Catholic Eugenics?

[vern_humphrey]

My degrees are in neuroscience,

And in which course did you learn that some races are inferior?

and I believe I have enough first-hand knowledge of this literature.

Those who are prejudiced usually select the literature that confirms their prejudices.

And then to argue that humans should have special rights just because they are human is just idiotical, a zero argument.

So you do believe flatworms should have the same rights as humans?

 

[Academic]

Those who are prejudiced usually select the literature >that confirms their prejudices.

Being a researcher, I have studied the original literature (unfiltered!) on ethnic variation quite carefully by now, and it has made me completely change my opinions, which were as mainstream as can be a few years ago. What is said and written in standard media, in particular by humanists, and what is taught in school simply does not reflect the scientific literature in this case. An interesting situation in itself. If you don’t believe me, I suggest you investigate for yourself. And I’m not promoting racist views, all I promote is an empirical approach and the priority of truth, whether we like it or not - an ethos which I think coincides very much with what the church teaches, incidentally.

About this flatworm business: the point is of course that you should pull your self together and formulate why you think humans should have moral rights. “Because they are human” is not the correct answer, because you are not five years old. This little exercise could make you realize, I thought, that moral entitlement is closely connected to the basic set of mental properties I include under the umbrella term “personhood”. And then we are back to the argumentation I outlined earlier.

 

[ribozyme]

Those who are prejudiced usually select the literature >that confirms their prejudices.

I suggest he doesn’t! It will destroy his mind and poison his soul!! Look at me for example!!

 

[Academic]

Ribozyme: Academic, I think Rushton’s claims about human evolution are exaggerated, but not without merit.

Rushton should get credit, I think, for compiling and producing an extremely interesting set of data. I still think his explanation of these trends in terms of r/K-theory is very beautiful (and he seems in fact to get more and more support these days). Is there really any viable alternative explanation of the complete set of data around, with anything close to the simplicity and elegance of the Rushton model? If you mean that some part of these differences could be environmentally induced rather than hardwired, sure, but I think Rushton is clear about that too.

 

[Academic]

Ribozyme: I suggest he doesn’t! It will destroy his mind and poison his soul!! Look at me for example!!

You really make me smile, my friend. What is the matter? Why torment yourself to that extent because there are genetic group differences in mental traits as well as in physical traits? Of course there are, in Homo sapiens as in other species. I think you should calm down and grow up emotionally: being scientifically open won’t turn you into a racist. This is the way the world is, we have to cope with that, and intelligent and educated people can also cope with that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Those who are prejudiced usually select the literature >that confirms their prejudices.

Oh, I have investigated. And there is plenty of literature that refutes your position.

And I’m not promoting racist views,

Yes, you are.

all I promote is an empirical approach and the priority of truth, whether we like it or not - an ethos which I think coincides very much with what the church teaches, incidentally.

Show me where the Church accepts some human races are inferior, endorses the killing of the unborn, and rejects the concept of human rights.

About this flatworm business: the point is of course that you should pull your self together and formulate why you think humans should have moral rights.

The point is, we do have human rights. And you have no way to refute that.

Basic human rights accrue to us by virtue of our human condition. If they do not – that is, if “society” confir them on us --then they are not rights at all, but mere priviliges.

 

[ribozyme]

Ribozyme: Academic, I think Rushton’s claims about human evolution are exaggerated, but not without merit.

Rushton should get credit, I think, for compiling and producing an extremely interesting set of data. I still think his explanation of these trends in terms of r/K-theory is very beautiful (and he seems in fact to get more and more support these days). Is there really any viable alternative explanation of the complete set of data around, with anything close to the simplicity and elegance of the Rushton model? If you mean that some part of these differences could be environmentally induced rather than hardwired, sure, but I think Rushton is clear about that too.

I have something similar to Rushton’s model; Lynn’s hypothesis that extreme cold can act as selection pressure to increase intelligence.

I do not think r-K selection can be applied to human though. You should read this review: ant.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/2/2/131

I think Graves dismantles r-K selection theory, but he does not provide an effective counterargument against Lynn’s hypothesis or any argument that the differences in g among ethnic groups are genetic.

No, let’s not suggest Vern to read the works of Gottfredson, Lynn, Rushton, Herrnstein, and Murray… they have the potential to destroy minds!!

Academic, I think that you know that I have studied the literature extensively too. I do not want to be a psychologist; I do not want to administer tests to see if people are innately inferior or superior. I want to explore the nature of the first life forms as a biochemist.

 

[vern_humphrey]

INo, let’s not suggest Vern to read the works of Gottfredson, Lynn, Rushton, Herrnstein, and Murray… they have the potential to destroy minds!!

And when read by those with a racist bent, they have a tendency to strengthen that bent.

