejudices."

or until ...

- They pimp my ride
- Gimme a free engraved chrome plated cold .45 auto with pearl handle
- Free weed for life
- Put a Democrat in the White house who will finally treat us right.
- Get all the Cubans out of Miami
- Ban white rappers
- Get me a new ho who is rich
- And finally make Ebonics an official language in the USA

Disclaimer - This post is intended as humor only and does not intend to offend any street pimps, gang bangers, gansta rappers or Island gentleman mon.

If I may underline a particularity, Mr. Lincoln as referenced in my above quote did not say that all men are equal, he said that all men are equal upon principle. Past that point, if one man turns out to be an honest citizen, and another turns out to be a sociopath, then history suggests that one would not be wise to treat them as equal in practice.

The key point, I think, is that this generic commonality is, in practice, as applied to the individual, independent of race, class, or gender.

"If we insist upon dealing with aggregates, groups, rather than individuals we are essentially making a huge and preventable error."

"There will certainly be genetically determined differences between groups; but only the most limited imagination will assume that all members of a particular group will always exhibit exactly the same behaviour."

Don't mistake this as a counter argument, Jay - but how do you square those statements against the fact as a result of this type of research, we already have heart medications marketed exclusively to African Americans?

And a pure hypothetical - what if future research were to discover that a majority of people of XXY racial heritage were lacking genes that play an important role in reading comprehension?

Do educaters ignore the finding as too politically distasteful, or do they adapt the educational system to ensure XXY children receive early intervention designed to help compensate for the deficit?

Which approach is "racist"?

The approach that is racist is that which judges individuals principally on the basis of some putative genetic class they supposedly belong to, as it is sexist or classist to judge individuals principally on the basis of their putative gender or class.

I don't care about your metric statistics du jour, I care about whether or not I can trust you. Not your race. Not your gender. Not your class. You.

And still these crack-pots try to connect humans and apes using DNA and proving absolutly nothing

"as it is sexist ... to judge individuals principally on the basis of their putative gender"

That sounds very eloquent and fair and whatnot, and I actually used to believe it way back when...

But in recent years, I've pretty much concluded that had men become extinct the day after Henry Ford launched his first production line, we'd still be driving Model T's.

Though for certain, they'd come in more colours than black.

Mark Twain said, "What would men be without women? Scarce, sir, mighty scarce". The subsetism that we humans seen so quick to succumb to is one of our most damning indictments. Model T? Seriously Kate, if you haven't already, check out this video of James Brown and Pavarotti singing It's a Man's World: www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCIyzNISw1Q

Kate McMillan said "What would the automobile be today without young men? Slow, sir, mightly slow."

Ah well then, you may be interested in Jay Leno's Hughie helicopter turbine powered motorcycle - youtube.com/watch?v=pTmgfF1zghg - I know I am ;-)

Still, the smartest person I've ever met was a female mathematician, and I'm neither female nor a mathematician, so what do I know?

But I was talking about gender, not intelligence.

:)

It's been my observation that most men prefer a higher number when measuring penis length than IQ.

I also believe a man with passion can achieve more than a more than a man with a higher IQ.

I have met a lot of brilliant idiots and many smart dimwits. Consider Forrest Gump as the spoiler.

However, if it is proven that Africans are genetically less smart than Whites or Orientals, there will be shit to pay.

She's tired of me walking around the house with a shoe in my mouth.

It could be worse; remember that episode with Homer sporting a toilet plunger attached to his head?

[whiney-complainey-plaintive voice] "Marge, it happened again!"

This never happens to me because I have enough hair to not create the suction in the first place.

Well forgive me for buying into the "genetics influences behaviour and intelligence" argument. If that makes me a racist, well...gee...I suppose I've learned something about myself that I hadn't realized.

I'm now on my second, beloved golden retriever. I didn't choose a golden retriever because I wanted a fierce watchdog. I wanted a faithful, loving, laid-back dog who was good with other people, especially with kids. I chose that breed because I had a reasonable expectation of exactly what I was going to get....and the afore-mentioned traits were exactly what I received, in the case of both dogs.

If genetics and bloodlines works pretty effectively with one type of mammal, I don't see why it wouldn't with another species...

Understood, Kate, touche. Yet returning to the original topic, the National Geographic's mitochondrial DNA mapping project strongly suggests that the legacy of differing groups of humans selecting in differing environments is quite complicated, especially in more recent times when the feedback loops become quite intricate.

You may find interesting the Popular Science article on taste - tinyurl.com/2t83kr - and the discoveries discussed therein regarding the geo-temporal dispersion of human breed or stock specialization.

I hope that the emerging genetic sciences benefit all humankind. I understand there are differences. In biology that's called robust. The outstanding problem is those who would in the name of fradulent self-advancement use our differences against us, rather than in the favour of our species robustness.

"but how do you square those statements against the fact as a result of this type of research, we already have heart medications marketed exclusively to African Americans?"

Environmental adaptation to conditions unique to individual populations.

Next thing you know they will be telling that animals have feelings.

If I'm not mistaken, crime statistics by race cannot be publicly published in Canada. I don't think genetic markers will be any different.

Or, as Jack Nicholson said, "You can't handle the truth."

"You can't handle the truth."

irwin daisy I believe that fits your post at 12:24 AM

No one with even a Caucasian brain - unless it has been eaten away by lefty dogma - hires based on the race of the person. No one grades essays according to skin pigmentation.

Is this satire? At the risk of missing an in-joke, here's what's going on less than 20 miles away from your home in Vancouver:

BC Human Rights Tribunal Approves Richmond Fire-Rescue’s Recruitment Strategy

The City of Richmond’s application to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal for a special program to allow the City to preferentially recruit and hire women and visible minority fire fighters was recently approved.

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal decision states: “This special program approval provides that, for up to 75% of available vacancies per year, the City may recruit, including advertising and hiring women and visible minority candidates who meet fire fighting testing standards on a preferential basis for fire fighter vacancies arising in 2007 to 2010 inclusive.”

The Tribunal also approved a special program to reserve and provide services respecting two fire fighter positions for one woman and one visible minority person who meet all of the qualifications and standards for a fire fighter except the completion of the Justice Institute Fire Academy training course. The program will lend the candidates their tuition to attend the course, provide a minimum wage while they attend the course, and reserve a vacant fire fighting position pending the candidate’s completion of the course.

Now I linked that one because it's current and it's right in your back yard. It's hardly unique however; surely you remember the "First Nations" crews that the NDP hired on the Island Highway? And getting a little further from home, can you possibly not know that racial hiring quotas are effectively the law of the land in the United States, enforced by court decision and the federal Equal Employment Opportunites Office?

As for your second assertion, I'm just going to quote a passage from a Harvard Crimson interview with Professor Harvey C. Mansfield, unpopular with other faculty for not wanting to do that which you say nobody does:

Mansfield attributes the rise in Harvard’s grades to a fall in expectations, brought on by the influx of less academically qualified black students in the 1970s. His argument is that white professors, afraid that they would be seen as racist, gave black students high grades they didn’t deserve.

“I think it’s an issue that goes to the heart of the University, especially the morale of the University,” Mansfield says. “If we believe in ourselves as an educational institution we must subordinate questions of social justice to that which is best for education.”

The US Army has 80 years and millions of tests that indicate that IN GENERAL, blacks have IQs of about 85, whites of 100, Asians of 115. Ashkanzi Jews also score higher than whites, and men score higher than women.

There is more solid evidence of racial IQ differences than there is for global warming. But don't expect Al Gore to film An Inconvenient Truth 2...

Vitruvius:

http://tinyurl.com/preview.php

"Don't want to be instantly redirected to a TinyURL and instead want to see where it's going before going to the site? Not a problem with our preview feature."

I always avoid redirect sites (remember makeashorterlink.com?) unless they give me the option of seeing the true domain I'm going-to first. It's just good net linking practice like not clicking URLs in email.

==Annoying META nanny net advice transmission end==

PS:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/11/bs-ahoy-malcolm-gladwell-has-new-book.html

"How about just looking at the educational system in North Dakota (2nd in 8th grade math scores behind Massachusetts) versus the educational "system in Washington D.C. (far below any of the 50 states in test scores)? There must be some amazing discovery we could make about the differences in their educational systems that produce such vastly different outcomes. (It might have something to do with empowerment, or maybe self-esteem.)

