Until science threatens political correctness. Research into human dna…
… is slipping out of the laboratory and into everyday life, carrying with it the inescapable message that people of different races have different DNA. Ancestry tests tell customers what percent of their genes are from Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas. The heart-disease drug BiDil is marketed exclusively to African Americans, who seem genetically predisposed to respond to it. Jews are offered prenatal tests for genetic disorders rarely found in other ethnic groups.
Such developments are providing some of the first tangible benefits of the genetic revolution. Yet some social critics fear they may also be giving long-discredited racial prejudices a new potency. The notion that race is more than skin-deep, they fear, could undermine principles of equal treatment and opportunity that have relied on the presumption that we are all created equal.
There isn’t an experienced domestic animal breeder on the planet who doesn’t acknowledge the profound influence of genetics on intelligence and behavior. Traits such as trainability, aggression, prey drive, docility, bite inhibition are highly heritable and difficult to modify. The realization that behavior could be selected for and fixed within a population is how breeds evolve out of species, and how identifiable family lines evolve out of breeds. It’s why retrievers retrieve, pointers point, border collies herd, and basenjis steal from the fridge. It’s why some family lines in Dobermans like to carry shoes in their mouths, generation after generation – and others don’t.
Yet, despite thousands of years of practical knowledge gained in the field of agriculture, despite mountains of published research generated in the lab, the very scientific community that accepts that animal sub-populations can be significantly distinct from one another is reflexively resistant to the possibility that that such differences may exist between sub-populations of humans.
And when the science finally forces them to face the evidence?
Although few of the bits of human genetic code that vary between individuals have yet been tied to physical or behavioral traits, scientists have found that roughly 10 percent of them are more common in certain continental groups, and can be used to distinguish people of different races. They say that studying the differences, which arose during the tens of thousands of years human populations evolved on separate continents following their ancestors’ dispersal from humanity’s birthplace in East Africa is crucial to mapping the genetic basis for disease.
Many geneticists are loath to discuss the social implications of their findings. Still, some acknowledge that as their data and methods are extended to non-medical traits, the field is at what one leading researcher recently called “a very delicate time and a dangerous time.”
“There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries,” said Marcus Feldman, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. “It’s not there yet for things like IQ, but I can see it coming. And it has the potential to spark a new era of racism if we do not start explaining it better.” Feldman said any finding on intelligence was likely to be exceedingly hard to pin down. But given that some may emerge, he wants to create “ready response teams” of geneticists to put such socially fraught discoveries in perspective.
They should consider augmenting such teams with a dog breeder or two. We seem to have figured out how to identify and exploit genetic strengths and weaknesses “beneath the skin” without assigning global superiority to any one breed. We might be able to teach them something.
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: http://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.
http://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.