Heredity, IQ, and Race: Moral implications

[ribozyme]

If you want to deny this issue, go ahead. That’s what I did when I was first introduced to this topic.

But if we accept the inconvenient truth that “IQ” is strongly hereditary, and that low “IQ” causes undesirable social outcomes such as dropping out of high school and welfare dependency, how do we deal with these facts?

What are the solutions to the problems caused by “low IQ”? “Low IQ” is a rather subjective and undefined term because of ambiguous word “low”. If we acknowledge the hereditary nature of this problem, how do we deal with it without invoking eugenics or embryo selection? That is that nature of this quagmire, as we cannot assail the problem: “low IQ” because “IQ” is not malleable, but it is genetically determined. To be honest, having an IQ of 90 is a death sentence; it means you will fail in life (Don’t take my word for it: just ask Arthur Jensen, Linda Gottfredson, Charles Murray, and if you have the ability to perform necromancy, Richard Herrnstein). Again, how does one deal with this? Do we simply live with this unpleasant reality and accept it? I do not want to accept this, and I want rectify these problems.

I also think it is best that race and intelligence research remains secret because they propagate negative stereotypes about certain minorities. Also, intelligence research, in my opinion, is a threat to social justice because of the despair that it conveys; we cannot do anything to alleviate poverty unless we eliminate the alleles that cause it. So should intelligence research be presented to the public? I do not think it should because of the misery and consternation I experienced when I read the rather disturbing and unpleasant literature.

Another corollary is that revival eugenics is inevitable; parent’s will do anything to increase their children’s IQs (via embryo selection and possibly genetic engineering) when these means become available.

To reiterate: “how do we deal with this problem without invoking eugenics?” How do we increase intelligence without eugenics? And how do we concomitantly respect “human dignity”?

I do not find most solutions effective though. Also, eugenics is appealing because it is a rebellion against the totalitarian dictatorship of that number; embracing eugenics liberates us from the cruelity of IQ. This will allow us to demonstrate our hegemony over IQ and our power to manipulate it.

Well, if this topic is inappropriate and inflammatory, I think I should be admonished (about posting these kinds of threads) and the thread should be locked.

 

[ribozyme]

I am not advocating eugenics explicitly in this thread, but I want to know how are we going to manumit people from genetic slavery?

 

[DL82]

Your mistake is twofold:

1. you believe that IQ is a cause when it is really just an effect.
2. you believe that IQ/wealth is the key value of human life.

IQ is a socially constructed measure. It is well established that the things which IQ measures are biased in favour of white middle-class educated people. Therefore, it is unsurprising that race has a bearing on IQ scores.

Think about this - poor families send their children to poorer schools, they have fewer connections and no way to pay for university education. There is nobody in the home with higher education to help the children to supplement what they learn in school. Therefore they don’t learn the things that would help them to pass the IQ test, nor do they learn the things that would help them to get high paying jobs.

What’s responsible for the low paying job? Is it IQ score, race or education?

A correlation is not the same as a cause.
seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.php

How does the Church respond to the call for eugenics? With the message of the gospel - Jesus came to follow God’s plan for His life, and to become obedient even unto death on a cross. Life is not about being the richest or most intelligent. Life is about loving our neighbour and loving God.

 

[ribozyme]

Your mistake is twofold:

you believe that IQ/wealth is the key value of human life.

.

Nope, that’s what the “doyens of IQ” (e.g. Linda Gottfredson, Arthur Jensen, Richard Lynn, J.P. Rushton) taught me.

Well, according to the aforementioned psychometrians IQ correlates with almost everything good under the sun.

One paper that was a heartrending read was Rushton and Jensen (2005). If you want to learn the unpleasant truth find it (via Google). (It’s about 60 pages long).

The title is: “THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE
DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY”

 

[1ke]

Instead of reading Rushton and Jensen, try reading Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

 

[puzzleannie]

If you want to deny this issue, go ahead. That’s what I did when I was first introduced to this topic.

But if we accept the inconvenient truth that “IQ” is strongly hereditary, and that low “IQ” causes undesirable social outcomes such as dropping out of high school and welfare dependency, how do we deal with these facts?

What are the solutions to the problems caused by “low IQ”? “Low IQ” is a rather subjective and undefined term because of ambiguous word “low”. If we acknowledge the hereditary nature of this problem, how do we deal with it without invoking eugenics or embryo selection? .

there are so many problems with an debate begun on these premises I don’t know where to begin but I will try. Number one, there is no proof whatever that IQ is hereditary. IQ refers specifically to a quantifiable measurement established when a subject takes a certain test or series of tests designed to measure specific mental abilities. The tests are not designed or capable of measuring all mental abilities, and the numbers is just that a number. For one thing, a person’s performance can vary over time, and for another, like any test, it is objective only insofar as the constructors, administrators and interpreters of the test have overcome their own subjectivity. Also the tests are language and culture sensitive, and weighted toward English, or the language of those constructing the tests, and the prevailing culture. IQ is not a magic formula nor is it a precise infallible predictor of how well a person will perform, over a lifetime, in the intellectual abilities measured, nor how they will perform in social, psychological, physical and other challenges throughout life.

There is a correlation between IQ scores and some measures of what our culture determines as “success” or “failure” in life, and between achievement test scores and academic performance. There is not however, a provable correlation between IQ or other test scores and quality of life, success in relationships, happiness or other unmeasurable and unquantifiable values.

There is also no proof that there is a gene, linked to racial characteristics such as hair, skin color, blood type, body type etc. which determines IQ. If IQ is inherited, as it may be at least in part, there is no evidence that race is a determinant. Also inherited traits are not always gene related, in that they are present in the DNA as received from the parents, intra-utero influences–maternal nutrition, exposure to pathogens etc. also affects traits or conditions the child may be born with or which emerge developmentally.

The literature of science on this topic has done a very poor job in general in differentiating between societal, cultural, environmental factors, and inherited individual or familial factors, which influence academic performance, socialization, physical and mental development, and other factors commonly used to measure “success” or “failure” in life. The literature–which varies in tone according to the fad of the day, nature vs nurture etc.–tends to make leaping global conclusions based on limited data, and extrapolate theories from them which simply have no proven basis in reality. The entire hisorical argument for eugenics is based on such unwarranted “series of unfortunate conclusions and suppositions.”

 

[st_lucy]

If you want to deny this issue, go ahead. That’s what I did when I was first introduced to this topic.

But if we accept the inconvenient truth that “IQ” is strongly hereditary, and that low “IQ” causes undesirable social outcomes such as dropping out of high school and welfare dependency, how do we deal with these facts?

What are the solutions to the problems caused by “low IQ”? “Low IQ” is a rather subjective and undefined term because of ambiguous word “low”. If we acknowledge the hereditary nature of this problem, how do we deal with it without invoking eugenics or embryo selection? That is that nature of this quagmire, as we cannot assail the problem: “low IQ” because “IQ” is not malleable, but it is genetically determined. To be honest, having an IQ of 90 is a death sentence; it means you will fail in life (Don’t take my word for it: just ask Arthur Jensen, Linda Gottfredson, Charles Murray, and if you have the ability to perform necromancy, Richard Herrnstein). Again, how does one deal with this? Do we simply live with this unpleasant reality and accept it? I do not want to accept this, and I want rectify these problems.

I also think it is best that race and intelligence research remains secret because they propagate negative stereotypes about certain minorities. Also, intelligence research, in my opinion, is a threat to social justice because of the despair that it conveys; we cannot do anything to alleviate poverty unless we eliminate the alleles that cause it. So should intelligence research be presented to the public? I do not think it should because of the misery and consternation I experienced when I read the rather disturbing and unpleasant literature.

Another corollary is that revival eugenics is inevitable; parent’s will do anything to increase their children’s IQs (via embryo selection and possibly genetic engineering) when these means become available.

To reiterate: “how do we deal with this problem without invoking eugenics?” How do we increase intelligence without eugenics? And how do we concomitantly respect “human dignity”?

I do not find most solutions effective though. Also, eugenics is appealing because it is a rebellion against the totalitarian dictatorship of that number; embracing eugenics liberates us from the cruelity of IQ. This will allow us to demonstrate our hegemony over IQ and our power to manipulate it.

Well, if this topic is inappropriate and inflammatory, I think I should be admonished (about posting these kinds of threads) and the thread should be locked.

I really have a hard time with everything you are saying here. First of all IQ does not and I repeat DOES NOT determine what a person is going to do. For example I know many who have very high IQ’s and have done virtually nothing with their lives. And there are many who have very low IQ’s and who do so much.

Also just because you do have a high IQ what does that mean? Does it guarantee that you will get a good job? What if everyone in the world had high IQ’s? What if your IQ was one of the highest and due to some freak accident you lost it?

An IQ doesn’t make up a person, and those who think it does live very sad lives.

My two cents.

 

[LapsedAtheist]

But if we accept the inconvenient truth that “IQ” is strongly hereditary, and that low “IQ” causes undesirable social outcomes such as dropping out of high school and welfare dependency, how do we deal with these facts?

The other posters have talked at length about the validity of using IQ as a measure for anything other than IQ, but I think I should point out something: “Heredity” doesn’t mean that a trait is only determined by genetics.

For example, height is hereditary. However, malnourished community “A” will tend to have lower height than community “B” with access to proper nutrition. Still, though, within that malnourished community, height is still heriditary: parents who are taller than average (for the community) will tend to have children who are taller than average (again, for the community).

This says nothing about how community “A” would compare with “B” if they were on an equal footing: given proper nutrition, the average height of “A” might surpass that of “B”… and still, height would be hereditary; childrens’ heights would tend to be the same distance away from average as their parents… but with a changed average.

All heredity says is “with everything else being equal, children will probably be like their parents”. It says nothing about when things aren’t equal. Calling something “hereditary”, while accurate, can conjure up an idea that we’re powerless to do anything about it, even when that isn’t necessarily so.

Intelligence is complex, but I have no reason to believe that if you give disadvantaged people better nutrition, better education, better pre- and neo-natal care, and generally improve their lives, that you won’t see an increase in intelligence… as well as a whole host of other measures.

People with above-average intelligence will likely still have children with above-average intelligence, but you can move the average.

 

[I_A]

From the point of view that this is true, so what?

Assuming a higher IQ measures intelligence which leads to higher paying jobs, better education, and a higher social status:

Does a high paying job make people happy? I’ve seen no statistical correlation (now extremely low paying jobs have been shown to make people unhappy.)

Does education make people happy? How many professors do you know that are thrilled to be alive?

Does other’s respect for your vast knowledge base make people happy? Ultimately no.

So intelligence doesn’t corrolate to happiness. Is happiness even our goal, or is getting into heaven our goal?

So what if some people were born smarter than others? As long as you embrace other human beings, other souls, as a complete mystery beyond your understanding, then how smart a person is doesn’t matter one lick.

 

[Meggie]

Autistics have some of the highest IQ’s in the world, yet many are non-functional as socital human beings

 

[Vanny]

A high IQ doesn’t exempt someone from sin and evil.(or mass murder)
Think Hitler, and some of the other meglomaniacs/evil geniuses of our time.

 

[Vanny]

I really have a hard time with everything you are saying here. First of all IQ does not and I repeat DOES NOT determine what a person is going to do. For example I know many who have very high IQ’s and have done virtually nothing with their lives. And there are many who have very low IQ’s and who do so much.

Also just because you do have a high IQ what does that mean? Does it guarantee that you will get a good job? What if everyone in the world had high IQ’s? What if your IQ was one of the highest and due to some freak accident you lost it?

An IQ doesn’t make up a person, and those who think it does live very sad lives.

My two cents.

St Lucy, I agree with you 100%

 

[lak611]

Think about this - poor families send their children to poorer schools, they have fewer connections and no way to pay for university education. There is nobody in the home with higher education to help the children to supplement what they learn in school. Therefore they don’t learn the things that would help them to pass the IQ test, nor do they learn the things that would help them to get high paying jobs.