"Off the top of my head, I couldn't imagine what the difference between North Dakota and the District of Columbia would be, but if some foundation would put me up for a week in the Hay-Adams Hotel, I could study the D.C. educational system in depth. And, while I wouldn't actually go to North Dakota (it is November), I would make some phone calls.

"I couldn't begin to guess what difference I would find, but somebody has to do this. Think of the children. I believe the children are our future..."

There isn't a breeder in the world, be it horses, cats, dogs, etc, who won't tell you that there are intelligence differences between the sub-species. Why would humans be the only creature with no differences?

iq tests. we used to manipulate them when we were in school and laugh about the results.

While normal Canadians watched their 25 hours of TV this week I've spent about 15-20 hours at Wikipedia reading everything I can find on mtDNA, genetics, etc. Fascinating; the greatest history book ever written is in our DNA, as they say. I'll keep the rest of my thoughts to myself on the matter.

"iq tests. we used to manipulate them when we were in school and laugh about the results."

Yep, there's another non-white non-male sock puppet trying to bring down the white man again by FUDing their IQ superiority. Try again, noncapitalizing fake old white guy.

"they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden"
\

Boy that's about as a good a definition of how the Liberal Party operates as I have ever seen.

PS Thomas Jefferson was from the middle east! Perhaps his interest in Islam, foreign policy, and "reproductive strategies" were bred in the bone, as it were:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_DNA_data

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_K2_%28Y-DNA%29

People should just wiki IQ and read some of the items there. It's a good starting point if you really want to read about IQ and the theories about what it truly measures. It seems that everyone's IQ is going up (at a much faster rate in the lower economic groups worldwide - than for richer people - possibly due to improved access to better education and better nutrition and health).

I think there is a lot more at play in determining intelligence than genetics. Genetics is about hardware but intelligence is about software and developing the best software to run on that hardware.

thanks, vitruvius and jay currie. Excellent arguments.
Vitruvius - your argument is based on the principle of equality. An ethical and moral argument. Jay, your argument is based around the rejection of aggregates, the mythical statistical average, in favour of the actuality of individuals. I agree with both of you. I'll try to add another argument. One based around the biological nature of our species, homo sapiens.

No, Kathy Shaidle, I disagree with your stats. You do realize, don't you, that you are claiming that any society of blacks would, with an 'average IQ of 85' be completely unable to operate as a society. Indeed, they couldn't last beyond a generation without Higher Guidance.

Since societies in Africa - with economies ranging from hunter-gatherer, pastoral and horticultural, were in existence for generations, then, your claim that a 'black' has an IQ of 85 is invalid.

I don't think that anyone can make a valid claim that 'subspecies' cognitive differences exist. Certainly, physiological differences exist between the 'subspecies'. And, in families (not subspecies, ie, not 'blacks or Asians or..)personality differences exist. But cognitively, the entire species (homo sapiens) is biologically differentiated from all animal species by the ability of symbolic cognition.

No other species has this ability. All organisms communicate, but symbolic cognition is confined to the human species. This capacity isn't genetically differentiated among the sub-species (defined by skin colour or body build etc).

After all, in the 'black skin colour' description, there are many variations of colour; there are many variations of body build and height. Same with white skin colour.

So, Kathy Shaidle, your attempt to merge ALL people with coloured skin = IQ of 85 also ignores the sub-sub species. And also ignores that cognitive facility of symbolic analysis.

What's the point of this cognitive facility? One example, is that It means that a human being can 'imagine' what a situation would be like if such and such would exist. And then, proceed to manufacture such a situation. And, as he is manufacturing this new Model T, he can imagine a different situation (faster!) and can change his imaginary model and figure out how to achieve that. That's the beauty of symbolic cognition. You can drop one model and switch to another.

The question then is - is this capacity for symbolic cognition genetically different in the sub-species? There doesn't seem to be any proof of that.

The fact that Africa and America didn't develop industrialism isn't proof - not because of the species' cognitive ability (there is no proof that industrialism is a 'more progressive' mode of life) - but is only evidence that the African biome couldn't move into industrialism. No energy sources, no domesticated animals, no plough agriculture, etc.

All sub-species have the ability of symbolic cognition. The TYPE of symbolic cognition developed is related to the economic mode and population size. And that, is related to the ecological resources. I know it sounds strange..but..

So, I'll support Vitruvius and Jay - there is no cognitive difference among the sub-species. There are physiological differences among the sub-species. There are sub-sub-species or familial differences in personality. And, There are myriad INDIVIDUAL differences in all characteristics.

Can you cite a *single* *data* *point* and *provide a link* to back up your laughable claims, or are we just blurting out random words and wanking with opinions today, ET?

Please provide the full names of three (3) scholars who support your thesis that there is no genetic basis for intelligence. You have one hour.

The research has made it possible to predict and cure race-specific ailments.

Let's not even mention the race based bio weapons developed from the same genetic research.

One step forward 2 steps back.....

.....and a stark reminder that science and power politics definitely cannot coexist without disaster.

"symbolic cognition is confined to the human species."

You've never trained a dog using hand signals, I take it.

Ummm, ET? I take it you appreciate Hume? Go find a rock...

...and to really mix my references: "your great learning is driving you mad"

You need to spend some (more) time thinking about what an IQ value represents.

Kathy needs to stop generalizing from non-random sample sets...

Andrew needs to stop being a thunder puppy...

I need to finish marking these @#@$%@# midterms. Right now, I've demonstrable evidence that university students have IQs lower than a rock.

There is no superior dog, because the different breeds were bred for specific purposes. I like Labs best of all, and will never get another Heinz 57.

In the long view, I'll take the dog that best exhibits the working traits of the breed. Whenever I see I dog show, I always wonder if the winning terrier can actually catch a rat or the winning Retriever has ever been on a duck hunt.

Breeding for looks ends up with less intelligent dogs. This is why, in my estimation, Border Collies rock. They don't look the same, but they are excellent at their job.

The Pirahã people have no history, no descriptive words and no subordinate clauses. That makes their language one of the strangest in the world -- and also one of the most hotly debated by linguists.
...
In their everyday lives, the Pirahãs appear to have no need for numbers. During the time he spent with them, Everett never once heard words like "all," "every," and "more" from the Pirahãs. There is one word, "hói," which does come close to the numeral 1. But it can also mean "small" or describe a relatively small amount -- like two small fish as opposed to one big fish, for example. And they don't even appear to count without language, on their fingers for example, in order to determine how many pieces of meat they have to grill for the villagers, how many days of meat they have left from the anteaters they've hunted or how much they demand from Brazilian traders for their six baskets of Brazil nuts.
...
The debate amongst linguists about the absence of all numbers in the Pirahã language broke out after Peter Gordon, a psycholinguist at New York's Columbia University, visited the Pirahãs and tested their mathematical abilities. For example, they were asked to repeat patterns created with between one and 10 small batteries. Or they were to remember whether Gordon had placed three or eight nuts in a can.

The results, published in Science magazine, were astonishing. The Pirahãs simply don't get the concept of numbers. His study, Gordon says, shows that "a people without terms for numbers doesn't develop the ability to determine exact numbers."
...
Years ago, Everett attempted to teach them to learn to count. Over a period of eight months, he tried in vain to teach them the Portuguese numbers used by the Brazilians -- um, dois, tres. "In the end, not a single person could count to ten," the researcher says.

It's certainly not that the jungle people are too dumb. "Their thinking isn't any slower than the average college freshman," Everett says. Besides, the Pirahãs don't exactly live in genetic isolation -- they also mix with people from the surrounding populations. In that sense, their intellectual capacities must be equal to those of their neighbors.

Eventually Everett came up with a surprising explanation for the peculiarities of the Pirahã idiom. "The language is created by the culture," says the linguist. He explains the core of Pirahã culture with a simple formula: "Live here and now." The only thing of importance that is worth communicating to others is what is being experienced at that very moment. "All experience is anchored in the presence," says Everett, who believes this carpe-diem culture doesn't allow for abstract thought or complicated connections to the past -- limiting the language accordingly.

