How Fragile Is Our Intellect?(drive.google.com)
drive.google.com
How Fragile Is Our Intellect?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3c4TxciNeJZN0I0NzAzVU0zeDQ/view
62 comments
There's your solution to the Fermi Paradox. If the IQ decline is on the order of 1.23 points per decade (with steeper drops on the right tail of the distribution), I can definitely see technological civilization becoming untenable in a few centuries and before we develop strong AI.
I don't think so.
I'd guess the singularity is decades away not centuries.
Genetic engineering babies for higher intelligence is already here. But I'd guess it'll become more effective and common place in decades.
The intelligent tend to clump and interbreed. They breed less, so % might go down but numbers are probably relatively stable.
Add to this many counties like the billions in China currently don't have this problem atm. When they get their education system / poverty sorted they'll add huge numbers to last us out the centuries.
Plus I also think communal intelligence should not be under rated. Even if g drops, systems of group collaboration might keep the issue at bay.
I'd guess the singularity is decades away not centuries.
Genetic engineering babies for higher intelligence is already here. But I'd guess it'll become more effective and common place in decades.
The intelligent tend to clump and interbreed. They breed less, so % might go down but numbers are probably relatively stable.
Add to this many counties like the billions in China currently don't have this problem atm. When they get their education system / poverty sorted they'll add huge numbers to last us out the centuries.
Plus I also think communal intelligence should not be under rated. Even if g drops, systems of group collaboration might keep the issue at bay.
What does any of this have to do with a singularity?
When talking about AI, I'd assume this is the context? ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
There are numerous other possibl explanations to the Fermi Paradox. I lean toward the Olduvai Theory myself: that high-energy technological societies are very frequently short-lived periods in a planet's evolution.
It's also quite possible that many worlds are far more prone to catastrophes than Earth. Which has had a few hard knocks of its own -- asteroid bombardment, toxic atmosphere, snowball Earth, hothouse Earth, supervolcano eruptions, climate change, more asteroid impacts, etc.
On a world where the system kept getting reset every few million years or so, it might be hard for advanced life, let alone civilization, to get off the ground.
It's also quite possible that many worlds are far more prone to catastrophes than Earth. Which has had a few hard knocks of its own -- asteroid bombardment, toxic atmosphere, snowball Earth, hothouse Earth, supervolcano eruptions, climate change, more asteroid impacts, etc.
On a world where the system kept getting reset every few million years or so, it might be hard for advanced life, let alone civilization, to get off the ground.
I know I might downvoted for saying this but this paper is saying what many in favour of eugenics were saying at the beginning of the 20th century.
Edit: On further research, it appears you're pretty much precisely right. This is part of a White Nationalist group with strong ties to eugenics, fascist, neo-Nazi, and other racist organizations.
________________________________
(Earlier)
The notion of a weakening of intelligence or other traits is one that's been kicked around a lot over the years. You'll find it in movies like Idiocracy as well. It's definitely present in a lot of racist / white superiority writings over the years, and some comments below link the Ulster Institute for Social Research with racist fringe elements. I didn't know that when I posted this item.
Turns out that the Ulster Institute for Social Research is the creation of white nationalist Richard Lynn, and has some decidedly racist associations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn
Given that, I'd really be interested in seeing what those with actual backgrounds in genetics and intelligence have to say about the research and methods here.
________________________________
(Earlier)
The notion of a weakening of intelligence or other traits is one that's been kicked around a lot over the years. You'll find it in movies like Idiocracy as well. It's definitely present in a lot of racist / white superiority writings over the years, and some comments below link the Ulster Institute for Social Research with racist fringe elements. I didn't know that when I posted this item.
Turns out that the Ulster Institute for Social Research is the creation of white nationalist Richard Lynn, and has some decidedly racist associations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn
Given that, I'd really be interested in seeing what those with actual backgrounds in genetics and intelligence have to say about the research and methods here.
Thought so.
This is a pretty risky thing for a mainstream scientist to say. Most of the people in the field would be terrified of publishing such a paper even if they believed in it.
But I'd be glad if someone knowledgeable could comment on the validity of the claims in the paper.
The idea that Eugenics might actually work is too disturbing to even consider.
This is a pretty risky thing for a mainstream scientist to say. Most of the people in the field would be terrified of publishing such a paper even if they believed in it.
But I'd be glad if someone knowledgeable could comment on the validity of the claims in the paper.
The idea that Eugenics might actually work is too disturbing to even consider.
Dog or cat breeding gives you some clue a out what happens if you have uncontrolled eugenic-style selective breeding.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/dogs-that-changed-the-world-s...
http://www.icatcare.org:8080/advice/cat-breeds/inherited-dis...
