Here are the abstract of papers in Intelligence debating the relevance of the Flynn Effect to the white-black IQ gap. J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur R. Jensen write:
In this Editorial we correct the false claim that g loadings and inbreeding depression scores correlate with the secular gains in IQ. This claim has been used to render the logic of heritable g a “red herring” and an “absurdity” as an explanation of Black–White differences because secular gains are environmental in origin. In point of fact, while g loadings and inbreeding depression scores on the 11 subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children correlate significantly positively with Black–White differences (0.61 and 0.48, Pb0.001), they correlate significantly negatively (or not at all) with the secular gains (mean r=−0.33, Pb0.001; and 0.13, ns, respectively). Moreover, heritabilities calculated from twins also correlate with the g loadings (r=0.99, Pb0.001 for the estimated true correlation), providing biological evidence for a true genetic g, as opposed to a mere statistical g. While the secular gains are on g-loaded tests (such as the Wechsler), they are negatively correlated with the most g-loaded components of those tests. Also, the tests lose their g loadedness over time with training, retesting, and familiarity. In an analysis of mathematics and reading scores from tests such as the NAEP and Coleman Report over the last 54 years, we show that there has been no narrowing of the gap in either IQ scores or in educational achievement. From 1954 to 2008, Black 17-year-olds have consistently scored at about the level of White 14-year-olds, yielding IQ equivalents of 85 for 1954, 82 for 1965, 70 for 1975, and 81 for 2008. We conclude that predictions about the Black–White IQ gap narrowing as a result of the secular rise are unsupported. The (mostly heritable) cause of the one is not the (mostly environmental) cause of the other. The Flynn Effect (the secular rise in IQ) is not a Jensen Effect (because it does not occur on g).
The ranking of Wechsler subtests in terms of their g loadings is equivalent to ranking them in terms of the cognitive complexity of the tasks measured. Lower performing groups do not always fall behind higher performing groups the more complex the task. But that is the general rule, no matter whether the cause of the lower performance is genetic or environmental. Complex tasks tend to be more affected by genetic differences in inherited traits, have higher heritability, and be more sensitive to inbreeding depression. Therefore, the method of correlated vectors sheds no light on the race and IQ debate. It is irrelevant that black/white score differences on Wechsler subtests rise as their g loading, heritability, and inbreeding sensitivity rise.
Here's my review of Flynn's book on the Flynn Effect on VDARE, which Flynn thought did a pretty good job of making Flynn's thinking accessible.
Flynn always uses basketball analogies in arguing against the necessity of genetic causes in IQ differences, but that obviously raises issues unhelpful to Flynn's cause. Other sports can provide better examples. For example, in golf, it's widely acknowledged that the hardest clubs to hit well are the long irons. And the long irons are precisely where Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods, the two greatest golfers, distanced themselves from the field, by reaching par-5 greens accurately in two to give themselves putts for eagles. Nature or nurture? Well, certainly a lot of both, but the exact balance is hard to say.
Flynn always uses basketball analogies in arguing against the necessity of genetic causes in IQ differences, but that obviously raises issues unhelpful to Flynn's cause. Other sports can provide better examples. For example, in golf, it's widely acknowledged that the hardest clubs to hit well are the long irons. And the long irons are precisely where Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods, the two greatest golfers, distanced themselves from the field, by reaching par-5 greens accurately in two to give themselves putts for eagles. Nature or nurture? Well, certainly a lot of both, but the exact balance is hard to say.
Flynn sums up that he doesn't believe either his own Flynn Effect or Jensen's g-factor analysis is very persuasive in determining the nature-nurture breakdown in the racial IQ gap:
American blacks are not in a time warp so that the environmental causes of their IQ gap with whites are identical to the environmental causes of the IQ gap between the generations. The race and IQ debate should focus on testing the relevant environmental hypotheses. The Flynn Effect is no shortcut; correlations offered by Rushton and Jensen are no shortcut. There are no shortcuts at all.
Flynn has a Blind Side / Stolen Generation-style theory that black culture doesn't lead to strong cognitive demands, although he's leery about spelling out the policy implications, although you can see it made a little more explicit in the increasing enthusiasm in, say, the New York Times Sunday Magazine for taking black children away from their mothers as many hours per day as possible and turning them over to Ivy League Teach for America workers to raise in a white-run world.
Maybe it will work, I dunno. Yet, I suspect we'll just be seeing in a few decades a replay of the Australian experience, with whites issuing an apology to blacks for the "Borrowed Generation."