Living in the now also fits with the fact that the Pirahã don't appear to have a creation myth explaining existence. When asked, they simply reply: "Everything is the same, things always are." The mothers also don't tell their children fairy tales -- actually nobody tells any kind of stories. No one paints and there is no art.

www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,414291,00.html

"You can't handle the truth."

"irwin daisy I believe that fits your post at 12:24 AM "

Posted by: albatros39a at November 10, 2007 3:08 AM

I didn't post at 12:24.

ET, I think the existence of beak first here disproves your theory that "there is no cognitive difference among the sub-species."

Genetics and intelligence - why bother?

While I am all for knowledge for knowledge sake (hey, if you’re going to bite the apple, then eat the whole d**n thing), I just don't see the point to the whole exercise.

Are we going to "cure" certain "breeds" of their "stupidity"? If not, then a discussion of the genetic factors is irrelevant, since common humanity (aka, love thy neighbour) would argue against it.

Besides, we know what the problem is (even if Kathy loves playing the gong farmer with the DC/ND false dichotomy): Certain whole cultures/regions are so enslaved by the selfish immediacy of their sick/uncivilized/evil* obsessions, that aggregate populations have become statistically dysfunctional, which is what the IQ** distribution reflects.

* Did I miss a worldview perspective?
** A truly stupid measure of competence.

"which is what the IQ** distribution reflects...A truly stupid measure of competence."

But Tenny, Lynn, 2000, shows that IQ strongly (0.82) correlates to GDP. I'd say that make IQ a superb indicator of competence; what say you? On a separate note, isn't it awesome how wikipedia breaks the (unionized, hideously left wing) academic monopoly on information? A near-Gutenburgian advance in human civilization, I'd say.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

kate - the fact that YOU know the hand signals, and train the dog isn't what I'm talking about. That's mechanical communication; it's called 'Indexical' communication, where the physical Sign refers directly to a meaning or cause. Smoke is a 'Sign' of fire.

Symbolic communication is completely different. The point is, the dog doesn't have the capacity to come up with those hand signals himself. And, once he's come up with those symbols, he also doesn't have the capacity to CHANGE the reference.

Bob c- the reason that there aren't intelligence differences between the sub-species of humans is because the knowledge base of the species is unique. The knowledge base of homo sapiens is not genetic, but almost entirely social. It is LEARNED. No other species places such a heavy reliance on learned knowledge.

tenebris - you'll have to explain specifically what you mean with your reference to Hume. I'm not a fan of Hume; I like his 'is/ought' distinction but that's hardly specific to him. I take it you aren't referring to his denigration of other 'races' - an ignorant conclusion based on his ignorance of their ecology and economy. If you are referring to his 'man is a bundle of perceptions' - that's a postmodern opinion and I'm a rabid opponent of such views.

Oh, for heaven's sake, andrew - that's an ancient theme - 'sociolinguistics', expounded eons ago by such as Basil Bernstein, Sapir-Whorf - and sociologically, by twits such as Ruth Benedict and Mary Douglas and Margaret Mead. It's all been rebutted and rejected. The actual language developed has zilch to do with cognitive capacity. If you don't need symbols for X, then, you won't develop such symbols. Did you know that at one time in our developing knowledge base of the west, calculus wasn't around? And at one time, Boolean algebra wasn't around?

irwin daisy - I have no idea what 'existence of beak first here' means.

Krydor - I've got a border collie crossed with german shepherd/rottweiler mix. Intelligent, gentle...likes to roll in dead 'coons.

He's getting a tad aged; looking for the mark II version now.

andrew - wikipedia is, itself, leftist, and requires careful, cautious use - something that you, in your devotion to it, ignore.

Also, anyone who relates GDP and IQ, is an idiot. The first is a social variable, the second is a biological variable. There is no way that the two can be connected. That would be like relating red hair and knowledge of Aristotle.

Does it ever occur to you, in your devotion to nonsense, that a society with an IQ of eg, 70 (as claimed by that group)...would be unable to function as a society, since all the members would be profoundly retarded and unable to exist without Superior Beings To Guide Them?

Furthermore, the GDP is a description of a surplus economy and the only economies that are geared to produce surplus are plough agricultural and industrial economies. Other economies are no-growth economies, but did just fine by their population base.

Do you know what correlates to GDP? Yet another social, non-biological variable. Industrial Capitalism, free markets, free enterprise.

@ Andrew, 11.02

Why this should surprise people is surprising. By now, even the stupidest sociologist must have realized that how one acts determines what one thinks, and vice-versa.

It’s been an operational observable for millennia that the brain can be rewired by thinking it so. Neuroscience is beginning to show the structural evidence for this.

Clearly, this has implications for pedagogy. Are my children attending public school? ~snort~

You become that which you participate in.

NOW y’all should be concerned.

You've been given every opportunity to present a single shred of evidence for your positions, ET, and you have FAILED. FAILED.

Now, please let the scientifically minded among us have a grown up conversation featuring data and peer-reviewed studies, thanks.

I find it amusing that some people can't form an opinion unless "science" offers some "proof" or failing that, a "concensus".
Anyone who knows a little history and can read\watch the news realizes that different races display different strengths\weaknesses that transcend even social and cultural differences.
Mankind has evolved it's physiology to it's environment over millenia in order to survive and thrive. Different strategies for different environments.
In our modern era our melting pot societies have thrown these differences into stark relief.

Here we go with the sock puppets *groan*. I'd like to invite the baby boomers to the 21st century, please check your deprecated Trotskyism at the door.

@Andrew, 11.27am
“But Tenny, Lynn, 2000, shows that IQ strongly (0.82) correlates to GDP. I'd say that make IQ a superb indicator of competence…”

Nope. It correlates the mean statistical measure of a sampled set with the economic output of the entire parent group. Not quite the same thing. One needs to ask: competence at what? Our culture values money, and to a lesser extent, productivity. Hence the statist concern for the metric: By paying attention to IQ, we give cultural validity to the notion that the range of economic opportunity either needs to be tailored to the IQ distribution, or that subgroups need compensation/special treatment when there is conflict between the two.

So now I'm left wondering... If certain sub-types of cows produce better meat than others (gotta love that marbled Angus!), do certain human sub-types also taste better than others as well? Or do they all taste like chicken? Is it politically incorrect to declare a preference for dining on one particular race?

Things that make you go "hmmmm".

Tenny, your reply would have been better served had you included a link or a scholarly article or a data point of any kind.

And to answer your question "what does it matter", incorrect assumptions on these matters lead to hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on social programs worldwide that could be better allocated if we - you - accepted the true nature of man, rather than the Rube Goldberg alternative you offer.

andrew - I don't need to back up my capacity to think, with references from wikipedia. My capacity to think, is a basic property of myself.

Now - google sociolinguistics; and Bernstein and Whorf. Check for the arguments discrediting that 1930s theory. Do the same for the 'culture makes the man' ideologies of such as Ruth Benedict, Mary Douglas and Margaret Mead. Check how they are discredited.

Again, your wikipedia-based nonsense about IQ being correlated to GDP is - well, it's nonsense. Think, Andrew. Don't rely on wiki-statements. Think for yourself. Ask yourself: how can a biological property be correlated with a non-biological property? Can there be any correlation between the two, or, is it just a researcher's act of linking the two?

Think, andrew. Don't rely on others to tell you what is real and what is not real. Try to think for yourself.

robert - no, I don't see the 'different races' theme as having any validity. You are ignoring that 'race' is an unclear variable and also ignoring that key causal factors of the social result - namely - the realities of the envt. Did you know that you can't grow wheat in the arctic, and so, not becoming an agricultural society isn't due to 'race' but to reality. The reality of the ecology.

Different ecologies require different adaptive modes - and I wonder if you would really suggest plough agriculture in the Kalahari desert. Nothing to do with 'race'.

"Think, andrew. Don't rely on others to tell you what is real and what is not real. Try to think for yourself."

