NewSocialist
27th May 2011, 11:31
Unfortunately, while I was in the middle of responding to the racist troll "Taro Mill," he was banned and the thread was trashed. I think that my response warrants being posted anyway, just for the sake of the other racists browsing the forum.. Here it is.
Taro Mill:
Have some leftists bought into the "tabula rasa" myth over the years? Certainly. But so have many right-wingers (the term itself was coined by the bourgeois philosopher, John Locke.) Nevertheless, it might interest you to know that some of the pioneers of genetic science and sociobiology were actually leftists (many were even Marxists :eek:): J. B. S. Haldane, Herbert Brewer, H. J. Muller, John Maynard Smith, Julius Schaxel, Karl Pearson, etc. If you're interested in reading a work of contemporary Marxism which fully incorporates scientific materialism into its analysis, see Alan Carling's paper, “Egalitarian Materialism (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/polisci/cspt/papers/2002/carling02.pdf).”
So you presented us with a barrage of IQ studies leading to the "shocking" conclusion that part of our intelligence is the product of our genetic endowment. The precise percentage of our intelligence that is genetically determined is the subject of quite a bit of debate in the scientific community—as you well know—as is what causes of the apparent racial differences in average IQ scores. For example, you (like every other douche on the internet with a fetish for discussing IQ nonstop) like to note that IQ accounts for observable differences in success in society. What you conveniently omit, however, is that this fact is only relevant within the context of contemporary capitalist society. A socialist system could easily construct a more egalitarian system of remuneration based upon an entirely different criteria [see Parecon (http://www.zcommunications.org/zparecon/pareconlac.htm) for more on this.] Furthermore, IQ isn't even the primary factor accounting for success within capitalism [see Bowles and Gintis' “The Inheritance of Inequality,” in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 16, No. 3, Summer 2002.]
Now, let's discuss IQ and environment. It's been proven that the environment which you're born into (including in utero) dramatically effects cognitive development, and thus IQ [see Turkheimer, Eric. “Socioeconomic Status Modifies Heritability of IQ in Young Children.” Psychological Science, Vol. 14, No. 6, 2003] Unsurprisingly, those born into poor socioeconomic classes suffer most—so much so, in fact, that (as Turkheimer's study shows) environmental factors eclipse genetic factors in determining their intelligence.
While we're on the topic of IQ, it's interesting to note that Howard Gardner's theory of "multiple intelligences" presents an important challenge to the entire notion of the Spearman's g, thereby rendering conventional IQ tests of dubious worth. I suggest interested readers not only look into Gardner's research, but also that of Daniel Goleman. Personally, I'm on the fence as to whether I consider IQ or MI theory more convincing (I'm not particularly interested in getting into a discussion about the topic either).
So now we have to ask the logical question: Who gives a shit? Obviously, plenty of high IQ men who seek to justify their social standing cling desperately to notions of innate inequality. Unfortunately for them (and you), there's nothing inevitable about the economic institutions we live under. Noam Chomsky summarized this entire issue quite well:
"As for social rewards, it is alleged that in our society remuneration correlates in part with IQ. But insofar as that is true, it is simply a social malady to be overcome much as slavery had to be eliminated at an earlier stage of human history. It is sometimes argued that constructive and creative work will cease unless it leads to material reward, so that all of society gains when the talented receive special rewards. For the mass of the population, then, the message is: 'You're better off if you're poor.' One can see why this doctrine would appeal to the privileged, but it is difficult to believe that it could be put forth by anyone who has had experience with creative work or workers in the arts, the sciences, crafts, or whatever. The standard arguments for 'meritocracy' have no basis in fact or logic, to my knowledge; they rest on a priori beliefs, which, furthermore, do not seem particularly plausible. I have discussed the matter elsewhere and will not pursue it here.
Suppose that inquiry into human nature reveals that human cognitive capacities are highly structured by our genetic program and that there are variations among individuals within a shared framework. This seems to me an entirely reasonable expectation, and a situation much to be desired. It has no implications with regard to equality of rights or condition, so far as I can see, beyond those already sketched.
