IQ and Heredity


Peter

Recommended Posts

You are under no obligation to waste your time. Do not read this thread if you don’t want to. I went back and deleted some letters but added some also from another thread. So, anyone who missed this compilation which I later deleted, will know what we are talking about.

Since they are from a Word document I cannot use the quote function.

Roger, Nathan, and Barbara all appear, as well as Objectivist scholar, Ellen Moore.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

From, "The Missing Link," by Ayn Rand

I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent. But a certain hypothesis has haunted me for years; I want to stress that it is only a hypothesis. There is an enormous breach of continuity between men and all the other living species. The difference lies in the nature of man's consciousness, in its distinctive characteristic: his conceptual faculty. It is as if, after aeons of physiological development, the evolutionary process altered its course, and the higher stages of development focused primarily on the consciousness of living species, not their bodies. But the development of a man's consciousness is volitional: no matter what the innate degree of his intelligence, he must develop it, he must learn how to use it, he must become a human being by choice. What if he does not choose to? Then he becomes a transitional phenomenon - a desperate creature that struggles frantically against his own nature, longing for the effortless "safety" of an animal's consciousness, which he cannot recapture, and rebelling against a human consciousness, which he is afraid to achieve.

For years, scientists have been looking for a "missing link" between man and animals. Perhaps that missing link is the anti-conceptual mentality.

end quote

Here is what Rand wrote about "acquired skills" in, The Comprachicos, p.156-158. TNL

"If, in any two years of adult life, men could learn as much as an infant learns in his first two years, they would have the capacity of genius. To focus his eyes (which is not innate, but an acquired skill), to perceive the things around him by integrating his sensations into percepts (which is not innate, but an acquired skill), to coordinate his muscles for the task of crawling, then standing upright, then walking - and, ultimately, to grasp the process of concept-formation, and learn to speak - these are some of an infant's tasks and achievements whose magnitude is not equaled by most men in the rest of their lives."

"The process of forming, integrating and using concepts is not automatic, but a volitional process - i.e., a process which uses both new and automatized material, but which is directed volitionally, It is not an innate, but an acquired skill; it has to be learned - it is the most crucially important part of learning - and all of man's other capacities depend on how well or how badly he learns it."

"This skill does not pertain to the particular *content* pf a man's knowledge at any given age, but to the *method* by which he acquires and organizes his knowledge - the method by which his mind deals with its content. The method *programs* his subconscious computer, determining how efficiently, lamely or disastrously his cognitive processes will function. The programming of a man's subconscious consists of the kind of cognitive habits he acquires; these habits constitute his psycho-epistemology."

End quote

Rand wrote

“The possession of a rational faculty does not guarantee that a man will use it, only that he is able to use it and is, therefore, responsible for his actions." ("Ayn Rand Letter," 27 July, 1972.

"Man's volition is an attribute of his consciousness (of his rational faculty) and consists in the choice to perceive existence or to evade it." (ARL, 27 July, 1972).

Rand wrote in her Journals (July 20, 1945):

"If men claim that the rational faculty is an innate gift (which it is, or rather its power is, just as the degree of any physical talent varies from birth) and, therefore, a man cannot be blamed if he is born with a mental capacity insufficient for his survival, and he cannot make it the standard of his survival-the answer is that he has no choice except to exercise his mind to the full extent of his capacity . . . .”

From “The Missing Link, Part II” (ARL, 21 May, 1973):

"But the development of a man's consciousness is volitional: no matter what the INNATE DEGREE of his intelligence, he must develop it, he must learn how to use it, he must become a human being by choice."

End quote – I capitalized “innate degree” for emphasis – Peter

Rand wrote in "The Objectivist Ethics:"

"Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are 'tabula rasa.'"

Rand from "Kant Versus Sullivan:"

"The possession of means and their use are not the same thing: e.g., a child possesses the means of digesting food, but would you accept the notion that he performs the process of digestion before he has taken in any food? In the same way, a child possesses the means of "interpreting" sense data, i.e., a conceptual faculty, but this faculty cannot interpret anything, let alone interpret it "correctly," before he has experienced his first clear sensation."

Rand wrote:

"The process of forming, integrating and using concepts is not automatic, but a volitional process - i.e., a process which uses both new and automatized material, but which is directed volitionally. It is not an innate, but an acquired skill; it has to be learned - it is the most crucially important part of learning - and all of man's other capacities depend on how well or how badly he learns it."

"This skill does not pertain to the particular *content* of a man's knowledge at any given age, but to the *method* by which he acquires and organizes his knowledge - the method by which his mind deals with its content. The method *programs* his subconscious computer, determining how efficiently, lamely or disastrously his cognitive processes will function. The programming of a man's subconscious consists of the kind of cognitive habits he acquires; these habits constitute his psycho-epistemology." AR

Ayn Rand wrote in *Atlas Shrugged*, pages 1020-1021, through the character of John Galt:

". . . as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining -- that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul -- that to live requires a sense of self-value, but man, who has no automatic values, has no automatic sense of self-esteem and must earn it by shaping his soul in the image of his moral ideal, in the image of Man, the rational being he is BORN ABLE TO CREATE . . ."

I capitalized “born able to create,” for emphasis

Here is the start of the old letters. I deleted Sowell’s critique of The Bell Curve to shorten the post. Peter

From: "Peter Taylor" <solarwind47@hotmail.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Re: "George Smith rejects Objectivism ...

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:30:31 +0000

I am just starting to read the discussion between Ellen and George about the innate versus the acquired. I think the issue is subtle because quotes can be used to back either position. A discerning reader should not rely on one isolated quote or on one instance of their misapplication of their own theories by any philosopher.

As Ghs has pointed out many times concerning Descartes, Aquinas, Aristotle and Rand, one needs to understand the totality of their works. True knowledge is to notice growth in a philosopher’s stance, to only use the “mature” version if it seems to contradict the earlier "simpler" version, and to always grasp the totality of a philosophy unless we are focusing on a history of a philosophy’s growth.

Rand always insisted her philosophy was a cohesive whole but should we consider her earliest writings, or her marginalia as part of her philosophy or just her words written and spoken after she declared she was always speaking about her philosophy? Everything she ever said is of interest, but I consider her “cohesive philosophy” as what she wrote after she wrote “Atlas Shrugged,” and if it was meant to be philosophy. Ayn saying, “Frank, did you pick up The Times?” does not count as Objectivism :o)

Ellen Moore wrote to George H. Smith:

“Yet, GS continues to maintain that there must be a pre-existing, innate, faculty in the brain prior to birth - this is directly in the face of contradicting Rand's premise of 'tabula rasa' . . . . ”

end quote

Consider a pre-conscious human. Up to the point of the “initialization of consciousness” the necessitating physical baby is in existence and the living apparatus is growing or in place. Even at pre-conscious levels sensory data causes reactions, especially if the sensation is discomfort. The infant will change its cramped position. It will scratch its tingling ear as a sonic wave resonates at that point during a sonogram. It will seek comfort by sucking its thumb.

Move forward to the momentous instant a human being becomes conscious for the first time. Push back Rand’s concept of 'tabula rasa', from birth to that instant. By the logical implications of Rand’s axioms the conscious human being exists, and if it is conscious, it is conscious of “some thing.” As the infant begins to perceive “some thing” with its senses, it then remembers and categorizes its memory of those “things.”

This is the beginning of the inner reality we call consciousness. Is it aware of itself at the beginning? Perhaps. (As an aside, in computer terminology the infant is initializing and actualizing its mental brain.)

If we are only considering the pre-conscious physical / chemical / electrical human being can we say the emergence of a rationally thinking human is “possible” or “probable”? To have gotten this far in an evolutionary sense we can safely say adults will nurture the infant when it is born and see to its physical and mental growth or we as a species would not be here to argue the point. We are the evidence.

So, is it “probable” the infant will have the chance to become rational. Yes. But is it rational yet? No, it has a ways to go; it is still at the perceptual stage. The next steps towards rationality are up to the infant. It must choose to think beyond the perceptual level.

Either:

George is right and Ellen is wrong.

or,

Ellen is right and George is wrong.

or

Neither George or Ellen is right.

or

I am right :o)

I would say the contextually true position is that that there must be a physical, pre-existing, innate, ***possibility*** of a “rational faculty” in the brain prior to the initialization of consciousness – and this does not contradict Rand's premise of 'tabula rasa'.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

From: "Peter Taylor" <solarwind47@hotmail.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Re: animal conceptuality? Merlin

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 20:29:06 +0000

I wrote about Ayn Rand:

She is ALWAYS REFERRING TO HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS unless she specifies otherwise.

And Merlin responded:

“That's fine as a general rule, but her Consciousness axiom *as stated* is true for non-humans, too.”

This is a fine point but I disagree. I don’t think her descriptions of the axiom *Consciousness* as stated in “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology,” concerns animals at all, except for those few, brief times she expressly says so.

You may extrapolate that the axiom pertains to non-humans because animals possess consciousness but that is not what Rand says in the first few chapters. Do you know of any instances where she does say her axiom, or epistemological concept of human consciousness also pertains to animals? I have been looking for one.

I wrote:

When the infants are ready they provide the inner spark, connect the dots and think conceptually.

Merlin responded:

“I hope this is only an inaccurate expression . . . . never having thought before, the child suddenly and inexplicably decides to start thinking. In my view it is part of the natural course of development for an infant to have some concepts. Saying it another way, a child thinks long before it ever *chooses* to think or not think. To even consider the question 'Shall I think or not think?' requires a degree of self-awareness that a child does not attain until past about two years of age.”

End quote

I would agree that a child thinks long before it ever *chooses* to think or not think, but it chooses to raise its level of awareness. If you study a baby close up, it will study you back. Now put your glasses on (or a fake mustache :o) and watch the baby renew its interest.

One of the most awe inspiring experiences I can imagine is a baby growing up in a house without pets seeing a dog or a cat for the first time. The baby’s delight and complete absorption in watching this marvelous creature is a wonder to watch.

