Lately I've been feeling really burnt out on social news and the blogosphere in general. The vast majority of submissions are poorly written restatements of facts I already know and arguments I've already seen. Unless someone comes up with a way to filter out non-novel ideas, I really can't see sticking with this stuff in the long term.
I'm willing to believe that there are genetic differences in intelligence, some of which fall along racial lines. However, until we have a better psychometric than IQ, the research is going to be fundamentally flawed. The study cited here showing Africans have low IQs was bad research.
When one considers the hundred years of horrific racism present in white culture, it's hardly surprising that such cultural attitudes manifest themselves from time to time in the form of sophisticated scientific arguments.
Whether or not there are genetic differences, doesn't the most accurate approach -- if not the most ethical approach -- seem to be withholding all race-based judgement for the time being?
I find it amuzing when some dandruff covered geek explains this to me and then I point them to a video of Jimi Hendrix. I don't know what Jimi would have scored on the
Stanford-Binet, but the man was a genius. Who can doubt that?
Note that this research is only offensive with regards to highly visible traits such as race and gender. The reason is that this leads to discrimination (a rational strategy in the absence of other info if the research were to be correct).
However, it would not be offensive for scientists to say that people with a certain DNA sequence are more intelligent -- at least not yet since personalized DNA sequencing is not common.
So one solution to this problem would be to simply hide race and gender by allowing people to work from home, meet online, etc. There are probably many sorts of businesses where this would be possible.
But I am a fan of making the human race better, and I don't like when you can't discuss certain research.
In the past, I could believe the sociological reasons to not discuss things like this. It could easily be net negative for society.
But we are getting better at manipulating genes. Soon, we'll be enhancing people. I'd like to know which genes cause intelligence (including autism, aspergers, and other potential drawbacks) so that we can choose to activate them when we have the ability.
Socially distasteful research that could lead to improving all humans should be openly explored with that goal in mind.
Setting aside ultimate scientific truths about this matter, if you come from a race that is not considered to be of high IQ on average yet you are highly intelligent as an individual, then it would help to demonstrate this fact.
For example, you can take IQ tests, get an MRI scan of your brain to determine its volume, get your DNA sequenced etc., to prove your high IQ as an individual.
Who cares? IQ isn't a good predictor of much, other than performance on other IQ tests. It's true that there are broad correlations between IQ and paths in life[1], but it's not like our greatest contributors to society have been the ones with the highest IQ. I'm just going to laugh at someone someone comes to me and says "You should hire me because I scored at +3 sigma on multiple 'intelligence' tests!".
The Bell Curve cites studies that say that raw IQ is the single best predictor of future job performance, higher than experience, interview, and everything else.
Too bad it's illegal to give IQ tests as part of the interview process. I think that's partially why the brain teasers have become so popular.
Though I do agree with you that you'd be right to laugh at someone who claims you should hire him simply because of an IQ test. They should also be motivated and interested in that line of work, otherwise I would imagine the intelligence would be wasted.
Too bad it's illegal to give IQ tests as part of the interview process.
Taking a follow-the-money approach to these questions, it's worth reflecting that a 15 minute IQ test can give a rough idea of a candidate's quality. Compare that to the 4 year, 6-figure process of getting an Ivy League degree--Harvard, et al, is against any shade of genetic determinism not so much from liberalism as self-interest. Why obsolete themselves?
From the article:
[After listing obviously false rebuttals of Watson...] I wish these assurances were true.
I wonder why. If you showed proof of genetic proclivities toward certain kinds of muscle and nerve structures associated with athleticism, and then showed that blacks have some preponderance of the same...how many of them would throw themselves at the feet of Thomas Jefferson's tea-tax-related rhetoric and weep that "It just can't be so...all men are equal!"
Zero. Not everyone was taught to abase themselves.
And the greatest athletes have had faster forty yard dashes and reaction times than the average person. If you are better than an average pro athlete in these metrics, is that enough to make you Michael Jordan or Tom Brady? I think not. To wit:
