Intelligence, Critical Thought Capacity, and Heridability

[Meffy]

It's your choice not to start a eugenics thread to discuss eugenics in. That hardly constitutes topic evasion on my part.

Yet you injected eugenics into another, far less eugenics-related thread without invitation, making your refusal here seem blatantly hypocritical to me.

[edited to add link and clarify meaning]

 

[andyandy]

I'm starting to notice a bit of a pattern here.......

Perhaps a modified version of christianity (modified to make mass behavior more utilitarian, even if their belief structure remains as irrational) should be taught to most, and criticial thought taught to a subset of the population that has the threshold capacity to utilize it effectively? I'm not sure Strauss was wrong with that approach, even if neoconservatives may have used this approach to promote the interests of something less than the general welfare of America or the world.

Finally I'm not arguing creating a new class of bovine gammas, but rather simply turning those folks who are already leading a bovine gamma existence towards more utilitarian behavior (for themselves and for society) in the most effective way, which may be by modified religion rather than by instruction in how to think critically.

Is it true that large elements of our Holocaust narrative owe more to persisting WWII time propaganda than true historical documentation? Does that apply to narratives of millions of jews and others being gassed to death?

I think it's undeniable that the Holocaust narrative gives huge moral highground to the anglosphere, to the detriment of germans, in a winners-write-history sort of way. But I think it's interesting that there is little space for rational holocaust skepticism divorced from anti-semitism

But in a space that values skepticism and criticial thinking, I think we can look at the realities, of nazis, etc. with a more nuanced and critical eye.

Are differences in intelligence (or different types of intelligence) between individuals in large part due to genetic difference? How about critical thought capacity specifically?

Originally Posted by kittykatkarma :
Something like the Snake Oil Doctors of old...

It's really scary too. There was a period of time when I did not have insurance and my son's meds cannot be generic and run upwards of $150 US Dollars per month. If I were of lesser intellect and skepticism, a $35 dollar a month cure all could have been tempting.

Makes you wonder what the un-reported harm has been done.


or the eugenic benefit?!

hmmmm.....maybe you do need to clarify your position.....

 

[Meffy]

@andy²: *nod* Just so.

 

[Bruno Putzeys]

The problem is that most people seem to think scientific facts are value judgments. As a result, studies like heritability of IQ are still not accepted by all. It's like thinking lack of a god makes people immoral.

On the other hand, it's when people start attaching value judgments to scientific facts (e.g. "sensitivity to woowoo is heritable" + "sensitivity to woowoo is bad") that they step on the slippery slope. The only good way to deal with this is to see how close to a much more obvious value judgment one can get by logically reasoning on the facts. Usually a bit of reasoning can blow some of the more questionable ideas right out of the water.

(for good order note that "sensitivity to woowoo is heritable" is *not* a scientifically established fact but it makes a nice example)

This is difficult because logical reasoning is hampered when trying to reason on emotionally charged topics. Thus, people tend to flock round ideologies for fear reason might take them elsewhere. That's too bad because a factually and logically supported position is always better than an unfounded moral intuition, however noble or otherwise. Besides, often existing moral intuitions are corroborated.

 

[andyandy]

This is difficult because logical reasoning is hampered when trying to reason on emotionally charged topics. Thus, people tend to flock round ideologies for fear reason might take them elsewhere. That's too bad because a factually and logically supported position is always better than an unfounded moral intuition, however noble or otherwise. Besides, often existing moral intuitions are corroborated.

true....but it's important to look at the context in which such questions are asked.....

"In different races, are there significant genetic differences capable of effecting intelligence?"

The reaction to a respected scientific institute posing such a question should, for example differ to the reaction to the same question posed by a white-supremacist group.....

One would be looking at the issue in an objective manner, the other just looking for a justification for their prejudice.....

 

[Dave1001]

The problem is that most people seem to think scientific facts are value judgments. As a result, studies like heritability of IQ are still not accepted by all. It's like thinking lack of a god makes people immoral.

On the other hand, it's when people start attaching value judgments to scientific facts (e.g. "sensitivity to woowoo is heritable" + "sensitivity to woowoo is bad") that they step on the slippery slope. The only good way to deal with this is to see how close to a much more obvious value judgment one can get by logically reasoning on the facts. Usually a bit of reasoning can blow some of the more questionable ideas right out of the water.

(for good order note that "sensitivity to woowoo is heritable" is *not* a scientifically established fact but it makes a nice example)

This is difficult because logical reasoning is hampered when trying to reason on emotionally charged topics. Thus, people tend to flock round ideologies for fear reason might take them elsewhere. That's too bad because a factually and logically supported position is always better than an unfounded moral intuition, however noble or otherwise. Besides, often existing moral intuitions are corroborated.

Well said. I'm attracted to this board because I think there's a larger cohort here to discuss emotionally charged topics critically with than on most other message boards. No doubt you're a contributor to the positive atmosphere on this message board.

 

[Dave1001]

true....but it's important to look at the context in which such questions are asked.....

"In different races, are there significant genetic differences capable of effecting intelligence?"

The reaction to a respected scientific institute posing such a question should, for example differ to the reaction to the same question posed by a white-supremacist group.....

One would be looking at the issue in an objective manner, the other just looking for a justification for their prejudice.....

I'm a bit skeptical of race as a starting point to discuss this type thing (whether used by scientists or white supremacists), if our underlying purpose is understanding natural phenomena. I think we have much more accurate trackers of population difference than what I presume are the generally used racial categories of white, black, asian, Amerindian, and Pacific Islander.

 

[Bruno Putzeys]

true....but it's important to look at the context in which such questions are asked.....

"In different races, are there significant genetic differences capable of effecting intelligence?"

The reaction to a respected scientific institute posing such a question should, for example differ to the reaction to the same question posed by a white-supremacist group.....

One would be looking at the issue in an objective manner, the other just looking for a justification for their prejudice.....

I fully agree there. Point is, this forum prides itself (well most folks here at least) on putting down irrational opinions in a rational manner. When I'm confronted with someone who takes a certain position, for instance on genetics and IQ, I'll always first try to strike up a proper discussion. Whether the respondent is a white supremacist or simply curious will quickly emerge. In the former case (as in discussions with believers), the logic of his arguments will break down into slogans. In the latter case he'll either have cogent arguments to make me change my position or change his own outlook.

This in fact is the acid test to tell "religion" (in the broadest sense) from an informed opinion. The former is a belief to which one attaches ones identity, and will not be given up regardless of evidence to the contrary. The latter is a temporary position to be abandoned when disproved.

I've not gone through all of Dave's posts but from what I've read I can't judge whether he's taken a position first which he'll now defend, or whether he's open to a rational debate.

This is the only thing I care about. Not which position one takes, but how one is seeking to form one's opinions. After all, an "atheist" who simply believes there is no god is not someone you're going to have a sensible discussion with, even if you agree.

(in common lingo: give the chap a chance. Strike up a new thread and see what happens)

 

[andyandy]

I'm a bit skeptical of race as a starting point to discuss this type thing (whether used by scientists or white supremacists), if our underlying purpose is understanding natural phenomena. I think we have much more accurate trackers of population difference than what I presume are the generally used racial categories of white, black, asian, Amerindian, and Pacific Islander.

race would be a natural starting point - but of course you could choose any communities, tribes or groups on which to broaden that research.....

 

[Bruno Putzeys]

race would be a natural starting point - but of course you could choose any communities, tribes or groups on which to broaden that research.....

If a given starting point is incorrect it will come out as "no meaningful correlation" after correction for external factors. One can take any starting point one likes. If the research is done right you'll find out if it was a good start or not.

 

[andyandy]

(in common lingo: give the chap a chance.

sure. Benefit of the doubt......

so what are your opinions on the question

Are differences in intelligence (or different types of intelligence) between individuals in large part due to genetic difference?

dave?

 

[Dave1001]

race would be a natural starting point - but of course you could choose any communities, tribes or groups on which to broaden that research.....

I'm not sure race would be a natural starting point for studying IQ differences and heritability at the population level (although I started the thread to talk about at the individual level, I'm interested in this aspect too).

For one thing, most of the world isn't endogamous at the level of race, they're endogamous at the level of ethnicity (or maybe even at the level of cousinship). I don't have the data to back this up (maybe someone here does), but I suspect that once folks break ethnicity-level endogamy, there's not much of a hard barrier to them breaking race-level endogamy either.

So I'd like to see a good reason first from scientists of why they think that race is the natural starting point to look at IQ differences in populations. My sense is that they do it non-transparently (maybe even unknowingly) to help manufacture the real time race norms that we all live with. For example, when one scientist on TV argues that blacks and whites differ in IQ and another scientist on TV argues that whites and blacks don't differ in IQ at the population level, their argument is nontransparently manufacturing our race norm that the natural way for us to look at populations and compare similarities and differences is at the level of race. But from the perspective of trying to understand natural phenomena, I'm not sure those categories actually make the most sense in looking how IQ differs in populations.

