Either do the research all the way or don't bother.
But as long as we are stifled by other people's sensitivities, it will never happen.
But is that really a problem?
Any designation can be the basis of a study in "group differences". We can split the human population 100,000 times if we like. We don't have to stop at race.
Recently I read this review of Thomas Sowell's latest book. An excerpt:
"...all mountain peoples tend to have lower IQs than others, especially urban dwellers. Yep, you read that right. Sowell claims that this has to do with the social isolation of mountain life and could therefore also explain average lower IQs in groups that continue to experience more artificial forms of social isolation. Attachment theorists in psychology will resonate well with this explanation."
And first-borns tend to have higher IQ's than their siblings, and so on and so forth.
As I read that review, it became obvious that even Thomas Sowell (at 93) has had enough of the (seemingly) indelible "race realist (wink-wink)" chatter on the right, and I couldn't agree more.
Comparing "this group" to "that group" could be based on darn near anything. If IQ is so deeply critical to a society, why focus on groups at all? Why not individuals?
If we are *genuinely* serious about studying intelligence, the ultimate goal almost has to be centered around individuals.
Most of the research as far as I know is done on variation amongst individuals and how that affects social outcomes.
Because we "know" that intelligence is heritable and matters for all sorts of outcomes (not the most important of course), people then extrapolate from individuals to groups. This is where issues start.
Either do the research all the way or don't bother.
But as long as we are stifled by other people's sensitivities, it will never happen.
But is that really a problem?
Any designation can be the basis of a study in "group differences". We can split the human population 100,000 times if we like. We don't have to stop at race.
Recently I read this review of Thomas Sowell's latest book. An excerpt:
"...all mountain peoples tend to have lower IQs than others, especially urban dwellers. Yep, you read that right. Sowell claims that this has to do with the social isolation of mountain life and could therefore also explain average lower IQs in groups that continue to experience more artificial forms of social isolation. Attachment theorists in psychology will resonate well with this explanation."
And first-borns tend to have higher IQ's than their siblings, and so on and so forth.
As I read that review, it became obvious that even Thomas Sowell (at 93) has had enough of the (seemingly) indelible "race realist (wink-wink)" chatter on the right, and I couldn't agree more.
Comparing "this group" to "that group" could be based on darn near anything. If IQ is so deeply critical to a society, why focus on groups at all? Why not individuals?
If we are *genuinely* serious about studying intelligence, the ultimate goal almost has to be centered around individuals.
Most of the research as far as I know is done on variation amongst individuals and how that affects social outcomes.
Because we "know" that intelligence is heritable and matters for all sorts of outcomes (not the most important of course), people then extrapolate from individuals to groups. This is where issues start.