Posts with Comments by Marc
The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution
So any word on when the book will be published? I have a certain lefty friend I would love to give it to as a Christmas gift for the section on Ashkenazi intelligence alone.
The clue points to the Tasmanian Devil, damn it. Think !
Um, Tasmanians? Or rather, their descendents? Like David guessed several comments ago? That's the logical guess.
If so, looks like we have a picture of what a Neanderthal might have looked like. If not, then I think we're going to need another clue.
Um, Tasmanians? Or rather, their descendents? Like David guessed several comments ago? That's the logical guess.
If so, looks like we have a picture of what a Neanderthal might have looked like. If not, then I think we're going to need another clue.
Australian aborigines?
The Secular Right
The observation that homosexuality is often comorbid with other mental diseases points at a common proximate neurological problem and possibly a common ultimate genetic, environmental, nutritional, or microbial cause. But of course this entire line of argument is premised upon the supposition that homosexuality is an abnormal, undesirable state -- a disease state -- just like the other conditions that it is comorbid with. Yet as shown in this thread, this normative stance is contested tooth and nail by SWPLs for ultimately political reasons -- the same SWPLs who would never want their child to be gay.
I wouldn't be surprised if it were conclusively shown that homosexuality correlates with certain mental disorders for genetic or biological - as opposed to strictly environmental - reasons. But nor would I be surprised to find that homosexuality - at least among men - also correlates with greater creativity.
Speaking of which, hasn't it been shown that creativity itself correlates with bipolar disorder? Yet no one would call creativity a mental disorder.
I think you have to weigh each condition's impact on the individual seperately in judging whether something warrants designation as a mental disorder, regardless of co-morbidity.
I wouldn't be surprised if it were conclusively shown that homosexuality correlates with certain mental disorders for genetic or biological - as opposed to strictly environmental - reasons. But nor would I be surprised to find that homosexuality - at least among men - also correlates with greater creativity.
Speaking of which, hasn't it been shown that creativity itself correlates with bipolar disorder? Yet no one would call creativity a mental disorder.
I think you have to weigh each condition's impact on the individual seperately in judging whether something warrants designation as a mental disorder, regardless of co-morbidity.
Gee Cee,
My issue is whether homosexuality should be considered a mental disorder or not. I contend that it should not be considered a mental disorder because my understanding of the term is that it is reserved for those conditions that significantly, negatively and directly impact one's quality of life. Yes, homosexuality can shorten one's lifespan indirectly by causing one to engage in behaviors that will put him at an exponentially higher risk for contracting HIV. But an early death due to HIV is an indirect, not a direct, result of homosexuality, and many homosexual men (and nearly all homosexual women) will never contract HIV. Many gay people lead lives that are no different from those of their straight counterparts aside from the fact that they date members of the same sex. This is not true for schizophrenics, people with bi-polar disorder, people with Attention Deficit Disorder, etc...
I do want to make clear that I don't have an emotional resistance to labeling homosexuality a mental disorder. In other words, the idea doesn't personally offend or upset me, perhaps because I don't see having a mental disorder as any big deal - it's just part of being human.
You contend that high intelligence should not be considered a disease because, while it certainly affects reproductive success in this society, 1) it has not done so in every society and 2) it leads to many social benefits. Regarding your first point, I could imagine a society in which homosexuality does not negatively affect fertility among men or women. A highly religious society in which gays are forced into the closet, for example. Regarding your second argument, I think the benefits to the individual that come from a high IQ are beside the point. If you are going to define a disorder as something that reduces reproductive fitness, then anything that reduces reproductive fitness should properly be considered a disorder. It may be a disorder that provides benefits to the individual and society, but it is still a disorder. As for your argument that homosexuality can be considered a disorder because of the privately held beliefs of the masses... that isn't an objective definition. Again, left-handedness, in some places and times, would have been viewed as a disorder under this definition.
