Charles Murray has a three-piece series of op-eds in the WSJ. They describe education policy recommendations for three levels of the IQ distribution:

1. Intelligence in the Classroom: Half of all children are below average, and teachers can do only so much for them.
2. What’s Wrong With Vocational School? Too many Americans are going to college. 
3. Aztecs vs. Greeks: Those with superior intelligence need to learn to be wise. 

The only criticism I can offer is the lack of citations/footnotes to support the many empirical claims made, especially in the first article, but I understand the venue does not permit it.

You can find plenty of criticisms on the web. At the Corner, Jonah Golderg criticizes Murray for being “dismissive of alternative or competing definitions of intelligence”. Golberg’s criticism is somewhat missing the mark by his framing in terms of “competing definitions of intelligence”, but the IQ’s corner blog offers a critique (and follow up) that appears to capture the spirit of Jonah’s remark in more precise language. Jonah also confuses intelligence with wisdom — a mistake worth pointing out. Hopefully Murray will find time to address his critics and publish a response in a venue where the underlying data can be examined more fully.

Another aspect of this worth pointing out: it is generally agreed that it is distinctly impolite to discuss differences in intelligence in public. However, this doesn’t stop intelligence from being discussed in private, and is an unfortunate hamper to an important debate. In the comment threads of several recent posts we’ve discussed the issue of public discussion of non-PC topics. I would suggest that the intersection of intelligence and education falls into the class where the benefits of open debate far out weight the costs. As for getting over our discomfort with intelligence differences, I note that pharmaceutical companies have made major strides by getting commercials for embarrassing medical conditions onto prime time TV.

PZ and John have commented on a Steve Weinberg review of The God Delusion. This prompts me to offer up a cheap reflection which I’ve been meaning to air since watching Beyond Belief 2006, Steve Weinberg was, to my eye, the most ignorant and complacent of all the speakers and panelists, while at the same time being likely the most incandescently brilliant of them all. Weinberg is a great physicist, but having him review The God Delusion is like giving Leon Kass The Party of Death. On a related note, over at The Secular Outpost, Taner Edis wonders if Sam Harris shouldn’t know something about the religions which he criticizes. Now, mind you, I do not tend to value theology very highly. Unlike other Nevilles I tend to fault Dawkins et. al. more for their lack of psychological sophistication than philosophical depth. But the point stands.
Addendum: Let me add that I can’t but feel some joy that a brilliant man such Steven Weinberg is an atheist, one of “my kind.” But I have to admit that that joy is diminished watching him engage someone like Scott Atran, who though lacking in the mental acuity and raw firepower of a Weinberg, knows the lay of the land (religion that is) well enough to make the mighty seem like fallen fools.

RPM and Chris have hit most of the points in regards to the Just Science project. To be short, what it’s not about is anti-science. Just one week, that’s all. It certainly isn’t about traffic or comment response. It isn’t about ease of posting, expressing a clever opinion, but rather a tight exposition of a difficult concept. And it isn’t about any one blogger, and it isn’t about you, it’s about science. Myself, I don’t have the marginal time to spend writing one deep scientific post a day, so I’m putting things in the queue right now. I’m going to set up Just Science as an aggregator weblog. In other words, for a week in early February the website will bring together scientific content from all the blogs who take up the challenge, and you can then use that feed to keep track of the posts.

RPM and Chris have hit most of the points in regards to the Just Science project. To be short, what it’s not about is anti-science. Just one week, that’s all. It certainly isn’t about traffic or comment response. It isn’t about ease of posting, expressing a clever opinion, but rather a tight exposition of a difficult concept. And it isn’t about any one blogger, and it isn’t about you, it’s about science. Myself, I don’t have the marginal time to spend writing one deep scientific post a day, so I’m putting things in the queue right now. I’m going to set up Just Science as an aggregator weblog. In other words, for a week in early February the website will bring together scientific content from all the blogs who take up the challenge, and you can then use that feed to keep track of the posts.

Martin has Four Stone Hearth up, go check it out!

Martin has Four Stone Hearth up, go check it out!

A Week of Science. More later (I’m on board obviously)….

Both Jason Rosenhouse and Rand Simberg have offered in the past few days that they have never exhibited an inclination to accept theism. Jason wonders:

I have very clear memories of attending Sunday school as a kid, and spending most of that time thinking my teachers were putting me on. Do I lack something that other people have? Are there genes that predispose people to belief or non-belief?

There certainly are such genes involved in predisposition to religiousness. There is non-trivial heritability toward religious zeal. By heritability I mean the proportion of popuation level variation in a trait than can be explained by variation in the genes. This is a subtle point: just because a constellation of genes may affect the propensity toward religiosity, that does not imply that there were selection for religious belief. Rather, it maybe that religion is a phenomenon which is a byproduct of normal human psychological processes. And just as humans exhibit variation on a whole host of psychological characteristics, so any trait which emerges as a side effect of said traits shall also exhibit variation.

Read More

A Week of Science. More later (We’re on board here @ GNXP)….

I started reading Daniel Larison because he is pretty clear headed about the Mitt Romney candidacy. But wow, I seem to have caught a blogger at his peak. I know whereof I speak, there is a time in one’s blogging “career” when the posts come fast and furious, unbidden, demanding release. The blog brooks no argument in regards to time or priority, there is no life, it is life. It seems that at the pace Larison is keeping he is at that stage, so enjoy it while it’s good, because the flower of youth always fades and the passion to speak abates as fires of cogitation withdraw to recoup. In any case, lots of interesting stuff, where else could you find someone who curses John Locke and the Enlightenment in one breath and backhands the Intelligent Design movement then next? Definitely an army of one.

On a different note, a few months ago I was in California at a burrito shop and I was face to face with someone behind the counter who looked just like me. Same height, same skin color, same short cropped hair, similar features, and get this, same cut and color of shirt! I could tell he was as unnerved as I, and even though I tried to be calm and eat I noticed that he kept looking my way in a really strange manner. I hope I never see him again….