According to metric pantloads of data fewer than one in 800 women on the North American continent have an IQ as high or higher than I do, and I doubt very much you'd be that anomaly, ET. So allow me a moment, my dear, to reflect upon the appropriateness of your analysis of my cognitive capabilities :-) I recommend that you post data points and links to scholarly articles instead of blurting out any further nonsense.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence

Sean,

There is a difference. Some consumers of human flesh prefer it well-marbled - which means that when they go to their local grocer or butcher and choose a tender cut - they will expect the human to have been raised on Big Macs and Fries. But other consumers - into a heathier lifestyle - will choose cuts based on whether the human was free range human and fed organically.

That why it is so important nowadays for cannibals to read the labels before they buy. With globalization you just don't know what your getting. I've even heard horror stories where beef (real beef) is being mixed in with human flesh and passed off as human.

"That's mechanical communication; it's called 'Indexical' communication, where the physical Sign refers directly to a meaning or cause. Smoke is a 'Sign' of fire."

I think that's hair-splitting. The fact that many dogs (and other species) are capable of learning hand signals, interpreting human language (toy, cookie, truck ride, outside, walk) is evidence that their brains are capable of translating abstract visual cues or sounds into concrete meaning.

But that's straying somewhat from the topic at hand - the fact - FACT - that gene frequencies vary between identifiable human subpopulations. The FACT that many behaviors and cognitive traits are heritable and sometimes difficult to modify environmentally. (To argue otherwise is to deny the existence of OCD, autism, and mutations that cause mental retardation.)

Given those facts, it is impossible to ignore the possibility that some human populations may have higher frequencies of more subtle genetic traits underlying intelligence, cognition, or behavior than other populations.

I used dogs as an example because they demonstrate the phenomenon so profoundly and predictably - not to get side-tracked into a debate over human vs animal intellectual capacities.

Hume - cause and effect. Johnson's refutation of Berkeley...

Festus' comment to Paul, before Agrippa...

The juxtaposition was sufficiently cryptic as to amuse me...one of my besetting sins.

No, kate, I don't think that differing between 'indexical' and 'symbolic' sign production and usage is hair-splitting. It's a profound difference. No dog or non-human species develops a symbolic communication system, although almost all biological species (including plants!) use indexical communication systems.

The fact that the word you use to the dog is 'abstract' to you is irrelevant to the dog's indexical use of it; to the dog, it is no longer abstract but a physical sound.

The tremendous ability that symbolic sign usage gives to the human species -alone of all species - cannot be underestimated.

Certainly, physiological traits in the human species are genetically based - and behavioural or psychological traits can also be genetically based. BUT, even these are sub-sub-species and familial; that is, they are components of a small subgroup, not a 'race' or 'ethnic group'. The genetic link is direct.

BUT - there hasn't been any proof that cognitive capacity is correlated with any familial group or sub-species. The cause(s) of OCD are unclear; certainly there seems to be a chemical imbalance but whether this is inherited or due to an infection is unclear. Same with autism and other variables. BUT - the point is, the defective gene isn't a value of an entire large population sub-species but of a small set, a family.

I don't think that there is any evidence that a familial or isolate small-group hereditary component becomes the property of a whole population, an ethnic or cultural group. Genetics doesn't operate within such a rigid and finite closure of its mutation-capacities. If it did, then there wouldn't be any cases of more humans becoming allergic to peanuts, or bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics, etc...

Andrew – I asked “why bother?” not “what does it matter?”

The questions are different. I set the question properly in its context. You merely don’t pay attention. Your 12.17pm comment is a non sequitur.

Go bother ET...

Given those facts, it is impossible to ignore the possibility that some human populations may have higher frequencies of more subtle genetic traits underlying intelligence, cognition, or behavior than other populations.

To go back to the dog example, each breed has the innate skills to do the job they were intended to do. Same with humans.

ET says: "I don't think that there is any evidence that a familial or isolate small-group hereditary component becomes the property of a whole population, an ethnic or cultural group."

False, false, false, and I can prove it 6 ways till Sunday. To name one of many examples, the 4336 tRNA nucleotide position variant in haplogroup H has been shown to be associated with late-onset Alzheimer's disease:

www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Mishmar2003.pdf

"The high mutation rate of mtDNA and the central role of
mitochondrial proteins in cellular energetics make the mtDNA an ideal system for permitting rapid human and animal adaptation
to new climate and dietary conditions.
...
Evidence has already accumulated that different human mtDNA lineages are functionally different. Haplogroup T is
associated with reduced sperm motility in European males (30), and the tRNAGln nucleotide position 4336 variant in haplogroup
H is associated with late-onset Alzheimer’s disease (31). Moreover, Europeans harboring the mild ND6 nucleotide position
14484 and ND4L nucleotide position 10663 Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy missense mutations are more prone to blindness
if they also harbor the mtDNA haplogroup J (32, 33), and
haplogroup J is associated with increased European longevity
(34).

32. Brown, M. D., Sun, F. & Wallace, D. C. (1997) Am. J. Hum. Genet. 60, 381–387.
33. Brown, M. D., Zhadanov, S., Allen, J. C., Hosseini, S., Newman, N. J.,
Atamonov, V. V., Mikhailovskaya, I. E., Sukernik, R. I.&Wallace, D. C. (2001)
Hum. Genet. 109, 33–39.
34. Rose, G., Passarino, G., Carrieri, G., Altomare, K., Greco, V., Bertolini, S.,
Bonafe, M., Franceschi, C. & De Benedictis, G. (2001) Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 9,
701–707.

At the dawn of time, if adaptation skills for survival were what theoretically made some races of what is perceived as "more advanced" than others today, then why are these same races heading towards extinction? (Read Mark Stern)

Should all highly educated progressive liberals be rounded up in concentration camps...The "final solution"? ;-) (Dark humour)

IMO: Education is a foundation...Wisdom from experience become building blocks.
Show your respect: Thank a veteran or a grandparent tomorrow.

Raging Ranter said: "When E.O Wilson released his book Sociobiology in 1975, students began organizing protests and boycotting his appearances. Some of those protests turned into near-riots. They did the same thing to Richard Dawkings the following year when he released The Selfish Gene."

Oh yes they did. I was in university at that time studying Anthropology, researched E.O. Wilson's ideas quite thoroughly. Collectivists can't stand the idea that different populations have different genetic traits, it just makes them crazy.

Reading through the thread here there are a lot of great posts. My two cents worth is that it is very important to remember when discussing genetic differences that "intelligence" is a theoretical construct.

Intelligence isn't like an enzyme that expresses differently in the black population, leading to the need for a different heart drug. More of an idea, like "information". Its a made up thing, and it isn't very old. That doesn't mean it isn't real, it just means you have to be careful when you're talking about it.

You begin to see the limitations of the concept when you start talking about artificial intelligence. Can a computer program be intelligent? How about cognizant? How about conscious? Take a look at a "hard" AI theorist like Marvin Minsky, see if his ideas map onto what we know about dogs and bugs. For my money, nuh uh.

Bottom line,taking Kathy Shaidle's post for an example, using an IQ test and measuring a 15 point difference between two "racial groups" (another questionable concept) doesn't really tell you -anything at all- of a predictive nature about individual members of the racial group. Meaning that the US Army wasted a whole bunch 'a money on all that testing. Social policy made on the basis of IQ testing, well lets just be charitable and say its CRAP.

On the other hand, take a quick look at the Olympics and you can see how the different human populations shake out in the different events. Example, all the top sprinters are Black and have have ancestors from one little area in Kenya. They have more fast-twitch muscle than usual, which makes them faster. Asians do well in gymnastics, Whites in weight lifting, etc. etc.

When looking at dog breeds and the different behaviors that can be bread for, the examples given are the kinds of things that can be traced directly to differences in neural circuitry. Physical differences in brain structure that are genetically coded. Some of these structures are big enough to map on an MRI or a PET scan.

Is there such a difference between gays and straights? Well, it doesn't seem to breed true, does it? Research in the area hasn't turned up much that I've heard of, and you can be sure that if some guy turned up a "gay neuron" the MSM vultures would be on it.

How about male vs. female? Yes, there are known and mapped differences that seem to be statistically significant. Which is no surprise, given the well known (and obvious to anyone but a Lefty) differences in male vs. female behavior.