Posts
32 comments:
Flynn has a Blind Side / Stolen Generation-style theory that black culture doesn't lead to strong cognitive demands
Ummm, Black cognitive abilities do not lead to cultures that make strong cognitive demands.
"black culture doesn't lead to strong cognitive demands". I wonder whether the cognitive demands might even have declined recently. Just a wild guess, but comparing the intricacy of the music produced by large numbers of black jazzmen in, say 1920s to 1950s, to .....
Well, perhaps not. But it's been a while since an Armstrong or Ellington has been seen.
Yet, I suspect we'll just be seeing in a few decades a replay of the Australian experience, with whites issuing an apology to blacks for the "Borrowed Generation." - Steve Sailer
Wuzzat? You think maybe the problems modern leftists are so keen to solve (with other people's money) were created by the leftists of yesteryear?
Hmmmmm.....
Just a wild guess, but comparing the intricacy of the music produced by large numbers of black jazzmen in, say 1920s to 1950s, to ..... - dearieme
Good point about the jazzmen, but I've never really been convinced that they were so very numerous. How do we know that for every skilled jazzman there weren't a dozen barber-shop crooners, three-chord bluesmen, and vocalists who were more storyteller than singer?
It seems that, over the years, the Jensenist position on race and IQ has become very prevalent among psychometricians, even if not publicly. In the past, Jensen sometimes had to fight for several years to get his papers published, but it seems that now he (and Rushton) can publish unfiltered race realism any time they want, at least in Intelligence and a couple of other journals. BTW, Jensen will turn 87 in a couple weeks.
Flynn is the least repugnant of the anti-hereditarian zealots, but it's rather sad that in that article he once again brings up the totally discredited Eyferth study.
"Flynn has a Blind Side / Stolen Generation-style theory that black culture doesn't lead to strong cognitive demands..."
Are there any groups with similar culture-based low cognitive demand? Southern whites? Amish? Hispanic? Rural Chinese?
Cart, turn around and look behind you. That's a horse pushing you around.
"...but comparing the intricacy of the music produced by large numbers of black jazzmen in, say 1920s to 1950s, to ....."
This is actually a decent point, assuming it's true, but it runs against Flynn's thesis, since black IQ's were not higher, nor was there a closing of the gap, during this period of higher "cognitive demand".
OT:
US immigrant's dream ends with genocide allegation
The university is grateful that the good professor's research fits the university’s paradigm of "humane ideals"...and no doubt hopes that this continues to be the case.
Professor Flynn has chosen to live in NZ's , if not the Commonwealth's whitest city since 1963.
> But it's been a while since an Armstrong or Ellington has been seen.<
Or a Beethoven or Brahms.
Maybe the Flynn Effect is a misunderstood artifact of what might actually be going on: a decline in g among the tested.
"David said...
> But it's been a while since an Armstrong or Ellington has been seen.<
Or a Beethoven or Brahms."
Agreed check this out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=cr1KZpWNM9s&feature=related
Forget the video. Listen to the announcer. When a professional wrestling broadcaster sounds more literate than most news announcers of the present day, it is very obvious that our educational system, and maybe our "g" as well are on marked decline.
You can't blame that on the racial disparity.
OT: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100512/full/465148a.html
"Already, analysis of the Neanderthal genome has helped to resolve a debate about whether there was interbreeding between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens: genome comparisons suggest that the two groups mated an estimated 45,000–80,000 years ago in the eastern Mediterranean area."
A common species includes those members that can not only interbreed but produce fertile offsprings. By this definition, homo sapiens and Neanderthals were different races than different species of man.
We also know that homo sapiens and Neanderthals were physically and mentally different in significant ways, which implies that racial differences among humans aren't always trivial. People on the Left have said there is no such thing as 'race' and that different 'races' are not different from each other in any significant or measurable way. Well, homo sapiens and Neanderthals belonged to the same species and were only separated raciallly. Do these leftist 'scientists' still wanna tell us that there weren't noteworthy differences between the two groups? If homo sapiens and Neanderthals, though of the same human species, could be so different from one another racially, then it follows that there may be important differences among the existing races of man.
"Ummm, Black cognitive abilities do not lead to cultures that make strong cognitive demands."
Exactly. Flynn's argument is logically absurd and contradicted by all the evidence.
"A common species includes those members that can not only interbreed but produce fertile offsprings. By this definition, homo sapiens and Neanderthals were different races than different species of man."
