The morality about reading a book about evolution

[ribozyme]

I wonder if it is moral to read the book *Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis * by Richard Lynn. Race and intelligence is not a pleasant topic to discuss for me as this issue is marked with acerbity and acrimony. I remember reading The Bell Curve and Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s opprobrium for those who are on the left side of the bell curve disgusts me. In contrast, Lynn’s book does not focus on the political implications of race differences. Since I am interested in evolutionary biology, I am curious about Lynn’s Darwinian etiology for racial inequality. I must add that I most certainly enjoy reading about Darwinian evolution and the “An Evolutionary Analysis” subtitle of that book makes it a rather tantalizing read. The book purports to be the largest survey on the global cognitive ability data.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/06/Race_Differences_in_Intelligence.jpg/150px-

I really love that book cover as the globe contrasts well with the blue background.

Here is an excerpt from the book:

" The position of environmentalists that over the course of some 100,000 years peoples separated by geographical barriers in different parts of the world evolved into ten different races with pronounced genetic differences in morphology, blood groups, and the incidence of genetic diseases, and yet have identical genotypes for intelligence, is so improbable that those who advance it must either be totally ignorant of the basic principles of evolutionary biology or else have a political agenda to deny the importance of race. Or both."

Of course, I do not think races significantly differ in their phenotype for intelligence. If Richard Lynn is indeed correct, I think my motivations for believing in racial equality regarding intelligence is not due to the former reason (I am “totally ignorant of the basic principles of evolutionary biology”) as I do understand some of the rudimentary aspects of evolution. Rather, I would not say that I am motivated by a political agenda, but an ethical agenda. I am afraid that accepting the “inferiority” of other races would inevitably lead to genocide and exploitation of those races. Moreover, as an egalitarian, I believe we should work towards a society free of socioeconomical and racial inequality, and acknowledging significant racial differences would impede this.

I do not believe in the existence of a personal God, but although J. Philippe Rushton turns my stomach, I think he is indeed correct:

“Unless one is a religious fundamentalist and believes that man was created in the image and likeness of God, it is foolish to believe that human beings are exempt from biological classification and the laws of evolution that apply to all other life forms.”

lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr01.html

As much as I hate to admit it, Rushton is not a crank scientist, rather I perceive him as a competent investigator.

However, I do not think Richard Lynn is correct as I think that environmental differences explains most IQ variation, and IQ is just as hereditable as Catholicism (i.e. one is born a Catholic because they are the scion of Catholic parents). I am afraid that when I am done reading Race Difference in Intelligence, I might have to abandon my cherished beliefs in racial equality. It seems to me that my adherence racial equality is an a priori belief. Furthermore, as Rushton correctly notes, one cannot derive this belief from evolutionary biology. Instead, it seems that one has to invoke some non-empirical transcendental principle for human equality. As one who does not profess belief in a personal God, I do not recourse to this approach.

Do you think I should read the book, or it will destroy my mind and poison my soul?

 

[Pjs2ejs]

The title alone sounds horrid. Personally, I don’t believe in Darwinian evolution. I believe the whole human race came from the same parents. Making us all equal. Many laugh at this but it’s what I believe. I wouldn’t waste my time unless I was doing a major study on evolution perspectives. I wouldn’t just read that book alone.

 

[Larry1700]

Yeah, I’ve been considering reading books against what the Church teaches so that I will be well-versed in the subject when debating with someone. I just don’t want to put money in the pockets of those folks, and I read way too slowly to check them out from the library.

 

[Larry1700]

ribozyme,

Sorry, I didn’t read your post completely before my previous post. I read the title, then quickly scanned the text.

Help me to understand (and I ask this sincerely)…
Why would you care about the morality, or what it might do to your soul, if you don’t believe in God?