IQ is not an achievement test. It is an aptitude test. Children cannot be taught things to pass an IQ test. This is why Mensa will not accept achievement tests for membership. From Mensa’s website: “We accept approximately 200 different test scores for Mensa membership. We do not accept tests of achievement, such as the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills and the California Tests of Basic Skills. Generally, we accept tests that measure aptitude or ability. Since this list is constantly changing as more tests are developed and reviewed, we do not have a complete list available. If your test is not listed, please contact Testing and Admissions.” us.mensa.org/Content/AML/NavigationMenu/Join/SubmitTestScores/TestScoresFAQ/TestScoresFAQ.htm

 

[ribozyme]

No, the point of this thread is to discuss how to solve the problems at the left tail of the bell curve, the issue The Bell Curve attempted to explore.

 

[lak611]

No, the point of this thread is to discuss how to solve the problems at the left tail of the bell curve, the issue The Bell Curve attempted to explore.

I really do not believe that there is any way to solve the problems. There will always be persons of low intelligence. There is no “magic pill” to make all persons highly intelligent.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

But if we accept the inconvenient truth that “IQ” is strongly hereditary, and that low “IQ” causes undesirable social outcomes such as dropping out of high school and welfare dependency, how do we deal with these facts?

To reiterate: “how do we deal with this problem without invoking eugenics?” How do we increase intelligence without eugenics? And how do we concomitantly respect “human dignity”?

I do not find most solutions effective though. Also, eugenics is appealing because it is a rebellion against the totalitarian dictatorship of that number; embracing eugenics liberates us from the cruelity of IQ. This will allow us to demonstrate our hegemony over IQ and our power to manipulate it.

Life is competitive. So the important thing is to be richer than the next guy, taller than him, or cleverer than him. Then you get the nice girl, the good job, the place on the sports team. The absolute level doesn’t matter so much.

There is certainly a genetic as well as a social component to intelligence. We haven’t really begun to think through the moral issues involved in genetic enhancements. However I suspect it is inevitable in the long run. Those who don’t enhance their children will be driven into extinction by those who do.

 

[ribozyme]

Life is competitive. So the important thing is to be richer than the next guy, taller than him, or cleverer than him. Then you get the nice girl, the good job, the place on the sports team. The absolute level doesn’t matter so much.

There is certainly a genetic as well as a social component to intelligence. We haven’t really begun to think through the moral issues involved in genetic enhancements. However I suspect it is inevitable in the long run. Those who don’t enhance their children will be driven into extinction by those who do.

So you’re recommending that we should all embrace eugenics?

 

[djrakowski]

Autistics have some of the highest IQ’s in the world, yet many are non-functional as socital human beings

:yup:

This description fits two of my children. The oldest is untestable, and the second-oldest is testable only if the individual administering the test has quite a bit of patience and fortitude. In fact, the second-oldest, when first tested by her psychologist a few years ago, scored significantly higher than her peers when given an age-appropriate test. However, due to her rigid behaviors, fear of taking direction from others and crippling social anxieties, she’s practically uneducable.

Yet, both of these children, though extremely low-functioning (my son) or average to below-average functioning (my daughter) would’ve passed this as-yet fictional genetically-based IQ screening.

Thank God ribozyme’s ideals are still fiction!

 

[lak611]

There are certain jobs that are necessary for society that do not demand a high IQ. Society will always have a need for these low-skill and low-paying occupations. If all members of society were intelligent, then certain of these intelligent people would still be forced into these occupations by market demand. There are only a finite number of physicians, attorneys, business executives, etc. needed.

 

[djrakowski]

There are certain jobs that are necessary for society that do not demand a high IQ. Society will always have a need for these low-skill and low-paying occupations. If all members of society were intelligent, then certain of these intelligent people would still be forced into these occupations by market demand. There are only a finite number of physicians, attorneys, business executives, etc. needed.

Exactly. And there is great value in these occupations that are regarded as lowly and/or menial.

Furthermore, there is more to value in a person than what he can accomplish in comparison to worldly measures of success.