Regarding gay marriage and polygamy, I don't support polygamy because - as others have noted - you can point to the direct, negative effects that polygamy has on society. I don't see gay marriage as having direct, negative effects on society. I don't think it's fair or necessary to block gay marriage out of a fear that it will lead to a slippery slope that redefines the institution. In short, there is no rational reason why we can't argue for gay marriage because it would represent a social good and against polygamy because it is socially harmful.
Gays are not just straights who take a
More....
My issue is whether homosexuality should be considered a mental disorder or not. I contend that it should not be considered a mental disorder because my understanding of the term is that it is reserved for those conditions that significantly, negatively and directly impact one's quality of life. Yes, homosexuality can shorten one's lifespan indirectly by causing one to engage in behaviors that will put him at an exponentially higher risk for contracting HIV. But an early death due to HIV is an indirect, not a direct, result of homosexuality, and many homosexual men (and nearly all homosexual women) will never contract HIV. Many gay people lead lives that are no different from those of their straight counterparts aside from the fact that they date members of the same sex. This is not true for schizophrenics, people with bi-polar disorder, people with Attention Deficit Disorder, etc...
I do want to make clear that I don't have an emotional resistance to labeling homosexuality a mental disorder. In other words, the idea doesn't personally offend or upset me, perhaps because I don't see having a mental disorder as any big deal - it's just part of being human.
You contend that high intelligence should not be considered a disease because, while it certainly affects reproductive success in this society, 1) it has not done so in every society and 2) it leads to many social benefits. Regarding your first point, I could imagine a society in which homosexuality does not negatively affect fertility among men or women. A highly religious society in which gays are forced into the closet, for example. Regarding your second argument, I think the benefits to the individual that come from a high IQ are beside the point. If you are going to define a disorder as something that reduces reproductive fitness, then anything that reduces reproductive fitness should properly be considered a disorder. It may be a disorder that provides benefits to the individual and society, but it is still a disorder. As for your argument that homosexuality can be considered a disorder because of the privately held beliefs of the masses... that isn't an objective definition. Again, left-handedness, in some places and times, would have been viewed as a disorder under this definition.
Regarding gay marriage and polygamy, I don't support polygamy because - as others have noted - you can point to the direct, negative effects that polygamy has on society. I don't see gay marriage as having direct, negative effects on society. I don't think it's fair or necessary to block gay marriage out of a fear that it will lead to a slippery slope that redefines the institution. In short, there is no rational reason why we can't argue for gay marriage because it would represent a social good and against polygamy because it is socially harmful.
Gays are not just straights who take a
More....
You and I are likely not effected by arson laws but the poor pyromaniac is. Ultimately we're left to decide whether the behavior in question is or is not detrimental to the greater good.
But how is providing gay couples the same legal benefits as straight couples detrimental to the greater good? This is where I think opponents of same-sex marriage stumble. If I am in a committed relationship with another man, that isn't hurting anyone and it benefits both of us, as anyone who has ever been in a healthy committed relationship will testify. What harm does it do to provide us with the same benefits as a straight couple?
But how is providing gay couples the same legal benefits as straight couples detrimental to the greater good? This is where I think opponents of same-sex marriage stumble. If I am in a committed relationship with another man, that isn't hurting anyone and it benefits both of us, as anyone who has ever been in a healthy committed relationship will testify. What harm does it do to provide us with the same benefits as a straight couple?
Nothing about opposition to same-sex marriage violates this principle. Heterosexuals can't marry their male best friends and homosexuals can't marry their blow buddies. That it will effect one group disproportionately is incidental to the principle.
Yeah but marriage in the West isn't something that people enter into with their friends or "blow buddies," it's something that people enter into with their lifetime or hopefully lifetime romantic partners. Your statement implies that you think that gay relationships can be nothing more than friendships with sexual benefits, which isn't true.