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/dogs-that-changed-the-world-s...
http://www.icatcare.org:8080/advice/cat-breeds/inherited-dis...
The unspoken assumption here is that poor people , immigrants and other such economically backward groups are backward because of their low IQ and the reason for their low IQ is primarily genetic.
IQ is predominantly genetic but it's well known how poor nutrition and upbringing can stunt it. There's lots of potential problems with this argument.
There is some evidence that the higher than average IQ of Asheknazi Jews is because of inbreeding. I posted about it on HN but people are wary of discussing such a sensitive subject.
Even discounting the genetics argument , it can also be considered as some kind of an accidental breeding for IQ as wealthier jewish families tended to have more children.
More here :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence
IQ is predominantly genetic but it's well known how poor nutrition and upbringing can stunt it. There's lots of potential problems with this argument.
There is some evidence that the higher than average IQ of Asheknazi Jews is because of inbreeding. I posted about it on HN but people are wary of discussing such a sensitive subject.
Even discounting the genetics argument , it can also be considered as some kind of an accidental breeding for IQ as wealthier jewish families tended to have more children.
More here :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence
Which has nothing to do with its validity. (And I don't necessarily agree with its conclusions myself.)
But at this point, it's kind of like coming to a discussion of a perpetual motion machine "with an open mind".
[deleted]
You would think that eugenics was thoroughly discredited during the twentieth century, but apparently we need a phrase that means the opposite of “throwing the baby out with the bath water”—unleashing a terrible negative upon the world in order to attain something desirable, but relatively minor and probably attainable by other means.
Thankfully a horrible implementation of a concept does not completely discredit it forever.
You'd be wrong. It's been proven highly effective for humanitarian purposes. It's also quite effective in animals.
https://www.jewishgenetics.org/dor-yeshorim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_breeding
Are you really arguing that the theory of evolution (which is all you need for eugenics to be scientifically valid) has been "thoroughly discredited"?
Note: Nazi science teaches us how to send a rocket to the moon, and also how to drop bombs on people. You don't need to declare rocketry as "discredited" to argue against dropping bombs on people.
https://www.jewishgenetics.org/dor-yeshorim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_breeding
Are you really arguing that the theory of evolution (which is all you need for eugenics to be scientifically valid) has been "thoroughly discredited"?
Note: Nazi science teaches us how to send a rocket to the moon, and also how to drop bombs on people. You don't need to declare rocketry as "discredited" to argue against dropping bombs on people.
I nominate something like, "Swatting a fly with a nuclear bomb."
While I would not be surprised if Humanity is sliding downward, I am cautious about trying to draw conclusions about how evolution works. I feel that evolution works a little bit like that episode in South Park where the disabled turkey named Gobbles is the only turkey to survive the slaughter house because its neck is bent (reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller!_The_Musical).
Interesting related concepts are the Flynn Effect (mentioned in the paper) and Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget%27s_theory_of_cognitive_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget%27s_theory_of_cognitive_...
Out of curiosity, isn't it a violation of copyright to make an academic article from a paid database available publicly?
Technically yes, but with the advent of academia.edu and the cratering public profile of for-profit academic publishers like Elsevier, it's becoming normal. In my field, at least, there's a perception that Elsevier and Wiley won't further damage their reputations by going after individuals posting papers (although I am surprised they haven't targeted Academia.edu as a whole).
Unrelatedly, the author's odd name "Michael Woodley of Menie" caught my eye. It would seem that he's the heir to a Scottish barony (Menie). I hesitate to even go there, but it's at the very least interesting that the (supposed) decline in general intelligence since the Industrial Revolution is being studied by an ancestral nobleman.
Edit: after reading the article and following up on the author's affiliation, the Ulster Institute for Social Research, this is definitely something to be taken with a grain of salt. The Ulster Institute has ties with "racialist" fringe scientists promoting what is essentially a 21st century take on eugenics. The paper is not necessarily inherently flawed because of this, but certain assumptions in it (like the uncited claim that lower socioeconomic classes have been historically correlated with lower g) seem fishy to me as a result.
Unrelatedly, the author's odd name "Michael Woodley of Menie" caught my eye. It would seem that he's the heir to a Scottish barony (Menie). I hesitate to even go there, but it's at the very least interesting that the (supposed) decline in general intelligence since the Industrial Revolution is being studied by an ancestral nobleman.
Edit: after reading the article and following up on the author's affiliation, the Ulster Institute for Social Research, this is definitely something to be taken with a grain of salt. The Ulster Institute has ties with "racialist" fringe scientists promoting what is essentially a 21st century take on eugenics. The paper is not necessarily inherently flawed because of this, but certain assumptions in it (like the uncited claim that lower socioeconomic classes have been historically correlated with lower g) seem fishy to me as a result.
