Nature vs. Nurture

[Unicorn]

The current scientific consensus seems to be that genetical factors intelligence (IQ) significantly.



Evidence suggests that family environmental factors may have an effect upon childhood IQ, accounting for up to a quarter of the variance. On the other hand, by late adolescence this correlation disappears, such that adoptive siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers. Moreover, adoption studies indicate that, by adulthood, adoptive siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers (IQ correlation near zero), while full siblings show an IQ correlation of 0.6. Twin studies reinforce this pattern: monozygotic (identical) twins raised separately are highly similar in IQ (0.86), more so than dizygotic (fraternal) twins raised together (0.6) and much more than adoptive siblings (~0.0). Consequently, in the context of the "nature versus nurture" debate, the "nature" component appears to be much more important than the "nurture" component in explaining IQ variance in the general adult population of the United States.
Source: Nature vs Nurture in Wikipedia

This troubles me because IQ is correlated with income and social mobility. Could it be that one of the reasons why poor people are poor in a capitalist society is that they are genetically less gifted?

What if the Nature hypothesis is true? Is this compatible with Marxist theory? Most Marxist psychologists have argued for the nurture hypothesis but there are few exceptions.

J.B.S. Haldane and the Nobel Prize winner Hermann Muller were communists who supported the nature hypothesis and eugenics. Muller actually wrote to Stalin in 1936 urging him to start an eugenics program in the USSR. Stalin chose Lysenkoism instead but we know today that Lysenko was wrong.

Can Marxists support eugenics? Note that the eugenics program Muller proposed is different from pseudoscientific, racist Nazi eugenics. Volunteering women would be artificially inseminated with the sperm of leading intellectuals and scientists. Presumably there would have been many of these volunteers. Muller said in his letter: "Many a mother of tomorrow, freed of the fetters of religious superstitions, will be proud to mingle her germ plasm with that of a Lenin or a Darwin, and to contribute to society a child partaking of his biological attributes."

[Awful Reality]

Welcome to Revleft ;)

Human cultures first existed without money, capital, specific control of the means of production, etc. In the last 2000 or so years, we have developed the aforementioned. Human nature does not change so radically in 2000. Evolution does not work that way. So the inevitable conclusion is that yes, it is nurture. Wikipedia is discussing intelligence- malleable to a degree of course, but in a totally different arena from the means of production.

[Unicorn]

Welcome to Revleft ;)
Thanks. :)



Human cultures first existed without money, capital, specific control of the means of production, etc. In the last 2000 or so years, we have developed the aforementioned. Human nature does not change so radically in 2000. Evolution does not work that way. So the inevitable conclusion is that yes, it is nurture. Wikipedia is discussing intelligence- malleable to a degree of course, but in a totally different arena from the means of production.
I don't get your point. Of course it is true that the human progress during the last 2000 years has been the result of "nurture", social and material progress. Not evolution. Humans are probably not (genetically) much smarter than our ancestors who lived 2000 years ago.

The intelligence differences between individuals are still an issue though.

[Awful Reality]

I don't get your point. Of course it is true that the human progress during the last 2000 years has been the result of "nurture", social and material progress. Not evolution. Humans are probably not (genetically) much smarter than our ancestors who lived 2000 years ago.

The intelligence differences between individuals are still an issue though.


That's just the way in which I chose to debunk the "Human Nature" argument... there are many ways to do so.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don't see how genetics plays any role in socialist theory, other than vindicating the truth: any system based on win-loss competition (capitalism) is naturally oppressive towards the less gifted. Not everything is directly related to "nurture." The human mind is more complex than a blank slate; however contemporary sociologists are discovering patterns that Leftists have been teaching for years on sexual orientation, greed, and crime.

Voluntary eugenics is just one of many future possibilities in circulation that could inevitably alter the evolution of our species; there's also the matter of DNA splicing and virtual reality.

[MT5678]

This troubles me because IQ is correlated with income and social mobility. Could it be that one of the reasons why poor people are poor in a capitalist society is that they are genetically less gifted?