Kate's comment about young men and cars is a fine example. Boys are all about racing. Always. You take an Eskimo, a Pygmy and a Scotsman and stick them on a desert island, they will racing coconuts, rats, or each other. Yes, there are girls who like to race, yes they can be as good as the boys. Shirley Muldowney, Ashley Force, there's some pretty fast women out there. One or two per decade, I figure. Girls who like racing are two standard deviations off the middle of the girly bell curve, boys who like racing are the whole middle of the boy curve. Girls who like to watch boys race, THAT'S the middle of the girl curve.

Are boys smarter than girls? You can see how that is not a meaningful question when looked at from this behavioral/genetic viewpoint.

Sooo, that's why I take everything that shows up in the behavioral "sciences" with a big grain of salt. There's more crappy research done in psych, sociology, anthropology and etc. than in climatology. Caveat freakin' emptor, baby.

tenebris - ah, I see what you are talking about with Hume. But I'm a realist; I'm a fan of Aristotle and Charles Peirce. I think that the objective world is real, and its actions on other realities are also real, and are not dependent on my perceptions of it. So, I'm not a fan of Hume.
Or Berkeley...

And no, I'm not mad, though I know very well what marking midterms can do to the mind (and soul). Actually, I was fortunate, particularly with my elective courses - the people who took them, wanted to explore and learn - and we had some great, really great times.

"Are boys smarter than girls? You can see how that is not a meaningful question when looked at from this behavioral/genetic viewpoint."

From a university admissions viewpoint of a human resources viewpoint it is exceedingly meaningful in the context of employment equity and affirmative action, which are based on the scientifically false premise that girls are as smart as boys and have the same intelligence distribution as boys. Even worse is the gender income gap explanation that since women are as economically productive as men (suuuuuper false) the wage gap must be explained by discrimination.

There's two good examples right there on how bad baby boomer voodoo science hurts western civilization to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

"Social policy made on the basis of IQ testing, well lets just be charitable and say its CRAP."

You know what that thinking leads to? Black only schools in Toronto, because they believe that since black kids are exactly as smart as white kids, the only explanation for their suboptimal performance is discrimination. There, that's three examples of how bad baby boomer science hurts Canada.

The difference between animal breeding and human breeding is that animals will not go and create domestic or foreign policy based such ideas and few animal breeders go into politics. As long as these differences are understood for what they actually mean and not used for Hitlerian solutions there's not a problem but the danger perceived is a repeat of the past. Can genetics overcome human stupidiy which despite IQ never seems to change?

QOTW, by The Phantom at 1:43 PM

"Is there such a difference between gays and straights? Well, it doesn't seem to breed true, does it?"

All bow before the master!

"As long as these differences are understood for what they actually mean and not used for Hitlerian solutions there's not a problem but the danger perceived is a repeat of the past"

I would argue that today's affirmative action policies are comparable to the Nuremburg Laws and thus the onus is on the anti-science faction like ET, Phantom, Vitruvius, Jay Currie, and others to explain why they are actively persecuting white heterosexual males, today, with their junk science. There is no onus on us in the scientific community to answer speculative hypotheticals about how we might do bad stuff when bad stuff is being done to us as we speak.

This paradigm of course conveniently places me and my white heterosexual male comrades as the "New Jews", and makes any criticism of my commentary anti-semetic :-)

Yes Andrew, from the viewpoint of any bureaucracy, individual variation in ability is inconvenient. The problem in that case rests with the bureaucracy, not the individuals. Left to their own devices (meaning freedom of speech, movement and association)people sort themselves out by ability and inclination, but this process is too messy for a centrally controlled organization like an army or a corporation. They want something they can control. This is why the larger an organization gets the less competitive it becomes, and the more of a pain in the ass it is to work for.

IQ tests sort for the ability to do IQ tests, they do not predict the ability of the individual tested to adapt to and overcome problems in school, work, war or whatever.

You, my dear child, are confusing correlation with causation. As usual. I can find a strong correlation between ice cream sales and violent crime, but the reality is ice cream does not lead to crime. Nor the reverse.

I would also like to point out that the measures you are using, such as productivity, are useful only in a central control/central planning situation.

Productivity is for cows, not humans.

Phantom says: "IQ tests sort for the ability to do IQ tests, they do not predict the ability of the individual tested to adapt to and overcome problems in school, work, war or whatever."

Wrong on all three counts, as usual, and I can prove it, as usual:

School performance

The American Psychological Association's report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns (1995)[10] Wherever it has been studied, children with high scores on tests of intelligence tend to learn more of what is taught in school than their lower-scoring peers. The correlation between IQ scores and grades is about .50.

Correlations between IQ scores and total years of education are about .55, implying that differences in psychometric intelligence account for about 30% of the outcome variance. Many occupations can only be entered through professional schools which base their admissions at least partly on test scores: the MCAT, the GMAT, the GRE, the DAT, the LSAT, etc. Individual scores on admission-related tests such as these are certainly correlated with scores on tests of intelligence. It is partly because intelligence test scores predict years of education that they also predict occupational status, and income to a smaller extent.

Job performance

According to Schmidt and Hunter, "for hiring employees without previous experience in the job the most valid predictor of future performance is general mental ability."[56] The validity depends on the type of job and varies across different studies, ranging from 0.2 to 0.6 [57]. However IQ mostly correlates with cognitive ability only if IQ scores are below average and this rule has many (about 30 %) exceptions for people with average and higher IQ scores [58]. Also, IQ is related to the "academic tasks" (auditory and linguistic measures, memory tasks, academic achievement levels) and much less related to tasks where even precise hand work ("motor functions") are required [59]

A meta-analysis (Hunter and Hunter, 1984)[57] which pooled validity results across many studies encompassing thousands of workers (32,124 for cognitive ability), reports that the validity of cognitive ability for entry-level jobs is 0.54, larger than any other measure including job try-out (0.44), experience (0.18), interview (0.14), age (−0.01), education (0.10), and biographical inventory (0.37). This implies that, across a wide range of occupations, intelligence test performance accounts for some 29% of the variance in job performance.

According to Marley Watkins and colleagues, IQ is a causal influence on future academic achievement, whereas academic achievement does not substantially influence future IQ scores.[60] Treena Eileen Rohde and Lee Anne Thompson write that general cognitive ability but not specific ability scores predict academic achievement, with the exception that processing speed and spatial ability predict performance on the SAT math beyond the effect of general cognitive ability.[61]

Income

Some researchers claim that "in economic terms it appears that the IQ score measures something with decreasing marginal value. It is important to have enough of it, but having lots and lots does not buy you that much."[62][63]

Other studies show that ability and performance for jobs are linearly related, such that at all IQ levels, an increase in IQ translates into a concomitant increase in performance [64]. Charles Murray, coauthor of The Bell Curve, found that IQ has a substantial effect on income independently of family background [65].

The American Psychological Association's report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns (1995)[10] states that IQ scores account for about one-fourth of the social status variance and one-sixth of the income variance. Statistical controls for parental SES eliminate about a quarter of this predictive power. Psychometric intelligence appears as only one of a great many factors that influence social outcomes.[10]

One reason why some studies claim that IQ only accounts for a sixth of the variation in income is because many studies are based on young adults (many of whom have not yet completed their education). On pg 568 of The g factor, Arthur Jensen claims that although the correlation between IQ and income averages a moderate 0.4 (one sixth or 16% of the variance), the relationship increases with age, and peaks at middle age when people have reached their maximum career potential. In the book, a Question of Intelligence, Danial Seligman cites an IQ income correlation of 0.5 (25% of the variance).
...
There is a correlation of -.19 between IQ scores and number of juvenile offences in a large Danish sample; with social class controlled, the correlation dropped to -. 17.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ

See Andrew, this is what ET and Tenebris mean when they tell you that you don't think.

Repeat after me, correlation does NOT equal causation.

No, I'm not going to link to Wiki for you.

Phantom, the quality of your commentary would be greatly improved if you were to include a data point or link to a scholarly study, as I have done repeatedly. Alternatively, keep setting a Canadian blogsphere record for getting dominated with data. Either or.

"there hasn't been any proof that cognitive capacity is correlated with any familial group or sub-species."

ET - did you even read the link provided?

The very basis of the article is how geneticists plan to deal with the societal implications of identifying genetic differences between racial groups - including those that relate to intelligence.

Actually, Andrew knows that correlation and causation are not the same. He's just having a hard time accepting that (1) IQ as a metric derives from an ill-posed problem, and (2) that there is no ethical means of employing the information.