Yeah but marriage in the West isn't something that people enter into with their friends or "blow buddies," it's something that people enter into with their lifetime or hopefully lifetime romantic partners. Your statement implies that you think that gay relationships can be nothing more than friendships with sexual benefits, which isn't true.
geecee is presumably right to say that homosexuals have reduced reproductive fitness.* Reduced reproductive fitness can be regarded as a disability
But then wouldn't high IQ be considered a disability, given the inverse correlation - at least in modern societies - between intelligence and lifetime reproductive success?
But then wouldn't high IQ be considered a disability, given the inverse correlation - at least in modern societies - between intelligence and lifetime reproductive success?
1) First, this reasoning appears circular to me. You don't want to seek a cure because medical associations are currently not labeling it a disease. Yet I thought we already established that the APA didn't remove homosexuality as a mental illness because of new scientific findings, but because of the pressure of the 1973 protest.
Why was homosexuality included as a mental illness in the first place? Because it wasn't normative, or because it has, in itself, a significant and detrimental impact on one's quality of life?
I have mental illnesses and I am a homosexual. I have Attention Deficit Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, a panic disorder and bipolar disorder. At some point in my life I was not receiving proper treatment for one or all of these disorders, and my quality of life suffered significantly. My quality of life doesn't suffer because I'm gay. My homosexuality doesn't cause me unhappiness, nor does it cause me to struggle. Of course, I am but one data point. Still, you have yet to present evidence that homosexuality in itself negatively affects one's quality of life. I think this evidence would be necessary if you're going to argue that homosexuality is a mental illness, and not just something that was pathologized because it is unusual, like left-handedness.
Those variables -- along with the size of the activist community -- have an extremely strong influence on funding priorities. Curing cancer is seen as essential, curing homosexuality is seen as taboo.
Focused research on a cure for homosexuality is not only not happening, it is about as taboo as focused research on raising human intelligence. Clever researchers are working around it at the margins, but it's nothing at all like the massive institutes and manpower allocated towards (say) HIV research.
Ok, I can see your reasoning that if homosexuality were viewed as a disease, more money would go into understanding its origins and ultimately, "curing" people who are gay. But your statement that finding a cure for cancer is seen as essential whereas finding a cure for homosexuality is a taboo, while correct, implies an equivalence between the two that I just don't buy. People aren't pushing for a cure for homosexuality because most people don't view homosexuality as akin to cancer, for reasons that I've touched on above.
Again, let me be clear here: when it comes to research, the first step is identifying a problem and agreeing that it is in fact a problem. Then you can start breaking ground on the new institute for studying the condition and recruiting faculty. Is it a coincidence that there are dozens of centers for curing mental illness, AIDS, schizophrenia, and deafness -- but not one for curing or preventing homosexuality?
Again, I don't think that that many people see homosexuality as a problem for the indi
More....
Why was homosexuality included as a mental illness in the first place? Because it wasn't normative, or because it has, in itself, a significant and detrimental impact on one's quality of life?
I have mental illnesses and I am a homosexual. I have Attention Deficit Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, a panic disorder and bipolar disorder. At some point in my life I was not receiving proper treatment for one or all of these disorders, and my quality of life suffered significantly. My quality of life doesn't suffer because I'm gay. My homosexuality doesn't cause me unhappiness, nor does it cause me to struggle. Of course, I am but one data point. Still, you have yet to present evidence that homosexuality in itself negatively affects one's quality of life. I think this evidence would be necessary if you're going to argue that homosexuality is a mental illness, and not just something that was pathologized because it is unusual, like left-handedness.
Those variables -- along with the size of the activist community -- have an extremely strong influence on funding priorities. Curing cancer is seen as essential, curing homosexuality is seen as taboo.
Focused research on a cure for homosexuality is not only not happening, it is about as taboo as focused research on raising human intelligence. Clever researchers are working around it at the margins, but it's nothing at all like the massive institutes and manpower allocated towards (say) HIV research.