I have to agree that the whole concept of assessing population trends in "g" is pretty tainted at this point. For some reason, this subject tends to attract a certain kind of person with an axe to grind.
> yes
This answered the question.
This answered the question.
Do you have a specific reference to the fringe racist science at UISR? I am not familiar with the organization.
I do find associations with the Flynn Effect and via the Southern Poverty Law Center (a group focused on black rights and equality in the US) a biography on Richard Lynn:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/pro...
“I am deeply pessimistic about the future of the European peoples because mass immigration of third world peoples will lead to these becoming majorities in the United States and westernmost Europe during the present century. I think this will mean the destruction of European civilization in these countries.” —Interview with neo-Nazi Alex Kurtagic, 2011
More via Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn
The source who tipped me off to this particular article is a UK psychologist who posts some interesting and occasionally provocative material on his blog.
I do find associations with the Flynn Effect and via the Southern Poverty Law Center (a group focused on black rights and equality in the US) a biography on Richard Lynn:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/pro...
“I am deeply pessimistic about the future of the European peoples because mass immigration of third world peoples will lead to these becoming majorities in the United States and westernmost Europe during the present century. I think this will mean the destruction of European civilization in these countries.” —Interview with neo-Nazi Alex Kurtagic, 2011
More via Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn
The source who tipped me off to this particular article is a UK psychologist who posts some interesting and occasionally provocative material on his blog.
Updating my earlier response -- these aren't just "ties", the Institute was founded, and is headed, by a noted White Nationalist.
The source I'd picked up the item from is, it seems, quite the racist himself. I should have seen it earlier given the topics he covered and how he was doing so in his blog.
The area of research interests me, but I'm exceptionally dubious about this paper.
Oh, and Woodley appears to be the son of Michael Woodley, aerial effects coordinator for several James Bond films. The elder acquired the estate in 1995. So this doesn't appear to be old money, per se.
The source I'd picked up the item from is, it seems, quite the racist himself. I should have seen it earlier given the topics he covered and how he was doing so in his blog.
The area of research interests me, but I'm exceptionally dubious about this paper.
Oh, and Woodley appears to be the son of Michael Woodley, aerial effects coordinator for several James Bond films. The elder acquired the estate in 1995. So this doesn't appear to be old money, per se.
On yet further research: the paper was produced by an academic with an affiliation at the Ulster Institute. To the best of my knowledge the paper is being hosted by Dr. James Thompson, who sits on the academic advisory council of that same institute. http://ulsterinstitute.org/
I've commented above on the nature and issues concerning the institute, in particular its ties with white nationalists, racists, eugenics proponents, neo-Nazis, and fascists.
I've commented above on the nature and issues concerning the institute, in particular its ties with white nationalists, racists, eugenics proponents, neo-Nazis, and fascists.
It's worth noting that embryo selection might be coming really soon http://nautil.us/issue/18/genius/super_intelligent-humans-ar...
and that will have a much bigger influence on the evolution of human intelligence than any effects related to natural selection.
What worries me much more than dysgenic effects is the fact that people in western countries tend to have a strong aversion to any discussion of genetics and intelligence, which means that these countries may end up being late adopters of embryo selection or genetic engineering technology.
What worries me much more than dysgenic effects is the fact that people in western countries tend to have a strong aversion to any discussion of genetics and intelligence, which means that these countries may end up being late adopters of embryo selection or genetic engineering technology.
I find interesting that while the issue about the connection between race and IQ has been widely commented here, nowbody questions (an many reapeat) the idea that wealth and IQ are correlated. In fact, surveying the Internet one can quickly find that this idea is widely considered wrong. However, the fact that it is accepted acritically here shows a lot about how the American-dream ideology and this false sense of meritocracy is so deep inside the contemporary tech culture.
I'm regretting posting this, though I suppose it may well serve as an advisory and notice to others.
My source for the article is a UK psychologist, James Thompson, who'd been posting a few interesting and provocative bits of speculation on the Ebola situation. It seems he's got quite an interest in the works of one Richard Lynn, whose name appears in 65 postings to
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=site:drjamesthompson.b...
So, who is Richard Lynn, you ask?