You mean that IQ is correlated with income and social mobility for a few rich and upper middle class guys in developed countries, and even fewer in the developing ones. Think about all the poor sweatshop workers who will never fulfill their intrinsic potential. In countries such as India and Pakistan and Bangladesh, most of the landowning classes simply got richer under the British, and they served as the leaders and industrialists of the post-colonial era (Nehru, we're looking at you). For the rest, however, their poverty endured and has endured to the present day. And its getting worse with the chauvinist BJP around.

But I'm digressing. It is quite hard to believe that genetics alone can explain social standing, since so much of it is based on luck: cash in to the right stock, the right area for real-estate, whatever. Who would Carnegie have been if he hadn't been luck enough to met a clerk who apprenticed him and gave him a job?

[STI]

Adoption studies have shown that IQ *is* correlated (albeit not strongly) with biological parents' IQ.

There are other, more important factors effecting that outcome, though. Having been brought up in a stimulating, engaging environment is one.

The nature-nurture debate is all but over at this point. Pretty much any trait is *somewhat* attributable to heredity and *somewhat* to environment. What's dealt with now is the extent to which either genes or environment, and which genes and which environments specifically, contribute to Trait X.

Does this mean that, since the rich have (marginally) higher IQs, they're more fit to rule? No dice!

IQ deals with two of seven different "types" of intelligence (interpersonal, intrapersonal, visual-spatial, body-kinestetic, musical, logical-mathematical, and linguistic), all of which serve their own functions important for the creation and maintenance of an advanced society.

Whether a "general intelligence" factor exists is still contested, and whether this "g factor" is inherited has yet even to be touched upon.

[Dean]

The current scientific consensus seems to be that genetical factors intelligence (IQ) significantly.


Source: Nature vs Nurture in Wikipedia
IQ is a very static human trait. In other words it is more or less an inherant trait of humans - however, it is also arbitrary. IQ tests are based on very rigid concepts of learning and mental capacity, which apply differently across cultures, age groups and classes. As such, the genetic correlation argument doesn't hold much weight - a very arbitrary set of parameters indicat

[/quote]This troubles me because IQ is correlated with income and social mobility. Could it be that one of the reasons why poor people are poor in a capitalist society is that they are genetically less gifted? [/quote]
Even though intelligence can help someone to "succeed," it is also a tool which undermines moral traits which allow a person to make a lot of money: the inclination to be merciless, greedy and possessive is not desired by most intelligent people, but it is often required if one is to "succeed." So, intelligence can be very helpful in actuating certain aims, but the conditions within which one is raised and maintained act to modify what those aims are. I consider myself fairly intelligent, but I have done very poorly economically.


What if the Nature hypothesis is true? Is this compatible with Marxist theory? Most Marxist psychologists have argued for the nurture hypothesis but there are few exceptions.
IQ is not relevant in any meaningful way to marxist theory.


J.B.S. Haldane and the Nobel Prize winner Hermann Muller were communists who supported the nature hypothesis and eugenics. Muller actually wrote to Stalin in 1936 urging him to start an eugenics program in the USSR. Stalin chose Lysenkoism instead but we know today that Lysenko was wrong.

Can Marxists support eugenics? Note that the eugenics program Muller proposed is different from pseudoscientific, racist Nazi eugenics. Volunteering women would be artificially inseminated with the sperm of leading intellectuals and scientists. Presumably there would have been many of these volunteers. Muller said in his letter: "Many a mother of tomorrow, freed of the fetters of religious superstitions, will be proud to mingle her germ plasm with that of a Lenin or a Darwin, and to contribute to society a child partaking of his biological attributes."
We can support the right to do such things, but I don't think a socialized institution of it would be appropriate. The indication that these people are more desirable would create an atmosphere of elitism against those considered less intelligent or deisireable.

[Joby]

I don't see how genetics plays any role in socialist theory, other than vindicating the truth: any system based on win-loss competition (capitalism) is naturally oppressive towards the less gifted. Not everything is directly related to "nurture." The human mind is more complex than a blank slate; however contemporary sociologists are discovering patterns that Leftists have been teaching for years on sexual orientation, greed, and crime.

Capitalism allows the gifted to help those less intelligent.

Because of the advances made by people trying to increase the level of technology or efficiency in the pursuit of profit, everyone has benefitted.