 

[Dave1001]

sure. Benefit of the doubt......

so what are your opinions on the question



dave?

So far, the wikipdia article is the best evidence I've seen that IQ is "substantially heritable". Not sure how strongly that correlates with critical thought capacity and intelligence, but the article indicates that it probably does correlate pretty strongly. I'd like to see how that article stands up to serious skeptical scrutiny though.

 

[andyandy]

If a given starting point is incorrect it will come out as "no meaningful correlation" after correction for external factors. One can take any starting point one likes. If the research is done right you'll find out if it was a good start or not.

But there may be "no meaningful correlation" even if your starting point is correct......so even if you have done your research right you wont know if it was a good start or not....

 

[Bruno Putzeys]

So I'd like to see a good reason first from scientists of why they think that race is the natural starting point to look at IQ differences in populations.

Any starting point will do. A proper test will tell you if you chose a good starting point or not. If not, that's a lot of wasted time but in that case at least you know that race doesn't correlate. One reason for taking race as a starting point is simply because some researchers have already claimed to have found a correlation.

I'm not saying that's an efficient way of doing science though. If I were to do a thorough investigation whenever someone told me that an UFO landed in their garden, I'd be busy for a while.

IMHO, when testing for factors correlating with IQ a better start would be to take a large but totally random selection of people and collect any thinkable data about them and their background. When you're done you can start doing a dimension analysis on the results and see how many orthogonal parameters you find. It does take a bloody lot of data to do this reliably though. Much more than if you want to test only one parameter (e.g. race). On the other hand, it greatly simplifies the process of controlling other parameters (e.g. social status). Too often this controlling bit becomes high-tech guesswork.

 

[Bruno Putzeys]

But there may be "no meaningful correlation" even if your starting point is correct......so even if you have done your research right you wont know if it was a good start or not....

Not sure if I get that. Could you give an example?

 

[Dave1001]

IMHO, when testing for factors correlating with IQ a better start would be to take a large but totally random selection of people and collect any thinkable data about them and their background. When you're done you can start doing a dimension analysis on the results and see how many orthogonal parameters you find. It does take a bloody lot of data to do this reliably though.

Yeah, I think that's a great, basic research approach. I wonder to what degree it has been done? And how much data has been collected in such studies?

 

[Mojo]

So far, the wikipdia article is the best evidence I've seen that IQ is "substantially heritable".

If the best evidence you have is a wikipedia article, the idea may be a little shaky. You really need to try looking at the references given in the article to see if they offer anything substantive.

 

[Dave1001]

If the best evidence you have is a wikipedia article, the idea may be a little shaky. You really need to try looking at the references given in the article to see if they offer anything substantive.

Yeah, I'm just being honest about the extent of my research in the topic. I'll look at the references if and when I have time. I welcome others on the thread who have done so to give their appraisal.

Full disclosure: I haven't read The Origin of Species yet, or any peer-reviewed scientific paper on evolution and natural selection, but due to an accumulation of sources such as New York Times Science Section articles and high school and university biology textbooks, the best evidence I've seen supports those theories rather than creationism or intelligent design.

 

[andyandy]

it is a interesting topic....if something of a minefield.....

that children inherit to a degree their level of intelligence from their parents (with perhaps a little regression to the mean) seems generally well accepted...and not especially controversial....

For people living in the prevailing conditions of the developed world, IQ is highly heritable, and by adulthood the influence of family environment on IQ is undetectable. That is, significant variation in IQ between adults can be attributed to genetic variation, with the remaining variation attributable to environmental sources that are not shared within families.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_testing

whilst when you start to divide up people into other broader groups, it does become much more controversial...

While IQ scores of individual members of different racial or ethnic groups are distributed across the IQ scale, groups vary in where their members cluster along the IQ scale. Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians cluster higher than Europeans, while Hispanics and Sub-Saharan Africans cluster lower.[3] Much research has been devoted to the extent and potential causes of racial-ethnic group differences in IQ, and the underlying purposes and validity of the tests has been examined. Most experts conclude that examination of many types of test bias and simple differences in socioeconomic status have failed to explain the IQ clustering differences.[4] For a summary of expert opinions, see Race and Intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_testing



suffice to say, I'm sure most psychologists don't want to touch the subject with a 10 foot barge-pole.....

(in much more detail here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
than i have time for tonight.....)

(and yes they're also from wiki - i'll do some proper research tomorrow... )