I'm on board with this argument, but I would note that the advancement of cognitive science has different moral imperatives than, say, the development of nuclear weapons or artificial intelligence. The latter two have been framed as an arms race: you stagnate, you die. However, in a different, globally understood moral matrix, they could be taken to be just as morally repugnant as race/IQ studies.
Glenn, Timely topic. Did you know that intelligence as measured by the SAT Verbal test has declined by over 30% since the 1960s? And that the SAT was adapted from a military IQ test?
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.
One of the arguments seems to be: "Look, social interventions can counteract the effect of genetic variation, if any exists. So, we don't need to go looking for genetic variation."
The problem I have with this argument is: "OK, who should receive these social interventions?" To use the glasses analogy, yes, corrective lenses exist. But you need to know there's a problem first; we don't fit *everyone* with glasses. Perhaps the answer is to test everyone -- which might render the population level question moot. Or it might reveal population-level differences.... you just can't win...
I think Glenn is jumping ahead with an answer to a question that wasn't asked: before talking about ways to compensate for a genetically weaker eyesight we have to find out how and why this human ability is distributed. How to work around or what to do with results of studies is a further question. Glenn's position looks even defensive and gives an impression that he's trying to move the debate away from an uneasy topic. It's sad that he chooses this path which is totally unnecessary.
I looked at the subject heading and thought it was AI research. But that is entirely relevant because
we tend to measure intelligence in terms of things which an AI may be taught to do in the near future instead of social/emotional intelligence.
Also Glenn is not afraid of this research because Glenn knows he is very smart. A possible consequence of this research might not be to take opportunity away from Black people who can do well on tests but to harm solidarity between them and the ones who can't. Certainly at least on the surface solidarity between white people with and without a college degree is poor.
Great discussion of a big problem. Genetic information is a much better way to classify humans than is sociological race or political nationality or language group or any other ‘phenotypic’ or subjective observation concerning an individual. So the basic problem here is one of classification. How does one objectively define what is a ‘human’ in terms of genetices,and given a particular ‘human’ organism, how does one objectively decide if they are in the ‘white’ or ‘black’ subspecies or if they are male or female, straight or gay etc, etc. To my view sociology is simply the wrong way to frame the question. Rather, given a human what genes or polymorphisms are associated with one or another score regarding ann intelligence test. The sociological race or gender becomes irrelevant
The issue I have is that to a large extent, this question has already been answered through Metadata.
When all factors are accounted for, there is no measurable difference.
The people that push asking the question over and over seem to be shopping for an answer.
So maybe a 30 year longitudinal study is called for.
I'm on board with this argument, but I would note that the advancement of cognitive science has different moral imperatives than, say, the development of nuclear weapons or artificial intelligence. The latter two have been framed as an arms race: you stagnate, you die. However, in a different, globally understood moral matrix, they could be taken to be just as morally repugnant as race/IQ studies.
Glenn, Timely topic. Did you know that intelligence as measured by the SAT Verbal test has declined by over 30% since the 1960s? And that the SAT was adapted from a military IQ test?
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.
One of the arguments seems to be: "Look, social interventions can counteract the effect of genetic variation, if any exists. So, we don't need to go looking for genetic variation."
The problem I have with this argument is: "OK, who should receive these social interventions?" To use the glasses analogy, yes, corrective lenses exist. But you need to know there's a problem first; we don't fit *everyone* with glasses. Perhaps the answer is to test everyone -- which might render the population level question moot. Or it might reveal population-level differences.... you just can't win...
I think Glenn is jumping ahead with an answer to a question that wasn't asked: before talking about ways to compensate for a genetically weaker eyesight we have to find out how and why this human ability is distributed. How to work around or what to do with results of studies is a further question. Glenn's position looks even defensive and gives an impression that he's trying to move the debate away from an uneasy topic. It's sad that he chooses this path which is totally unnecessary.
I looked at the subject heading and thought it was AI research. But that is entirely relevant because
we tend to measure intelligence in terms of things which an AI may be taught to do in the near future instead of social/emotional intelligence.
Also Glenn is not afraid of this research because Glenn knows he is very smart. A possible consequence of this research might not be to take opportunity away from Black people who can do well on tests but to harm solidarity between them and the ones who can't. Certainly at least on the surface solidarity between white people with and without a college degree is poor.
Great discussion of a big problem. Genetic information is a much better way to classify humans than is sociological race or political nationality or language group or any other ‘phenotypic’ or subjective observation concerning an individual. So the basic problem here is one of classification. How does one objectively define what is a ‘human’ in terms of genetices,and given a particular ‘human’ organism, how does one objectively decide if they are in the ‘white’ or ‘black’ subspecies or if they are male or female, straight or gay etc, etc. To my view sociology is simply the wrong way to frame the question. Rather, given a human what genes or polymorphisms are associated with one or another score regarding ann intelligence test. The sociological race or gender becomes irrelevant
All I ask is that before you publish the results you give us a heads up, so we have ample time to board up the windows and wet down the roof.