This is PCism. The idea of Neanderthals as a human race has been propagated to circumvent the notion that Non-Africans are a hybrid species. Viable hybrid species are not uncommon, as anyone here who has taken a class in Botany would know.
Ummm, Black cognitive abilities do not lead to cultures that make strong cognitive demands.
Chicken and egg problems are hard to solve.
I think the issue here is that transracial adoption studies are not promising here. And if you say "That's because they were not on a massive enough scale, so somehow the transracial adoptees were somehow assimilated by the Black American cognitive culture", then you have set the scene for the kind of huge programs that Steve is talking about.
One interesting way to try and confront Flynn's idea (whether there's any truth in it or not) would be to take groups of Black people, create a "White Fraternisation Index" based on self reports of how much interaction they have with White people and see if this correlates with intelligence. Of course, the bane of this would be self-selection and assortivity (either smarter or dumber Black people might want to spend time with White people) and genetic admixture (Whiter Blacks or mixed people classified as Black seem more likely to hang around more with Whites - you'd need to control for this through genetic tests), but still, if there's a relationship there's some evidence...
(although I'm sure some geniuses would declare that if there was no relationship or even a non-significant negative relationship that it was due to White "racism" making interactions qualitatively different).
Steve,
So predictable. I said:
"This is PCism. The idea of Neanderthals as a human race has been propagated to circumvent the notion that Non-Africans are a hybrid species."
And low and behold, what do I read over at "Scientific American" --
"Our Neandertal Brethren: Why They Were Not a Separate Species"?
Surprise! Surprise! We must reclassify the Neanderthal as a race bases on some fallacious logic.
My reply:
Mayr had two concepts of species: his species as metapopulation lineage and his species as intrinsic reproductively isolated population. There is across the board acceptance of the first definition, but not the second -- last I checked. Under both definitions, organism which cannot potentially produce viable offspring belong to separate species. Only under the second definition do organisms which can produce viable offspring necessarily belonging to the same species. In that sense, dogs, dingos, jackals, and coyote necessarily belong to the same species. And numerous plant species.
Now, either the species debate was recently resolved -- or the author of this article is making a specious argument for why Homo neanderthalensis "must be reclassified." Let me guess -- We don’t want to say non-Africans are a hybrid species, so we are moving to reclassify the poor old Neanderthal?
The problem with the IQ measure is that it is an abstraction that mediates between some physical reality and observable behavior. And people who don't care for the subject of inter racial differences are not compeled to face the evidence. They simply reject the notion that the abstraction is evidence at all.
IQ evidence is venerable. It's been around for a long time now. Th N sizes of the studies are very, very large. All the cultural fairness questions have been addressed decades ago.
In science there are a lot of questions for which answers are not available. For example when I was a teenager the Tyrannosaurus Rex was the biggest carnivourus dinosaur. But at that time there were only seven T Rex skeletons known. Today the biggest carnosuar is probably the Spinosaurus but who knows? New discoveries happen all the time.
In IQ matters there are not any new discoveries. The same statistical arguments of the mid twentieth century are still made by the same advocates.
Only a few decades ago no one really knew why the dinosaurs had died out. Then a discovery by Alvarez pere et fils from a different field provided the answer. To those who were not specialists, the irridium layer at Gubbio was a total surprise. It wasn't an argument, it was physical reality.
For any substantial proportion of the general populace to accept racial differences in IQ there will have to be something similar to the findings at the K-T boundary. Statistical and methodological atguments haven't worked in the past and are unlikely to work in the future.
Albertosaurus
Viable hybrid species are not uncommon, as anyone here who has taken a class in Botany would know. Shame you didn't also take a class in Zoology, or you'd know that viable animal hybrid species are vanishingly rare.
Neanderthal genes probably were mixed into the pre-existing human genotype, but that doesn't make non-African humans 'hybrids'.
A slight quibble on the golf. In Nicklaus's era, the long irons were not used to reach Par-5's in two. Nicklaus's ability to hit long irons higher, with a softer landing, than other players is what allowed him to birdie the longer par 4's, which in those days would have been 450-460. Even Nicklaus hit woods to reach par 5's in two.
It is very frustrating to read Flynn and his attempts to explain away the black-white IQ gap.
There was a time when I found his position vaguely plausible and reassuring. This was true, however, only before I really knuckled down and started to try to understand both sides of the argument in some detail. (I will say, though, that I never really could see how Flynn had anything like a genuinely compelling case, something I felt I could quote with any conviction.)