Ok, I can see your reasoning that if homosexuality were viewed as a disease, more money would go into understanding its origins and ultimately, "curing" people who are gay. But your statement that finding a cure for cancer is seen as essential whereas finding a cure for homosexuality is a taboo, while correct, implies an equivalence between the two that I just don't buy. People aren't pushing for a cure for homosexuality because most people don't view homosexuality as akin to cancer, for reasons that I've touched on above.
Again, let me be clear here: when it comes to research, the first step is identifying a problem and agreeing that it is in fact a problem. Then you can start breaking ground on the new institute for studying the condition and recruiting faculty. Is it a coincidence that there are dozens of centers for curing mental illness, AIDS, schizophrenia, and deafness -- but not one for curing or preventing homosexuality?
Again, I don't think that that many people see homosexuality as a problem for the indi
More....
Is this your realistic solution? Shame people you view as handicapped back into the shadows of tortured, stunted non-lives? For whose protection? Their own? Revealed preferences will show anybody would choose the free life with the probability of early death, over the life you describe. A life lived freely and with dignity is desirable above all such externalities.
This is worth repeating given how frequently the "gays were better off when society kept them in the closet" argument is trotted out by social conservatives. I'm gay and I much prefer a life with the risk of HIV and the chance of finding love and companionship to a life without either. Ask yourself if you would trade your time with your wife or girlfriend for the assurance that you would, say, never contract cancer. I don't think any straight person would.
Until something is pathologized, resources will not be allocated for a cure.
I don't see how this is the case. As we learn more about the root causes of homosexuality, treatments will become available for those who want them. Gay activists will not be able to stop it without stopping scientific inquiry into the subject wholesale, which is not something they will be able to accomplish. (You underestimate the general public's commitment to science and free inquiry if you think that they will.) In short, there is no need to pathologize homosexuality for research into its origins to continue.
Of course there would be exceptions. But tell me, purely as a matter of statistics, would your daughter be better or worse off *on average* when marrying a member of group X?
One might argue that your daughter would marry an exception due to assortative mating. This used to be my position. However, if you look at the data for a particular value of group X, assortative mating is only a partial rather than a full compensation. In general, women marrying men from group X -- even taking assortation into account -- are more likely to get a man with worse characteristics on the above variables than if they selected from another ethnic group.
How is this an argument for the government banning interracial marriage? Adults are adults, and they are free to make their own decisions as they see fit. If a member of group Y wants to marry a member of group X despite the statistical risks that such a partnership entails for her, that's her decision.
Now, I agree that there should be more frank and open discussions about observed racial differences and the possibility that these differences are rooted in biology. Working in the field of adoption, I see the consequences of blank-slatism to good-hearted adoptive parents who can't understand why their adopted child didn't turn out like their biological ones. But what right does the government have to deny marriage benefits to a woman because
More....
This is worth repeating given how frequently the "gays were better off when society kept them in the closet" argument is trotted out by social conservatives. I'm gay and I much prefer a life with the risk of HIV and the chance of finding love and companionship to a life without either. Ask yourself if you would trade your time with your wife or girlfriend for the assurance that you would, say, never contract cancer. I don't think any straight person would.
Until something is pathologized, resources will not be allocated for a cure.
I don't see how this is the case. As we learn more about the root causes of homosexuality, treatments will become available for those who want them. Gay activists will not be able to stop it without stopping scientific inquiry into the subject wholesale, which is not something they will be able to accomplish. (You underestimate the general public's commitment to science and free inquiry if you think that they will.) In short, there is no need to pathologize homosexuality for research into its origins to continue.
Of course there would be exceptions. But tell me, purely as a matter of statistics, would your daughter be better or worse off *on average* when marrying a member of group X?
One might argue that your daughter would marry an exception due to assortative mating. This used to be my position. However, if you look at the data for a particular value of group X, assortative mating is only a partial rather than a full compensation. In general, women marrying men from group X -- even taking assortation into account -- are more likely to get a man with worse characteristics on the above variables than if they selected from another ethnic group.