More specifically regarding the book, wouldn’t the sexual interactions of the people around the world over the last few hundred years undo the effects of the separation of the societies? I mean, prior to the ease of worldwide transporation, sexual interaction was more limited. Within the last few hundred years though, the population of the world has grown dramatically, and interaction of the people from previously isolated societies has also increased dramatically. Both of these would, I think, mix up the gene pool pretty quickly.

A side question:
Have you read Michael Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box”? If yes, what did you think?

 

[Keikiolu]

I wonder if it is moral to read the book Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis by Richard Lynn. Race and intelligence is … ability data.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/06/Race_Differences_in_Intelligence.jpg/150px-

I really love that book cover as the globe contrasts well with the blue background.

Here is an excerpt from the book:

" The position of environmentalists that over the course of some 100,000 years peoples separated by geographical barriers in different … so improbable that those who advance it must either be totally ignorant of the basic principles of evolutionary biology or else have a political agenda to deny the importance of race. Or both."

Of course, I do not think races significantly differ in their phenotype for intelligence. If Richard Lynn is indeed correct, I think my motivations for believing in racial equality regarding intelligence is not due to the former reason (I am “totally ignorant of the basic principles of evolutionary biology”) as I do understand some of the rudimentary aspects of evolution. Rather, I would not say that I am motivated by a political agenda, but an ethical agenda.

I am afraid that accepting the “inferiority” of other races would inevitably lead to genocide and exploitation of those races. Moreover, as an egalitarian, I believe we should work towards a society free of socioeconomical and racial inequality, and acknowledging significant racial differences would impede this.

You’re quite right. If you can accept that some people are “inferior”, as a sub-set of humanity, then exploitation and genocide is the next direct step.

You can not be an “egalitarian” if you accept that it is POSSIBLE for a “race” to be an inferior set of humanity.

Thus, you are an “egalitarian” only because you have no reason not to be a “supremacist”.

That book could very easily persuade you to become a “supremacist”, since you have no good reason to believe anything but “scientism”.

I do not believe in the existence of a personal God, but although J. Philippe Rushton turns my stomach, I think he is indeed correct:

One cannot be an “ethical scientismist” (as opposed to an “ethical scientist with religious beliefs”) because scientism’s only “good” is efficacy,… and the “belief” in the “equality in humanity” of all people has no basis in efficacy.

“Unless one is a religious fundamentalist and believes that man was created in the image and likeness of God, it is foolish to believe that human beings are exempt from biological classification and the laws of evolution that apply to all other life forms.”

The question is: What actions will such a view validate for those who don’t hold that no human can be “inferior” to an other in humanity?

lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr01.html

As much as I hate to admit it, Rushton is not a crank scientist, rather I perceive him as a competent investigator.

However, I do not think Richard Lynn is correct as I think that environmental differences explains most IQ variation, and IQ is just as hereditable as Catholicism (i.e. one is born a Catholic because they are the scion of Catholic parents).

I am afraid that when I am done reading Race Difference in Intelligence, I might have to abandon my cherished beliefs in racial equality.

Once again,… it’s not a question of a “race’s intelligence” that determines their “worth”,… it’s their HUMANITY.

Do you equate intelligence with humanity?

It seems to me that my adherence racial equality is an a priori belief. Furthermore, as Rushton correctly notes, one cannot derive this belief from evolutionary biology. Instead, it seems that one has to invoke some non-empirical transcendental principle for human equality. As one who does not profess belief in a personal God, I do not recourse to this approach.

Do you think I should read the book, or it will destroy my mind and poison my soul?

If you have no belief in God, then you have no soul,… so that dispenses with that question. Well, at least until you die.

In answer to the original question: It is never immoral to gather information. What you do with what you gather is the moral question.

If you have no recourse to any form of decision making other than a “scientistic” one, then you WILL be convinced by a superior scientistic mind’s writings, and you WILL have to change your beliefs to admit that you ARE a “supremacist”.

If that’s NOT what you want, then you MUST find another principle to base your decision making on, at least in the areas of morality and ethics.