Well, that and he thinks he's smart. Grad school might cure him of that, but it depends on the school and the advisor.

Consider that bait, Andrew.

@ Andrew, 2.48pm

"Wrong on all three counts, as usual, and I can prove it, as usual:"

You're missing the point(s), Andrew.
(1) Equating the individual with the group is, well, stupid.
(2) There is no way to use IQ data in a societally safe fashion.

Too late, Tenny, you've been exposed as a radically unionized careerist academic who would rather commit hari-kiri than say anything politically incorrect that might harm your precious pension.

I hope you like the taste of cat food, friend, because after the last of my generation's white heterosexual males flees Canada with our capital, education, and high IQs (this is already happening in at least one similar country: NZ) that's what you'll be living on.

I plan to be a burden on my hypothetical sons-in-law.

You have education? In the process thereof? Do confess, which field have you blessed with your abilities?

good heavens, old hoss - 'each breed has the innate skills to do the job they were intended to do". Heck - who set the intentions? And I didn't know that the human species had different agendas..according to what criteria? Set by whom?

tenebris - thanks for sloughing off andrew on to me; I have no intention of answering his mindless blather. Why would I discuss anything with a parrot who just repeats printed documents without analyzing whether they have any validity?

Yes, kate, I read the article. I've always accepted that there are genetic physiological differences, but these are, I maintain, confined to sub-sub groups. That is, you can't say that 'all blacks are susceptible to X-disease' or 'all European Jews are prone to Y-disease', but you can say that blacks from a certain region in Africa...etc, etc.

And the article doesn't say that there is a genetically defined group-based cognitive capacity. It speculates that 'there might be', but such speculation has been around for generations and hasn't led anywhere.

Cognitive capacity is not the same as physiological - and 'being smart' requires several capacities: the capacity to reason or be logical; a large memory; and, imagination.

And, phantom, that's why I have my doubts about a computer program 'being intelligent'. The computer can certainly outdo humans on the first and second points (logic, memory). It lacks imagination - and that's absolutely vital for intelligence.

I don't do "form", Tenny, as it's not all about me. Do you have any on topic data points or references to scholarly works that you wish to share? Because that would be cool.

Would ,nt be nice if you could tracy your ancestroy back to a famous person i saw one of someone who traced his ancestory back to WILLIIAM(BRAVEHEART)WALLACE

good heavens, old hoss - 'each breed has the innate skills to do the job they were intended to do". Heck - who set the intentions? And I didn't know that the human species had different agendas..according to what criteria? Set by whom?

I wouldn't have expected a Gaia worshipper to ask that.

http://www.yale.edu/scan/GT_2004_NRN.pdf
http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/amp60171.pdf
Go find the book "Backdoor to eugenics" by Troy Duster

Enjoy yourself Andrew...

Andrew, water is wet. Should I include a linky for you, or d'ya think you could handle running your finger under the tap to see if I'm on the level?

Kate's point in posting the bloody thing in the first place, with which I am agreeing really, REALLY hard, is that geneticists should not be let near public policy.

WTF are you doing? Other than revealing your ignorance? Public policy SHOULD be based on IQ testing? There's a name for that, its called Social Darwinism. Adolph Hitler was all over that, its been decided it was a bad idea.

Stop pretending to be a Conservative eh? You're embarrassing yourself.

"(2) There is no way to use IQ data in a societally safe fashion."

Jesus expletive Christ that is the most Trotskyist, anti-western civilization thing I have ever read in my entire life. And you have the nerve to post this at a conservative site! I'm going to invoke the "mercy" rule at this point and stop embarrassing you inferiorities with my dominant deluge of data. Enjoy wanking with your wholly invalidated opinions, wankers.

PS Tenny: I read your first link; it is dated (2005) and has been superceded by new data such as that I provided. It also makes a bizarre arguement against Bayes theorum as the basis of scientific inquiry as opposed to a tabula rasa approach, which makes me physically ill. The author, Richard Cooper, is "a physician epidemiologist with an interest in cardiovascular disease"; not exactly his field, is it?

The second link is even older, 2004, quite obscure, and actually agrees with me:

"It is now widely accepted that genes and environment both have crucial roles in the transmission and expression of disorders. Genetic relationships also influence cognitive skills in normal, healthy individuals75"

Hey Phantom! I'm getting this deja vu thingy. Time to ignore Andrew lest we tempt the wrath of Kate (it cost me my beer money last time).

ET said: "The computer can certainly outdo humans on the first and second points (logic, memory). It lacks imagination - and that's absolutely vital for intelligence."

Gotcha ET! Hee hee! You can emulate imagination with a really big if/then program that correlates unrelated things, or some kind of "survival of the fittest" modeling program. If you do it fast enough it will look like imagination from the outside. Rules Based Intelligence is what they call it, I think.

Really the AI question comes down to one thing. Can consciousness, problem solving, self awareness etc., what we mean when we say intelligence, be encompassed by a mathematical algorithm? Because that's what a computer program is, a set of algorithms running REAL fast on an electronic computer.

Read it out another way, is the mammalian brain a Turing machine running a program? Marvin Minsky thinks yes.

I think no, because I'm at heart a mystic and I just don't believe it can be that simple. I didn't believe it 'way back with E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology, I didn't believe Dawkins with his Selfish Gene, and I still don't. Doesn't smell right. I can't disprove it though.

Roger Penrose is MUCH cleverer than I am, he says no because there are some things the human mind can do that a Turing machine can't do, and he lists them. The human mind -cannot- be a genetically determined Turing machine running an algorithm, QED.

What it might be instead he's less sure on, some of that micro-tubule quantum computing stuff in his book is pretty dodgy.

Still, I GOTCHA! I'm such a devil. ~:D

Andrew, Tenebris? What is this "Andrew" of which you speak? ~:D

ol hoss - I'm not a gaia worshipper, so, I don't understand your point. How about answering my question!

As Peirce wrote, we 'think' within a 'community of scholars'. Our knowledge base, alone among all species, is primarily learned. As such, it is based upon the content of both many generations and also diversity of thought. It rests, as Popper insisted, upon a critical openness to testing and change. It requires an acceptance of contradiction of the old and a requirement that the new hypothesis can better explain reality than did the old.

As a process, I think it rests on a triad of abilities: logic, memory and imagination. How does one separate one's individual actions in this process from the 'community of scholars'?

My own view is that cognition, themeans by which we develop our knowledge base is common to our species. There are no sub-group differences although there are many, many individual differences.

"There are no sub-group differences "

Kate, I don't ask much, I don't complain when I get my comments deleted, but exactly how many times does ET have to be proven wrong before you ban her ass for deliberately posting Marxist disinformation on your website even after it has been proven wrong by the entire scientific community?

If I had a website and a Marxist persistently posted wholly invalidated Marxist theory while grownups tried to have a conversation, I'd just ban them.

ET, we are in agreement. Human cognition has to be extremely robust because it survives all manner of major brain injuries intact.

I've seen case studies of people diagnosed in adulthood with hydrocephaly, they were to all appearances normal but they were missing literally half their brain due to the CSF pressure.

I've had patients with serious brain injury that suffered diverse motor control,memory and sensory issues but retained their intelligence, humor, conscience, all of it. Then again some don't, showing that this is some pretty complicated business.

If its that plastic to accommodate injury, I'm thinking a couple structural variations aren't going to amount to much.

ol hoss - I'm not a gaia worshipper, so, I don't understand your point.

Of course you are.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=12079529&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google

And to the 9,996 ostensibly right wing SDA readers who sat on their hands, again, while Marxists attempted to take over this site with their Marxism, again, every single one of you is fair game and therefore subject to the full weight of my commentary from this point in. No mercy, none.

ol hoss - something that requires 'worship' is unscientific - and I'm not into worshipping anything.
I also reject a cybernetic analysis of the earth (too mechanical), and the notion of homeostasis (I think things are getting more complex); and I don't see the planet as 'one organism'. A CAS can't be reduced to 'one'.
But, I do strongly support the universe as a CAS.

Now, now, hoss - stop baiting ET. She's still kicking against the goads.