Precipitated by an event, or staring at its toes or at nothing at all, a baby can volitionally raise its level of awareness. When a baby wakes up in the morning, happy and not uncomfortable and crying, listen to the sounds it makes in its crib. Those "intelligent sounds" you hear are VERY different from the ones you will hear from a litter of puppies.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

From: BBfromM@aol.com

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Normal Distributions and Human Differences

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 03:16:15 EDT

David Bozzini wrote:

<< I am often amused to find the following attitude, even among presumably educated persons: "There just can't be any differences between races or ethnic groups when it comes to IQ, or any other ability that might matter in the real world." >>

I don't think anyone has been arguing that there are no differences among races or ethnic groups in their IQ's. The argument is about what – if anything -- follows from that. Some say that because of differences in IQ, the lower IQ groups should be seen as inferiors and refused admittance to the United States, and that those already here should be repatriated. Others insist that people should be judged as individuals, and that the average IQ of their group is irrelevant to any judgment of the individual. The argument is about individualism versus collectivism.

Barbara

From: Ellen Moore <ellen_moore@mb.sympatico.ca>

To: Atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Peter Taylor asks me about volition and IQ

Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:43:02 -0600

Peter questions,

"What is the difference between people and animals? Do we have innate intelligence or is it entirely volitional? Would Ellen Moore please address the issue of IQ?"

Peter, it is my judgment humans do not have innate intelligence. Intelligence is entirely acquired by means of volitional actions directed to conceptual reasoning about one's perceptions of reality. Rand maintained that "intelligence is the ability to deal with a broad range of abstractions". Since she also stated "man is a being of volitional consciousness", that means intelligence is volitionally derived by abstraction and conceptualization by means of reasoning.

There is a sense in which perception could be viewed as a sign of intelligence but that means only that perceptual acuity can be evaluated as keen or less-clear from a conceptual perspective of knowledge. E.g., we all know that observers "see" different things and often are in error about what they think they "saw". This is a clear incidence that some people have trained their degree of perceptual ability to be more or less accurate. In the Comprachicos, Rand wrote about the fact that, for instance, visual focus is an acquired skill. The thing is, from birth one volitionally trains one's self, one's body, one's mind, and one's intelligence to deal with accurate observation of reality. One develops these skills in the context of the individual's physical and mental effort of input and output.

And then there is reason -- One has to individually learn how to reason, and learn what reason is. A newborn does this all alone, and how successful one is depends on the effort put out in learning the skills of reasoning.

As for IQ - I pay little attention to it. I know there are people with high IQ scores who are the most inconsistent, and even the dumbest, when it comes to identifying facts and rational thinking. And I know of people who do not score high on tests who are scrupulously dedicated to objectively know the truth, in facts and principles, and that they choose to direct their lives on the basis of principles of reason.

In your quote from Rand, she wrote about human consciousness, "... no matter what the innate degree of his intelligence, he must develop it, he must learn how to use it, he must become a human being by choice."

Rand is speaking of a volitional consciousness, and what each one must do with it in using it perceptually and conceptually. I have always thought that her saying "no matter what the innate degree of his intelligence" is inconsistent with her stated view that the mind is born "tabula rasa". This latter means that there are no innate concepts or ideas in the brain [mind] at birth. Overall, Rand's general comments agree with the views that all conceptual knowledge is volitional – not innate. She clearly states across the board that knowledge is based on perception of reality, but that abstraction is volitional, concepts are volitional, and reason is volitional. So, my conclusion is that intelligence is volitional. And to truly be "human" means to be volitional and conceptual, and to reason.

Animals cannot do anything like this - they are limited to perception only.

I'm not sure what more you may want from me, but I'll answer any further questions.

Ellen M.

The Objectivist movement claims to be diametrically opposed to socialism. Socialism is, basically, the egalitarian philosophy that believes that equality of outcome is the moral ideal.

The Objectivist movement claims that the moral ideal is that each individual rise, or fall, according to how well they develop their talents and how credibly they use. The self-made captain of industry, the Hank Reardon, is consider an ideal man. The lazy, and the slothful are considered the opposite. And those who hate the productive virtues of the ideal man are considered evil.

Objectivism would, therefore, seem to be the anti-thesis of egalitarianism. An Objectivist would not necessarily have to believe that people need to be considered equal in any way. But, the empirical reality, is that Objectivism has as one of its core principles the egalitarian ~belief~ that talents are distributed equally between all persons at birth, and any differences that exist at adulthood are merely the result of that person refusing to make the volitional choice to develop their talents. Thus, the belief is that if the average "epistemological savage" with an IQ of 80, and genius with an IQ of 160 had merely swapped their childhood attitudes about the importance of learning, reading, going to school, doing one's homework, and intellectual

curiosity in general, then the person with the IQ of 160 would have, instead, developed an IQ of 80, and the "epistemological savage" would, instead, have grown to be a genius with an IQ of 160.

The reason that Objectivism adopted this belief is simple enough: it makes their philosophy seem fairer. If talents are unevenly distributed at birth, then Objectivism is simple the philosophy that the genetic cream must be free to rise to the top. Objectivism would merely be a variation on social Darwinism.

Thus we see the spectacle of Rand denouncing the concept of IQ, and "Objectivists" on this list down-playing the accuracy of IQ tests. They don't want to accept the notion that IQ is a reasonable measure of intelligence that correlations significantly to educational and economic outcome in life. The notion that individuals are born with a basic probability of being well to do, or born with a basic probability of being poor is unacceptable to them.

But Objectivism also demands that we at all time remain objective. Objectivity means seeing things as they are, not as we would wish them to be. Despite of an unholy alliance between liberal egalitarians and genetic egalitarians that has desperately attempted to suppress all consideration of the topic, the scientific case that they are wrong continues to build. In fact, not only is intelligence hereditary, but so is basic personality, to a correlation of about .50. That is, not only is Hank Reardon's intelligence, basically, an accident of his birth, but also his ambition may very well have been an accident of his birth as well.

Objectivism is, therefore, at an intellectual cross-road. It can stick to an a priori counter-factual belief about intelligence and genetics, and become another pseudo-intellectual movement like creation science, or it can, through the proper use of reason, reconcile its ideology with reality.

Hating Greg Johnson and myself will not alter the fact that what we are saying is true. If we were to stop posting tomorrow, this would not change the basic fact that we are right, and many of the posters here are simply wrong. We can go, or be forced out, but Truth cannot change.

It is not a surprise that Greg Johnson and I have been meet with hatred. If the topics we have broached had been consistently debated in a rational, objective manner, we would have been met with agreement.

You can agree with us. Or you can hate us. But you cannot rationally answer our ideas.

--- DAVID RASMUSSEN

Hello Andrew. You quoted:

"With Stillwell... racism was no irrational bigotry. He had not arrived at a biased conclusion without evidence, he had always prided himself. Undeniably, Stillwell believed, mankind had evolved from the lower animals. But not uniformly. Long ago, the races had differentiated from each other in response to the challenges of their peculiar environments -- intelligence being one area in which their relative talents had departed from what might have been a primeval equality -- and then had advanced along divergent paths through natural selection . . . .”

Andrew, you may not be aware of the latest near consensus within anthropology and evolutionary psychology. This consensus has made its way onto the Discovery Channel and TLC and it is in general agreement with the fictional Stillwell as well as the real Greg Johnson and Rasmussen. As a “collective” or sociological group, each race has its own unique identity, though this fact is never explicitly used to endorse racism or the inferiority of some race of people within the hard - science academic community, but nonetheless it is past the whispering stage.

I agree that the general average IQ usually labeled as (g) does not tell the whole story about any ethnic group and tells virtually nothing about any individual (in the long run :o) The tests that evolutionary psychologists give now are tests that measure intelligence in ten or more areas. I preferred the 12 area test when I was studying testing, years ago, but the 10 area test seems to be the preferred test now.

Apparently the average IQ of 70 in Africa seemed too low to many of the testers so they devised more exact tests that took into account even more ethno-specific factors (language and background to a HUGE degree - they practically gave away some of the correct answers) so that the testers (many of them black) could be sure they were not applying a “Western” bias but the Africans still tested at an average of 70. When I first read this I thought, “what B.S.” and deleted the data so I cannot show it to you. Since then I have seen confirmation elsewhere, and I have re-thought my position.

The issue of nature vs. nurture has been settled. Both count. Along with Ellen Moore, you seem to be saying that volition alone accounts for actual thinking ability and achievement. I think any individual’s physical brain is at least 70% responsible for general and “specific” levels of intelligence if the individual matures under the right conditions and at the right times (as does Piaget.)

But I will insist that I am not a racist. I think a person’s race has nothing to do with any individual’s abilities or personality or worth. Yet I will not close my eyes to the facts. That would be evasion and therefore non-objective. As a group, the races differ in physical and mental attributes.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

From: "Peter Taylor" <solarwind47@hotmail.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Re: Frank Forman is alive and well!

Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 00:25:33 GMT

Frank Forman wrote:

"I think "racism" and "antisemitism" are the very two worst anti-concepts in the entire anti-dictionary. The third is "fascism," as Jay Rohr seems to think. Recall that an anti-concept is a term so abused that it renders conceptual thinking impossible. Does anyone have any better examples?"

end quote

Not exactly, but I just read something on Shirley Keller's site, RationalWorld that knocked my socks off.

The average "General Intelligence Level" or "g" is low in Africa.

Now, a person could immediately start to feel the word, "Racism" rising to the tip of one's tongue, but if someone had written, "The average "General Intelligence Level" or "g" is high in Africa," most white, black or whatever color American, would be waiting, without rancor, for the IQ score to be stated.

If we are to be Objective, we cannot be emotional knee-jerk, Politically Correct, Wimps. We need to hear, just the facts, Ma'am, and if the facts do not conform to our image of ourselves, we need to reexamine ourselves or disprove the facts.

The average "g" in Africa is 70. In American, a person with an IQ of 70, might require custodial care.

Peter Taylor

OFFLIST

You wrote:

“. . . .when you can prove to me the claim that a bird or an animal has any ability to form concepts or think conceptually, I am willing to revise my position. But no such claim is even plausible without evidence to support it. Meanwhile, I must restate that the only evidence or proof available is that humans alone have the attribute of a volitional consciousness, and only humans are known to be conceptual beings. Only humans think conceptually, and only some of us learn to reason with varying degrees of success due to our having fallible minds.”