The best and brightest should be allowed to grow unhindered, not completely tied to those elements of society which produce less in the way of advancement.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Considering underemployment problems with the more educated folks, you couldn't be more wrong. :lol:

[Joby]

^^^ Considering underemployment problems with the more educated folks, you couldn't be more wrong. :lol:

I didn't say educated; nobody needs another grad with a history degree.

At all. Nor should anyone getting this degree, or any of the other liberal-arts degrees we simply don't need, expect my willing support.

As for the more intelligent, who see what society demands and go out and provide it, Capitalism gives them ample opportunity to do so.

Communism doesn't.

Which is why efficiency, advancement, etc etc in developed capitalist countries kicked ever version of communism's ass.

Bill Gates didn't go to college, yet MS-DOS was demanded by society and pushed us forward.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Amply opportunity my foot. :glare:

Most innovation is made by employed working-class people these days (those in R&D), not by your petit-bourgeois utopia.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I didn't say educated; nobody needs another grad with a history degree.

At all. Nor should anyone getting this degree, or any of the other liberal-arts degrees we simply don't need, expect my willing support.

As for the more intelligent, who see what society demands and go out and provide it, Capitalism gives them ample opportunity to do so.

Communism doesn't.

Which is why efficiency, advancement, etc etc in developed capitalist countries kicked ever version of communism's ass.

Bill Gates didn't go to college, yet MS-DOS was demanded by society and pushed us forward.

Bill Gates also bullied competitors with the law and produced probably one of the shittiest operating systems in public circulation - Microsoft owes a lot to its marketing strategies and that's it. Other OS like Apple and Linux are much better at innovation and customization.


Capitalism allows the gifted to help those less intelligent.Your definition of help is perverted with inaccuracies. Having to worry about joblessness because your bosses are more interested in growth than your livelihood does not constitute "help."


Because of the advances made by people trying to increase the level of technology or efficiency in the pursuit of profit, everyone has benefitted.Yes, and if we are going to get technical here chattel slavery benefited Africans as well. Are you really in the business of excusing problems and oppression just because some determinable good came out of it? I choose the better alternative.


The best and brightest should be allowed to grow unhindered, not completely tied to those elements of society which produce less in the way of advancement.Produce less? What an arrogant and inaccurate statement. Everyone in some way or another has played their part in either retarding progress or bringing it forward. I would argue life-long McDonalds employees are more progressive than retired executives leeching money from the corporation for past services (read as delegating responsibility outwards and downwards). And let's not forget the completely useless Hiltons and Waltons who inherent the work of previous generations.

[pusher robot]

Bill Gates also bullied competitors with the law and produced probably one of the shittiest operating systems in public circulation - Microsoft owes a lot to its marketing strategies and that's it. Other OS like Apple and Linux are much better at innovation and customization.

What? You can't just put that out there without backing it up. Microsoft became the giant that it is because it had the best product at the best price.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

What? You can't just put that out there without backing it up. Microsoft became the giant that it is because it had the best product at the best price.
:D

Sorry; I assumed even capitalist apologists were affluent in Microsoft history.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/all_wire_stories/101386428029222529.xml
http://hardware.silicon.com/desktops/0,39024645,11006528,00.htm
http://hardware.silicon.com/desktops/0,39024645,11008382,00.htm
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=19685
http://redmondmag.com/features/article.asp?editorialsid=668
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/332064_msfteu18.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/24/technology/24soft.html?ex=1329973200&en=5aa4668ba8def364&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01EED8163FF937A35757C0A9669C8B 63 (saved from this one)

Microsoft was caught with poor ethics in the trial, including tampering with a videotape which was offered by them as evidence.

According to the article, Microsoft is threatining a school district in Oregon with an audit on their 25,000 computers as "a strong-arm tactic to push school districts into Microsoft's costly system-wide licensing agreements."

Alls fair in market competition. You're on Cloud 9 if you're serious about the quality and price of Microsoft's products.

[Unicorn]

IQ is not relevant in any meaningful way to marxist theory.
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Marx think that there are no hereditary intelligence differences between people excluding the mentally handicapped? That the character of man is the product of environment, not genetics?

[Joby]

^^^ Amply opportunity my foot. :glare:

Most innovation is made by employed working-class people these days (those in R&D), not by your petit-bourgeois utopia.