It's hard to see any of his arguments as amounting to more than noting that certain inferences that hereditarians may make really aren't apodictic in their certainty. Flynn (as tends to be true of most philosophers) is extremely good at finding ways in which an inference may not necessarily in general be true.
This is a fine thing for a philosopher qua philosopher to observe. But it has virtually nothing to do with science and scientific inference. Scientists are only very rarely interested in the question: what is the only conceivable explanation of this phenomenon? They are, almost always, interested in a far less stringent sort of question: what is the most plausible or likely explanation of this phenomenon?
If one reads the arguments back and forth between hereditarians like Jensen on the one side and Flynn on the other, one sees these two different approaches cropping up again and again. Jensen and the hereditarians appeal to the most plausible understanding of an issue; Flynn points out how that understanding does not follow with logical necessity from the facts. Essentially, they are arguing at cross purposes.
The problem with Flynn's approach might be summarized with a simple argument.
You say, Prof Flynn, that there may be some kind of environmental factor that mostly explains away the IQ gap between the races. But neither you nor anyone else has ever come up with any factor for which there is good evidence that it might come even remotely close to making that gap go away. Why on earth should any of us believe in your view that environment ultimately plays a dominant role when you can't even begin to point to any such factor? Moreover, neither you nor anyone else has ever come up with an argument that the gap simply can't be primarily genetic; there simply exists no compelling evidence against that possibility.
If we're interested in truth, and not merely in conceivability, why shouldn't we just assume that the gap is dominantly genetic?
We might better understand the human mind and IQ if we think of computers. Every new generation of computers is like an evolution of technology. Computers of the same brand may be fundamentally similar, but improvements--additions and/or reconfigurations--gradually make a difference and eventually produce big differences. Windows 93 may not be much differnt from Windows 95, which might not be very differnt from Windows 97, which might not be much different from Windows 2000, which might not be much different from Windows XP, but there is a huge difference between Windows 93 and Windows XP. One could say all Windows software belong to the Windows SPECIES of softwares, but there is no doubt that the evolution of the technology has created different races of Windows, and that the XP 'race' works faster and performs more complicated tasks than the earlier ones, especially the really early ones like 93 and 95.
Same can be said of computer hardware. Every year, Dell comes out with a new model. It is not something entirely new but related to earlier models. It's essentially an elaboration, variation, or fine-tuning of the older models. So, one could say that most Dell computers belong to the same species of computers. But newer(or different and specialized) models, due to additional technology or changes in the design, work better and faster than older models(or than different models when it comes to certain tasks).
And when certain softwares develop to a certain level, it may no longer be compatible with earlier softwares, just as when a race sufficiently develops too further apart from other races, it is no longer reproductively compatible with other races. Indeed, it develops into a new species altogether.
Among humans, there was no higher engineer that designed us--the deity called 'god' or something like the extraterrestrials in 2001: a Space Odyssey--not that we know of anyway. However, we do know that different natural and social/cultural environments did have different impacts on different races and even amongst the different subgroups within the same race. And these forces of selection(of ever newly created mutations) led to something like the advancement of certain natural skills among differnt races of man.
Over time, depending on the environment's impact on evolution, organisms produced better and better adaptive advantages. For example, the prototype of the whale was probably not 100% suited for ocean but generation after generation, it eventually became what we know of as the whale.
And the first bears that could be called something like polar bears surely still needed to be 'worked on' by the environment to make them even better suited to the arctic. The early polar bear hadn't yet been perfected yet, like the first generation of youtube now seems crude and primitive to us today.
Anyway, the point is just as different 'races' of computer hardware and software within the same 'species' can be notably different from one another, the same applies to humans.
Even if all computer hardwares or softwares within the same techno-species are fundamentally the same, there is a difference between Windows 97 and Windows XP; there is a difference between Dell models from 2001 and Dell models today. In many cases, the improvements involve rearranging and reconfiguring the same technology, in some cases it's adding more of the same technology, and in some cases, it's adding new technology that older models didn't have. It's also a case of shedding some obsolete programs.
Similarly, though all humans are FUNDAMENTALLY SIMILAR, there is no question that some races have developed more than others in certain tasks or skills or abilities. Isn't it safe to say that on average, an ashkenzai Jew has a faster and complex mental software than a Mexican and that an East African has better long distance running hardware than a Chinese?
Caledonian said.."Shame you didn't also take a class in Zoology, or you'd know that viable animal hybrid species are vanishingly rare."
In zoology, rare on the species level but common on the organism level, given the present day world population of various canid species (400+million) --why no calls to reclassify based on that? As for the debate in the field refer to the paper and recent discussions in the philosophy of biology. My point still stands.
Re: What did Nicklaus hit to par 5 greens? Here's Sports Illustrated's account of his most famous eagle, at the 1986 Masters when he was 46 and hadn't won in 4 years:
"Desperate, at the 15th, Nicklaus let loose a mammoth drive, 298 yards, so big it surprised even him. ...
"With 202 yards to go at 15 and the tournament in the balance, Nicklaus turned to Jackie and said, "You think a three would go very far here?" To which Jackie said, "Let's see it."
"Obligingly, Nicklaus hit his four-iron to 12 feet and made the eagle putt for exactly that — a three. The crowd's yelp was downright frightening."
Read more: http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/article/0,28136,1911531-0,00.html#ixzz0w9dr2WyW
I turned on my TV that day about one second after the eagle putt fell in. It was the loudest roar I'd ever heard from a golf broadcast. It just went on and on as my picture slowly came into view. Finally, I could fuzzily see a blond man (Greg Norman?) teeing off on 16. The teeshot almost went in the hole. The crowd roared louder. No, not Norman, Nicklaus!
"Even if all computer hardwares or softwares within the same techno-species are fundamentally the same, there is a difference between Windows 97 and Windows XP;"
Yes, but Windows XP is not compatible with everyone's, shall we say, hardware? equipment.
"although he's leery about spelling out the policy implications"
I recalled him being quite explicit in his debate with Charles Murray that the remedy is socialism, something far more drastic than anything on the table currently. He thinks we really need to control all of their environment, so it's as if they're living in Germany.
"All the cultural fairness questions have been addressed decades ago. "
What about the fact that it's a timed test? How did ya'll get around that one? That timed tests might be more familiar to some cultures, that doing well on timed tests is more important to some cultures? That some subcultures might be more confident about performing on such tests under pressure.
And it isn't a matter of black kids "trying harder" - it's a matter of them having a reasonable regular bedtime and a good breakfast and doing their homework and being brought up in a culture that respects learning, and being nerds, and value in being studious. It's a matter of their parents taking them to the zoo and the nature preserve and the science center, rather than dismissing it as a white thing to do. I don't think it has to be socialism at all. Or intervetion by white teachers, which can make it worse. And I don't think the few examples/studies where some black kids were brought up middle class or adopted by whites or whatever are really answering this.
I've seen the difference between black and asian kids in the early grades and day after day the black kids come in tired and unprepared and talk at recess about their x-boxes, dvds they watched and boyfriends/girlfriends...the asians kids are always prepared and respectful to the teacher and never discuss the above. No matter how poor the immigrant Asian family makes great sacrifices - if they live in only two rooms one is the kid's study room and the grandmother goes hungry so they can hire a tutor.
This may be a little exaggeration but not much. The cultural differences are huge. I'm not sure what the answer is, but it's not socialism OR 'race realism'. And I've met (taught) the black kids (have you? who are making all these proclamations about them and their lives?) and they are absolutely as bright as any kids.
btw, by your philosophy shouldn't Hispanic kids have an edge as many are a combination of white/asian genetics?
btw I am not 'blaming' the black community although I feel frustrated with the families when I teach. I am really not qualified to take a stand there, and furthermore it is a community that has been truly traumatized and probably resentful of the concept that now they have to act like desperate immigrants to get ahead after all they contributed to this country. The kids are caught in the middle though, and I don't see how to break the cycle otherwise. I just don't think we can make judgments from the present situation.
Isabel has a bunch of remedial reading of Steve's old stuff to do, I see.
Sweet dear, she doesn't yet know that all her pet theories have already been vivisected and found cancerous. She's gonna need a truckload of Kleenex.
Chuck:
I love how you find it valid to apply the "PC" label to the issue of species classification among humans. Surely you'd have to be addled with political correctness to not have qualms with some people not being fully human, right?
It's amazing how widely used that label is, especially with sick garbage like that.
Try this Hawks article, written some time before these results came to light: http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/evolution/introgression/what_about_species_2006.html
And Hawks frequently works with Harpending and Cochran. Real PC, right?
