Posted on 10/02/2007 11:09:43 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
One of the longest-running controversies in history has been that between those who believe intelligence to be inherited and those who see it as determined by environment.
If time has not resolved that question, it has at least led to sharper definitions of the question and a muting of some of the dogmatism among those on both sides of this issue.
The eugenics movement of the early 20th century was based on the fear that, since people of lower mental ability tended to have more children than people of higher mental ability, the average level of the nation's intelligence would tend to decline over time.
It is hard to escape the logic of that argument. But that logic could be its undoing.
The research of Professor James R. Flynn, an American expatriate living in New Zealand, has revealed that the number of questions answered correctly on IQ tests has risen very substantially in more than a dozen nations, in just one generation.
Such a thing should not have been possible, according to the assumptions and logic of the eugenicists. | Historically, those who emphasized the role of environment in intelligence went overboard in the opposite direction.
By the end of World War II, the racial fanaticism of the Nazis had discredited the role of heredity. Some even claimed that science had proved the intellectual equality of the races.
Science had in fact proved nothing about the intellectual ability of races, one way or the other.
A landmark scholarly article in 1969 by Professor Arthur Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley exposed the weaknesses in the prevailing environmental arguments, as Professor Flynn's later research would expose the weaknesses in the heredity arguments.
Unlike others on the heredity side of the argument, Professor Jensen saw no need to dismiss environmental factors or to claim that some races were fit only to be hewers of wood and drawers of water.
One of the ironies of Jensen's landmark article was that it argued that the educational performances of children from disadvantaged groups could be greatly improved, even if there was no corresponding improvement in IQ scores.
All of that was lost in the shuffle amid the outraged reactions to Professor Jensen's challenge to the prevailing environmentalist orthodoxy.
He was denounced as a racist, and his attempts to speak on various campuses were disrupted or prevented. The net result of this mindless name-calling and hooliganism was that the heredity argument appeared to be unanswerable.
Flynn's research has now provided the strongest answer. The amount by which IQ test performance has improved for whole nations exceeds the IQ difference between blacks and whites in the United States or other groups in other countries.
While Flynn's work is widely known among academic specialists, it remains largely unknown to the general public.
That is an especially painful loss, not only to our understanding of the complex IQ issue, but also to our understanding of the need to be able to discuss controversial issues rationally, instead of emotionally and violently.
Last year Jim Flynn debated Charles Murray at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. It was a model of how two decent and honorable people should rationally confront their differences over serious issues.
In his final summation, Flynn mentioned Arthur Jensen for the first time that day, saying how shameful it was that people had lashed out at Jensen instead of dealing with his arguments — arguments that Flynn has done more to rebut than anyone else.|
Jim Flynn is scheduled to return to his native United States this month, as part of an international tour to promote his latest book, What is Intelligence?
He is scheduled to talk at Harvard, Berkeley, the University of Chicago and other academic institutions. But thus far there is little indication that any of this will reach the public through the mass media. That is truly a shame.
We need both his knowledge and his example.
It is an indisputable fact that in our society people who are more successful have, on average, a lot fewer children than people who are less succcesful. If intelligence is primarily genetic, this should have a counter-evolutionary effect, with the population gradually becoming less intelligent on average. But this does not appear to be the case, as far as we can determine.
The one thing that we know about human intelligence for certain is that leftists are smarter than conservatives. We know this because leftists tell us this every month or so and back up their assertions with studies designed to come to that conclusion.
***leftists are smarter than conservatives. ***
Yes this is something they constantly say.
They also say that they are SO SMART that the average voter cannot understand them (when they are political candidates) so of course they end up losing to idiots like GWB.
;^)
What is clear is that rational discourse on the subject is nearly impossible, what with the demonization, first of Jensen (I was taught, in public schools, that this man was a racist), and Murray.
Its not complicated. Any sensible parent can tell you it is a mix of genetics, the level of positive and productive interaction with the child, nutrition and getting enough sleep.
It is safe to say that intelligence is not primarily genetic. Certainly, there are congenital idiots, just as there is evidence of genetic factors for genius.
However, the normal individual is far more intelligent [if educated/trained] than our IQ tests measure, imo.
[I'm from Lake Woebegone, where we're all above average.]
if someone wants to claim intelligence is genetic then first 1) define intelligence and 2) find the gene
Everything is inherited except intelligence, right?
We have growing evidence that much of a person’s personality is inborn, based on studies done on identical twins who were separated at birth.
Inborn does not necessarily mean genetic. The “assembly” of the child in the womb may be even more important than the “blueprint” provided by the genes. This could explain much of the variation between people for which a gene or combination of genes cannot be found. Anyody who has ever assembled a building or model is aware that there is often great variance between the blueprint and the finished product. :)
IMHO, it is likely to mean that attempts to create exact duplicates of people by cloning are doomed to failure. The exact environment for the development of the fetus can never by duplicated.
It might also explain why some people appear to be “born gay,” when a gayness gene would seem to be likely to disappear as its carriers failed to reproduce over the generations.
Actually, there’s irrefutable evidence that conservatives are smarter than leftists. Only an idiot could believe those things that leftists claim to believe.
bfl
It’s hard to exclude genetics.
As far as a gene, several genes have been identified. In the end it will probably be a dozen genes interacting that lead toward the potential of high IQ.
As far as defining intellegence, it is like beauty, it’s hard to describe but you certainly know when you are stuck with ugly.
I would like to define it as a combination of short term memory capacity and brain processing speed. If you can hold a lot of info at once and manipulate it quickly, you are probably very smart.
No. You can be very smart in the head but your heart lets you close your eyes to the truth.
The truth can sometimes be very simple. Smart leftists would prefer to imagine a complex falsehood so that they can claim they can control everything for everyone else.
A super computer has excellent short term memory capacity and processing speed, it can do things no human can do but it is an idiot compared to two year old child.
The brain of someone with a high IQ does not operate any faster than someone with low IQ but there is evidence that it operates more efficiently, and has more interconnections between the neurons that someone with low IQ.
Mohamad Ali had a borderline low IQ but his reaction time and fighting skills were far better than average.
Idiot Savants can have memories and processing speeds far above the average but a very low fuctional IQ.
I have a crackpot theory that a significant number of babies are born with brain damage because of the birthing process. It's not unusual for babies to be "blue", because of a lack of oxygen. It's a fine line from being a little blue to brain damage. Perhaps only a few seconds of time.
It my crackpot theory is correct, there could be a dramatic change in the IQ of a population merely by improved childbirth methods.
thanks, bfl
The problem we now face is the low level of scholarship and the overwhelming presence of propaganda, violence and pornography into these media.
22 Ways to be a GOOD DEMOCRAT
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by documented cyclical changes in the earth’s climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV’s.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can’t teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters don’t care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make “The Passion of the Christ” for financial gain only.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is a very nice person who was shocked by her husband’s infidelities.
17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried is because the right people haven’t been in charge.
18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.
19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese government is in the best interest to the United States.
21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.
22. You have to believe that it’s okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day but it’s not okay to say “Merry Christmas.”
You can stunt a brilliant mind with poor nutrition, and no educational opportunity.
However No amount of education, nutrition, opportunity will ever make a liberal less of an idiot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.