How is this an argument for the government banning interracial marriage? Adults are adults, and they are free to make their own decisions as they see fit. If a member of group Y wants to marry a member of group X despite the statistical risks that such a partnership entails for her, that's her decision.
Now, I agree that there should be more frank and open discussions about observed racial differences and the possibility that these differences are rooted in biology. Working in the field of adoption, I see the consequences of blank-slatism to good-hearted adoptive parents who can't understand why their adopted child didn't turn out like their biological ones. But what right does the government have to deny marriage benefits to a woman because
More....
McCain v. Obama: turning cognitive elites to blithering fools
carrying a Down Syndrome baby to term is a pretty big loser too. I mean I wish the best for such children who have already been born, but frankly their parents should be jailed. In terms of the costs to society, carrying a Down Syndrome baby to term is up there with a $3,000,000 embezzlement ($100K/yr for care times a life expectancy of maybe 30 years).
This is extremely offensive. I have a sister who is severely mentally and physically handicapped from birth. It is not your place (or anyone's place) to say that her life is not worth living.
This is extremely offensive. I have a sister who is severely mentally and physically handicapped from birth. It is not your place (or anyone's place) to say that her life is not worth living.
↑testosterone ∝ ↑sexual interest ∝ ↑sex typical faces?
What about the gays? Do they prefer more feminine men when their testosterone is up?
Lemarr,
Take my anecdote with a grain of salt, of course, but LITERALLY the only times in my life I've been attracted to East Asian men (whom I find more feminine, at least visually, than most white men or South Asians) is when I'm busting my ass at the gym.
I offer this testimony in good faith. To any East Asian men who would accuse me of sexual racism, all I can say is that dating me isn't such a hot ticket that you should get all worked up over being denied the opportunity to do so. :-)
Lemarr,
Take my anecdote with a grain of salt, of course, but LITERALLY the only times in my life I've been attracted to East Asian men (whom I find more feminine, at least visually, than most white men or South Asians) is when I'm busting my ass at the gym.
I offer this testimony in good faith. To any East Asian men who would accuse me of sexual racism, all I can say is that dating me isn't such a hot ticket that you should get all worked up over being denied the opportunity to do so. :-)
NIH takes down public data
NAMs, who are already approaching 30% of the population, are NEVER going to accept any kind of evidence that shows that their natural abilities limit their placement in society. Never.
I don't know if I agree with this. As the country becomes more diverse, it won't just be a majority race-that-has (whites) vs. a minority race-that-has-not (blacks). Instead there will be a spectrum with East Asians at one end, then whites, then mestizos, then blacks. South Asians would probably group close to the whites. My point is that people might be more willing to entertain the notion of average differences in intelligence between the races in a situation where being a NAM doesn't consign you to being the loser in a binary relationship. I.e., the average mestizo might say, "Well, we're not up there with the whites, but they're getting their pants beaten off of them by the Koreans anyway, and at least we're not with the blacks, so we're doing all right."
I don't know if I agree with this. As the country becomes more diverse, it won't just be a majority race-that-has (whites) vs. a minority race-that-has-not (blacks). Instead there will be a spectrum with East Asians at one end, then whites, then mestizos, then blacks. South Asians would probably group close to the whites. My point is that people might be more willing to entertain the notion of average differences in intelligence between the races in a situation where being a NAM doesn't consign you to being the loser in a binary relationship. I.e., the average mestizo might say, "Well, we're not up there with the whites, but they're getting their pants beaten off of them by the Koreans anyway, and at least we're not with the blacks, so we're doing all right."
Barack Obama on The Bell Curve
What I'm pointing to is the apparent reality that, whatever "cognitive deficit" actually exists [among blacks] (and of which I express no doubt whatsoever) and contributes to "social problems," is pretty well "cancelled out" in comparison with similar white population.