This is the ultimate nasty end of all non-God centered morality.

You MUST become a monster if you don’t believe in God.

You simply have no choice, though you may not act on it because of lack of opportunity.

 

[barbfromtucson]

As having a degree in Anthropology, I see no reason why you should NOT read a book about evolution.

Any good Anthropologist or book will always phrase it as a THEORY of evolution. Theory is NOT a LAW. No one disputes the LAW of gravity, because it’s been proven beyond all testing/experimentation/study/etc.

I don’t believe that humankind came from one couple. The word “Adam” is a Hebrew word meaning “mankind” and “Eve” a Hebrew word meaning “bearer of mankind”. So when God created Adam and Eve, to me, the Bible is saying that when he created humankind.

Think about this…“Everything in the Bible is true. Some of it even happened”

The Bible was not written as a Scientific notebook or as a Historical document. It was written to teach about faith, to lead/bring people to God. It was not written to teach about science or give a historical accounting of the past.

I could say more, but then this posting would be looooooong.

–Barbara

 

[ribozyme]

As having a degree in Anthropology, I see no reason why you should NOT read a book about evolution.

Any good Anthropologist or book will always phrase it as a THEORY of evolution. Theory is NOT a LAW. No one disputes the LAW of gravity, because it’s been proven beyond all testing/experimentation/study/etc.

I don’t believe that humankind came from one couple. The word “Adam” is a Hebrew word meaning “mankind” and “Eve” a Hebrew word meaning “bearer of mankind”. So when God created Adam and Eve, to me, the Bible is saying that when he created humankind.

Think about this…“Everything in the Bible is true. Some of it even happened”

The Bible was not written as a Scientific notebook or as a Historical document. It was written to teach about faith, to lead/bring people to God. It was not written to teach about science or give a historical accounting of the past.

I could say more, but then this posting would be looooooong.

–Barbara

Have you read the opening post or even the title of the book I am considering reading?

I thought I made it clear that I accept the explantory power of evolutionary biology to explain the diversity of the biosphere’s floura and fauna. I appreciate the didactic attempt to inform me that the creation account in Genesis is not a historical account but rather a spiritual account, but as I mentioned in the opening post, I do not believe in a personal God so that doesn’t apply to me.

The issue concerns whether Darwinian evolution undermines racial equality.

I am going to sleep shortly, so I will reply to the other posts tommorrow.

I know this is an unpleasant topic and about a week ago I attempted to divert my attention away from the topic of race and intelligence by attempting to initiate a conversation about the origin of life. I haven’t did any research into that topic recently, but I have read a lot of peer-reviewed articles on the origins of life in comparison to the race and intelligence literature. Inquiry into the origins of life is intellectually stimulating, while the topic of race and intelligence elicits feelings of nausea.

Its not pleasant having Asperger syndrome; one can become obsessed with topics such as this, in contrast, my former obsession with origin of life research was intellectually fruitful.

Here’s the relevant thread: forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=134317

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

Have you read the opening post or even the title of the book I am considering reading?

I thought I made it clear that I accept the explantory power of evolutionary biology to explain the diversity of the biosphere’s floura and fauna. I appreciate the didactic attempt to inform me that the creation account in Genesis is not a historical account but rather a spiritual account, but as I mentioned in the opening post, I do not believe in a person God so that doesn’t apply to me.

The issue concerns whether Darwinian evolution undermines racial equality.

Racial equality as you seem to want to define it is basically politically correct nonsense. Greater intelligence or skill or money or even higher-level cultural systems do not indicate superior worth and humanity.

Are Asians smarter than Caucasians? Perhaps.

Are Caucasians physically larger than Asians? In some cases, yes.

If you believe that having an uneven distribution of physical/social/intellectual characteristics leads to the de facto inferiority of some races, you’d have to hide behind the PC facade that insists that these characteristics don’t exist across race and culture lines. They do.

