Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,811 Year: 3,068/9,624 Month: 913/1,588 Week: 96/223 Day: 7/17 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transhumanism vs. Natural Selection: Playing God in the post-Darwinian era?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 16 of 33 (217710)
06-17-2005 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by EZscience
06-17-2005 3:53 PM


Re: Already started?
Thanks, I wasn't thinking it through carefully enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by EZscience, posted 06-17-2005 3:53 PM EZscience has not replied

  
uvscfan
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 33 (223043)
07-10-2005 11:15 PM


Cognitive ability and race
In my field of expertise, Industrial/Organizational Psychology, the correlation between race and innate intelligence is both a seemingly unsolvable mystery and the subject of endless political policies. Inequalities in intelligence appear to remain constant amongst different races regardless of education level or other factors that should "level the playing field." What is even more interesting is that within the Caucasian group, certain groups of Jews who prove to have a smaller gene pool than even other Caucasian groups tend to have significantly higher IQ's. Conversely, Hispanics generally have significantly lower IQ's than Caucasians despite having at least some common ancestry. The fact that this distribution exists is not as alarming as the impact it might have on the evolution of the species since the groups with the lowest IQ's are reproducing at a much higher rate than those with the highest IQ's.

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2005 11:40 PM uvscfan has not replied
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2005 8:48 AM uvscfan has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 18 of 33 (223047)
07-10-2005 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by uvscfan
07-10-2005 11:15 PM


Re: Cognitive ability and race
Inequalities in intelligence appear to remain constant amongst different races regardless of education level or other factors that should "level the playing field."
Since IQ has always been a test that measures the degree to which a person has kept up with the appropriate education level for their age, there's no such thing as an inequality in IQ that would remain constant regardless of education level.
The fact that this distribution exists is not as alarming as the impact it might have on the evolution of the species since the groups with the lowest IQ's are reproducing at a much higher rate than those with the highest IQ's.
There's no evidence that IQ is inherited, and why would there be? IQ does not measure any innate physical or mental quality, but rather, how adequately you've met educational goals for a person of your age.
You can dress up simple racism in any termonology you like but the simple truth is that the variation among individuals in any race is always far greater than the mean variation between races; there's simply no truth to the proposition that race is a predictive indicator of "cognitive ability" especially compared to the massive influence of socioeconomic status and access to quality education. Or even proper nutrition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by uvscfan, posted 07-10-2005 11:15 PM uvscfan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 07-11-2005 12:53 AM crashfrog has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 19 of 33 (223057)
07-11-2005 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
07-10-2005 11:40 PM


IQ inheritability
There's no evidence that IQ is inherited, and why would there be? IQ does not measure any innate physical or mental quality, but rather, how adequately you've met educational goals for a person of your age.
I have no data but I bet that on digging we will find that a significant (around 50% ) of ablitity to reach higher IQ scores is inherited.
That, however, in no way invalidates your last paragraph.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2005 11:40 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2005 7:23 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 07-11-2005 7:37 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 20 of 33 (223095)
07-11-2005 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by NosyNed
07-11-2005 12:53 AM


Re: IQ inheritability
I have no data but I bet that on digging we will find that a significant (around 50% ) of ablitity to reach higher IQ scores is inherited.
How would you test for potential IQ scores? You can't take a gifted student and roll back his brain to birth, insert him into a different socioeconomic situation and change his access to learning materials, and then say "well, now let's see how well he does."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 07-11-2005 12:53 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 07-11-2005 9:22 AM crashfrog has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 21 of 33 (223096)
07-11-2005 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by NosyNed
07-11-2005 12:53 AM


Flynn Effect
Whether the potential is inherited or not, it seems likely that the majority of people do not reach their full potential IQ. There is a general observation - the "Flynn Effect" - that the IQ scores of a population increase over time. Whatever the full explanation of the effect it is likely that this represents an improved development of potential.
Indiana University Bloomington

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 07-11-2005 12:53 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 22 of 33 (223102)
07-11-2005 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by crashfrog
07-11-2005 7:23 AM


Re: IQ inheritability
How would you test for potential IQ scores?
Well, right now the answer is "We don't know." But as we learn more about the actual mechanisms involved, it's possible that one day we will know.
The question that really needs to be asked is "Once more is known about the mechanisms, what should be done?"