I don't see how social problems associated with cognitive deficit among blacks are "cancelled out" by social problems associated with cognitive deficit among whites. If I'm walking down the street, and I get mugged by a black man, and then two blocks up I get stabbed by a white man... I don't get my money back.
I don't see how social problems associated with cognitive deficit among blacks are "cancelled out" by social problems associated with cognitive deficit among whites. If I'm walking down the street, and I get mugged by a black man, and then two blocks up I get stabbed by a white man... I don't get my money back.
Emma,
You're misreading what I said. I was not saying that the 15 point black-white IQ gap may be the result of social inequality, though that's certainly a possibility. I was saying that if you have two groups with average, established IQs of 100 and 85 respectively, and you provide them with equal opportunity, the group with the higher average IQ will have much better socioeconomic outcomes. In other words, I was discussing the importance of cognitive ability to life outcomes, not discussing whether or not environmental variables affect average cognitive ability between groups.
Regarding the black white IQ gap, it is instructive that it persists relatively unchanged across all socioeconomic levels. Black children born into upper-class families score lower on the SAT - a highly g-loaded test - than white children born into lower class families. I have never seen an environmental hypothesis that satisfactorily explains this.
You're misreading what I said. I was not saying that the 15 point black-white IQ gap may be the result of social inequality, though that's certainly a possibility. I was saying that if you have two groups with average, established IQs of 100 and 85 respectively, and you provide them with equal opportunity, the group with the higher average IQ will have much better socioeconomic outcomes. In other words, I was discussing the importance of cognitive ability to life outcomes, not discussing whether or not environmental variables affect average cognitive ability between groups.
Regarding the black white IQ gap, it is instructive that it persists relatively unchanged across all socioeconomic levels. Black children born into upper-class families score lower on the SAT - a highly g-loaded test - than white children born into lower class families. I have never seen an environmental hypothesis that satisfactorily explains this.
You forgot to include that the loony Creationist believe that evolution, micro or otherwise, is ultimately under the purview of a god for which they can offer no scientific evidence.
And that would affect a decision to fund research into genes for intelligence how...?
Also, this argument about cognitive abilities shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution has no goal, except that of keeping animals alive long enough to pass on their genes.
If you believe that the people who post here and comment here don't understand that evolution has no goal, you should read a little more on this site before posting.
In actuality even a moderate deviation in cognitive abilities would likely have little impact on successful replication, through reproduction, of that person?s genes.
It depends entirely on the environment. In our society, it seems that the more intelligent people are actually significantly less likely to pass on their genes. Witness the inverse correlation between fertility and intelligence among women. In other times, places, and cultural milieus, there is evidence that reproductive success was linked to cognitive ability.
To read the posts here one would have to be forgiven for coming to conclusion that people actually think there is a purpose to the universe. That evolution has an innate, definite end point to which some people think they are closer to than others.
Who has said this? I believe you are misinterpreting what people have said (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong) because you are not used to the type of discussions that go on here.
I will grant you on point: we can see variations in cognitive ability among human sub-populations, even within families (though said variations are, of course, meaningless). Trig Palin, for example.
They are far from meaningless. The 15 point gap in IQ between blacks and whites in America contributes to a host of social problems. Whether this gap is due to genetics, environment, or some mixture of both has yet to be determined. But there is no denying that differences in average cognitive ability between groups will result in different socioeconomic outcomes for those groups, all other things being equal.
And that would affect a decision to fund research into genes for intelligence how...?
Also, this argument about cognitive abilities shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution has no goal, except that of keeping animals alive long enough to pass on their genes.
If you believe that the people who post here and comment here don't understand that evolution has no goal, you should read a little more on this site before posting.
In actuality even a moderate deviation in cognitive abilities would likely have little impact on successful replication, through reproduction, of that person?s genes.