This is what the Southern Poverty Law Center, an American nonprofit civil rights organization noted for its legal victories against white supremacist groups, its legal representation for victims of hate groups, its classification of militias and extremist organizations, and its educational programs that promote tolerance, has to say about him, whom they describe as a White Nationalist:
For 50 years, Richard Lynn has been at the forefront of scientific racism. An unapologetic eugenicist, Lynn uses his authority as professor (emeritus) of psychology at the University of Ulster to argue for the genetic inferiority of non-white people. Lynn believes that IQ tests can be used to determine the worth of groups of people, especially racial groups and nations. The wealth and power of nations, according to Lynn, is due to their racial intelligence and “homogeneity” (or “purity”). He argues that the nations with the highest IQs must subjugate or eliminate the lower-IQ groups within their borders in order to preserve their dominance.
Mr. Lynn himself is quoted:
I am deeply pessimistic about the future of the European peoples because mass immigration of third world peoples will lead to these becoming majorities in the United States and westernmost Europe during the present century. I think this will mean the destruction of European civilization in these countries.
—Interview with neo-Nazi Alex Kurtagic, 2011
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/pro...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center
Michael A. Woodley of Menie's Google Citations pulls out any number of interesting titles:
"Inbreeding and national IQ revisited: Postscript to Woodley (2009)"
"Were the Victorians cleverer than us? The decline in general intelligence estimated from a meta-analysis of the slowing of simple reaction time"
"Political orientations, intelligence and education"
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=mmoY0-kAAAAJ&hl=en
Woodley's own background is of some interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balmedie
I'm prepared to say at this point that the paper should probably be read with extreme skepticism. There may be merits to research in this area, but the affiliations of this researcher call into serious question any possible impartiality.
My apologies.
My source for the article is a UK psychologist, James Thompson, who'd been posting a few interesting and provocative bits of speculation on the Ebola situation. It seems he's got quite an interest in the works of one Richard Lynn, whose name appears in 65 postings to
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=site:drjamesthompson.b...
So, who is Richard Lynn, you ask?
This is what the Southern Poverty Law Center, an American nonprofit civil rights organization noted for its legal victories against white supremacist groups, its legal representation for victims of hate groups, its classification of militias and extremist organizations, and its educational programs that promote tolerance, has to say about him, whom they describe as a White Nationalist:
For 50 years, Richard Lynn has been at the forefront of scientific racism. An unapologetic eugenicist, Lynn uses his authority as professor (emeritus) of psychology at the University of Ulster to argue for the genetic inferiority of non-white people. Lynn believes that IQ tests can be used to determine the worth of groups of people, especially racial groups and nations. The wealth and power of nations, according to Lynn, is due to their racial intelligence and “homogeneity” (or “purity”). He argues that the nations with the highest IQs must subjugate or eliminate the lower-IQ groups within their borders in order to preserve their dominance.
Mr. Lynn himself is quoted:
I am deeply pessimistic about the future of the European peoples because mass immigration of third world peoples will lead to these becoming majorities in the United States and westernmost Europe during the present century. I think this will mean the destruction of European civilization in these countries.
—Interview with neo-Nazi Alex Kurtagic, 2011
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/pro...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center
Michael A. Woodley of Menie's Google Citations pulls out any number of interesting titles:
"Inbreeding and national IQ revisited: Postscript to Woodley (2009)"
"Were the Victorians cleverer than us? The decline in general intelligence estimated from a meta-analysis of the slowing of simple reaction time"
"Political orientations, intelligence and education"
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=mmoY0-kAAAAJ&hl=en
Woodley's own background is of some interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balmedie
I'm prepared to say at this point that the paper should probably be read with extreme skepticism. There may be merits to research in this area, but the affiliations of this researcher call into serious question any possible impartiality.
My apologies.
I don't think you need to apologize - it's an interesting case study of how the apparatus of a scholarly journal, an academic affiliation and scientific credentials can lead us in sometimes scary directions. Historians and philosophers of science are right: who funds social sciences research, and the backgrounds of those who conduct it, sometimes really does matter. Not in the sense of 90s debates about relativism, but in a more practical sense that research questions in the social sciences don't emerge out of a vacuum and often have political overtones. I think you're correct in suspecting that this is one of those cases.
To those who are saying that this particular paper isn't invalidated by unsavory ties: you're right. But like I pointed out below, there are uncited claims about low intelligence correlating to lower economic status in the early modern period in here that strike me as suspect given the wider context.
To those who are saying that this particular paper isn't invalidated by unsavory ties: you're right. But like I pointed out below, there are uncited claims about low intelligence correlating to lower economic status in the early modern period in here that strike me as suspect given the wider context.
> the Southern Poverty Law Center, an American nonprofit civil rights organization
You seem to be trading one extremist group against another. the SPLC, whatever its origins (after the civil rights victories had been won) has morphed into a hybrid of an extreme left wing organization (they seem to never find leftists are hate groups, while anyone on the right seems to qualify) and a very very nice profit center for those who control it.