Consider finally the question of race and intellectual endowments. Notice again that in a decent society there would be no social consequences to any discovery that might be made about this question. An individual is what he is; it is only on racist assumptions that he is to be regarded as an instance of his race category, so that social consequences ensue from the discovery that the mean for a certain racial category with respect to some capacity is such-and-such. Eliminating racist assumptions, the facts have no social consequences whatever they may be, and are therefore not worth knowing, from this point of view at least. If there is any purpose to an investigation of the relation between race and some capacity, it must derive from the scientific significance of the question. It is difficult to be precise about questions of scientific merit. Roughly, an inquiry has scientific merit if its results might bear on some general principles of science. One doesn't conduct inquiries into the density of blades of grass on various lawns or innumerable other trivial and pointless questions. Likewise, inquiry into such questions as race and IQ appears to be of virtually no scientific interest. Conceivably, there might be interest in correlations between partially heritable traits, but if someone were interested in this question he would surely not select such characteristics as race and IQ, each an obscure amalgam of complex properties. Rather, he would ask whether there is a correlation between measurable and significant traits, say, eye color and length of the big toe. It is difficult to see how the study of race and IQ can be justified on any scientific grounds.
If the inquiry has no scientific significance and no social significance, apart from the racist assumption that an individual must be regarded not as what he is but rather as standing at the mean of his race category, it follows that it has no merit at all. The question then arises, Why is it pursued with such zeal? Why is it taken seriously? Attention naturally turns to the racist assumptions that do confer some importance on the inquiry if they are accepted.
In a racist society, inquiry into race and IQ can be expected to reinforce prejudice, pretty much independent of the outcome of the inquiry. Given such concepts as 'race' and 'IQ,' it is to be expected that the results of any inquiry will be obscure and conflicting, the arguments complex and difficult for the layman to follow. For the racist, the judgment 'not proven' will be read 'probably so.' There will be ample scope for the racist to wallow in his prejudices. The very fact that the inquiry is undertaken suggests that its outcome is of some importance, and since it is important only on racist assumptions, these assumptions are insinuated even when they are not expressed. For such reasons as these, a scientific investigation of genetic characteristics of Jews would have been appalling in Nazi Germany. There can be no doubt that the investigation of race and IQ has been extremely harmful to the victims of American racism. I have heard black educators describe in vivid terms the suffering and injury imposed on children who are made to understand that 'science' has demonstrated this or that about their race, or even finds it necessary to raise the question."
Chomsky, Noam. “Language Development, Human Intelligence, and Social Organization (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1978----.htm)”Before I end, here's a rather amusing debate wherein J. Philippe Rushton's r/K selection theory applied to human races is utterly destroyed by evolutionary biologist, Joseph L. Graves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_Ym3iQuF7s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA8fXdamuiA
Taro Mill:
Have some leftists bought into the "tabula rasa" myth over the years? Certainly. But so have many right-wingers (the term itself was coined by the bourgeois philosopher, John Locke.) Nevertheless, it might interest you to know that some of the pioneers of genetic science and sociobiology were actually leftists (many were even Marxists :eek:): J. B. S. Haldane, Herbert Brewer, H. J. Muller, John Maynard Smith, Julius Schaxel, Karl Pearson, etc. If you're interested in reading a work of contemporary Marxism which fully incorporates scientific materialism into its analysis, see Alan Carling's paper, “Egalitarian Materialism (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/polisci/cspt/papers/2002/carling02.pdf).”
So you presented us with a barrage of IQ studies leading to the "shocking" conclusion that part of our intelligence is the product of our genetic endowment. The precise percentage of our intelligence that is genetically determined is the subject of quite a bit of debate in the scientific community—as you well know—as is what causes of the apparent racial differences in average IQ scores. For example, you (like every other douche on the internet with a fetish for discussing IQ nonstop) like to note that IQ accounts for observable differences in success in society. What you conveniently omit, however, is that this fact is only relevant within the context of contemporary capitalist society. A socialist system could easily construct a more egalitarian system of remuneration based upon an entirely different criteria [see Parecon (http://www.zcommunications.org/zparecon/pareconlac.htm) for more on this.] Furthermore, IQ isn't even the primary factor accounting for success within capitalism [see Bowles and Gintis' “The Inheritance of Inequality,” in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 16, No. 3, Summer 2002.]
Now, let's discuss IQ and environment. It's been proven that the environment which you're born into (including in utero) dramatically effects cognitive development, and thus IQ [see Turkheimer, Eric. “Socioeconomic Status Modifies Heritability of IQ in Young Children.” Psychological Science, Vol. 14, No. 6, 2003] Unsurprisingly, those born into poor socioeconomic classes suffer most—so much so, in fact, that (as Turkheimer's study shows) environmental factors eclipse genetic factors in determining their intelligence.