Ummm...Ok.

Most innovation is made by people working for corporations.

Are you arguing with me?

[Unicorn]

Ummm...Ok.

Most innovation is made by people working for corporations.
Not really, most innovation is actually made by university researchers who are employed by some government.

[Joby]

Bill Gates also bullied competitors with the law and produced probably one of the shittiest operating systems in public circulation - Microsoft owes a lot to its marketing strategies and that's it. Other OS like Apple and Linux are much better at innovation and customization.

All right.

If you like those operating systems better, use them.

How many OS would there be with under a communist system? How much competition for progress?


Your definition of help is perverted with inaccuracies. Having to worry about joblessness because your bosses are more interested in growth than your livelihood does not constitute "help."

Me not having to wake up at the crack of dawn to go out and till the field is help.



Yes, and if we are going to get technical here chattel slavery benefited Africans as well. Are you really in the business of excusing problems and oppression just because some determinable good came out of it? I choose the better alternative.


Ultimately, yes, slavery did benefit the posterity of those held by American slaveholders. Those many, many more held by British, Spanish, and French owners did not benefit.

Collectivizing farms caused millions of deaths from starvation; are you going to to defend that because some determinable good came out of.....Oh wait, nothing good did come out of that...


Produce less? What an arrogant and inaccurate statement. Everyone in some way or another has played their part in either retarding progress or bringing it forward. I would argue life-long McDonalds employees are more progressive than retired executives leeching money from the corporation for past services (read as delegating responsibility outwards and downwards). And let's not forget the completely useless Hiltons and Waltons who inherent the work of previous generations.

It's not about what you or I think who does more; society has done that for us.

Life-long McDonalds employees (assuming they are not anything above store-manager) do nothing to advance technology, or do something that could not have been done by countless others. Therefore, society determines that they don't deserve as much compensation as someone who creates a business which caters to peoples need to sleep.

Or, in Sam Walton's case, completely revolutionize retail.

The fact that we have grocery, shoe, clothing, etc etc, stores will one day look as inefficient and wastefull as all the little businesses we've already replaced with more efficiency.

And by the way, once society gives someone money, that person is free to spend or give it to whomever they want. It's the nature or Capitalistic freedom.

[Unicorn]

All right.

If you like those operating systems better, use them.

How many OS would there be with under a communist system? How much competition for progress?
Approximately as many as today. Different variants of Linux or other open source systems. Companies rushed to former East Germany to take advantage of the computer science expertise there. For example, AMD has invested over 2.5 billion to Saxony.

Btw, Linus Torvalds was raised by communists.



Ultimately, yes, slavery did benefit the posterity of those held by American slaveholders.
What a crappy argument. Killing elderly people would "benefit" their posterity because elderly people are a "burden" to the society.



It's not about what you or I think who does more; society has done that for us.

Life-long McDonalds employees (assuming they are not anything above store-manager) do nothing to advance technology, or do something that could not have been done by countless others. Therefore, society determines that they don't deserve as much compensation as someone who creates a business which caters to peoples need to sleep.
In a socialist society restaurant employees don't receive as much compensation as a celebrated nuclear physicist or a factory manager. In socialist countries the incentive to work productively and innovate is just as great.



Or, in Sam Walton's case, completely revolutionize retail.

The fact that we have grocery, shoe, clothing, etc etc, stores will one day look as inefficient and wastefull as all the little businesses we've already replaced with more efficiency.

And by the way, once society gives someone money, that person is free to spend or give it to whomever they want. It's the nature or Capitalistic freedom.
Is it really ideal that great innovators become ultra-rich and their descendants don't ever have to work again? What do the idle rich contribute to the society? In socialist countries the sons and daughters of great innovators work and contribute to the society. In capitalist countries they often live off their millions wasting a great deal of human potential.

[Dean]

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Marx think that there are no hereditary intelligence differences between people excluding the mentally handicapped?
I'm not aware of any such statements.



That the character of man is the product of environment, not genetics?
Intelligence and character are totally different things.

[Unicorn]

"
I'm not aware of any such statements.
There is no need for any great penetration to see from the teaching of materialism on the original goodness and equal intellectual endowment of men, the omnipotence of experience, habit and education, and the influence of environment on man, the great significance of industry, the justification of enjoyment, etc., how necessarily materialism is connected with communism and socialism."
- The Holy Family Chapter VI by Marx and Engels

[careyprice31]

I didn't say educated; nobody needs another grad with a history degree.

