Posted on 10/25/2005 8:03:25 PM PDT by Pharmboy
"That way there is plenty of time for adaptations as you go along."
Yes, that's true. However, developments during historical times must have clouded the picture.
Sonic hedgehog from gassed drosophila ....somehow fitting! We used to pack drinking straws with them after playing with their generations and then we slid the straws under some poor soul's door after pulling the cotton puff with which we corked them.
Fair enough, but Darwinism provided the structure and focus for their racism much as Chrstianity provides a structure and focus for some racist groups in the US today.
Racist hate by Christians is no more rooted in actual Christianity than the racist hate of the skull shapers is based upon Darwin or Science.
Going back to my broader point, it was meant to explain why science is so reluctant to talk about physiological racial differences or even the entire topic of general intelligence. It's because those theories have a long history of being abused by racists to give their racism some credibility by tying it to science. The idea is that certain ideas end no place good, and I think you'll find some of those same sentiments in the opposition to evolution.
There is no "primitive on the evolutionary scale" or 'advanced on the evolutionary scale'. There is no progress in evolution, only adaptation.
I agree that one reason that people don't get into this field is due to the racist that have so thoroughly muddied the water, but there is really little utility in it OTHER than assigning skulls to one group or the other in groups that are not otherwise different in much of a relevant degree. The motive behind this is usually racist to begin with.
And like I said, once you've come to that conclusion, you've put the burden of proof upon anyone who claims otherwise to prove it, which becomes a matter of proving that they aren't secretly engaged in the though crime of racism, which is an impossible task. Even if certain questions are normally asked for entirely racist reasons, is it really scientific to declare engire ranges of questions and knowledge off limits because it might be misused by racists?
In a society where a sports team can get sued for having no athletes of a particular race or sex or a company can be sued for having no employees of a particular race or sex in a particular job category, determining where the discrepancy comes from can lead to issues of morphology and general intelligence. Since we are a society that is so obsessed with racial and ethnic differences, they should be studied, and it could be useful to know if the prevailing dogma (which may very well be true) that there are no important differences between the races really is true if we are going to base public policies on top of those assumptions.
For the record, I do think it's important to scrutinize such research to some degree to make sure that it's not simply racist pseudo-science but I think that the assumption that any researcher who studies such issues must be racist or motivated by racism and a refusal to accept any explanation or assurances that it isn't is going way too far.
If black kids are scoring one standard deviation lower than white kids on IQ tests, it would be useful to know if the cause is something we can do something about (culture, instruction, etc.) or something we can't do something about (genetics) because if we make the wrong assumption, the policies inacted will, at best, be useless and, at worst, be racist. You can't do that if the entire subject area is considered off limits.
For the record, I don't believe that average IQ differences between blacks and whites as populations are genetic. I do think they are cultural and/or environmental. Perhaps that's why I don't fear such research, so long as it's done properly. I can see great value in demonstrating that IQ and achievement differences between the races is cultural rather than simply assuming it and declaring the subject off limits. That only makes the real racists think that science has something to hide. Basically, I think that such research could provide a fatal blow to some racist ideas that have been carried forward from those early days of measuring skulls.
The quantity or quality of differences on a molecular level do not necessarily relate the the quantity or quality of differences on a gross physical level. The molecular differences that lead to certain genetic diseases can be very small but the effects can be profound.
Anyone who says that the work hasn't been done, or that the definitive answer is to be found in the shape of skulls rather than in genotype, is trying to sell something and it usually isn't something nice they are trying to sell.
Please note that I'm not simply talking about skull shapes, though I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder whether the shape and size of a brain affects the function of the brain and whether the shape and size of the brain's container (the skull) reflects or determines the shape and size of the brain and thus how it functions. I'm talking about studying the distribution of just about any trait along racial or sexual lines. All such research has become off-limits on the basis that it must inherently be racist or sexist.
And the difference is cultural, not genetic. Middle class black children raised in houses with books do much better than lower class white children raised in houses without books in just about every measure. Family income and literacy are far better indicators of academic success than skin color.
As I said, I believe this, too. And it's my relatively certainty that this is true that makes me not fear such research. Properly done, such research should show that skull shape and brain size really do have no impact on general intelligence.
I'm not really sure they have been, otherwise you wouldn't see mention of things like The Bell Curve and articles like this popping up so frequently, particularly on conservative web sites and magazines. It also doesn't help that the actual scientific data is stretched, thanks to people like Gould, into a general attack on the very idea of general intelligence. Have you read Jensen's responses to Gould? Further, Scientific American had an issue about intelligence not all that long ago that painted a much less certain picture of current views general intelligence than Gould's proponents often claim exists. And if you want to know why I think letting social implications drive science can be problematic, I'll point you to this old favorite, which comes frighteningly close to how a lot of liberals I've had discussions with online seem to view any linkage between biology and behavior. They consider the whole subject off limits, holding up Gould as support.
As far as how to use the information to "improve intelligence"; I'm not sure exactly what you are advocating. How would you use the data to improve intelligence?
For example, I've read about some recent studies which suggest that that the density of certain brain tissue, as well as size, is important. If we can understand what contributes to intelligence and then understand the environmental factors that might encourage or discourage that sort of brain development, we might be able to give children, either before birth or even after, a better environment in which to achieve intelligence rather than simply guessing with things like "Listening to Mozart makes kids smarter."
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.