Heh, those smart perfessers sometimes outsmart themselves.

ahh, yes, phantom; you are indeed a 'gotcha devil'.
I agree with you on your rejection of Dawkins (and Wilson).

However, a random imagination process - brainstorming - isn't the same thing as a process connected to the other cognitive processes. Your idea of a 'brainstorming' style of imagination is, however, interesting. There's something 'abductive' (Peircean term) about it. But I think that the imaginative faculty, to be valid, must not be random but linked to actual experience.

I've an acquaintance, who works in AI, who does think that the human brain operates as a Turing machine - and yet - one of his key requirements for 'human cognition' is emotion. He even defines certain languages as more conducive to 'feeling emotional' than others...Can a computer do this?

I like Penrose's books but am bothered by what I feel is his idealism, he's a Platonist and I run from that mode of thought.

The AI field is enormous, open - who knows what these scientists will come up with!? It's already a phenomenal change from ten years ago...

Hoss - you talking about me or her?

ET - existence is insufficient justification to assert that the universe be a CAS. One must demonstrate not only that the requisite coupling mechanisms exist, but also that they have the necessary temporal elasticity. In my view, this requires ahierarchical structure across all the relevant scales of the system, else the likelihood of phase transitions would approach unity.

Hah. All we got is supposition. A real CAS (bootstrap variety - no intelligent agents presupposed at onset) has never been robustly demonstrated. Its existence is approached in Sherlockian fashion, leaving us with the "but WHY does it work?" plaintive wail overwhelmed by the grumble, mutter, and bicker of arguing HOW it works.

Oh, I'm still sort of trying, using coupled quantum dots and nanotech, but I would be astonished if true CAS properties result.

Madame speaker, ladies and gentlemen ~ I rise on a point of order. At 14:41 above, Andrew wrote: "[..] the onus is on the anti-science faction like [...] Vitruvius [...] and others to explain why they are actively persecuting white heterosexual males [...]". Let the record show that I hereby accuse Andrew of two counts of criminal libel.

And I accuse you of genocide. Now that we're done making accusations, my Nuremburg Law supporting friend, who has the best data? I do, now piss off.

the difference is snarly

To whomever it applies.

Further to ET's notes on signing and the differences in the cognitive capabilities of humans v. dog &c, y'all may be interested in the Aping Language essay by Clive Wynne at the Skeptic magazine - www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-10-31.html#feature - which concludes:

"Somewhere in the history of our kind there must have been the first beings who could rearrange tokens to create new meanings, to distinguish Me Banana from Banana Me. But the evidence from many years of training apes to press buttons or sign in ASL, is that this must have happened sometime after we split off from chimps, bonobos, and gorillas. Since then we have been talking to ourselves."

Um, what's a CAS?

Complex adaptive system, if memory serves.

Actually, for a cursory overview, the Wikipedia page doesn't seem overly problematic to me: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system

Ah, good. I shall Google!

ET is the resident and internationally known expert on this stuff, Phantom, yet as I am a student of the phenomenon, I think you may find interesting this From Steam Engines to Life? essay by Mark Haw, on the 100th anniversary of the death of Lord Kelvin, in the current issue of the American Scientist magazine - tinyurl.com/29t5pj - which concludes:

"[This] brings us back to microscopic engines: the most interesting objects in which the two themes of modern thermodynamics -- microscopic scales and open systems -- join. Although studies of individual proteins are important foundation stones, the cell depends on millions of molecules in a complex network of machines, their functions interlocked across a range of scales. Such interplay is possible precisely because these living engines are open to fluctuations and not isolated from their environment. It may be that the complex functions of matter that we call life are nothing more than this multiscale interplay of engines, a network through which energy is transformed again and again, as microscopic machines swap and shift matter—manipulate entropy -- in a thermodynamical cycle the likes of which Kelvin could hardly have imagined.

"If so, then the theory that accommodates living engines will require both a thermodynamics of microscopic matter, and a thermodynamics of open systems. Current research is providing progress in each of these, but the challenge may be to match them together, to join the palpable chemical reality of protein engines to the heady concepts of non-equilibrium thermodynamics and self-organization. That may lead us, finally, to the second revolution—the thermodynamics of life.

"Kelvin's theory of thermodynamics was only one product of his long, intensely curious life. At retirement, he declared that despite half a century of work he felt he understood little more about the nature of the physical world than he had all those years ago, staring down at the water of the Walsall canal. Now, a century after his death, the science of thermodynamics that Kelvin pioneered is indeed more puzzling, more profound, more tantalizing, more practically relevant, and just plain more fascinating, than ever."

ET, if I'm reading your position correctly, you aren't saying that there are no physiological differences between humans of different ethnicities. I assume you don't deny that, for example, certain medications have greater efficacy for certain racial/gender groups, or that different ethnic groups might thrive on different diets, or tolerate heat or cold better, or that people of West African descent are massively over-represented at the finish line of 100m foot races. As far as I can tell, you are instead asserting that these physiological differences somehow -- miraculously -- completely exclude the brain and it's cognitive functions because....you say so. To the extent that you do acknowledge other known physiological differences, it's a highly unreasonable position.

I think a big part of the problem with this debate -- and this applies far less to you than to others -- is that the mere thought of possible differences becomes a political pejorative in exact proportion to the extent to which one of the particular groups cited somehow in the data might be considered socio-economically disadvantaged or the victims of racism both at present and in the past. Were that inflamed group-politics reaction removed from the equation, there'd be no need for people to get so defensive about possible differences. There are many different forms of human intelligence, and nobody's got all of them; difference isn't inherently bad when you're not coming from a position of taking insult. If Danes, say, were told, based on solid evidence -- eg twin studies of adoptees that control for environmental causes -- that Jews of Hungarian descent, say, had, on average, much better math/spatial abilities than Danes, the reaction from the Danes would probably be -- trust me -- "Yaah, I kinda tot so..." Whereas if it were revealed that Caucasian babies raised from birth by blacks had, on average, better spatial/math ability than blacks from the same household, all hell would break loose; the data would suddenly become entirely political, and no matter how solid it was, the motives of the scientists and those who cite them would become the issue. Science would be completely swallowed by identity-group politics and social-justice concerns.

I personally consider Theolonius Monk a genius of the highest order, and I find his music to be the a brilliant, limbic comment on the last century in a way that's ineffable and undeniable (to me). To me, he's a towering genius. If someone proved to me that, say, Chinese kids were predisposed by genetics to be more adept than black kids at, say, solving a Rubik's cube in twelve seconds, it wouldn't case me to look differently at Monk or at Black people; listening to Duke Ellington doesn't make me look down on Glen Gould, or vice versa, and listening to Arthur Rubenstein's interpretation of Chopin's Nocturnes doesn't make me look down on F.W. McGhee and Arizona Dranes when I hear them carrying the ceremonial mace for all mankind through the pit of hell belting out "Fifty Miles of Elbow Room."
If certain differences in physiology between different genetic populations are more closely understood, these findings could either inflame people -- stupid people -- or they could prove helpful -- in medicine, for example. If different aptitudes were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, so what? Is it really the end of the earth? Certain people would surely make stupid, overreaching, non-comprehending, badly-mistaken pronouncements which will reveal nothing but their own ignorance, but even if 99% of people took that approach, neither their mistaken interpretation, nor their numbers, would obviate the science.

ET, I think that to acknowledge physiological differences but then miraculously exclude the brain seems a rather pointed act of denial.

It's not for me to speak for ET, EBD, yet I think "miraculously exclude the brain" is likely to be reasonably judged as putting words in her mouth ;-)

Moreover, I should like to note that, as with my comment re Jay's comment much above, I think your comment is brilliantly argued, EBD.

One of the problems with taking up a position in any debate is that, unless one is acting solely as a reporter of all positions, one ends up not devoting sufficient resources to other opinions that one nevertheless agrees with. Thank you for making those arguments so well.

A thermodynamics of life - now that, vitruvius, is a fascinating idea. I do wish, however, that the author wouldn't use mechanical metaphors in his description....

EBD - yes, I am pointedly denying that there is a cognitive difference between groups and also between subgroups. And I don't think that there are physiological differences among 'ethnicities' but amongst families or sub-sub groups in a larger ethnic group. That is, one cannot say that "ALL Italians are genetically disposed to X", but one can certainly say that "this familial cluster of Italians are genetically disposed to X".

