Glenn, these discussions are so rich, it's easy to forget an early point while moving on to listen to the remainder. I have a comment on your point on the general question of doubt and rumors of inferiority.
I wonder if some of the most accurate answers can be found in the behavioral sciences, as well as the field of epigenetics. We're beginning to understand that it isn't so much our genes which influence everything from behavior to medical outcomes, but the expression of those genes. Twins studies have been very instructive. For example, to the question of whether depression "is genetic", there does seem to be a gene which a population prone to depression share in common. But having it doesn't mean a person will suffer depression. It needs to be activated, as it were. The triggering factor is stress. (see Robert Sapolsky's lecture on stress and anxiety to what looks like a room, heavily weighted to parents, at Stanford a few years ago.) This is epigenetics.
We know that certain stressors can be passed on to our offspring. An example comes from the area of domestic violence. I think it's evident that being in the minority, and indeed being alone, in a population is also inherently stressful. Bonobos who have violated norms can be ostracized from the group. In isolation, their blood chemistry shows heightened cortisol and adrenaline. Where survival depends on being in the group, being isolated appears to feel like a very real existential emergency. How opposite it must feel to being a bonobo in good standing, being groomed and grooming others in the group. It's the difference between low stress and high stress.
Are humans different? Isolation, stress and fear evidently are associated with depression in humans. What about as a population instead of an individual? (Sapolsky also talks about functional MRI studies showing subjects photos of faces and measuring amygdala activity depending on the faces shown. It seems more about "others" vs. "us" than about race. So what if someone else is different? It's all about the consequences of being an "us" or an "other".)
But my point is that perhaps we would all benefit by understanding the effects across generations of negative experiences and whether such shared experiences in a population could be evident in a variety of social measures, including standardized tests. Isn't this something to pursue in trying to understand the gaps Dr. Mac Donald points to? It's about understanding and fixing an evident problem, not killing the instrument which revealed it.
I highly recommend the piece by Razib Khan (who comments here occasionally—he's a busy guy!) on epigenetics for a basic understanding of what is possible, what is not, and what may or may not be. See https://razib.substack.com/p/you-cant-take-it-with-you-straight
Thanks, Richard. I'm part way through it. I need to be careful of how I use shorthand. Here is a link to a Sapolsky lecture. It's been quite a long time but this might be the one I referenced. I certainly don't remember the sensitivity warning at the beginning. That's new.
Glenn, these discussions are so rich, it's easy to forget an early point while moving on to listen to the remainder. I have a comment on your point on the general question of doubt and rumors of inferiority.
I wonder if some of the most accurate answers can be found in the behavioral sciences, as well as the field of epigenetics. We're beginning to understand that it isn't so much our genes which influence everything from behavior to medical outcomes, but the expression of those genes. Twins studies have been very instructive. For example, to the question of whether depression "is genetic", there does seem to be a gene which a population prone to depression share in common. But having it doesn't mean a person will suffer depression. It needs to be activated, as it were. The triggering factor is stress. (see Robert Sapolsky's lecture on stress and anxiety to what looks like a room, heavily weighted to parents, at Stanford a few years ago.) This is epigenetics.
We know that certain stressors can be passed on to our offspring. An example comes from the area of domestic violence. I think it's evident that being in the minority, and indeed being alone, in a population is also inherently stressful. Bonobos who have violated norms can be ostracized from the group. In isolation, their blood chemistry shows heightened cortisol and adrenaline. Where survival depends on being in the group, being isolated appears to feel like a very real existential emergency. How opposite it must feel to being a bonobo in good standing, being groomed and grooming others in the group. It's the difference between low stress and high stress.
Are humans different? Isolation, stress and fear evidently are associated with depression in humans. What about as a population instead of an individual? (Sapolsky also talks about functional MRI studies showing subjects photos of faces and measuring amygdala activity depending on the faces shown. It seems more about "others" vs. "us" than about race. So what if someone else is different? It's all about the consequences of being an "us" or an "other".)
But my point is that perhaps we would all benefit by understanding the effects across generations of negative experiences and whether such shared experiences in a population could be evident in a variety of social measures, including standardized tests. Isn't this something to pursue in trying to understand the gaps Dr. Mac Donald points to? It's about understanding and fixing an evident problem, not killing the instrument which revealed it.
I highly recommend the piece by Razib Khan (who comments here occasionally—he's a busy guy!) on epigenetics for a basic understanding of what is possible, what is not, and what may or may not be. See https://razib.substack.com/p/you-cant-take-it-with-you-straight
Good grief. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOAgplgTxfc
I've bookmarked several other of Sapolsky's lectures for later viewing. Thanks again for the reference and link.
Thanks, Richard. I'm part way through it. I need to be careful of how I use shorthand. Here is a link to a Sapolsky lecture. It's been quite a long time but this might be the one I referenced. I certainly don't remember the sensitivity warning at the beginning. That's new.