We have “It” and to me, "It" is the totality of what we are, which is light-years beyond our closest competitors. The KNOWN key ingredients of what we are is our Human Volition, i.e., our ability to raise (or lower) our conscious thinking processes "at will," our level of Consciousness and IQ, and our ability to think conceptually. When "We" die something dies with us that is much greater than a collection of Intel chips, greater than a nautilus or an octopus, or a gray parrot, or a dolphin or whale, or a great ape, chimp or bonobo, or even a Neanderthal Man.

Religious people reassure a child that there is a "doggy heaven" when they really don't believe this. They know from direct observation and introspection that only people have a soul (a volitionally conceptual consciousness,) yet they still worry about the child's psyche! As you have mentioned Ellen, we are just now learning about what truly makes us human. Remember the foolish anthropologists who said our essential ingredient was an upright posture or an opposing thumb? Their thinking is laughable now so I agree with you that it is useless to speculate without knowledge. We can observe consciousness and volition in humans. It is best kept at the axiomatic level (for now.) I still like the imprecision of calling it “IT.”

Of course, we have an “evolved” living, neural network, with a lot of storage capacity, but that does not explain how we are different from a computer that can fool a human into thinking it is a human. Something is Different and greater in us. If a computer processes on a level of 0101010101 (yes and no) then we may run on 0123456789. Machines solve problems and “think” at the level of their “Human” programming, yet machines can only simulate but not experience consciousness.

So, the difference between us and all the other animals including Neanderthal Man, is “actuality” and to a limited extent, to degrees of Consciousness and volition but the difference in degree is to a huge degree. If it were not so, we would hear of lost ape civilizations, or organized (tribal) bands of chimps. We would hear about naturally occurring languages beyond gestures and shrieking. I know that one mother chimp passed on primitive sign language, to her infant, however the chain of culture stopped with her child.

It was the same with Neanderthal Man. It is estimated that the species Homo Sapiens Neanderthal had an IQ of less than 60 while our earliest human ancestors (Homo Sapiens Sapiens, i.e., pure Negroid) had an average IQ of 70 which persists to this day. This average level of IQ 70 caused a huge surge of creativity and diversity in tool and weapons building.

For 250,000 years Neanderthal existed in a static state yet around 35,000 years ago when he came in contact with Homo Sapiens Sapiens, this association caused an explosion in Neanderthal’s ability to create new tools. I think this quantum leap was due to copying, mimicry and cultural osmosis. On their own the race of Neanderthal would never have reached the heights they did. The level of Consciousness needed to create a better life from scratch, which is passed on and built upon by each generation is around an IQ level of 70.

I Think we should have a "code" or a "sliding scale of values" or "core values" that include the animals. I like the idea of a Star Trek "Prime Directive" because it seems so enlightened to recognize life as greater than the inanimate. The degrees that animals simulate conceptual thought (usually in mimicry or in acquiring food) is sporadic and never passed on as culture beyond one generation but animals are still different and generally more valuable to us than inanimate matter.

The very un-politically correct notion of Homo Sapiens Sapiens Sapiens (or modern day, non Negroid humans with, count’um three Sapiens :o) is becoming the conventional wisdom among anthropologists, geneticists, and all scientists. They can only whisper about it outside of their professional journals because of the ferocious backlash of emotional, non-intellectual screams that they are racists. Instead they are simply objective scientists.

What will tomorrow bring?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter

From: "Jeff Olson" <jlolson@cal.net>

To: "atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Realities of Race?

Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 18:36:18 -0700

I've noticed something in the last few years that makes me rather uncomfortable, but which nonetheless seems worth mentioning -- particularly in the context of our present discussions of race.

In the course of running a business, I find that I deal over the phone with a fair number of people belonging to large corporations (e.g., Pacific Bell, insurance companies, etc). Increasingly often, it seems, I'm stuck talking to slow-speaking, not-with-it people who, as coincidence would have it, are usually black (identifiable through accent). My experience with these individuals has been so negative (in terms of the length of time required to explain things, and the number of errors resulting from misunderstandings), that I've reached the point that when I hear the characteristically slurred black accent that I want to hang up and hope I'll do better on my next try.

Now I know I'm vulnerable to accusations of "generalizing" or worse, but the fact is that as much I strongly dislike entertaining such seemingly "prejudicial" notions, my business takes priority over sentimentality. I need to know that everything's being handled thoroughly and correctly, and I'd rather not spend hours trying to explain what, in all fairness, a competent employee should already understand.

My new psychology with respect to these dealings came to the forefront today, when upon calling to add a business service to my phone account, I got a young, clear-speaking white guy. He understood immediately what I wanted, and was very professional in his handling of it. I was so thrilled to be speaking to someone who was intelligent and articulate that I decided to resolve a number of other issues that I would've rather -- everything being equal -- put off to a later date. I literally clung to this guy, I'm embarrassed to say, wringing out every productive moment I could from this rare encounter. (I suspect he was waiting for me to ask for his phone number :-)

I don't offer this as proof of anything, obviously, but I do believe this phenomenon is real, and that one doesn't have to be a racist to experience the aforementioned emotions.

Comments?

Jeff

P.S. Of course, even it could somehow be proven that statistically certain races or classes were somewhat less or more intelligent, it would not validate racism. Judgments would, nonetheless, have to be made on an individual basis.

From: "Greg Johnson" <gregoryrjohnson@mindspring.com>

To: "Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: On Talents

Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 22:53:29 -0400

Dave Rasmussen wrote:

Objectivism has as one of its core principles the egalitarian ~belief~ that talents are distributed equally between all persons at birth, and any differences that exist at adulthood are merely the result of that person refusing to make the volitional choice to develop their talents.

Mike Hardy responds:

Huh?? *WHERE* did you get that?? I am quite familiar with the objectivist literature, including the NBI basic course, the articles in The Objectivist and the Ayn Rand Letter, etc. I've never seen anything like that.

I understand why Mike is incredulous, but I think that Dave is on to something. He is not referring, however, to an articulated principle, but to an unarticulated assumption of many Objectivists, Ayn Rand perhaps included. Consider Rand's affirmation of "volition" and her assertion that "man is a being of self-made soul." Then consider her essay "Racism," where Rand claims that racists ascribe moral, social and political significance to genes, and she is against this.

The central assumption of such racists is that human potentialities are largely genetic. Call this the principle of heredity.

But Rand never actually attacks the heredity principle. Instead, she attacks other points that are not necessarily related to it. She attacks people who treat others as members of groups rather than as individuals. She attacks people who think that not only that people's abilities determined by genetics, but what they do with those abilities, "that man's convictions, values, and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors

beyond his control." She attacks racists for having pseudo-self-esteem.

And she leaves many readers with the impression that she has overturned the heredity principle too. Perhaps she herself believed this. Hence the tendency of Objectivists I know to dismiss the heredity principle with slogans about volition and the self-made soul, as if all human traits are malleable by the will, rather than some of them fixed by nature.

But if each human being enters the world radically malleable by the will, then that means that they are essentially without fixed properties that differentiate them. And that means that they are essentially the same! This is the crypto-egalitarianism that Dave was talking about. Objectivism affirms a moral elitism--people differentiate themselves by their will and are therefore entirely responsible for their excellent or bad spiritual

traits--but assumes a metaphysical egalitarianism as the starting point.

If Objectivists were more objective, they would to have to admit the principle of heredity. They would also have to recognize that human excellences are not distributed equally or merely randomly among the races.

This means that even in a perfectly free and rational society, where each and every person treated each and every other person as an individual, a society where everybody is treated justly according to his or her abilities, trading value for value, you would find the different racial groups will naturally gravitate toward different styles of life and different levels of wealth, education, and cultural accomplishment.

One can grant the principle of heredity and the innate differences among races and still treat people as individuals, not as members of groups. There is a limit to this, however. After all, there are billions of people on this planet, and life is too short to deal with each one as an individual. It would, however, be altruistic to ignore group differences and group behavior patterns, since these have high predictive power, even though treating people as members of groups may be unjust to individuals in a given group--unjust to OTHERS, but eminently rational for ONESELF given the limits of time and knowledge.

A young woman is walking down a lonely street at midnight. Ahead she sees a black man. On the other side of the street is an oriental man. Does she cross the street? I would say: Yes, cross the street, and don't give it a second thought. The odds are with her. A college basketball recruiter can visit one high school in Dotville. Does he go to the predominantly black high school or the predominantly Mexican one?

In a world of limited time and information, to increase the likelihood of positive social interactions, one has to look at the differences among groups of people. One has to determine which groups are more likely to contain worthwhile individuals and which are less likely. One then should steer toward some groups and away from others. One should treat people as individuals where one has the greatest chance of actually finding superior

individuals. This strategy seems eminently rational and pro-life, given the limitations imposed upon us by the real world.

Furthermore, there is good evidence not only that one's potentialities are largely genetic, but that one's ability to exercise the potentialities is to some extent genetic as well. There is ample evidence that certain character

types have a genetic basis, and that some of these genetic factors are race specific; therefore, one will find certain character types with greater frequency in certain racial groups. (Michael Levin's WHY RACE MATTERS contains a treasure trove of information on this topic.)

Such a view does not require that one abandon the idea of volition altogether. A deeper problem with Rand's view, though, is that she fails to ask the question: What is the biological basis of volition? She fails to consider the possibility that the ability to exercise rational control over one's actions may itself be based on genetic factors, and that some of these factors may be race specific. If, for instance, volition is the ability to act rationally, one's volitional powers will vary with one's rational powers. If this is true, then it is not the case that racists deny volition altogether, but instead recognize that OUR ABILITY TO DETERMINE OUR ACTIONS BY NON-GENETIC FACTORS ITSELF MAY BE DETERMINED BY GENETIC FACTORS.

We clearly recognize a difference in volition between animals and men, and that these differences are based on their different genes. But there are genetic differences between different kinds of men too. My cat is not a moral agent, because she cannot act rationally at all. To the extent that the rational faculties of human beings approach those of my cat, they lack moral agency and are less and less morally responsible for their actions. It is no coincidence that that vast majority of violent criminals have low IQs.

Genes, IQ, racial differences, etc. all add up to the elephant in the corner of Ayn Rand's living room. Ignoring it won't make it go away.

