5 ms·

> Is it ideal that Americans get squeamish whenever intelligence is brought up? But they don't get squeamish. They confidently claim there is no basis for inte

> Is it ideal that Americans get squeamish whenever intelligence is brought up? But they don't get squeamish. They confidently claim there is no basis for intelligence (or personality in general) in genetics [1,2], then use any differences in behavior or outcomes as evidence of racism. [1] I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. ― Stephen Jay Gould [2] In fact, you did so in your very post, comparing the link between genes and intelligence to Lysenkoism or Phlogiston.

mindslight 4y ago
I don't know if you could have picked a worse quote to back up your point than footnote #1. While it is likely true [0,1] that the mean/median of one group is more genetically intelligent-capable than the mean/median of a different group, the variance is going to make it so that there are extremely intelligent outliers in both groups. And if we're focused on intelligence and its products, the potential of those outliers being wasted due to slavery/poverty/racism/etc is the travesty being pointed out by the quote. [0] Intelligence capability obviously relies on genetics. In the most obvious way, the genes of ursa americana result in a much less capable brain than the genes of homo sapiens. So, unless maximum "intelligence-capability" is the thing most strongly selected for (doubtful), genes that cause higher intelligence capability are going to be correlated with other genes that developed at the same time. But actually measuring that, in some objective way? I'd say you're better off focusing on the other end of trying to define what "intelligence" even is, at the computational level, and then the organizational level, before you can even think about judging the contributions of the biological substrate level. [1] The reason this is generally ignored or even rejected is that it's an utter red herring. At most you can say it influences individual outcomes by a tiny bit, while being overwhelmingly swamped by the larger issues of culture, nurture, environment, access to resources, and overarching personality. Meanwhile, less intelligent people love to reference their race as evidence of their own intelligence/virtue/etc, because happenstance attributes of their existence are their primary "accomplishments". So it's best to not add fuel to that fire.
- pannSun 4y ago
  I apologize, I should have included more context. While the quote by Gould is obviously true in a literal sense, Gould himself was in the business of debunking "biological determinism" [1]. In that light, the quote is an admission that he does not care about truth, that his research is a mere means to, or foundation for, a political end. I.e. Lysenkoism. [1] Calling it "determinism" sets up a clever strawman by giving the impression that only genes matter, and environment has no effect. Strengthening the strawman case is how his book on the subject devotes many pages to debunking 19th century science. And doesn't even get that right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man#Reassessing_Morton's_skull_measurements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man#Reassess...
- ackfoobar 4y ago
  Wasted potential due to slavery/poverty/racism is a travesty, I agree with that 100%. Thankfully this is a much smaller concern than a century ago. A bigger problem in the present day, however, is the wasted potential from polices that come from the denial of difference. https://web.archive.org/web/20210612203955/https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/06/04/california-math-class-detrack-race-equity/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210612203955/https://www.washi...
woodruffw 4y ago
I didn’t compare genetic general intelligence to Lysenkoism. I compared eugenics to it; the critical difference is the misguided conceit that we can engineer general intelligence. And yes, lots of Americans correctly identify that racism plays a significant role in perceptions of intelligence. This doesn’t alter the fact that many are squeamish about discussing it directly.

mindslight 4y ago

I don't know if you could have picked a worse quote to back up your point than footnote #1. While it is likely true [0,1] that the mean/median of one group is more genetically intelligent-capable than the mean/median of a different group, the variance is going to make it so that there are extremely intelligent outliers in both groups. And if we're focused on intelligence and its products, the potential of those outliers being wasted due to slavery/poverty/racism/etc is the travesty being pointed out by the quote. [0] Intelligence capability obviously relies on genetics. In the most obvious way, the genes of ursa americana result in a much less capable brain than the genes of homo sapiens. So, unless maximum "intelligence-capability" is the thing most strongly selected for (doubtful), genes that cause higher intelligence capability are going to be correlated with other genes that developed at the same time. But actually measuring that, in some objective way? I'd say you're better off focusing on the other end of trying to define what "intelligence" even is, at the computational level, and then the organizational level, before you can even think about judging the contributions of the biological substrate level. [1] The reason this is generally ignored or even rejected is that it's an utter red herring. At most you can say it influences individual outcomes by a tiny bit, while being overwhelmingly swamped by the larger issues of culture, nurture, environment, access to resources, and overarching personality. Meanwhile, less intelligent people love to reference their race as evidence of their own intelligence/virtue/etc, because happenstance attributes of their existence are their primary "accomplishments". So it's best to not add fuel to that fire.

pannSun 4y ago
I apologize, I should have included more context. While the quote by Gould is obviously true in a literal sense, Gould himself was in the business of debunking "biological determinism" [1]. In that light, the quote is an admission that he does not care about truth, that his research is a mere means to, or foundation for, a political end. I.e. Lysenkoism. [1] Calling it "determinism" sets up a clever strawman by giving the impression that only genes matter, and environment has no effect. Strengthening the strawman case is how his book on the subject devotes many pages to debunking 19th century science. And doesn't even get that right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man#Reassessing_Morton's_skull_measurements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man#Reassess...
ackfoobar 4y ago
Wasted potential due to slavery/poverty/racism is a travesty, I agree with that 100%. Thankfully this is a much smaller concern than a century ago. A bigger problem in the present day, however, is the wasted potential from polices that come from the denial of difference. https://web.archive.org/web/20210612203955/https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/06/04/california-math-class-detrack-race-equity/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210612203955/https://www.washi...

woodruffw 4y ago

I didn’t compare genetic general intelligence to Lysenkoism. I compared eugenics to it; the critical difference is the misguided conceit that we can engineer general intelligence. And yes, lots of Americans correctly identify that racism plays a significant role in perceptions of intelligence. This doesn’t alter the fact that many are squeamish about discussing it directly.