I've always wondered why, when environmentalists attempt to dismiss the notion that the results of the Minnesota transracial do not support a heriditarian prespective, they always seem to point out that the decline of the African American children IQ's into adulthood was the result of an "unintellectual" African American culture, and yet, they never seem to point out that at the same time, the White adopted children in the study saw exactly the same decline. The environmentalist perspective always allows you to put an ad-hoc screw top on every single result that goes against it, regardless of whether the screw top is consistent with other studies. Sanda Scarr study: Oh, the black IQ dropped because of racism. Eyferth study: Oh, the Black IQ was high in SPITE of German racism!
Anon,
"I love how you find it valid to apply the "PC" label to the issue of species classification among humans. Surely you'd have to be addled with political correctness to not have qualms with some people not being fully human, right?"
Part 1. I love how you come across as an idiot. The PCness would be altering the species classification just because and only when we are talking about humans. And you would, indeed, have to be addled with PC thinking -- or a profound lack of philosophical depth -- to conclude that labeling a Neanderthal as a separate species would mean that some humans are less human, by virtue of their genome being mixed/or not mixed with that of the Neanderthal.
As for the later, are you saying that a Neanderthal would not be human -- when classified as a separate species? When mass genetic engineering comes on line and humans, embracing bioliberalism, begin to genetically differentiate themselves on a large scale -- will they cease to be humans? If I banged a cat girl or a Vulcan, would any kids be "not fully human" by virtue of genetic differences?
The term "human" derives from the Latin term humanus, which means "earthly beings" -- as opposed to gods. It's a moral-philosophical concept not directly related to the scientific concept of homo sapiens sapiens. It implies that all said creatures (L. creatura "things created") exist in the same moral sphere,which is below that inhabited by gods and sacred spirits and above that inhabited by things and profane objects. The former you worship, which is a step above respect and honor, and the latter you use.
As a typical PC liberal, you, of course, are working from the very frame of thought that leads to the idea that "some people are not human." I am not. Your concern is that we also differentiate amongst animals (L. animale "living being, being which breathes"). We distinguish between human animals and non-human animals -- and relate to the latter more like more like we do to "things" or objects to be used. And since, like a typical intellectually shallow liberal, you unreflectively work form the Darwinian (philosophical) frame, you define the borders of humanness -- of moral participation -- in terms of genetics relatedness. I do not.
Part 2.
As a typical PC liberal, you, of course, are working from the very frame of thought that leads to the idea that "some people are not human." I am not. Your concern is that we also differentiate amongst animals (L. animale "living being, being which breathes"). We distinguish between human animals and non-human animals -- and relate to the latter more like more like we do to "things" or objects to be used. And since, like a typical intellectually shallow liberal, you unreflectively work form the Darwinian (philosophical) frame, you define the borders of humanness -- of moral participation -- in terms of genetics relatedness. I do not.
This is similar to how other liberals find "innate" (L. innatus "inborn" related to L. gnasci/L. genus = genetics/race) intellectual differences between humans to be troubling. They unreflectively work form the pre-Darwinian Western frame, which speaks in terms of Aristotelian categories (instead of statistical averages) and defines the borders of humanness in terms of rational capacity -- a view with persisted into the 1800's, and was understandable then. By the first frame, a Romulan or Neanderthal, is not human -- by virtue of genetics. By the second, an intellectually impaired adult -- and possibly infant -- is not human, by virtue of cognitive capacity.
I'm not sure what to say. For you, keeping science out of moral-philosophy is "sick garbage" -- and I guess that I am too -- because you are working from a frame in which science is entangled with moral-philosophy and is entangled in such a way that it can (and often does) lead to the very conclusions you don't like. As the Buddhists would say, change your way of thinking -- not the world to fit it. Moreover, don't abuse me, on the basis of the conclusions that you think I draw, based on your projected atavistic conceptualizations.
As a final note, it should be pretty clear the genetic engineering will lead to large scale differentiation. Compared to today, the hominids of the future will be radically dissimilar. So crack open a philosophy book and get used to the idea. And while your at it, stop being a tool of the liberal intelligentsia. They are perpetuating the fallacious ways of thinking that you echo for sociopolitical ends -- specifically, as a means of stopthink. And those ends have little to do perceptions of humanness -- and keeping the supposed Nazis at bay. If public and large portions of academia could be so conditioned to stopthink and mimic the PC lines when it comes to population genetics, psychometrics, and history -- with all the research and information readily available -- would it be that difficult to condition people to divorce sciencethink from moral-philosophy? (Since I have to chew your thoughts for you --the answer is: "No.")
(As for Hawks, his point was that given how people -- like you --commonly think, it might be desirable to change to terminology; my point concerns how people -- like you -- commonly think).
Post a Comment