Greg

From: "Greg Johnson" <gregoryrjohnson@mindspring.com>

To: "Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Race, Intelligence, and Anecdotal Evidence

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 03:08:01 -0400

Like Bill Dwyer and George Smith, I have met a number of highly articulate blacks. But unlike Bill and George, I have actually taught logic and critical thinking to such blacks over the course of a semester, and I administered tests to them. After a while, I began to notice that ALL of these apparently "bright" black students were not particularly capable of logic and critical thinking, even though they were highly attuned to the social realm and quite capable of giving the superficial impression of high-level cognitive functioning. Over the years I did, however, encounter a few black students who were genuinely intelligent, on the rightward fringe of the black bell curve. But none of these students were superficially "bright" at all.

But this sort of anecdotal evidence is really beside the point. The truth about racial differences only comes out when one compares averages based upon large numbers of tests. The average intelligence of blacks in the US is 85 --18 points lower than the white average, 21 points lower than the Asian average and 30 points lower than the Ashkenazic Jewish average. The average IQ of African Negroes is 70. (This means that the average African black is closer to a German shepherd in intelligence [somehow an average IQ of 30 has been ascribed to these dogs!] than to the average Ashkenazic Jew.) Even so, averages are averages. This means that there are some blacks who are well above the averages--just as there are some that are well below. There are even some blacks with genius level IQs, although it is a vanishing small percentage, about one tenth of one percent, if memory serves. By comparison, FULLY ONE FOURTH of the Ashkenazic Jewish population have genius-level IQs. Perhaps Bill and George simply had the good luck to run into examples of these extremely rare blacks. (I met one such black man when I was a teacher. I am sure that he was smarter than me. How lonely he must have been among his people!)

A few days ago, someone posted remarks about Marva Collins and the teacher featured in STAND AND DELIVER. These stories provide no evidence against racial differences in IQ. If these stories are true, all they prove is this: Black and Mestizo students, given traditional educations by excellent and committed teachers, do better than Black and Mestizo students who have trendy modern educations and rotten teachers. They may even equal or outdo white students with rotten educations. The only way one could draw any conclusions about racial differences in intelligence is if one compared the students in question to white or Asian students who also received traditional educations from excellent and committed teachers. In such a comparison, I suspect that the same racial differences would assert themselves, just as they assert themselves on SATs and on IQ tests.

As for the question of the inheritability of IQ: The best discussion of this and other issues is to be found in Arthur Jensen's magisterial book THE G FACTOR. His case is crushingly well-documented and well-argued, and to my mind totally convincing.

Greg

From: "DAVID RASMUSSEN" <drasmus816@earthlink.net>

Reply-To: drasmus816@earthlink.net

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

CC: "Greg Johnson" <gregoryrjohnson@mindspring.com>

Subject: RE: ATL: On Talents

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 1:53:44 -0700

Dave Thomas states that "it's immoral to restrain the cream (genetic or otherwise) from rising to the top," and points out that it is to the general benefit.

Dave Thomas, clearly it is in the best interest of all to have the most capable run things.

But, stating it is "immoral" for restraining the cream from rising to the top is not to say that it is ~moral~ for the cream to rise to the top. In milk, the cream rises to the top as a matter of physics. In our economic system, the intelligent rise to the top because their intellectual talents allow them to out compete others. To the degree that intelligence is innate, they are not due any particular ~moral~ credit.

On the other hand, certain aspects of character are certainly more subject to volition. How honest you are is not an issue of intelligence. How loyal you are to your friends is not a matter of intelligence. How faithful you are to your spouse is not a matter of intelligence.

Objectivism ought to be about giving credit to those who develop their talents, and use them credibly. This ought to extend to character. And character ought to matter as much from 5[PM] to 9[AM] as much as it does from 9[AM] to 5[PM]. Those who have limited innate talents, but fully development of those talents, ought to be given more moral credit than a genius who fails to develop his talents, but has enough innate ability to

economically out compete the latter person. The person who is honest with his friends, all things equal, is a better human being than the casual liar. But the casual liar might make more money in sales, law, or politics.

Using economic success, aka "income," as the score-keeping mechanism is perverse. It confuses genetic talent with moral virtue. That is not objectively just.

But that seems to be exactly what Ayn Rand did.

--- DAVID RASMUSSEN

From: "Greg Johnson" <gregoryrjohnson@mindspring.com>

To: "Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Orlis Trone

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:50:02 -0400

Ellen Stuttle has recently posted suggestions that Denzel Washington play John Galt and Morgan Freeman play Hugh Akston. I have also heard James Earl Jones suggested for these roles. My main problem is that these men are supposed to be geniuses, and although there are black geniuses, their percentage among the black population is so low that such casting would not seem plausible. (Why not Will Smith as Hank Rearden, and Chris Tucker as Francisco, and Whoopi Goldberg as Dagny? We can still cast her evil brother as a white guy, though.)

On the plane back from Munich, they played Dr. Doolittle 2. At a certain point, I found myself in the odd position of finding it more plausible that animals could talk than that Eddie Murphy could be a doctor. I wondered why I had this reaction. After all, there are black doctors. My conclusion was this: Hollywood does not want me to believe that animals can talk, but they definitely want me to believe that Eddie Murphy can be a doctor. Hence the steady stream of black computer geniuses, scientists, judges, and brain surgeons being served up by Hollywood and TV. I am sure that there really are blacks in all of these roles, but not in the numbers that are being represented.

I understand why Hollywood and the networks want to promote this lie. But why do Objectivists want to go along with this? Do they expect to swell the ranks of Objectivism with blacks? What possible good would that do them? Are they simply tired of being ostracized for their radical viewpoints and therefore are eager to wrap themselves in one of the few scraps of political correctness that they have not rejected?

Just wondering,

Greg

From: David Bozzini <dbozzini@yahoo.com>

To: atlantis <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Normal Distributions and Human Differences

Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 07:46:06 -0700 (PDT)

It is easier to understand phenomena concerning sexual and racial differences once one becomes familiar with the normal distribution, or bell curve. I propose to assist Atlantis members with this topic, and in doing so I will keep the discussion non-technical.

If you take a sampling of IQ scores, or track speeds, or heights, or weights etc. of any group of people, you are going to find that the data will fit a bell-shaped curve, with a hump right in the middle at what is called the "mean". Now, it is found that, depending on which groups are sampled, this curve can have its mean positioned at different places, and its thickness (or pointiness) will vary as well. The "tails" of this hump-shaped curve can be higher or lower. (There are terms like "kurtosis" and the like which can be used here, but they are really not necessary to gain an intuitive understanding. For that, one only needs to look at some diagrams.)

Once you take a look at these curves, and learn their properties, you can explain certain "burning political issues" like the "glass ceiling" which holds down women and racial minorities from top positions in business or other fields.

Studies suggest that although the bell curve of female IQ is not shifted to the left of male IQ, it is more "pointy," or gathered in about the mean, than that of male IQ. Now, if that is true, certain effects will follow. Namely, if you examine a meritocracy where the most intelligent people rise to the top, and you then examine the top, you are going to find more men there than women. And this is because of the ~relative~ height of the very right-hand tail of the male and female curves.

Of course, a shift in the location of the mean IQ between various groups (whether you call them "races" or "ethnicities" or what have you) can produce a very similar effect. And again, various studies have shown just such a shift.

Someone said something to the effect that "there are more differences between members of a (race or sex) than

differences between the (races or sexes)." Well, er, yes. That's just saying that the distance between the far flung tails of any one distribution is typically greater than the distance between the means of two compared distributions. Nevertheless, you will experience the "glass ceiling" effect. Because, in certain environments, it's really what happens in the tails that matters.

As an aside, I am often amused to find the following attitude, even among presumably educated persons: "There just can't be any differences between races or ethnic groups when it comes to IQ, or any other ability that might matter in the real world." It's almost as if the unspoken belief is: "God set things up so that, even though skin color and certain physical features can vary among races, nothing else of significance can vary among races." This seems to me to be quite a silly sacred cow. And even sillier when applied to differences between sexes.

David

From: "Dennis May" <determinism@hotmail.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Re: Female Genius

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 13:20:13 -0500

Mona Holland wrote:

>Tests which measure raw intelligence of the sort employed by Einstein show almost no females in the top-most echelon of genius.

The Air Force bent over backwards to encourage women with technical backgrounds to pursue PhD's. They would in fact pass over men with higher GPA's and more interest to keep open slots for any woman who would at least attempt to go the distance. I only knew one Air Force woman who attempted to go the distance in physics. She often remarked how she was surrounded by men who were much smarter than her and she had no idea what they were talking about most of the time. She got good grades but entirely lacked creativity in physics. She also had difficulty in understanding basic concepts applied "outside of the box".

I have known more undergraduate women in physics than most people in physics ever know based on my discussions at a Society of Physics Students conference. Women in physics are rare, genius women in physics are almost unheard of. Madam Curie [experimental physics] and her daughter are the only examples I know of where women reached the pinnacle in physics. I'm sure there have been others I am unaware of but they are rare. I have never heard of single example in theoretical physics.

Dennis May

From: MonaHolland1@aol.com

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Female Genius

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 14:33:06 EDT

In a message dated 10/16/01 1:23:52 PM US Eastern Standard Time, determinism@hotmail.com writes:

>Women in physics are rare, genius women in physics are almost unheard of. Madam Curie [experimental physics] and her daughter are the only examples I know of where women reached the pinnacle in physics. I'm sure there have been others I am unaware of but they are rare. I have never heard of single example in theoretical physics. >

No doubt. The value of this information is to obstruct those who will howl "sexism" as the only, or primary, explanation for the significant under-representation of women in physics. Ditto for whatever psychometrics can actually demonstrate about those genetic cohorts denominated as "races" vis-a-vis claims of racism.

However, I am persuaded that there exist different varieties of intelligence. Women, in the aggregate, are ahead of the game when it comes to "emotional intelligence," and any particular woman who is superior in this realm, as well as highly gifted intellectually, is likely to be a supremely effective and productive human being.

--Mona—

From: "Reidy, Peter" <Peter.Reidy@usa.xerox.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: RE: ATL: Re: Female Genius

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:42:58 -0700

determinism@hotmail.com writes "I have never heard of single example [of a first-rank woman] in theoretical physics."