The Nilotic sub-group of the black-skinned group in Africa do have a particular physiology - as do other groups in Africa - and elsewhere.

But, I don't subscribe to a cognitive difference. There is no proof of this. You see, all groups, subgroups and sub-subgroups, reveal similar cognitive facilities.

If we are speaking of isolate groups, then, we can see that all have developed symbolic language; all have developed stable and productive economies; all have developed moral, ethical, legal and political and educational systems; all have developed 'origin' analyses, etc. These social structures were sufficient for that society.

What proof do you have that there is a difference in cognitive ability amongst different groups? Come now - you aren't surely declaring that ALL or even MOST Hungarian Jews have better math/spatial abilities than ALL/Most Danes? You must know that isn't valid.

Your Caucasian-black household example isn't valid, because cognitive faculties can be inherited from FAMILIAL gene lines. NOT ETHNIC or GROUP LINES. So, artistic ability can run in a family. Not in an ETHNICITY or GROUP. And, mathematical ability can run in a family. Not in an ETHNICITY or GROUP. You'd get a more valid study if you had two children from the same parents, raised in two different households - one that promoted intelligence and one that demeaned it.

Physiology is completely different from cognition; the first is far simpler than the latter. I simply don't see any proof that, although there are very real physiological differences amongst sub-groups and sub-subgroups of the species,..that these same groups also have different cognitive faculties.

There ARE different cognitive faculties in the one species, but, I don't see them as correlated with physiology.

Where does arachnophobia fit into thermodynamics of life or CAS?

High up on the list, Ural, high up on the list.

It seems to me that the key point you are making, ET, and I stand to be corrected as I have no desire to put words in your mouth, is that while there are multiplicities of differences between various taxonomical categorizations of H. Sapiens Sapiens, nevertheless, there is no significant difference within the species, at least as measured by those taxonomies, in terms of our cognitive commonality. If so, I agree, and, indeed, I think that it is that cognitive commonality that should be the judge of the morality of our behaviour.

Taxonomies whew for a brief moment I thought you wrote Taxidermy and was trying to figure out why ET was stuffing dead humans.

vitruvius - as usual, with your logophilic agility and wit and wisdom, you've outlined my points better than I've done. Perfect. I fully agree with your outline. Thanks.

Not all races are equal, some are inferior.
Jewish Nobel Prize Winners
From a pool of 12 million Jews which are 0.2% of the World's Population
Between 1901 and 2007, more than 750 Nobel Prizes were handed out. Of these, at least 162 are Jews.
Arab/Islamic Nobel Prize Winners
From a pool of 1.4 BILLION Muslims which are 20% of the world's population, there were 6 including
Literature1988 - Najib Mahfooz
Peace1978 - Anwar El-Sadat
1994 - Yasser Arafat *
2003 - Shirin Ebadi
Chemistry1999 - Ahmed Zewail
Physics-Abdus Salam

It is an honour to be of assistance, ET, but I still don't agree with you on the explorative values of carefully titrated neuropsychopharmaceuticals ;-)

While we're on the topic of the nature of humanity, I see where the news wires are now reporting that Chavez said today, "A snake is more human". Apparently King Juan Carlos then turned to Chavez and said, "Why don't you shut up?"

Who says blogs aren't like real life?

Cognitive commonality?

No - common humanity. Our moral association with other people is not to be prefaced by any qualifiers. Dumb as dipsh*t, braindead or bright - make no distinction!

Once I was like Andrew. The bodycount grew. SomeOne said enough.

ET - "NOT ETHNIC or GROUP LINES"?

You are not paying attention to Kate. Now, if you want to argue that humans are special? Perhaps made in the image of God?

One of these day, ET, you and I are going to go at the CAS issue hammer and tongs. When I have time to visit...

Common humanity yes, Tenebris, but what is it that distinguishes our human commonality from all other forms of commonality we know of? It is our common cognitive uniqueness. Individuals of no other species, on their death bed, ask themselves the cognitive quesion, "Did I live a moral life?" That's how we distinguish ourselves from other forms of life. That's why cognitive is a valid qualifier.

And while neither hammers nor tongs are complex adaptive systems, I'd love to attend your colloquium ;-)

This business of a significant difference between races, as in a noticeable one, is the core of the matter. You don't see any noticeable differences in the archaeological record until you get all the way back to Neanderthal.

One striking thing about Humans is we always build the fire in the same spot in a dwelling. It never moves, for generations. This fixed spot is the same for Homo Sapiens, uniformly, from now all the way back. Cultures change, but The Fireplace is always The Fireplace.

Neanderthals didn't do that. They would build the fire anywhere, different spots all the time. They didn't have The Fireplace, they just has a fire.

That's the kind of significant, immediately discernible difference you DON'T see between human populations, tribes, races, whatever.

Therefore no matter what the variations between individuals and groups in neurochemicals, brain structures and etc., these don't amount to a significant thing that alters one group's Humanity compared to another group. Because if it did, it would be so up in your face there would be no mistaking it.

Leaving me really wanting to slap the imbeciles in Kate's article, frankly. WTF!

Unless you're screening for Tay-Sachs or Sickle Cell. Amd what does any of that have to do with "altering one group humanity"?

The same inherited behavioral traits that impede a beagles aptitude as a retriever don't "alter his breed's caninity".

And I don't think the people mentioned in the article are 'imbeciles". They're simply facing some very uncomfortable prospects - that the conventional, politically correct, wisdom that all humans are "created equal" may soon be challenged on a variety of genetic fronts. They want to prepare for it, and I can't say that I blame them.

I've only pointed out that it's not going to come as news to animal breeders who have observed and manipulated genes for behavior and intelligence within species long before Mendel - much less molecular genetics - came on the scene.

Kate: ...how do you square those statements against the fact as a result of this type of research, we already have heart medications marketed exclusively to African Americans?

The following article may be of interest...

*****

Misreading race and genomics after BiDil
Jonathan Kahn
Nature Genetics, 37: 655-656 (2005).

On June 16, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee will decide whether to approve a drug to treat heart failure in African Americans, and only African Americans. This race-specific drug is called BiDil. BiDil is not a new drug. It is merely a combination into a single pill of two existing generic drugs that have been used to treat heart failure irrespective of race for more than a decade.

BiDil is noteworthy because it may become the first race-specific drug ever approved by the FDA. The good news is that BiDil does seem to help many people suffering from heart failure, a debilitating and ultimately fatal disease afflicting several million Americans. Less fortunate is the way race has been exploited to bring this drug to market.

The FDA approval of BiDil for only African Americans would give the federal government's stamp of approval to using race, in effect, as a genetic category. But race is not genetic, as even the BiDil researchers admit. Once we sanction such talk, it is a short step to talking about races as inferior and superior. Given our nation's troubled history of racial oppression, this should not be taken lightly.

In fact, the data from the clinical trial of BiDil (called A-HeFT, for African American Heart Failure Trial) says nothing about whether BiDil works differently or better in African Americans than anyone else. This is because A-HeFT enrolled only "self-identified" African Americans; there was no comparison population1, 2.

Why then did NitroMed, the corporate sponsor of the A-HeFT trials and holder to the rights to BiDil, seek race-specific approval for its drug? Perhaps the answer lies not in medicine but in commerce. NitroMed holds a patent for a non-race-specific use of BiDil, which expires in 2007; it also holds a race-specific patent that lasts until 2020. This extra 13 years of patent protection may present a compelling commercial reason for seeking to cast BiDil as a racial drug, even though to do so is not supported by the medical evidence3.

The dynamic relation between markets and the skewed interpretation of clinical trial data has recently moved beyond BiDil to support larger claims about the legitimacy of developing race-specific drugs, including misrepresentation of results published in this journal4 (Box 1). Garbled reports of these results were almost invariably paired with a discussion of the nearly contemporaneous formal announcement of the A-HeFT results for BiDil. The linking of BiDil to the "29 medicines" is not accidental. They are paired to give the impression that there is some 'real' difference underlying racial response to these drugs.

In fact, of the 29 medicines identified, Tate and Goldstein considered only 4 to provide evidence of