5 ms·
"Research into the science of intelligence has been used in the past "to target particular racial groups or individuals and delegitimize them,"" says a watchdog
by guylhem 14y ago
"Research into the science of intelligence has been used in the past "to target particular racial groups or individuals and delegitimize them,"" says a watchdog group eager for money and public support for its pet cause.
WHO CARES?
I mean, from what we understand so far of the genetics of IQ, there might be some slight differences based on ethnicity - which is nothing unexpected, as you can see the same variability for blood groups, hair color, HLA, etc.
Basically different groups of people have a different distribution of some genes than other groups of people, and therefore a show a difference in the expression of these genes that can be aggregated at the group level to show... a difference in the visible characteristics between groups. Wow, what a shocking discovery.
The really interesting thing is these genetic differences between ethnic groups are dwarfed by the difference a good upbringing (alimentation and education) can get. And since there are also promising results about the inheritability of IQ, these inter ethnic group differences might also be dwarfed by INTRA group differences.
That is the best argument if this watchdog group really want to disprove that "targetting of particular racial groups"
So instead of crying wolf, they should embrace such research- after all, when we have pinned down some alleles that confers good advantages, one can think a drug could be created, or gene therapy, or whatever - in the end, the whole human population would benefit from it.
Stop thinking about ethnicity. Only the end result matters. It's a shame people in north america and europe are such crybabies about these issues. Thanks China for taking such an endeavour that might benefit humanity - even today naysayers.
(and I say this as someone who does not believe that IQ can be accurately identified or measured with todays techniques, but still there is some noticeable difference between people innate abilities - and trying to understand causes them is a good thing. many genes are likely to be involved, and 10 000 certainly won't be enough, but it's a good start)
- jbattle 14y agoI suppose people groups who have had hundreds of years of experience of being oppressed with excuses from the Bible, Social Darwinism or the like might care. As a species we have considerably more experience with racial/ethnic judgement leading to suffering than leading to something beneficial. Not to say that it's impossible, but it strikes me as very reasonable for us to argue very thoroughly about the potential implications of this kind of research. I hope we can find a way to improve life for all people. When vaccines first became available there were probably jerks like me moaning about imagined terrible consequences. But that doesn't mean every change made possible by science would necessarily be as equally beneficial. If we find out that people from East Whateveria have a mean IQ 25 lower than the global target, does that mean we have a right or obligation to "fix" them? What if they don't want to be fixed? I'll attempt stop short of pulling a Godwin, but note that this sort of 'fix defective populations for the benefit of the whole human populations' has a mixed record.
- guylhem 14y agoPeople are free to do what they want. No moral obligation - just freedom. But if by any chance I found that I had this same mutation and could take advantage of their fix, I would be interested. If you found out say your son had the same mutation, wouldn't you be interested as well? Please note we are not taking about East Whateveria or how West Whateveria might gloat about not having this mutation. We are just talking about how oneday we might have the freedom to take such a decision for ourselves. Because it's all about freedom, and unfortunately without having the scientific know-how it's pointless to speculate about what we might do. This is why I support such initiatives- it will offer more possibilities, possibilities that we can only dream about now.
- jbattle 14y ago> People are free to do what they want. No moral obligation - just freedom. You assume that, I don't. At least not for enormous numbers of humans past and present.
- icelancer 14y agoThe fact that science has scared off a sufficient amount of idiots in the past doesn't make it a bad thing.
- kanzure 14y ago> We are just talking about how oneday we might have the freedom to take such a decision for ourselves. Unfortunately, watchdog groups like to argue that having that option is detrimental. They usually conflate it with claims of "ethnic eugenics". Btw, to a large extent today you already have the ability to make genetic modifications before insemination or embryo implantation. Screening too..
- icelancer 14y agoAllowing ourselves to be ruled by the fear of objective facts is the ultimate level of stupidity.
- Strshps1MoreTim 14y agoThere is a huge difference based on ethnicity. The average IQ for Ashkenazi Jews is 125, while say the people from West European origin have around 100. That's the difference between somebody capable of doing good job in construction and someone capable of becoming a surgeon.
- ReverendBayes 14y agoWrong, by about a standard deviation. The mean iq of the Ashkenazi is about 113, the average for a very good nurse or less than average accountant. Of course, that mean deviation is still statistically significant enough to show a disproportion of outliers of extrema of a normal distribution. Just get your numbers straight before making statements about the matter.
- Strshps1MoreTim 14y agoCan be, just seen the number of 125 in some study. By surgeon I meant a PhD doing operations on humans, but I guest somewhere it means a a nurse.
- rsaarelm 14y agoPeople used to use an IQ test scale that had 24 instead of the current 15 IQ points as the standard deviation. An 125 IQ in that scale would correspond to 116 IQ in the currently used one.
- lutusp 14y agoNo, a different standard deviation doesn't change the scores, only the predicted population distribution of the scores. If you sit down to a standardized IQ test, your score won't change because someone thinks the distribution of scores within the population is wider than someone else does.
- rsaarelm 14y ago
- bromang 14y agocan you provide a citation for the claim that quality of education has a significant effect on IQ?