There was Maria Goeppert-Mayer (1906 - 1972) who shared the Nobel Prize in 1963. See http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~moszkows/mgm/mgmhmpg.htm

<http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~moszkows/mgm/mgmhmpg.htm>

Peter

From: "Dennis May" <determinism@hotmail.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Re: Female Genius

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 14:27:08 -0500

I wrote:

"I have never heard of single example [of a first-rank woman] in theoretical physics."

Peter Reidy wrote:

>There was Maria Goeppert-Mayer (1906 - 1972) who shared the Nobel Prize in 1963. See >http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~moszkows/mgm/mgmhmpg.htm

><http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~moszkows/mgm/mgmhmpg.htm>

She seems like a good example. Both Maria Goeppert-Mayer and Madam Curie were married to scientists doing work in the same area. The nuclear shell model Maria Goeppert-Mayer worked on is something I studied at one time. Her contributions apparently didn't make a big impression on me. There have been other women in physics who have done well but again they are few and far between. The nuclear shell model is a direct extension of work already done on atomic shell models but applied to the nucleus rather than entire atoms. It is one of several models used in approximations of nuclear physics.

Dennis May

From: Nathaniel Branden <brandenn@pacbell.net>

Reply-To: brandenn@pacbell.net

To: "R. Christian Ross" <reason_on@hotmail.com>

CC: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Re: Reason

Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 07:21:38 -0800

I would say, and I am confident Rand would agree, that what is inherent in our nature is the capacity to reason, assuming we go through normal stages of development (an infant can't reason, obviously). The great student of cognitive development, Jean Piaget, maintained that if, during teen-age years, a person does not develop high level of cognitive abilities ("formal operations"), it is virtually impossible to develop them later in life. If this is true, then the world is full of people whose reasoning ability is not absent but severely limited.

Reason as a process is, of course, epistemological, but as a capacity, inherent as a potential in our nature, it is, if you wish "metaphysical."

I put the word in quotes because, strictly speaking, metaphysics addresses only the fundamental nature of reality, not such things as the attributes of man or lower animals.

And, finally, in calling man "a rational animal," Rand meant (a) that we humans have a capacity to reason that differentiates us from lower animals (genus and differentia), but also (B) that that capacity explains more about our behavior than any other trait or attribute.

Nathaniel Branden

From: RogerEBissell@cs.com

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Reason

Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 23:21:32 EST

I agree completely with what Nathaniel Branden says below, and I would simply like to amplify or expand upon some of his points, in lieu of a lengthier reply to Ellen Moore's recent challenge.

Nathaniel wrote:

>I would say, and I am confident Rand would agree, that what is inherent in our nature is the capacity to reason, assuming we go through normal stages of development (an infant can't reason, obviously). The great student of cognitive development, Jean Piaget, maintained that if, during teen-age years, a person does not develop high level of cognitive abilities ("formal operations"), it is virtually impossible to develop them later in life. If this is true, then the world is full of people whose reasoning ability is not absent but severely limited.

Yes, the ~capacity~ to reason is what is inherent in our nature, not the ~unvarying exercise~ of that capacity. This is why all the recent comments about man not being "the rational animal" because he "doesn't always engage in reason" are invalid and uninformed. Whether or not "rational animal" is the proper ~definition~ of "man," it is ~truly predicable~ of man, because it refers to the ~capacity~, which is always there (unless

destroyed by injury or disease or birth defect).

>Reason as a process is, of course, epistemological, but as a capacity, inherent as a potential in our nature, it is, if you wish "metaphysical." I put the word in quotes because, strictly speaking, metaphysics addresses only the fundamental nature of reality, not such things as the attributes of man or lower animals.

Yes, that is the accurate way of describing reason in regard to metaphysics and epistemology. I will simply add that in his 1975 lectures on Objectivism (watched over carefully by Ayn Rand), Leonard Peikoff talked about the "metaphysical nature of man," by which he meant the ~fundamental~ nature of man. And he ~began~ with ~reason~. Only much later in that first lecture did he finally get down to ~volition~ (point 4 or 5, if I recall accurately). This, I will point out, was ~several years~ after Rand's essay, "The Metaphysical vs. the Man-Made," which Ellen Moore frequently has cited as the basis for her view that volition is metaphysical and more fundamental than reason. ~Either~ Rand was guilty of a huge lapse in failing to correct her previous view (that reason was fundamentally distinguishing, as she wrote in chapter 4 of ~Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology~). ~Or~ Ellen Moore is guilty of misinterpreting Rand's comments about volition in "The Metaphysical vs. the Man-Made." Naturally, I think it is the latter, as I have argued previously. But if Ellen Moore thinks she is right and I am wrong, then she ought to have the courage of her convictions and ~admit~ that Rand made a big mistake in failing to correct her previous view about the fundamentality of reason. In other words, Rand's essay should have ~trumped~ Peikoff's later (Rand-monitored) lecture, if Ellen Moore is correct. The fact that she didn't is telling. This is not some esoteric, arcane point in Objectivist philosophy -- this is the ~base~ of objectivity itself! There is no plausible reason for Rand's failure to NAIL DOWN the point of the fundamentality of volition, if that is in fact what she held as early as ten years before she died.

>And, finally, in calling man "a rational animal," Rand meant (a) that we humans have a capacity to reason that differentiates us from lower animals (genus and differentia), but also (B) that that capacity explains more about our behavior than any other trait or attribute.

Again, I agree completely, and I will just add that biologica

Edited by Peter Taylor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

:wacko: Woah... Peter, could you just please summarize the issue? While I do want to know/see the facts at hand, it would be a big help if you quote them properly and please give (highlight) some views of your own because I know you to have interesting ideas.

I know, I know, I have been forewarned. Truth is, I am very interested to know what the fuss is about but if it's presented in this manner, it gets painfully tedious (especially at one a.m.).

Okay, I can question and argue with Rand's notion of "tabula rasa" since research have consistently shown that the human mind is not "empty" at birth and this is also in contradiction to the fact that one cannot make something out of nothing (law of conservation). So between the context of facts and Rand's reasoning, facts win by a mile since she herself acknowledges that it is "the final arbiter (of truth)"

If as babies, humans "consciously" choose what we retain/keep/integrate then how come I cannot remember when I was 2-weeks old? The answer is because the faculty (hardware) for reasoning (software) is not fully developed yet e.g. eyes and brain to enable me to assimilate the environment successfully and remember. Lest babies would be able to readily walk, talk and whatnot. Fact is, we have capacities at that level but not enough sensible information to make evaluations and if you cannot make sense of what's in front of you yet, then it goes to follow that you cannot choose yet.

Intelligence is innate. Thinking is a skill that is acquired. Good thinking is acquired by properly using the (naturally provided) proper tools i.e. sense organs and through focus/attention,perception,recognition/identification,reasoning and then responding. The operant word here is 'properly'.

There are no differences between IQs of culture because all men have a natural 'capacity' (for the mind) and 'capability' (for the body) for learning-doing and therefore, the normal distribution curve will always retain its bell shape albeit depending on the homo/heterogeneity of the group one is testing. Also, that capacity is our tool for survival/living. Animals do not have volition and reasoning and that's what makes as humans. Humans are rational beings but are animals nonetheless who are endowed with an impetus for life but then again, it will be up to him to recognize his potential and seek to actualize it.

Edited by David Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Peter did was completely inappropriate. MSK should simply freeze this whole thread for archival purposes. If Peter wants to have a discussion he should start another thread with only his own and new material that could include some summarization of this. The worst thing about it is not its age or origin, but length.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David wrote:

Intelligence is innate. Thinking is a skill that is acquired.

End quote

Is each individual’s optimum intelligence level predetermined at conception, if the mother’s diet, behaviors, and conditions in the womb are optimized?

If anyone wants the long thread I thoughtlessly posted, send me your email address offline and I will forward it to you.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

General Semanticist wrote:

Peter, do you have something current to say about this subject? Dragging up old threads doesn't really mean much.

end quote

The intelligence level of those old posts was quite high. Bissell, Rasmussen, Barbara and especially, Nathaniel Branden were all worth reading.

The critique of "The Bell Curve" by Sowell, was intriguing. He had no qualms with current IQ testing, but emphasized how past generations have lesser IQ’s than that current homogeneous population. And males test lower than females in some ethnic groups. Russian Jews at the turn of the century up until the first world war, tested 30 points lower than now. Sowell thinks groups who test lower now, will improve in the future.

World wide range: (Neanderthal 60 IQ with no known geniuses, or advance in tool making until they first encountered Homo Sapiens) (70, 80, with fewer than a tenth of one percent at genius level) (100 to 108, 2 or 3 percent at genius level) and then only one group tests out substantially higher at (117 average with one-forth of that group testing at genius levels.)

No test average describes an individual. No “false pride” can be assumed from a group’s prowess in any particular area.

What is so controversial is the question: Was there a further evolution from the first humans, Homo Sapiens to Homo Sapiens Sapiens? (and I have even seen three “Sapiens” Homo Sapiens Sapiens Sapiens after the last ice age.) However, the common sense notions of the Roman Empire was that the further north you went, the dumber and more savage the populations.

It’s an interesting subject. Sorry you did not have the desire to read the whole thread.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an interesting subject. Sorry you did not have the desire to read the whole thread.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Never say you're sorry! :) I think IQ tests are very language dependent, including the language of mathematics. Some people are more comfortable with abstract/symbolic thinking than others, does this make them more intelligent? We need all kinds of people in this world so what is the point of singling out one kind of "intelligence"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

General wrote:

I think IQ tests are very language dependent, including the language of mathematics. Some people are more comfortable with abstract/symbolic thinking than others, does this make them more intelligent? We need all kinds of people in this world so what is the point of singling out one kind of "intelligence"?

End quote

The more thorough IQ tests check 10 or 12 factors.

If humans were colonizing another planet and could send 500 people (with a lot of back up sperm and eggs from different donors) who and what, would rational people select? Smarter specimens. Hardier specimens. And diversity for safety.

I saw one scifi report that speculated 160 colonizing, “breeding women” would be required to stop inbreeding, along with a lot of diverse sperm samples. That does not seem like many, but each woman could have several children from different donations, and their female offspring would have different donors. Unfortunately, few live “breeder males” would be required. Sigh.