You seem to be trading one extremist group against another. the SPLC, whatever its origins (after the civil rights victories had been won) has morphed into a hybrid of an extreme left wing organization (they seem to never find leftists are hate groups, while anyone on the right seems to qualify) and a very very nice profit center for those who control it.
> the genetic inferiority of non-white people
The first sentence in paragraph three of his Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn) states that an experiment he conducted in the 1970s revealed North-East Asian people to have IQs on average 6 points higher than Europeans.
Certainly an interesting position for a person who "argue[s] for the genetic inferiority of non-white people" to prominently advocate.
The first sentence in paragraph three of his Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn) states that an experiment he conducted in the 1970s revealed North-East Asian people to have IQs on average 6 points higher than Europeans.
Certainly an interesting position for a person who "argue[s] for the genetic inferiority of non-white people" to prominently advocate.
Because civil rights groups don't like him, it doesn't invalidate his work.
Conversely, just because something is published as a scientific paper doesn't mean it's worth the paper it's printed on.
That's true, but it's properly an argument against all peer-reviewed scientific works.
I would like to see more awareness of the increased skepticism that attaches to scientific work whose conclusions we find morally repugnant.
I would like to see more awareness of the increased skepticism that attaches to scientific work whose conclusions we find morally repugnant.
I don't see that this conclusion is particularly repugnant. However, the author has a strong bias in the form of related opinions that are both morally repugnant and highly irrational, and that casts strong doubts on his objectivity here.
While it's good to point out that this also does not invalidate the conclusions, it's a rather different thing from what you've said.
While it's good to point out that this also does not invalidate the conclusions, it's a rather different thing from what you've said.
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
And further: Thompson is on the advisory board of the Ulster Institute, listed on its homepage.
to argue for the genetic inferiority of non-white people
I wonder if he considers Asians to be white.
I wonder if he considers Asians to be white.
Paragraph 3 of his Wikipedia page reveals that he considers North-East Asians to be about 6 IQ points more intelligent than Europeans, based on a study he performed in the 1970s.
So he would appear not to be as uncomplicated a racist as the parent comment implied. Which is a blow, to be sure; but I imagine that if we sling enough mud, some will stick, so there's hope for our noble smear campaign yet!
So he would appear not to be as uncomplicated a racist as the parent comment implied. Which is a blow, to be sure; but I imagine that if we sling enough mud, some will stick, so there's hope for our noble smear campaign yet!
"But we think Asians are smarter than Europeans" has been a popular excuse used by purveyors of scientific racism for decades. Before that, Jews were used as the "model minority". It doesn't change the basic purpose of the endeavor, which is to purport to rank the peoples of the world by intellectual capacity.
Besides, the specter of the hyperintelligent alien is useful if what you're selling is the fear of the decline of the white race. The persistent message is that permissive liberal policies are allowing low-IQ populations to come to Anglo-European nations and thrive, causing said nations to lose ground to more ethnically homogenous ones.
Besides, the specter of the hyperintelligent alien is useful if what you're selling is the fear of the decline of the white race. The persistent message is that permissive liberal policies are allowing low-IQ populations to come to Anglo-European nations and thrive, causing said nations to lose ground to more ethnically homogenous ones.
I have a few objections, but for now I'll focus on what I take to be the underlying issue that we disagree on.
> It doesn't change the basic purpose of the endeavor, which is to purport to rank the peoples of the world by intellectual capacity.
Based on this statement, I suspect our fundamental disagreement is over whether it does more harm than good to consciously deny empirical evidence for something when it has the potential to be spun into harmful propaganda. My position is that, while saying some true things can lead to harm in this way, it's more damaging to suppress or deny this information. How can it possibly be more damaging to forbid people from saying something inflammatory, like "Asians are smarter than Europeans" or "Europeans are smarter than Africans", than to allow it? Because the biggest gift you can give someone with a harmful agenda is something that looks to the untrained eye like a rational argument with solid empirical support, and then attempt to silence them.
You might bristle, but, according to studies I've seen, a white supremacist is not actually wrong when s/he announces that "Black people are on average less intelligent than white people!". What is wrong is the implication that they intend: that black people therefore deserve less respect/money/rights/something than do white people. As I see it, by trying to make discussion of the empirical data itself taboo, well-intentioned equality-minded people are only feeding the mistaken belief that, were there to be a genuine, measurable difference, the implication of being less deserving would follow. Not only is this false, it gives the supremacist more firepower: they can now truthfully claim, in addition, that "Liberals don't want this information to be known!".