At all. Nor should anyone getting this degree, or any of the other liberal-arts degrees we simply don't need, expect my willing support.

.

That is pretty offensive.

I almost have a history degree, and am going to grad school for a masters in the subject.

You saying nobody needs me.

I found this offensive.

[pusher robot]

That is pretty offensive.

I almost have a history degree, and am going to grad school for a masters in the subject.

You saying nobody needs me.

I found this offensive.

Well, then justify your offense. State clearly and articulately what value you have to offer to others by way of your history degree. how can you satsify the wants and desires of society?

[pusher robot]

:D

Sorry; I assumed even capitalist apologists were affluent in Microsoft history.
[Blah, blah]

Nice try at changing the subject, but that's completely irrelevant. Yes, Microsoft has engaged in "shady" business dealings. Yes, they have persistently attempted to dominate the industry. Nobody would really argue these things, except maybe to the point that they are in this respect really no different than any other company.

However, your claim was that Microsoft makes shitty products, that the only reason for its success was "marketing." That is a load of crap. I'd be happy to tackle the technical aspects of your argument, if you have any, but I'm guessing you don't have any, you're just projecting you personal preferences onto others and assigning them the status of objective truth. Well, newsflash: many people don't share your subjective preferences.

[Unicorn]

However, your claim was that Microsoft makes shitty products, that the only reason for its success was "marketing." That is a load of crap. I'd be happy to tackle the technical aspects of your argument, if you have any, but I'm guessing you don't have any, you're just projecting you personal preferences onto others and assigning them the status of objective truth. Well, newsflash: many people don't share your subjective preferences.
Microsoft's newest OS Vista is a piece of crap and even Bill Gates knows it.

[Demogorgon]

Well, then justify your offense. State clearly and articulately what value you have to offer to others by way of your history degree. how can you satsify the wants and desires of society?

In this country, history teachers are in such demand that they are paid a fair bit more than teachers. There is a shortage of them obviously.

As far as we are concerned over here, gaining a history degree is certainly going to go a long way towards satisfying societies wants.

[pusher robot]

Microsoft's newest OS Vista is a piece of crap and even Bill Gates knows it.
Funny, it seems to work fine for me. Do you have any actual arguments?

[pusher robot]

In this country, history teachers are in such demand that they are paid a fair bit more than teachers. There is a shortage of them obviously.

Obviously. (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jkhaMzfJ3JEjQsM7DaUlY1PFEU_g)

Ok, sorry, that was a cheap shot. You raise a legitimate justification. Keep in mind that for better or worse, union accredication requirements in the U.S. typically mean that most public school teachers get a degree in teaching, not the subject they want to teach. So a history degree is a very indirect route into teaching, unless you get your masters in education, which she already indicated she is not. So odds are pretty good she will not be a teacher, not without even more education.

[Dean]

"
There is no need for any great penetration to see from the teaching of materialism on the original goodness and equal intellectual endowment of men, the omnipotence of experience, habit and education, and the influence of environment on man, the great significance of industry, the justification of enjoyment, etc., how necessarily materialism is connected with communism and socialism."
- The Holy Family Chapter VI by Marx and Engels

If the quote agrees with your sentiment, then Marx was completely ignorant in regards to issues like mental retardation. Even so, Marx, like most philosophers, historians and scientists changed opnions based on the available data and his own understanding frequently; who is to say that this statement even means what you say it does in context, let alone that it remained his opinion until death? I doubt that Marx truly believed that all human beings were given the same cards at birth, but I think that the concept of "scientific marxism" promoted here indicates a changing philosophy considerign scientific developments. So, to be marxist, one doesn't have to agree with the above statement. Furthermore, taking such a quote out of its relevant context and claiming that it exemplifies marxist thought is wrong for a number of reasons.

Lastly, and I should do this more often because I let people side-track me a lot: your quote and statements don't prove or even imply that the following is false:


IQ is not relevant in any meaningful way to marxist theory.
Show me a marxist theory which relies on intelligence quotient.