From a more realistic position, who do we want immigrating to our countries? There was a recent story about a bunch of orphaned refugees from Africa being brought to the US. They had grown up malnourished and most of them were functioning morons. They have not fared very well.

Why is this knowledge of (g) or general intelligence, important? Why break it down by race or nationality? Consider these questions: Which areas of the world have had great civilizations? Which areas of the world have had inventions? Where some races have colonized, what sort of society have they created?

What if evolution did not stop one hundred thousand years ago? What if we all, are not created equal?

Common, reasoning sense is not racism. The scientific method needs to be applied to all aspects of intelligence.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David wrote:

Intelligence is innate. Thinking is a skill that is acquired.

End quote

Is each individual’s optimum intelligence level predetermined at conception, if the mother’s diet, behaviors, and conditions in the womb are optimized?

If anyone wants the long thread I thoughtlessly posted, send me your email address offline and I will forward it to you.

Peter

Yep. Basically that's the idea. If the environment has been optimized, then there might be some chance of unexpected changes (mutation-evolution) which I say taking into account the of chances of error. If an IQ/intelligence test is well constructed then it becomes a reliable tool and it is is this consistency (despite content differences) that makes it remarkable. I know a man in his mid-40s who has been tested for IQ when he was in the 6th grade where he got 113 points and recently, he got tested again for his job where (not surprisingly for me as a Psychometrician), he reports that he is still 113 points! Although I failed to ask the names/nature of the two tests he took. This is a classic example of IQ being "predetermined". Let's look at another example: Taking different intelligence tests at one time, this early-20s guy is supposedly of "average" intelligence but on some tests, he steps on the boundaries of "above average" i.e. within the "lower limits" and this is where standard deviation plays its part. In actuality, this guy could be classified within the "high average" range meaning he could conceive/grasp bigger concepts some of his peers (in the average category) cannot but not fully enough to say that he could go head to head with an Einstein on the same subject given equal programs/training. Amazing ain't it?

There's also a study being conducted which I read in 'Psychology Today' (DAMN! This would have been perfect although I forgot the date when- keep you posted when I find it!) which revealed that the human mind has a limit to the patterns it can conceive or grasp. This started because the author was one of the best chess players in his hometown (if I remember correctly) although when he stepped outside to competitions, he was defeated by others. This was not a case of 'lack of practice or knowledge' mind you because he was well-versed with the 'classical' strategies and kept up with the current ones. However, he reports that in actual plays he still failed to "see" crucial moves that spelled his loss and (of course) he had this trend afterward (I presume even after the moves were explained to him?). So he ventured to study other sports (football was one of them) and basically got the same result that no matter how hard one practices, there will always be a limitation mark for one's 'talents' and likewise 'intelligence'. This researcher suspects that certain brain areas would show the limits of talent of a person especially when he is in full-throttle.

Edward de Bono also made a similar claim in his book, 'Teach Your Child How to Think' where he likens intelligence to a car that has a certain horsepower and that thinking is like a person's driving skills. Some people are "born" with high intelligence e.g. a Ferrari, Porsche, Dodge or other racing type cars but without proper thinking skills, that ride would go way out of control. Similarly, if a person was born with a '91 Taurus but is a better driver (or thinker) then he may beat that other person in a competition or I prefer to think that he gets better long-term gas mileage (happiness or satisfaction in life).

What's not fair is that should a person born with a high capacity for learning be taught proper ways of thinking; little goes a long way. Also, apparently, these persons, suffice to say, excel in assimilating their environments and thus, they learn how to talk, walk and other stuff before other children their age. Nonetheless, this should not discourage other people in light of what has been mentioned. You just gotta be honest and do the best you can to think!

Hmmm, I think this model fits with Rand's philosophy (specifically the concept of Laissez Faire?) since it has been mentioned in AS at least in the comparison between Hank Rearden and Eddie Willers that they may not be equal in terms of intelligence but they are equal in the spirit of performing to the best of their capabilities.

PS

Peter said:

Why is this knowledge of (g) or general intelligence, important? Why break it down by race or nationality? Consider these questions: Which areas of the world have had great civilizations? Which areas of the world have had inventions? Where some races have colonized, what sort of society have they created?

What if evolution did not stop one hundred thousand years ago? What if we all, are not created equal?

Common, reasoning sense is not racism. The scientific method needs to be applied to all aspects of intelligence.[end quote]

1. 'General factor' or 'g' is important to know the individual needs as best as persons of interest can give him/her. Not necessarily to compare him/her to the group and stack him/her somewhere on the charts.

2. Race issue is important to determine the internal validity and reliability of the test (whether it could be applied to different parts of the world) not to pit one race against another.

3-4. Questions 3 and 4 have a LOT of extraneous variables that I find too much to handle in a single thread.

5. Evolution is still well on its way even as we speak which explains differences in present human behaviors (capabilities) than that of a century ago.

6. There are no such things as 'racial slurs' in science although there is a lot of discrimination. LOL.

Edited by David Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Summary: People are different. Some tall. Some short. Just kidding. I deleted the long thread.

David mentioned leaving for a while. Care to expound on that?

Peter

I'm here temporarily assigned to another branch of my company and I'm going back to the main office in 3 days in Manila where connection is restricted only to server on our floor (WTF?!) and in the place where I usually stay, I have no PC nor net connection so I have to go to a computer rental shop to browse if I ever want it. Happy to report that though I'm going to miss OL and the good fellows that are in here, I'm not going to go haywire without the internet anytime soon (although I can buy the equipment anytime LOL). I just don't see a dire need for it. Heck, when I start my masters degree, I'd probably do it though not for now.

Edited by David Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Summary: People are different. Some tall. Some short. Just kidding. I deleted the long thread.

David mentioned leaving for a while. Care to expound on that?

Peter

I'm here temporarily assigned to another branch of my company and I'm going back to the main office in 3 days in Manila where connection is restricted only to server on our floor (WTF?!) and in the place where I usually stay, I have no PC nor net connection so I have to go to a computer rental shop to browse if I ever want it. Happy to report that though I'm going to miss OL and the good fellows that are in here, I'm not going to go haywire without the internet anytime soon (although I can buy the equipment anytime LOL). I just don't see a dire need for it. Heck, when I start my masters degree, I'd probably do it though not for now.

David -

Enjoy your stay in Manila.

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Summary: People are different. Some tall. Some short. Just kidding. I deleted the long thread.

David mentioned leaving for a while. Care to expound on that?

Peter

I'm here temporarily assigned to another branch of my company and I'm going back to the main office in 3 days in Manila where connection is restricted only to server on our floor (WTF?!) and in the place where I usually stay, I have no PC nor net connection so I have to go to a computer rental shop to browse if I ever want it. Happy to report that though I'm going to miss OL and the good fellows that are in here, I'm not going to go haywire without the internet anytime soon (although I can buy the equipment anytime LOL). I just don't see a dire need for it. Heck, when I start my masters degree, I'd probably do it though not for now.

David -

Enjoy your stay in Manila.

Bill P

Thanks. I'm looking forward to my "home" and beyond it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is this knowledge of (g) or general intelligence, important? Why break it down by race or nationality? Consider these questions: Which areas of the world have had great civilizations? Which areas of the world have had inventions? Where some races have colonized, what sort of society have they created?

Look at it this way - you have a test and you give it to people with similar backgrounds or genetics. Is it surprising that they might score similarly? Similar organisms are likely to respond similarly - big deal. I have a theory that people in the temperate zones started the industrial revolution out of necessity for survival. You need to plan ahead to make it through long winters, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously IQ is determined by a host of factors besides genetics. The Flynn Effect is just such an observation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Additionally, culture plays a significant role in cognitive development. Culture influences the way people process information, categorize, tune to identification cues, and store memories. Any test, including IQ tests, written from a specific cultural perspective are infused with implicit assumptions about how the mind should process the questions, assumptions that are in fact cultural: http://www.simplypsychology.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/vygotsky.html

Finally as a historical sidenote: the originator of the intelligence test, Alfred Binet, made the test to determine which children should receive extra support in school. He sternly warned that it should not be used to simply categorize people as smart or stupid. Unfortunately, Eugenicists such as H.H. Goddard and L. Terman would use the IQ test for just such a purpose. The pitfall of such a categorization policy is that those students who need help are instead dismissed.

Additionally, it should be noted that individuals who believe natural talent is the primary source of ability are more unhealthy than people who believe learning and practice can lead to ability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindset_(book) . So if anyone wants to hold a belief that IQ is primarily determined by genetics, that's fine. It's just wrong, culturally taboo, and has negative psychological effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christopher wrote:

“So if anyone wants to hold a belief that IQ is primarily determined by genetics, that's fine.“

End quote

To “hold a belief” is not science. A provable Scientific fact is not morally wrong.

Christopher wrote:

“It's just wrong, culturally taboo . . .”

End quote

The Truth may be unpalatable to an individual but it is not wrong. If Scientific Facts are culturally taboo, then there is something wrong with the culture.

Christopher wrote:

“ . . . and has negative psychological effects.”

End quote

Thomas Sowell showed no negative psychological effects from studying “The Bell Curve.” He moderated some of its findings and to a degree, rebutted them in his critique, but I think Christopher is speaking more of people who think *ability* is either there or it is not. And practice does not make perfect, as when an Olympics coach tells someone, “Kid, you just don’t have what it takes!”

I agree with Ayn, John, David, and Christopher that we have an innate capacity, but it is up to each individual to learn to reason and acquire knowledge and wisdom. IQ is a composite of innate ability, cultural influences, and *Volition.*

From, "The Missing Link," by Ayn Rand:

It is as if, after aeons of physiological development, the evolutionary process altered its course, and the higher stages of development focused primarily on the consciousness of living species, not their bodies. But the development of a man's consciousness is volitional: no matter what the innate degree of his intelligence, he must develop it, he must learn how to use it, he must become a human being by choice.

End quote

Genetics sets a “limit” to intelligence. Culture can be a hindrance to, or facilitate an individuals and a society’s higher level of intelligence. To a tremendous degree *Volition* can overcome cultural limits. Yet, the Genetic limit is not a trivial thing.

No one has a problem discussing the estimated, average 60 IQ of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis because they are all dead. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies of humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate species (Homo neanderthalensis. Because they were “carnivores” and not omnivores like Homo sapiens sapiens, I say they are a separate species, even though the two species may have been able to mate and have children.)