And there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m not better than someone I’m smarter or stronger than, nor is someone smarter and stronger than me better than me.

Unless of course you are only recognize human worth on that level. In which case, yes, you would be on the road to being a supremacist once any sort of scientific or anthropological informaiton is digested without the PC filter.

 

[ribozyme]

If you believe that having an uneven distribution of physical/social/intellectual characteristics leads to the de facto inferiority of some races, you’d have to hide behind the PC facade that insists that these characteristics don’t exist across race and culture lines. They do.

I am willing to bet that you are a fan of Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein or at least you agree with them. Have you read The Bell Curve before and it seems you presumably agree with its thesis on racial inequality.

It is not about being politically correct; it is a question about ethics. Some might use this knowledge to justify cruel policies such as genocide.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I wonder if it is moral to read the book Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis by Richard Lynn.
Here is an excerpt from the book:

" The position of environmentalists that over the course of some 100,000 years peoples separated by geographical barriers in different parts of the world evolved into ten different races with pronounced genetic differences in morphology, blood groups, and the incidence of genetic diseases, and yet have identical genotypes for intelligence, is so improbable that those who advance it must either be totally ignorant of the basic principles of evolutionary biology or else have a political agenda to deny the importance of race. Or both."

Of course, I do not think races significantly differ in their phenotype for intelligence.

“Unless one is a religious fundamentalist and believes that man was created in the image and likeness of God, it is foolish to believe that human beings are exempt from biological classification and the laws of evolution that apply to all other life forms.”

Do you think I should read the book, or it will destroy my mind and poison my soul?

It depends how intelligent you are

I am a PhD student in biochemistry and have a subsidiary interest in evolutionary biology. So I’ve a duty to read books like this. However it is not necessarily appropriate material for school.

We know that some people are more intelligent that others. If you are racist then it becomes important whether the less intelligent people tend to have black skins or not. If you are not a racist, you still have to face the problem of how to allocate desireable resources such as university places. Should they go to the intelligent or to the rich, for instance?

However Lynn’s position is entirely correct. It is most unlikely that there are no psychological differences between races, and only someone with a political agenda would try to pretend otherwise. Evolutionary biology is a much bigger philosophical problem for liberals than it is for Christians.

One thing we don’t know is whether all healthy humans have a fundamental linguistic equality. Is language a universal attribute which can express all possible concepts because of the inherent qualities of grammar, or can some people express things which others cannot and will not ever? This is a secularised way of asking about Lynn’s last point.

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

I am willing to bet that you are a fan of Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein or at least you agree with them.

Nope… not a fan. Never even heard of them.

Have you read The Bell Curve before and it seems you presumably agree with its thesis on racial inequality.

I haven’t read that book, although I’m familiar what what it is supposedly about. I say “supposedly” because I understand as well that any such book would have contoversial theories and would be characterized in political terms.

But in the broader sense, do I believe in “racial inequality”. Nope… All races and people are created equal in worth and dignity.

They are NOT created equal in capability or what society might think of as genetic “giftedness”. But since I don’t measure a person’s worth in those terms it doesn’t lead me to the dilemma you are suggesting that you are facing.

It is not about being politically correct; it is a question about ethics. Some might use this knowledge to justify cruel policies such as genocide.

Incorrect. It is when a person who uses cultural, racial and sexually uneven characteristics as a form of measuring value that the thinking can lead to genocide. In a highly secular society, which measures human worth by factors such as intelligence, fame, wealth, talent, beauty rather than anything spiritual or divine, the issue MUST be covered up with political correctness.

In other words, the same thinking that justified the killing of Terry Schiavo since she wasn’t intelligent enough to defend herself and therefore was deemed unworthy to receive food and water.

So, yes it is utterly about politics and political correctness. If your belief system measures human worth by those standards, you are indeed in an ethical trap… which is basically where our society is today.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Knowledge that is necessary to hold intelligent conversations with those that do not believe as you do is never wasted. But, to do so requires a strong faith and belief system.