One of the underexamined issues here is the special role of intelligence in the popular understanding of what it means to be human. We aren't threatened to the same extent by people drawing group-level distinctions based on, say, athletic ability. Our attachment to the idea of intelligence as central to humanity is, I believe, simply an unfortunate habit of mind. Fortunately, we're not totally governed by it: we don't put a murderer in prison longer if they murder someone highly intelligent. We already collectively agree that there are fundamental things to which we're all entitled based on nothing more than our humanity. (It's unfortunately true that there are many gaps and inconsistencies still in existence, but my point is that we aspire to treat people equally in these respects regardless of intelligence, and that in some cases at least, we achieve it.)
This is the right way forward, I believe. We need to create a widespread understanding that, even if average-level group differences exist in traits as beloved as intelligence, this would not imply anything about that person morally -- that is, about what that person deserves in life. With this in place, a supremacist's boasts about their race's intelligence have no more recruiting power than yelling out "Black people have darker skin than white people!" or "An object at rest tends to remain at rest!", or any other empirically demonstrable fact.
> It doesn't change the basic purpose of the endeavor, which is to purport to rank the peoples of the world by intellectual capacity.
Based on this statement, I suspect our fundamental disagreement is over whether it does more harm than good to consciously deny empirical evidence for something when it has the potential to be spun into harmful propaganda. My position is that, while saying some true things can lead to harm in this way, it's more damaging to suppress or deny this information. How can it possibly be more damaging to forbid people from saying something inflammatory, like "Asians are smarter than Europeans" or "Europeans are smarter than Africans", than to allow it? Because the biggest gift you can give someone with a harmful agenda is something that looks to the untrained eye like a rational argument with solid empirical support, and then attempt to silence them.
You might bristle, but, according to studies I've seen, a white supremacist is not actually wrong when s/he announces that "Black people are on average less intelligent than white people!". What is wrong is the implication that they intend: that black people therefore deserve less respect/money/rights/something than do white people. As I see it, by trying to make discussion of the empirical data itself taboo, well-intentioned equality-minded people are only feeding the mistaken belief that, were there to be a genuine, measurable difference, the implication of being less deserving would follow. Not only is this false, it gives the supremacist more firepower: they can now truthfully claim, in addition, that "Liberals don't want this information to be known!".
One of the underexamined issues here is the special role of intelligence in the popular understanding of what it means to be human. We aren't threatened to the same extent by people drawing group-level distinctions based on, say, athletic ability. Our attachment to the idea of intelligence as central to humanity is, I believe, simply an unfortunate habit of mind. Fortunately, we're not totally governed by it: we don't put a murderer in prison longer if they murder someone highly intelligent. We already collectively agree that there are fundamental things to which we're all entitled based on nothing more than our humanity. (It's unfortunately true that there are many gaps and inconsistencies still in existence, but my point is that we aspire to treat people equally in these respects regardless of intelligence, and that in some cases at least, we achieve it.)
This is the right way forward, I believe. We need to create a widespread understanding that, even if average-level group differences exist in traits as beloved as intelligence, this would not imply anything about that person morally -- that is, about what that person deserves in life. With this in place, a supremacist's boasts about their race's intelligence have no more recruiting power than yelling out "Black people have darker skin than white people!" or "An object at rest tends to remain at rest!", or any other empirically demonstrable fact.
> You might bristle, but, according to studies I've seen, a white supremacist is not actually wrong when s/he announces that "Black people are on average less intelligent than white people!".
I must object. Nobody knows how to define or measure "intelligence." When you/they say "intelligence" what is actually being discussed is a specific artificial measure that's meant to indicate what we consider "intelligence," with varying amounts of success.
In addition to the general problems of defining and measuring "intelligence," which nobody really understands how to do, there's also the more specific problem that the techniques developed so far are often biased against minorities.
There's also the problem of cause. The racist crazies tend to interpret any difference as "Disliked Minority X is inherently less intelligent," even though it's almost impossible to distinguish between differences caused by nature versus nurture. If differences are real, how much is due to genetics and how much is due to being oppressed for generations and therefore receiving inferior education and opportunities?
Finally, even if there were a difference, and even if it were inherent, there's the problem of group versus individual. To make this more concrete, let's momentarily ditch intelligence and look at something more morally clear, like propensity for violent crime. Let's say it's demonstrated incontrovertibly that purple people are 10x more prone to violent crime than green people. That still doesn't justify systematic discrimination against purple people, even though the data is clear and the morality of the difference is clear, because individuals matter. Just because purple people are more likely on average to be violent criminals doesn't mean any individual one is. To justify different treatment based on race, you'd have to show that every purple person was this way, which is simply not true.