 

[Academic]

Oh, I have investigated. And there is plenty of >literature that refutes your position.

Give me one reference (and please exclude the marxists in Science for the People: Gould, Kamin, Lewontin and Rose because I’ve read their ramblings, compared them to the original literature, and - in brief - they are simply plain wrong on the issues we talk about now.)

Show me where the Church accepts some human >races are inferior…

I have in fact never used the value term “inferior”. Perhaps you could show me where the church teaches that we should lie and deny race differences in intelligence, even though the data clearly shows they exist. Truth is holy to me.

Basic human rights accrue to us by virtue of our >human condition.

And on and on it goes… you don’t recognize a circle even when it’s in front of your nose. Why does our “human condition” give us moral rights whereas the “flatfish condition” gives the flatfish no moral rights? Again, my aim is to make you clarify your thinking, not to prevent - God forbid! - selection of flatfish embryos.

 

[ribozyme]

And when read by those with a racist bent, they have a tendency to strengthen that bent.

Calling me a racist? I think you should apologize for making that specious accusation.

In fact, I wanted to believe that humans do not significantly differ in such traits. Ok, it would not change anything about the nature of these differences, but I suppose it would actually be beneficial if you believe that they are not innate.

I say it is best to pretend that they do not exist.

 

[Academic]

Yes, ribozyme, I notice you know the literature and I find it interesting to discuss it with someone knowledgable who also has an acute sense for the ethical problems and emotional reactions these findings evoke. A religious forum is a very appropriate place for such discussions, I find.

I’ve read Graves, but he is not convincing (nor is the tone of his writing!). I’m even more familiar with the related arguments that have been raised to discredit the correlation between brain volume and IQ: oh yes, we have this correlation between species, but not within the species Homo sapiens - that’s the claim. In fact, the correlation is extremely well established within humans, and I’ve seen it in my own datasets.

In general I think it’s very fishy when someone argues that within-species variation should be entirely different in character from between-species variation. Within-species variation is the basis of species formation.

 

[Academic]

Ribozyme:
I say it is best to pretend that they do not exist.

It’s not that simple. First of all, studying these differences and relating them to general models of human evolution will enable us to study the evolution of intelligence and other mental traits in humans, and their relation to the evolution of the human brain. This is a theoretically extremely interesting project! Secondly, of course these things have practical consequences, both for third world policy and immigration policy. Making policy decisions on the basis of wishful thinking which has nothing to do with reality just can’t be good.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Give me one reference (and please exclude the marxists in Science for the People: Gould, Kamin, Lewontin and Rose because I’ve read their ramblings, compared them to the original literature, and - in brief - they are simply plain wrong on the issues we talk about now.)

Let’s start with the American Bioethics Advisory Commission. all.org/abac/eugenics.htm

Show me where the Church accepts some human >races are inferior…

Perhaps you can show me where the concept that all men are equal in the eyes of God is rejected by the Church.

Basic human rights accrue to us by virtue of our >human condition.

I recognize racism when I see it. And I recognize the rejection of human rights as a rejection not only of Western Civilization, but of Christianity in general.

 

[ribozyme]

Yes, ribozyme, I notice you know the literature and I find it interesting to discuss it with someone knowledgable who also has an acute sense for the ethical problems and emotional reactions these findings evoke. A religious forum is a very appropriate place for such discussions, I find.

I am curious when I ask you this question? Have you met Gottfredson, Lynn, and Rushton? Do they get this emotional? BTW, have you met other people who get emotional by these finding (and accept them to a certain extent) besides myself?

I’ve read Graves, but he is not convincing (nor is the tone of his writing!). I’m even more familiar with the related arguments that have been raised to discredit the correlation between brain volume and IQ: oh yes, we have this correlation between species, but not within the species Homo sapiens - that’s the claim. In fact, the correlation is extremely well established within humans, and I’ve seen it in my own datasets.

I suppose you published in the journal Intelligence and Individual and Personality Differences.

 

[Academic]

Let’s start with the American Bioethics Advisory >Commission. all.org/abac/eugenics.htm

All I find is a pro-life organization web site. Do you have any credible scientific papers which refute what I say?

Perhaps you can show me where the concept that all >men are equal in the eyes of God is rejected by the >Church.

Whatever this expression “equal in the eyes of God” means, it certainly does not imply that there are not genetic differences between individuals. Ask your priest. All we say is that the data clearly shows that there are statistical differences in gene frequencies between populations too. Surprising?

I recognize racism when I see it.

No. You demonstrate a perfect lack of ability to distinguish between racism and the scientific study of race differences.

And I recognize
the rejection of human rights as a rejection not >only of Western Civilization, but of Christianity in >general.

I don’t reject human rights at all, but they do not apply to in vitro fertilized embryos in a Petri dish.