That being said, if the material you are reading is leading you away from your belief because you are not strong in your faith then it should be avoided till you are strong enough to be exposed to those teachings.

Also, there are some things that there is never a reason to get involved with. Porn and witchcraft come to mind.

 

[MilesXpisti]

Racial equality as you seem to want to define it is basically politically correct nonsense. Greater intelligence or skill or money or even higher-level cultural systems do not indicate superior worth and humanity.

Are Asians smarter than Caucasians? Perhaps.

Are Caucasians physically larger than Asians? In some cases, yes.

If you believe that having an uneven distribution of physical/social/intellectual characteristics leads to the de facto inferiority of some races, you’d have to hide behind the PC facade that insists that these characteristics don’t exist across race and culture lines. They do.

And there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m not better than someone I’m smarter or stronger than, nor is someone smarter and stronger than me better than me.

Unless of course you are only recognize human worth on that level. In which case, yes, you would be on the road to being a supremacist once any sort of scientific or anthropological informaiton is digested without the PC filter.

:clapping: Very well said, Peter.

ribozyme:

I am willing to bet that you are a fan of Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein or at least you agree with them. Have you read The Bell Curve before and it seems you presumably agree with its thesis on racial inequality.

It is not about being politically correct; it is a question about ethics. Some might use this knowledge to justify cruel policies such as genocide.

People and governments throughout the world commit genocide (one has only to look at infanticide in the US) without the supposition of motive. They do it out of hate, greed and apathy toward human dignity. Do perpetrators of such atrocities benefit from having a scientific premise on which to base their evils? Certainly. Does it follow then that we should silence science for fear of evil? No, of course not. All people are called to righteousness, regardless of temptation. Should such research prove to be true, it only underlines the need for Christians to be examples of humility, charity and love.

 

[ribozyme]

From the publishers page of Lynn’s book:

" The discussion of race and intelligence is being actively repressed on campuses as I write these words.** But intellectually, the battle is over: Race realism has won.** Race Differences in Intelligence is a symbol and a symptom of that victory. It may be Richard Lynn’s crowning achievement. "
— Professor J. Philippe Rushton

wspublishers.com/

Emphasis mine. Rushton is correct, all the critics have is their vociferous denial with no scientific content.

This is dangerous knowledge and it has poisoned my mind. I preferred that I didn’t have an empirical justification for Mongloid and Caucasoid supremacy. Such facts will pollute the way that I look at other people and the world.

Looks like I have to adopt the mindset of a creationist: I have to pretend that these facts are false and simply deny them although deep down inside I know they are correct.

Lynn’s hypothesis does have scientific merit. I invite one to read this page (it is a condensed version of his book): geocities.com/race_articles/lynn_race_evol.html

Here are some relevant excerpts:

The conclusion that people in tropical and subtropical latitudes were never greatly reliant for their food supply on the hunting of animals for meat is supported by observations on contemporary hunter gatherers. Many non-cultivating populations living in tropical and subtropical environments subsist largely on plant foods of which numerous species are available throughout the year (Lee, 1968; Tooby and de yore, 1987). Contemporary Pygmies and Bushmen eat from 60 to 110 plant foods and these constitute around 70-85 per cent of their diet (Stahl, 1984). Australian Aborigines in the western desert obtain 70-80 per cent of their food from plants and most of the remainder from eggs and insects. They have no well developed group hunting techniques (Gould, 1969). The Gadio people in New Guinea obtain 96 per cent of their food from plants and only 4 per cent from meat (Dornstreich, 1973). The ready availability of plant foods throughout the year, together with insects and eggs, meant that people in tropical and subtropical Africa never had to rely on meat for their food supply and did not come under strong selection pressure to develop the cognitive skills required to hunt large animals.