When it comes to real-world intelligence in real-world races, it's even less relevant, because variation within groups far outweighs variations between groups. Even if it was demonstrated that intelligence varied between races and even if it was decided that lower intelligence somehow merits bad treatment, this still wouldn't justify systematic racism.
In short, there are a bunch of different questions:
1. What are we even measuring?
2. Does a difference even exist?
3. Does that difference justify different treatment?
4. Does a group-level difference justify prejudging individuals within the group?
You seem to be concentrating on #3 exclusively. While it's a fascinating question, I also think it's the least relevant to questions of race, precisely because individual differences far outweigh even the craziest speculated differences by fevered racists. The question of how to deal with people of different intelligence is a good one, but it tells us virtually nothing about race relations as compared to e.g. how to set up Special Education programs.
I must object. Nobody knows how to define or measure "intelligence." When you/they say "intelligence" what is actually being discussed is a specific artificial measure that's meant to indicate what we consider "intelligence," with varying amounts of success.
In addition to the general problems of defining and measuring "intelligence," which nobody really understands how to do, there's also the more specific problem that the techniques developed so far are often biased against minorities.
There's also the problem of cause. The racist crazies tend to interpret any difference as "Disliked Minority X is inherently less intelligent," even though it's almost impossible to distinguish between differences caused by nature versus nurture. If differences are real, how much is due to genetics and how much is due to being oppressed for generations and therefore receiving inferior education and opportunities?
Finally, even if there were a difference, and even if it were inherent, there's the problem of group versus individual. To make this more concrete, let's momentarily ditch intelligence and look at something more morally clear, like propensity for violent crime. Let's say it's demonstrated incontrovertibly that purple people are 10x more prone to violent crime than green people. That still doesn't justify systematic discrimination against purple people, even though the data is clear and the morality of the difference is clear, because individuals matter. Just because purple people are more likely on average to be violent criminals doesn't mean any individual one is. To justify different treatment based on race, you'd have to show that every purple person was this way, which is simply not true.
When it comes to real-world intelligence in real-world races, it's even less relevant, because variation within groups far outweighs variations between groups. Even if it was demonstrated that intelligence varied between races and even if it was decided that lower intelligence somehow merits bad treatment, this still wouldn't justify systematic racism.
In short, there are a bunch of different questions:
1. What are we even measuring?
2. Does a difference even exist?
3. Does that difference justify different treatment?
4. Does a group-level difference justify prejudging individuals within the group?
You seem to be concentrating on #3 exclusively. While it's a fascinating question, I also think it's the least relevant to questions of race, precisely because individual differences far outweigh even the craziest speculated differences by fevered racists. The question of how to deal with people of different intelligence is a good one, but it tells us virtually nothing about race relations as compared to e.g. how to set up Special Education programs.
It doesn't change the basic purpose of the endeavor, which is to purport to rank the peoples of the world by intellectual capacity.
A general feature of many scientific endeavors is to measure $CARDINAL_PROPERTY across $CATEGORY - beak length across birds, speed across big cats, lifetime across mammals, etc. Do you oppose all these fields of inquiry, e.g. ranking stars by their brightness?
Or are these questions merely forbidden to ask about humans, due to some privileged position granted to us by god (or whatever)?
A general feature of many scientific endeavors is to measure $CARDINAL_PROPERTY across $CATEGORY - beak length across birds, speed across big cats, lifetime across mammals, etc. Do you oppose all these fields of inquiry, e.g. ranking stars by their brightness?
Or are these questions merely forbidden to ask about humans, due to some privileged position granted to us by god (or whatever)?
To be fair, Asians DO score higher than Europeans -- it isn't just some ploy to establish credibility. Anyone looking at SAT data can tell you that.
I would frame your objection a bit differently: finding an Asian IQ advantage is in no way incompatible with racism or white supremacism. Many of these guys (Rushton for example) believe that Asians are inferior in areas other than IQ.
I would frame your objection a bit differently: finding an Asian IQ advantage is in no way incompatible with racism or white supremacism. Many of these guys (Rushton for example) believe that Asians are inferior in areas other than IQ.
I would say that most things are in no way incompatible with racism or white supremacism -- but that finding (and publicising) an Asian IQ advantage is incompatible (at least, for a white racist). But then my concept of racism might be different: I mean it to be any attempt to position members of some/all other races as inferior in some morally important respect, in order to justify treating them badly.
Do you know if Rushton's beliefs that Asians are inferior in other areas are based on experiments? I'd be interested in any links you might have.
Do you know if Rushton's beliefs that Asians are inferior in other areas are based on experiments? I'd be interested in any links you might have.