It depends entirely on the environment. In our society, it seems that the more intelligent people are actually significantly less likely to pass on their genes. Witness the inverse correlation between fertility and intelligence among women. In other times, places, and cultural milieus, there is evidence that reproductive success was linked to cognitive ability.
To read the posts here one would have to be forgiven for coming to conclusion that people actually think there is a purpose to the universe. That evolution has an innate, definite end point to which some people think they are closer to than others.
Who has said this? I believe you are misinterpreting what people have said (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong) because you are not used to the type of discussions that go on here.
I will grant you on point: we can see variations in cognitive ability among human sub-populations, even within families (though said variations are, of course, meaningless). Trig Palin, for example.
They are far from meaningless. The 15 point gap in IQ between blacks and whites in America contributes to a host of social problems. Whether this gap is due to genetics, environment, or some mixture of both has yet to be determined. But there is no denying that differences in average cognitive ability between groups will result in different socioeconomic outcomes for those groups, all other things being equal.
For those who wish to promote the interests of genetic/genomic research, who should they prefer in the White House: Barack Obama, or a raving creationist loony (with lipstick)?
Frankly, the loony Creationist. Creationists will readily admit the reality of microevolution, and this research involves variation and changes within one particular species (us).
On the other hand, while HBD-denialist types readily admit the reality of macro- and microevolution, they have an ideological need to deny that microevolution could conceivably lead to variations in cognitive ability among human subpopulations.
Frankly, the loony Creationist. Creationists will readily admit the reality of microevolution, and this research involves variation and changes within one particular species (us).
On the other hand, while HBD-denialist types readily admit the reality of macro- and microevolution, they have an ideological need to deny that microevolution could conceivably lead to variations in cognitive ability among human subpopulations.
The Audacious Epigone
But how much sooner? Do you and ben generally agree on interpretations of the available data?
We agree on what data we should include in our post, which is no small feat because there are a lot of studies out there with a lot of caveats and complicating factors involved. We also agree that the available data is extremely preliminary and that more data is needed. (Of course we will continue to update the running tally as more data that fits our criteria emerges.) Finally, we agree that the pattern that the available data shows was arrived at fairly and honestly.
The post should be out Oct. 1st by the latest. There will be follow up posts more deeply exploring issues raised in the first post soon after. The whole thing is really quite exciting. But I'll stop gushing now.
We agree on what data we should include in our post, which is no small feat because there are a lot of studies out there with a lot of caveats and complicating factors involved. We also agree that the available data is extremely preliminary and that more data is needed. (Of course we will continue to update the running tally as more data that fits our criteria emerges.) Finally, we agree that the pattern that the available data shows was arrived at fairly and honestly.
The post should be out Oct. 1st by the latest. There will be follow up posts more deeply exploring issues raised in the first post soon after. The whole thing is really quite exciting. But I'll stop gushing now.
Eventually someone would compare how the intelligence genes vary between blacks and whites using those separate studies.
This might happen sooner than you think... (laughs maniacally...)
This might happen sooner than you think... (laughs maniacally...)
This is what Godless Capitalist is talking about. We could see shifts of money away from brain genetics research of the sort that uses large samples of data from many people for example. Anything that gets near identifying IQ genes could get strangled.
Even if GC's worst-case scenario is correct, research would continue in other countries. Italian, Dutch, German and Chinese researchers have all done interesting work in this area. The results of such research will be available to those of us in the U.S.
I agree that not funding this type of research in the U.S. would be a tragedy, but I don't think that U.S. funds are indispensable for such research to continue.
Even if GC's worst-case scenario is correct, research would continue in other countries. Italian, Dutch, German and Chinese researchers have all done interesting work in this area. The results of such research will be available to those of us in the U.S.
I agree that not funding this type of research in the U.S. would be a tragedy, but I don't think that U.S. funds are indispensable for such research to continue.
Recent Comments