The life style of present day !Kung bushmen in the Kalahali desert provides a useful insight into the relative ease of securing food supplies for hunter gatherer peoples in tropical latitudes. As described by Lee (1968), women go gathering plant foods about one day in three, and men go on hunting expeditions for about one week in three. This is sufficient to provide food for the whole group, including infants, children and the old. The rest of the time can be spent relaxing about the camp. For these peoples the problems of obtaining food supplies are neither time consuming nor cognitively demanding.

Survival in the cold winters of Eurasia would surely have required an increase in all the three major components of intelligence, namely general, verbal and visuospatial ability. General intelligence, the general ability present in all cognitive tasks, would have been needed to deal with all the new problems encountered in the cold northern environments such as building shelters and fires, making clothes and manufacturing more efficient fools for killing, butchering and skinning large animals. Improved verbal abilities would have been needed for better communication in discussions of how to solve these problems, for planning future activities and for transmitting cultural knowledge and skills to children. Improved visuospatial abilities would have been needed for planning and executing group hunting strategies, for accurate aiming of spears and missiles and for the manufacture of more sophisticated tools and weapons from stone, bone and wood. Fathers would have shown sons how to chip flints to produce good cutting tools, make spears with sharp points and so forth, and these skills would have been conveyed largely by watching and imitation, much as craft skills are learned today by apprentices watching skilled craftsmen, rather than by verbal explanations. Hunting and tool making would have been undertaken principally by males and this would be why it has virtually always been found that the visuospatial abilities are stronger in males than in females.

Long story short Africans were not exposed to selection pressures for increased intelligence. Lynn’s hypothesis is plausible but it scares me as it assails a critical tenet in my ethical system: human equality!

 

[ribozyme]

However Lynn’s position is entirely correct. It is most unlikely that there are no psychological differences between races, and only someone with a political agenda would try to pretend otherwise. Evolutionary biology is a much bigger philosophical problem for liberals than it is for Christians.

No, the problem of racial inequality is YOUR problem, not mine. In contrast, the fact that scientists do not have a satisfactory theory for the origin of life is my problem, not yours as you believe in God. Like J. Philippe Rushton, I do not believe in a personal god and the fact all the races are merely a product of adaptation to their respective ecological niche is consistent with godless evolution. Indeed, the most powerful argument against the existence of the Christian God is the reality of human misery. However, I must add that although racial inequality does not encroach with my particular view of evolution, it is not compatible with my politics. If we accept racial inequality, that means we have to give up our attempts to educate Black and Latino children from the ghetto since intellectual inferiority is hardwired into them.

Malcolm, you are so naive… You do not know what people like J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn actually believe. These people believe in racial supremacy and they believe that some humans are inherently superior to other humans.

But, I must ask you or anyone here, what makes humanity unique? Do you believe it is an “immortal soul” that makes us unique? How do we know that we have an “immortal soul” and other primates do not?

But I guess I can’t be called a “racist” in this thread because Peter and Malcolm believe in racial inequality too.

 

[mlchance]

The issue concerns whether Darwinian evolution undermines racial equality.

Charles Darwin certainly thought so. So did his acolytes, at least up until the implications were put into action by the Nazis. Then the Darwinian racists at least changed their vocabulary to put a more acceptable veneer on the same old eugenics.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[ribozyme]

Malcolm and Peter, you really do not know about the author’s (Richard Lynn) views. That is why I accused you of being naive.

He has some profound words of wisdom that I believe that you should pay careful attention to:

Quote:

What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the populations of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of “phasing out” of such peoples. If the world is to evolve more better humans, then obviously someone has to make way for them. … To think otherwise is mere sentimentality.

source

Here is another summary of his views:

“What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the ‘phasing out’ of such peoples…Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent”

source

But, Malcolm and Peter, since you acknowledge racial inequality, do you have any suggestions on who we should “phase out” since you agree with Richard Lynn?