Check the references, he cites Cattell, about whom this was written: http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bios/cattell/genetica.htm
"""Cattell’s critical remarks about Hitler in later years trivialize the horrors of the past and the dangers inherent in fascist ideology. In Cattell (1972, p. 406), for example, he compares Hitler to "the murderous Hippie cults of California.""""
""" Despite this, Cattell could write in 1938 that the "envy" and "hostility" of the "Atlantic Democracies" over "the rise of Germany, Italy, and Japan," was uncalled-for. Citizens in these fascist states had "disciplined their indulgences" and focused their energies on "a religious purpose." The rise of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany "should be welcomed by the religious man as reassuring evidence that in spite of modern wealth and ease, we shall not be allowed to sink into stagnation or adopt foolish social practices in fatal detachment from the stream of evolution" (Cattell, 1938, p. 149). After five decades of reflection, Cattell has concluded that the legacy of this catastrophe has been a mental "disorder" he calls "ignoracism" - the inability "to consider the scientific possibility that races may show statistically significant differences" (Cattell, 1972, p. 262). In other words, the Nazis created such a revulsion to racism that it resulted in "ignoracism" - the refusal to accept the reality of racial differences! """
"""Cattell’s critical remarks about Hitler in later years trivialize the horrors of the past and the dangers inherent in fascist ideology. In Cattell (1972, p. 406), for example, he compares Hitler to "the murderous Hippie cults of California.""""
""" Despite this, Cattell could write in 1938 that the "envy" and "hostility" of the "Atlantic Democracies" over "the rise of Germany, Italy, and Japan," was uncalled-for. Citizens in these fascist states had "disciplined their indulgences" and focused their energies on "a religious purpose." The rise of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany "should be welcomed by the religious man as reassuring evidence that in spite of modern wealth and ease, we shall not be allowed to sink into stagnation or adopt foolish social practices in fatal detachment from the stream of evolution" (Cattell, 1938, p. 149). After five decades of reflection, Cattell has concluded that the legacy of this catastrophe has been a mental "disorder" he calls "ignoracism" - the inability "to consider the scientific possibility that races may show statistically significant differences" (Cattell, 1972, p. 262). In other words, the Nazis created such a revulsion to racism that it resulted in "ignoracism" - the refusal to accept the reality of racial differences! """
Good call.
I really didn't know these associations before posting this piece. I'm quite embarrassed.
I really didn't know these associations before posting this piece. I'm quite embarrassed.
And how, exactly, is this relevant?
It's relevant because I find I've posted a paper from a researcher associated with a strongly eugenicist, White Nationalist organization with ties to neo-Nazi and Fascist groups. I did not realize this when I posted the item.
Again, how is this relevant? Science is to be pursued on the merits of the research, not the researchers.
I've addressed this in several comments elsewhere. But briefly: if research is conducted with an overt agenda and with predetermined conclusions, then its validity is called strongly into question. At the very least, those reading the research should be exceptionally skeptical.
As a specific example concerning Richard Lynn, his division of "three major racial groups" (see the SPLC article linked elsewhere here) falls flat in the face of numerous fallacies, among them that "negroid" isn't a single racial category (whatever that means), but as a collective of all indigenous populations of Africa is generally held to represent greater diversity than all other human populations combined.
It's just bad science.
If the assumption is that humans are destined to ever greater intelligence -- well, that may well not be true either. Evolution is not teleological, it is not goal-oriented. It is variation subject to selection.
I do think that the question of what selective pressures are being exerted on human populations presently is an open question. That genetic drift and the cost and complexity of sustaining our complicated brains is an interesting area for research. It's exceptionally fraught though. And the affiliations of the researcher and institutions in question, as well as my source on this, lead me to question its value strongly.
As a specific example concerning Richard Lynn, his division of "three major racial groups" (see the SPLC article linked elsewhere here) falls flat in the face of numerous fallacies, among them that "negroid" isn't a single racial category (whatever that means), but as a collective of all indigenous populations of Africa is generally held to represent greater diversity than all other human populations combined.
It's just bad science.
If the assumption is that humans are destined to ever greater intelligence -- well, that may well not be true either. Evolution is not teleological, it is not goal-oriented. It is variation subject to selection.
I do think that the question of what selective pressures are being exerted on human populations presently is an open question. That genetic drift and the cost and complexity of sustaining our complicated brains is an interesting area for research. It's exceptionally fraught though. And the affiliations of the researcher and institutions in question, as well as my source on this, lead me to question its value strongly.
Please clarify:
In the third paragraph, should the word "complimentary" have been spelled "complementary"?
In the third paragraph, should the word "complimentary" have been spelled "complementary"?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti...
(The contraception in the water supply he clarified later was a joke)