If these “Cave Men” were still around, would we be Politically Correct about them too? If so, that might be polite, but it would not be scientific. “Social lies” have their place and I would not deliberately cause psychological harm to a “Missing Link.” I started this thread in the Objectivist Living category of “Psychology,” because it is about a Psychological or Anthropological issue, and not general “Science.”

To any Psychologists reading this, was that a mistake? Is Psychology a branch of Science, or an apologist’s method of avoiding the truth? Does a psychologist or cultural anthropologist need to wait until a species is deceased before turning a scientific eye to who they were?

Recent science shows on Discovery and The learning Channel refer to Africans as *The First Humans*.

From Wikipedia:

Races were once considered human subspecies, but genetic research shows that inherited differences do not accurately match common racial divisions. For example, since non-Africans are descended from a small population that emigrated from Africa about 100,000 years ago, non-Africans (even those representing difference races) are more closely related to each other than Africans are to each other.

End quote

I have heard Evolutionary Psychologists say that their science does not explain the behavior of individuals, but rather it explains human behaviors across time, different societies and cultures. So if non-Africans have been evolving separately from Africans for 100,000 years, then the differences should be evident and they are. Non-Africans are closely related. Though non-Africans are more closely related to Africans than to Neanderthals, those who study Evolutionary Psychology still look at this *racial* gene shift as significant.

Does a difference in genes explain a difference in *innate* general intelligence? Is there a basis for considering the first human race, Homo sapiens sapiens, a subspecies? Is it more correct to classify Non-Africans as Homo sapiens sapiens sapiens?

Who can answer those questions rationally and not emotionally or hysterically? I bet Evolutionary Psychologist, Richard Dawkins could.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additionally, culture plays a significant role in cognitive development. Culture influences the way people process information, categorize, tune to identification cues, and store memories. Any test, including IQ tests, written from a specific cultural perspective are infused with implicit assumptions about how the mind should process the questions, assumptions that are in fact cultural: http://www.simplypsychology.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/vygotsky.html

Christopher:

While I do agree that culture plays a significant role in cognitive development (especially in hindering it!) I would not readily subscribe to Vygotsky's theories although I do give credit to some of it. Would you agree that let's say my culture is very different from yours (complete opposites if you prefer) that if I threw a rock and hit you, would you see it coming as a piece of cotton and perceive it tickling you rather than pain from bashing your head? Would the memory be of friendship than acts of hatred for each of us?

Also, not all IQ tests are culture biased. Raven's Matrices is at least one of the model examples since it deals with basic shapes, patterns and relationships thereof. Every culture possesses such shapes and must have some kind of logic to deal with it lest they couldn't have housing, pottery, storage, etc. See, if a culture interferes (as current thinking allows it to) then it could definitely explain why some culture driven races just survives in a jungle and those who are not so biased become relatively successful in science and technology e.g. the United States of America.

Without the burden of culture i.e. parents/elders punishing a child for thinking in a certain manner or pursuing a certain subject of interest because "it's taboo" then people would become much better thinkers since they are free to think of the world as they see it which sadly is currently not the case. Also, should it not be that parents reinforce thinking in a child and more so, thinking to his/her fullest capacity?

It seems that our last defense against such savagery is to check every premise and question what is being force-fed to us by culture when we are able to. Because men like us (Objectivists-Rationalists-Individualists) know that at some point in time those that they try desperately to preserve are nothing more than hollow shells of facts long past its era.

Edited by David Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoted from Peter:

I agree that the general average IQ usually labeled as (g) does not tell the whole story about any ethnic group and tells virtually nothing about any individual (in the long run :o) The tests that evolutionary psychologists give now are tests that measure intelligence in ten or more areas. I preferred the 12 area test when I was studying testing, years ago, but the 10 area test seems to be the preferred test now.

Apparently the average IQ of 70 in Africa seemed too low to many of the testers so they devised more exact tests that took into account even more ethno-specific factors (language and background to a HUGE degree - they practically gave away some of the correct answers) so that the testers (many of them black) could be sure they were not applying a “Western” bias but the Africans still tested at an average of 70. When I first read this I thought, “what B.S.” and deleted the data so I cannot show it to you. Since then I have seen confirmation elsewhere, and I have re-thought my position.[end quote]

Hmmm, this is rather interesting. Also, the issue whether you can gain admittance to a place based on your IQ scores.

I'll try to illustrate here so please try to look at it this way gentlemen: If an African (presumably of pure descent) scored 70 in a standard US norm IQ test wants to gain admittance or is brought to the US for validation then he would necessarily have a difficult time adapting to the needs of the environment and to say more bluntly that without the help of an American (native of that place), he would DIE. Of course this works under the assumption of no linguistic or cultural interference but only that African is of such limited vocabulary that he cannot even ask for help. However, in application, I argue that even at score 70, they would only require some assistance especially to the nuances of that place but would be able to perform quite well given enough time to process (think). I think this scenario would be clearly evident for those who are gauged to be in the "Profoundly" retarded level. :mellow:

Same case is true for say those tribal people in Ethiopia where it could be presumed that due to their limited capacities (intelligence) and subsequently poor thinking skills, they remained as they are and would most surely die either out of natural selection (without Red Cross intervention) and most especially if they go to war with a more intelligent race e.g. Japan. Even if granted they both have healthy bodily constitutions and had the same armaments. Then it leaves to logic that the ONLY determining difference would be in their "strategies" in combat. Simply, IQ can determine how much of your environment can you make use of but thinking can verifiably determine how efficient and effective can you use the environment which you can presently deal with.

PS

I've been in the testing business for a couple of years now and I've witnessed it myself that its construct is valid in real life specifically in both potential and actual job performance.

I've tested different people ranging from school children, teens to adults who are trying to get hired/currently has a job/trying to get promoted, etc. Most of the time, both the individual and other observers agree with the reports we've been sending regarding their characteristics and "fitness" on that job (or in any case for that matter). Therefore, I can conclude that intelligence (ability, aptitude and achievement-wise) and personality tests and their scores provide a valid and reliable profile of an individual to determine his strengths, weaknesses and needs or for what other purposes as so required by clients i.e. persons of interest.

Please note that this is despite of the so called "cultural differences" since mostly we are using "Western" standardized tests.

Edited by David Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psychology concludes the following:

Studies suggest that responses to IQ test are less coherent and more environmentally malleable than traditionally thought

Cultural changes result in consistent increases in IQ (Flynn Effect)

Heritability of IQ varies by socio-economic status

There are many models of intelligence than the single-factor IQ perspective. These include Sternberg's Triadic Theory, Gardner's Multiple Intelligences, and Dweck's Mindset Theory.

Theories of intelligence strongly influence achievement behavior

* These bulletpoints are taken from a lecture by Jeanne Tsai, 2008

Edited by Christopher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psychology concludes the following:

Studies suggest that responses to IQ test are less coherent and more environmentally malleable than traditionally thought

Cultural changes result in consistent increases in IQ (Flynn Effect)

Heritability of IQ varies by socio-economic status

There are many models of intelligence than the single-factor IQ perspective. These include Sternberg's Triadic Theory, Gardner's Multiple Intelligences, and Dweck's Mindset Theory.

Theories of intelligence strongly influence achievement behavior

* These bulletpoints are taken from a lecture by Jeanne Tsai, 2008

Pt1. I do not quite understand what is meant by "less coherent" in terms of responding to the test but the tests ARE environmentally malleable in the sense that the examinee,is free to process it however he/she likes as long as he/she gets the correct response or he/she may even attempt to invalidate the test by demonstrating how and where it's wrong. Also, it would be dependent on how he/she reports her condition on the exam date. Professionally, I would not advise continuing testing if the examinee tells me that he/she is feeling uncomfortable whether physically or psychologically.

Pt2.Yep, agree with the Flynn Effect there but why the then does the Normal Distribution Curve is still bell-shaped as it was first conceived even after re-norming the population? It is because in a given population, there would always be someone who falls behind and someone who goes to the top most. Please note that the NDC has no O% and likewise 100%.

Pt3. So based on Psychology qua her findings, if I had both genius American parents but we are currently living in the Philippines and are currently poor, then it would significantly delimit/increase my IQ??? Wait, another interpretation would be, If my potential genius father was rich and my potential genius mother was poor, then I would not have been conceived because of the law of propinquity i.e. they do not play around the same socio-economic circles? If that's the case, then yes, I assent to this point.

Pt4. There are. However, if Gardner or Sternberg's theories were to have a "generalized" concept of intelligence, what does that give us? It's 'g'-factor which is open to analysis but it remains a fact that IQ is hereditary.

Pt5. Everything starts with a premise my friends though there are infinite sets of it. From this follows attitude which yields to character to methods and consequently habits in both thinking and of course, approach to life.

I find Tsai fine. She just summed what's already been known and that's her contribution.

Edited by David Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that quote was to Andrew Taranto from me, around 2004. Long ago, I taught grades 5 to 12, David, and I was interested in the validity of IQ tests, and The Scholastic Aptitude Test as predictors of future success. They do predict quite well, however it is also necessary to watch for people who exhibit the “white coat affect,” and just do not test well under pressure, but otherwise exhibit thinking skills beyond their poorer test scores.

David Lee wrote:

. . . if an African (presumably of pure descent) scored 70 in a standard US norm IQ test wants to gain admittance or is brought to the US for validation then he would necessarily have a difficult time adapting to the needs of the environment . . .”

end quote

That is very true. I saw the follow-up to a group of orphans brought here from Africa in the 1990’s, with IQ’s in the norm for Africa ranging from 50 to 80 and they did poorly here. One was able to get a driver’s license and was delivering pizza in New York City, which was quite an accomplishment for him. That was the one success story I remember: a job, living in a group home with public assistance, and probably no chance of marriage or happiness.

Contrast that to the US immigration policy of fast-tracking doctors and nurses and other PHD’s from Asia! Those with the more secular outlooks thrived.