Maybe these two maps will help you:

http://www.vdare.com/images/IQ of Nations.gif]

Source: vdare.com/misc/rushton_african_iq_map.htm

and

Average IQ of indigenous populations according to Lynn (2006)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/92/AverageIQ-Map-World.png/400px-AverageIQ-Map-

So do you have any comments about that book now? Of course, I am disturbed by it. I am surprised you are not disturbed by that book. I posted this thread because I am afraid of becoming a eugenicist.

 

[Usagi]

So do you have any comments about that book now? Of course, I am disturbed by it. I am surprised you are not disturbed by that book. I posted this thread because I am afraid of becoming a eugenicist.

I am not Malcolm or Peter, but I must say the book disturbs me also.

I’d definitely look to other sources before buying this guy’s argument wholesale. As you point out, his political position as to what should be done with the information he puts forward is unsavory, and may have colored his interpretation of the data.

In particular, look at comparisons between the IQ differences between average members of various races and the IQ range within a single race. Even if, on average, some races tend toward lower IQ, if individual differences are far greater than racial differences, it doesn’t much matter. Likewise, consider the nature of the IQ tests given. Some (many?) are known for being inadvertently easier for people from certain cultural backgrounds, because of assumptions of background knowledge built into the tests.

That aside, I think what folks like Malcolm and Peter are saying is that even if significant racial (or sexual, or whatever) differences in average IQ really exist, that does not need to compel anyone to abandon a belief in racial equality. Equality in the political sense does not mean equality of capabilities (as every person obviously has different capabilities) but equality of moral value and political status. From the POV of most of your respondents (largely a Catholic POV, given the site), higher or lower intelligence does not alter a person’s or group’s basic value as human beings.

Could such data be misused by racists to promote policies of oppression and genocide? Most certainly. Does that make the data themselves (assuming they are as presented) evil, or force everyone who accepts the data to become a racist proponent of oppression or genocide? No.

Usagi

 

[ribozyme]

I am not Malcolm or Peter, but I must say the book disturbs me also.

I’d definitely look to other sources before buying this guy’s argument wholesale. As you point out, his political position as to what should be done with the information he puts forward is unsavory, and may have colored his interpretation of the data.

In particular, look at comparisons between the IQ differences between average members of various races and the IQ range within a single race. Even if, on average, some races tend toward lower IQ, if individual differences are far greater than racial differences, it doesn’t much matter. Likewise, consider the nature of the IQ tests given. Some (many?) are known for being inadvertently easier for people from certain cultural backgrounds, because of assumptions of background knowledge built into the tests.

That aside, I think what folks like Malcolm and Peter are saying is that even if significant racial (or sexual, or whatever) differences in average IQ really exist, that does not need to compel anyone to abandon a belief in racial equality. Equality in the political sense does not mean equality of capabilities (as every person obviously has different capabilities) but equality of moral value and political status. From the POV of most of your respondents (largely a Catholic POV, given the site), higher or lower intelligence does not alter a person’s or group’s basic value as human beings.

Could such data be misused by racists to promote policies of oppression and genocide? Most certainly. Does that make the data themselves (assuming they are as presented) evil, or force everyone who accepts the data to become a racist proponent of oppression or genocide? No.

Usagi

Seriously, what good can arise from this research? All it does is provide some people with a justification for their racial prejudices and gives us reasons for not helping developing countries because they do not have the intelligence to run a productive economy.

On a personal note, I am having nightmares about this. I do not enjoy dreaming about egregious genocides against people that Richard Lynn deems “incompetent”. It’s all because despicable creature named Charles Murray wanted to write a book because there are "a huge number of well-meaning whites who fear that they are closet racists, and this book tells them they are not. It’s going to make them feel better about things they already think but do not know how to say”. (source: fair.org/index.php?page=1271) Thank you Charles for destroying my mind and poisoning my soul!! I wished I never read The Bell Curve two years ago and I wished I never did any research on race and intelligence!