While we're on the topic of IQ, it's interesting to note that Howard Gardner's theory of "multiple intelligences" presents an important challenge to the entire notion of the Spearman's g, thereby rendering conventional IQ tests of dubious worth. I suggest interested readers not only look into Gardner's research, but also that of Daniel Goleman. Personally, I'm on the fence as to whether I consider IQ or MI theory more convincing (I'm not particularly interested in getting into a discussion about the topic either).
So now we have to ask the logical question: Who gives a shit? Obviously, plenty of high IQ men who seek to justify their social standing cling desperately to notions of innate inequality. Unfortunately for them (and you), there's nothing inevitable about the economic institutions we live under. Noam Chomsky summarized this entire issue quite well:
"As for social rewards, it is alleged that in our society remuneration correlates in part with IQ. But insofar as that is true, it is simply a social malady to be overcome much as slavery had to be eliminated at an earlier stage of human history. It is sometimes argued that constructive and creative work will cease unless it leads to material reward, so that all of society gains when the talented receive special rewards. For the mass of the population, then, the message is: 'You're better off if you're poor.' One can see why this doctrine would appeal to the privileged, but it is difficult to believe that it could be put forth by anyone who has had experience with creative work or workers in the arts, the sciences, crafts, or whatever. The standard arguments for 'meritocracy' have no basis in fact or logic, to my knowledge; they rest on a priori beliefs, which, furthermore, do not seem particularly plausible. I have discussed the matter elsewhere and will not pursue it here.
Suppose that inquiry into human nature reveals that human cognitive capacities are highly structured by our genetic program and that there are variations among individuals within a shared framework. This seems to me an entirely reasonable expectation, and a situation much to be desired. It has no implications with regard to equality of rights or condition, so far as I can see, beyond those already sketched.
Consider finally the question of race and intellectual endowments. Notice again that in a decent society there would be no social consequences to any discovery that might be made about this question. An individual is what he is; it is only on racist assumptions that he is to be regarded as an instance of his race category, so that social consequences ensue from the discovery that the mean for a certain racial category with respect to some capacity is such-and-such. Eliminating racist assumptions, the facts have no social consequences whatever they may be, and are therefore not worth knowing, from this point of view at least. If there is any purpose to an investigation of the relation between race and some capacity, it must derive from the scientific significance of the question. It is difficult to be precise about questions of scientific merit. Roughly, an inquiry has scientific merit if its results might bear on some general principles of science. One doesn't conduct inquiries into the density of blades of grass on various lawns or innumerable other trivial and pointless questions. Likewise, inquiry into such questions as race and IQ appears to be of virtually no scientific interest. Conceivably, there might be interest in correlations between partially heritable traits, but if someone were interested in this question he would surely not select such characteristics as race and IQ, each an obscure amalgam of complex properties. Rather, he would ask whether there is a correlation between measurable and significant traits, say, eye color and length of the big toe. It is difficult to see how the study of race and IQ can be justified on any scientific grounds.
If the inquiry has no scientific significance and no social significance, apart from the racist assumption that an individual must be regarded not as what he is but rather as standing at the mean of his race category, it follows that it has no merit at all. The question then arises, Why is it pursued with such zeal? Why is it taken seriously? Attention naturally turns to the racist assumptions that do confer some importance on the inquiry if they are accepted.
In a racist society, inquiry into race and IQ can be expected to reinforce prejudice, pretty much independent of the outcome of the inquiry. Given such concepts as 'race' and 'IQ,' it is to be expected that the results of any inquiry will be obscure and conflicting, the arguments complex and difficult for the layman to follow. For the racist, the judgment 'not proven' will be read 'probably so.' There will be ample scope for the racist to wallow in his prejudices. The very fact that the inquiry is undertaken suggests that its outcome is of some importance, and since it is important only on racist assumptions, these assumptions are insinuated even when they are not expressed. For such reasons as these, a scientific investigation of genetic characteristics of Jews would have been appalling in Nazi Germany. There can be no doubt that the investigation of race and IQ has been extremely harmful to the victims of American racism. I have heard black educators describe in vivid terms the suffering and injury imposed on children who are made to understand that 'science' has demonstrated this or that about their race, or even finds it necessary to raise the question."
Chomsky, Noam. “Language Development, Human Intelligence, and Social Organization (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1978----.htm)”Before I end, here's a rather amusing debate wherein J. Philippe Rushton's r/K selection theory applied to human races is utterly destroyed by evolutionary biologist, Joseph L. Graves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_Ym3iQuF7s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA8fXdamuiA