David Lee wrote:

Hmmm, this is rather interesting. Also, the issue whether you can gain admittance to a place based on your IQ scores.

end quote

Think of the dilemma from a personal, not governmental position. You re starting a mining expedition to an unclaimed, newly formed volcanic island in the Pacific. You need 1000 people to develop and process the rare element, Unobtainium. As on the TV show “Lost” this rare mineral causes physical and temporal anomalies. You may be there, isolated, for a generation. Who would you interview for the job? Remember, it is a 20 or 30 year commitment for some high-tech and a few, relatively menial careers for these people and you must pick a group that will hold together and build a business, and a life for themselves.

To another subject-

From Wikipedia, The Flynn Affect:

A 2003 study looking at the Flynn effect in Kenya between 1984 and 1998 found that the increase was best explained by parents' literacy, family structure, and children's nutrition and health.[21]

A 2006 study from Brazil examined data from testing children during 1930 and 2002–2004, the largest time gap ever considered. The results are consistent with both the cognitive stimulation and the nutritional hypotheses.

End quote

My non-expert’s opinion is that The Flynn Affect works primarily with the lower, tail end of the Bell Curve, but is still a valid reason to remain critical of all IQ testing, and to continue with projects like the “Plumpy Nut” program for malnourished African children. The hope is that the Bell Curve will continue to advance for all races over time.

Unfortunately, it may have reached its limit for Non-Africans around the 100 to 106 range, with doubts being cast upon the Mainland Chinese claim to a (g) of 106 (reflecting their nationalistic superiority.) I have not heard of any Flynn Affect studies with the one unique, high-end group, European Jews, who score 117 on average with one quarter of them scoring in the genius range. I presume they have also reached their upper end limit too.

My first grandchild, Elizabeth will be baby-sat by my wife, mother-in-law, and my retired self starting in a week. She will be contented, and intellectually stimulated while with us for about 9 hours a day, but I will not be conducting any Skinner Box experiments on her.

With all that is going on in America and the World why is an examination of IQ important? We are headed for a global crisis. In our country the unfunded mandates for Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable. Our debt cannot be repaid. Our personal debt is equivalent to every American putting seventy-eight thousand dollars on their credit card EACH MONTH!

Nationalized Healthcare may be the nail in our coffin. The world will need to think more rationally with whatever innate abilities we have. A crash was predicted back in the 1970’s and it never happened, but now things are a lot worse.

I want to thank the respondents who have exhibited rationality and benevelence towards this topic.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

Sincerely, I do enjoy reading and replying to your posts. I'm glad someone else, you in this case, 'said so' as well as I did.

you said:

My first grandchild, Elizabeth will be baby-sat by my wife, mother-in-law, and my retired self starting in a week. She will be contented, and intellectually stimulated while with us for about 9 hours a day, but I will not be conducting any Skinner Box experiments on her. [end quote]

-I'm different in a way that I'm distant from the culture and mores here. I have this constant curiosity about humans that I sometimes perform quasi-psychological experiments on my relatives just to see if a theory works - minus the electrodes.

you said: (emphasis mine)

With all that is going on in America and the World why is an examination of IQ important? We are headed for a global crisis. In our country the unfunded mandates for Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable. Our debt cannot be repaid. Our personal debt is equivalent to every American putting seventy-eight thousand dollars on their credit card EACH MONTH!

Nationalized Healthcare may be the nail in our coffin. The world will need to think more rationally with whatever innate abilities we have. A crash was predicted back in the 1970’s and it never happened, but now things are a lot worse.[end quote]

-Sad but not discouraging. Just to remind you Peter, need counts for little in idea and nothing in actuality though ability does for a lot at that. You can though, think for yourself relative to your desire to get out and consequently, rise above the dilemma you are experiencing.

you said:

Unfortunately, it may have reached its limit for Non-Africans around the 100 to 106 range, with doubts being cast upon the Mainland Chinese claim to a (g) of 106 (reflecting their nationalistic superiority.) I have not heard of any Flynn Affect studies with the one unique, high-end group, European Jews, who score 117 on average with one quarter of them scoring in the genius range. I presume they have also reached their upper end limit too.[end quote]

-106 is still "average". If I ever meet the author of this ignorant work I'd tell him to get his race at least 116 points and even at that, the Chinese masses can't claim to be above others especially against individual talent of other races.

you said:

I want to thank the respondents who have exhibited rationality and benevolence towards this topic.[end quote]

-You are very much welcome and I thank you as well. Good spar.

Edited by David Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IQ is not going to save the world. Bankruptcy might.

If a human being can be a genius or brilliant with a normal sized brain, I don't see why with a little tweaking the average IQed can't be more intelligent. I'm talking about drugs and implants just around the corner. But we'll still have tribalism, envy, parasitism and power lust.

My Father had an extremely high IQ. He had 50-60 more IQ points than William (IQ) Shockley (sp?) whom he knew back in the late 1930s. Believe me, neither of these men would be worth a damn saving the world; you'd run if you saw them coming. Some people have so much brainpower they're completely unbalanced. Doesn't have to be. Euler would play with his children while dictating mathematical formulas, constructs or whatever mathematicians do that took years and years after his death for publication because he left so much material.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hayek is supposed to have said (i.e. I don't have a cite) that high-IQ people are prone to rationalism in politics and economics and for that reason distinctly less reliable in these matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David wrote:

-106 is still "average". If I ever meet the author of this ignorant work I'd tell him to get his race at least 116 points and even at that, the Chinese masses can't claim to be above others especially against individual talent of other races.

End quote

During Mao’s time, I am sure the Chinese would have claimed 120 (g). The claim of 106 was illuminating to me – I imagined the Minister of Culture telling a state sanctioned scientist, just make “us” a little bit better, than the rest of the world, for the sake of believability.

The “Individual Talents Found in Other Races,” is something to be examined scientifically. I have read that the Chinese invented gunpowder, and the Arabs (pre-Muhammad) the decimal system, Africans the throwing spear, and American Indians never created the wheel, except as a toy. I think these types of claims are jingoistic and unfair.

During the thousands of years that specific “groups” existed in different environments, how did they fare? Did any other group outperform the Inuit’s in colder climates? No, we froze our asses off. Is it possible their genes have been evolutionarily selected to survive there, or is it just culture? I would not doubt that it is a mix of nature and nurture, and I would not criticize their lack of a written history, considering the environment, even after 100,000 years.

Conversely emigrating Europeans have not fared well in tropical zones like Africa, though the English, the Boers, the French and the Portuguese, all gave it a try. Today, with cures for malaria and other tropical diseases Non-Africans would fare better there. They would just need to survive the Africans.

When we examine the more temperate zones we can prove Aristotelian culture and Science HAVE MADE the quantum leap. I can point to quite a few deficiencies but also to a thousand points of light from our reasoning cultures. I hope we do not lose them. I just saw a remake of “Planet of the Apes,” two nights ago, with Mark Wahlberg, and I am still shuddering over the post apocalyptic vision seen there.

Off subject for a minute, I was watching a Science show about the DNA of Neanderthal Man and modern humans last year on cable and that got me thinking in a “racial” but not “racist” way. For years, Anthropologists have known Neanderthal individuals had a lot of red hair, and they have speculated modern human ‘redheads’ had interbred with Neanderthals to carry on that gene. Not so, according to this show. The genes we have for red hair arose spontaneously and were not inherited from Neanderthal. Using DNA, the closest sapient subgroup to Neanderthals are the Finns, and I am probably one sixteenth Finn. I went to the Finnish state web site to look at them. They looked OK to me. I will go check the mirror.

Back on subject, from an evolutionary stand point it is interesting how the different races have evolved and fared as they have populated the globe, after leaving Africa. The human race has morphed into The Chinese dynasties and the modern transitional China, The Raja’s of India to the current looming economic powerhouse and exporter of talented people, The Greek and Roman Empires to the Renaissance to the industrial revolution and the birth of capitalism and a political system based on the nature of man.

England. America. Freedom. (Now that formulation is jingoistic, so, considering the readership of OL, I will add Free Korea, Canada and The Philippines to SEEM fair.)

Scientists might sound like racists if they insisted that, where blacks go they turn the area into another Africa, or another third world environment. But is it true? Black (g) goes from 70 to 80 or 85 after leaving Africa. Will it go higher? So let us examine all of black Africa, Zanzibar, the little Caribbean islands in which Negroes predominate, Haiti, the inner cities of America, etc.

Has there ever been a black civilization? Will there ever be one? The Flynn Affect suggests there could be, but it’s been 100,000 years or more, but don’t forget my example of the Eskimos. The closest to a pre-western influenced, black nation that I can think of might be the militaristic mega-tribe of the Zulus.

What has been invented in Black Africa? I will give you the throwing spear and stone tools, but nothing modern. Do the critically thinking members of Objectivist Living (greetings, Brant and Reidy!) who are reading my post dispute this? I would really like to be proven wrong. Remembering the story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” please don’t unfairly dismiss me or call me a racist.

Objectivism teaches us to never judge someone by their ethnicity. Rand strove to free herself of Nietzschean influences but did she go to far into egalitarianism? Whatever the (g) in Africa is, it does not describe everyone you meet. It does not describe Thomas Sowell, or Walter Williams, or for that matter, President Obama.

Brant wrote:

IQ is not going to save the world. Bankruptcy might . . . Believe me, neither of these (highly intelligent) men would be worth a damn saving the world; you'd run if you saw them coming. Some people have so much brainpower they're completely unbalanced.

End quote

Reidy responded:

Hayek is supposed to have said (i.e. I don't have a cite) that high-IQ people are prone to rationalism in politics and economics and for that reason distinctly less reliable in these matters.

End quote

“Fascinating!” – Federation First Officer Mr. Spock.

In that first Star Trek The Next Generation movie, (was it “First Contact”?) when first contact occurs, and a Vulcan steps out of his spaceship I was spellbound. If I had been in that situation (omnisciently knowing what I know of the Vulcans) I would have rushed forward to shake their hands and give them a hug. Slightly odd or not, moderately unbalanced or not, the Vulcans were *better* than humans. Gasp! What did I just say?

Thanks, Brant and Peter. Are you guys as sick as I am, of being PC? What do YOUR brains tell you? Lose the fear. It is liberating.

I still hope to talk to Richard Dawkins, get his tongue lubricated on brandy, (I will stick to a bottle of beer) and listen to his thoughts. But so far, David Lee, Christopher and I (and I hope to add Brant and Peter Reidy,) have or will have done, well. Thanks again.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now