Marginally interesting study. I mostly just like this quote:
"It would be hard to overstate how politically incorrect this paper is..."
As the quote goes on to say, the idea put forth by the study is perfectly reasonable and well explained. Yet it's "politically incorrect" because it suggests that some people groups are inherently smarter than others. So to those who don't want to believe that intelligence is (in part) genetic, which do you not believe in: that human babies have DNA from their parents? that the brain develops based on the instructions in the babie's DNA? If you believe the latter please explain where to information to construct the brain comes from.
I guess it just bugs me when people lable something which is obviously factually correct as "politically incorrect."
What would be politically incorrect is to suggest that someone's ability to contribute to society is proportionate only to their intelligence. I'd rather employ (were I in such a position) a hard working guy of average intelligence than a smart slacker. The screaming moonbats seem to be unable to make this distinction though, so they just battle against the idea that intelligence is at all genetic.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Interesting, let me just say that I'm in the Tom Sowell school on this. I don't believe that heredity is the primary factor (or even a major factor) in an ethnic group's success, although certain ethnic groups may be the exception (like the folks in Appalachia, which may be attributed to inbreeding - but then again, that's just speculation). By far, culture is the main factor in shaping the intelligence of a person. I mean, how else to explain the relative success of recent African immigrants and black immigrants from the west Indies, versus the slow progress of African-Americans?
Admittedly, though, I haven't read the study. I'll read it later (I gots a softball game).
The inheritability of intelligence is a pretty huge topic. Some of the more interesting work is on identical twins raised seperately (due to adoption). This page discusses a study I remeber seeing before. The summary is that identical twins raised seperately are markedly more similar in intelligence than siblings raised together. Though you could make the argument that seperated twins are probably most often raised in the same culture and even similar environments (the environment provided by parents who went to the trouble of adopting). Though you do hear of kids who bounce from foster home to foster home so I don't know how much of a given it is that parents who adopt will be good parents.
On the other side of the argument, somewhat similar to your comparison, you could look at two subsets of American blacks; "Booker T." blacks vs "black rednecks (to use Thomas Sowell's euphamism)." Pretty much the same American black genetics. Large difference in material success. Then again you could make the argument that those blacks who are genetically more intelligent will be more likely to adopt a Booker T. outlook.
As the Instapundit points out, intelligence is often over rated anyway. "While scientists and computer experts, whose chief pride (as with Jurgen) lies in their intelligence, would tend to regard superior intellect as the sine qua non of power, this view can be quickly dispelled by a glance at the headlines."
One last thought (which I probably read somewhere but don't remember where to give credit) is that it doesn't matter whether smarts is more a product of nature or nurture. Which ever element contributes more, there is an undeniably large component of nurture. As such, we are obligated to provide the best environment we can.
Post a Comment