 

[vern_humphrey]

All I find is a pro-life organization web site. Do you have any credible scientific papers which refute what I say?

To refute what? All you’ve done is make unsubstantiated claims about flateworms having rights.

Perhaps you can show me where the concept that all >men are equal in the eyes of God is rejected by the >Church.

Whatever this expression “equal in the eyes of God” means, it certainly does not imply that there are not genetic differences between individuals.

It does mean that all have the same basic human rights. It does not mean that Black people are inferior to White people.

Ask your priest. All we say is that the data clearly shows that there are statistical differences in gene frequencies between populations too. Surprising?

And that justifies denying some of them human rights?

No. You demonstrate a perfect lack of ability to distinguish between racism and the scientific study of race differences.

Racism disguised as science – and old trick.

I don’t reject human rights at all, but they do not apply to in vitro fertilized embryos in a Petri dish.

When you deny one human his fundamental right to live, you deny all human rights.

 

[Academic]

I’ve met Gottfredson who I can tell you is an extremely honest as well as very compassionate and noble person. She if someone demonstrates that it is possible to accept these truths without the slighest trace of racism. Jensen also seems to be a remarkable character (read the biography by Frank Miele, which includes very interesting discussions of his lifelong admiration of Gandhian philosophy and his high ideals in terms of scientific honesty).
I don’t wish to become too personal here, but yes, we publish in the relevant journals.

 

[ribozyme]

Ribozyme:
I say it is best to pretend that they do not exist.

It’s not that simple. First of all, studying these differences and relating them to general models of human evolution will enable us to study the evolution of intelligence and other mental traits in humans, and their relation to the evolution of the human brain. This is a theoretically extremely interesting project! Secondly, of course these things have practical consequences, both for third world policy and immigration policy. Making policy decisions on the basis of wishful thinking which has nothing to do with reality just can’t be good.

I used to enjoy reading papers about the origin of life and I even contacted Gerald Joyce and Robert Shapiro via e-mail and had some enjoyable discussions with them. I enjoyed origin of life research because it has no political and social implications (with the notable exception that it has the potential to destroy creationist arguments). It is an intellectually stimulating topic that one who isn’t emotionally mature can enjoy. Robert Shapiro and Gerald Joyce’s ideas cannot be used to justify the mistreatment of certain “inferior” groups, while Rushton, Murray, Herrnstein, Lynn, and Gottfredson’s ideas can be used in that fashion.

Such research maybe interesting, but I do not think it should have any policy implications UNLESS it solves the problems. I do not know any other means besides embryo selection and genetic engineering that can rectify the problem of human diversity in innate cognitive ability. Whether or not these are ethical solutions is a different discussion though.

 

[Academic]

Vern: To refute what? All you’ve done is make unsubstantiated claims about flateworms having rights.

At some point in the heat of the battle I got deeply misunderstood!!

 

[vern_humphrey]

In her article Suppressing Intelligence Research: Hurting Those We Intend to Help Gottfredson posts this opinion poll:

The results of a 1984 survey (Snyderman & Rothman, 1988) of experts on intelligence and mental testing therefore surprised even Jensen. The experts’ modal response on every question that involved the “heretical” conclusions from Jensen’s 1969 article was the same as his (Jensen, 1998, p. 198). (The experts’ mean response overestimated test bias, however, because there is none against blacks or lower social class individuals; Jensen, 1980; Neisser et al., 1996; Snyderman & Rothman, 1988, p. 134; Wigdor & Garner, 1982). Here in abbreviated form are the survey’s major questions and the 600 experts’ responses.

Q: What are the important elements of intelligence?
A: “Near unanimity” (96-99%) for abstract thinking or reasoning, problem solving
ability, and capacity to acquire knowledge (p. 56).

Q: Is intelligence best described as a single general factor with subsidiaries or as separate faculties?
A: A general factor (58%, or 67% of those responding; p. 71).

Q: What heritability would you estimate for IQ differences within the white population?
A: Average estimate of 57% (p. 95).

Q: What heritability would you estimate for IQ differences within the black population?
A: Average estimate of 57% (p. 95).

Q: Are intelligence tests biased against blacks?
A: On a scale of 1 (not at all or insignificantly) to 4 (extremely), mean response of 2 (somewhat, p. 117).

Q: Are intelligence tests biased against lower social class individuals?
A: On a scale of 1 (not at all or insignificantly) to 4 (extremely), mean response of 2 (somewhat, p. 118).

Q: What is the source of average social class differences in IQ?
A: Both genetic and environmental (55%, or 65% of those responding; p. 126).

Q: What is the source of the average black-white difference in IQ?
A: Both genetic and environmental (45%, or 52% of those responding; p. 128).

Now that’s science for you – an opinion poll.