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2005 7:23 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2005 6:41 PM jar has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 23 of 33 (223214)
07-11-2005 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by jar
07-11-2005 9:22 AM


Well, right now the answer is "We don't know." But as we learn more about the actual mechanisms involved, it's possible that one day we will know.
Positing untestable effects with no understood mechanism is usually a good indication of pseudoscience. Are IQ tests pesudoscience? No, I think they test education levels and language proficiency very well. Proposing some immutable, inherited mental capacity that conviniently can't be detected over the "noise" of socioeconomic access to education is definately pseudoscience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 07-11-2005 9:22 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by uvscfan, posted 07-11-2005 7:23 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 26 by jar, posted 07-11-2005 7:58 PM crashfrog has replied

  
uvscfan
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 33 (223229)
07-11-2005 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
07-11-2005 6:41 PM


Response to Crashfrog
You have voiced many of the common concerns regarding the correlation between race and intelligence. I assure you that each of them has been thoroughly researched only to yield the same findings. Here is a link to a well-written article with some good references about this topic: Race and intelligence - Wikipedia. I agree that psychometrics very rarely produce results statistically comparable to the harder sciences but given the wealth of data on IQ it is hard to dispute the validity of cognitive ability testing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2005 6:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2005 7:50 PM uvscfan has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 25 of 33 (223237)
07-11-2005 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by uvscfan
07-11-2005 7:23 PM


Re: Response to Crashfrog
I assure you that each of them has been thoroughly researched only to yield the same findings.
This is going to surprise and dismay you, I know, but I don't believe you. I'm going to need more than your assurances. I'm going to need arguments in your own words for me to address.
I agree that psychometrics very rarely produce results statistically comparable to the harder sciences but given the wealth of data on IQ it is hard to dispute the validity of cognitive ability testing.
C'mon. The validity is suspect on the face of it. For instance the Stanford-Binet Edition 5 IQ test, as you must surely know, is the standard, most current IQ assessment in the field. The test measures performance across 5 areas:
1) Fluid Reasoning
2) Knowledge
3) Quantitive Reasoning
4) Visual-Spacial Processing
5) Working Memory
I mean, WTF? "Knowledge"? The test measures how much you've learned and you're sitting here telling me that it's not measuring education, but some innate mental characteristic? I wasn't aware that anybody inherited knowledge in their genes. Furthermore the other 4 performace areas are known to be areas you can improve by practice. (For instance I was able to improve my recollection of facts and trivia during high school.)
I thank PaulK for bringing up the Flynn Effect; reading the Wiki article on it proved very informative. To me it seems to be a critical stumbling block for the proponents of a genetic cause to IQ and intelligence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by uvscfan, posted 07-11-2005 7:23 PM uvscfan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by uvscfan, posted 07-11-2005 9:39 PM crashfrog has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 26 of 33 (223240)
07-11-2005 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
07-11-2005 6:41 PM


Positing untestable effects with no understood mechanism is usually a good indication of pseudoscience.
Don't believe I did. Perhaps you can point out where I said that.
This message has been edited by jar, 07-11-2005 06:59 PM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2005 6:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2005 8:07 PM jar has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 27 of 33 (223245)
07-11-2005 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by jar
07-11-2005 7:58 PM


Don't believe I did. Perhaps you can point out where I said that.
Well, you just said that you didn't know how to test for potential IQ scores. And you did just imply that there was an un-understood mechanism at work.
I mean it sounds to me like you're trying to cram a reified IQ (often referred to as g) into the spaced between our knowledge. That suggests pseudoscience to me. But maybe I'm totally misreading you, or responding to similarly-phrase but fundamentally different arguments from others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 07-11-2005 7:58 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 07-11-2005 8:27 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 28 of 33 (223254)
07-11-2005 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by crashfrog
07-11-2005 8:07 PM


Actually what I said was ...
Well, right now the answer is "We don't know." But as we learn more about the actual mechanisms involved, it's possible that one day we will know.
The question that really needs to be asked is "Once more is known about the mechanisms, what should be done?"
Now you can try to re-interpret that anyway you want but I certainly don't see how you can find where I'm "trying to cram a reified IQ (often referred to as g) into the spaced between our knowledge."
I do think though that the question I asked is one that should be debated.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2005 8:07 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
uvscfan
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 33 (223271)
07-11-2005 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by crashfrog
07-11-2005 7:50 PM


Re: Response to Crashfrog
"I'm going to need more than your assurances."
I'd be disappointed if you didn't. I thought the article (even though it is posted on Wikipedia), particularly the references would lend some credibility to my position.
"I'm going to need arguments in your own words for me to address."
Ok, I prefer research but we can speak about these things in general terms if you want.
"Stanford-Binet Edition 5 IQ test..."
I am very familiar with the test. I'm not sure what kinds of knowledge you assume the test assesses, just putting the term "knowledge" as one of the attributes tested convinced a number of entities to avoid the fifth edition all together. Language is one of the major components of the g factor and will show up in any test that is administered to at least some extent since instructions must be communicated through verbal or written language. Enculturation plays a role in cognitive ability scores and can not be written out of language tests which may account for some of the differences between means for different groups but the fact that foreign Asian students score higher on cognitive ability tests than Caucasian Americans casts doubts on the magnitude of the effect.
The Flynn Effect is very interesting indeed. My theory on the Flynn Effect is that we are bombarded with far more environmental "noise," have access to a universe of new ideas and have more information readily available to learn from with technology advances and cultural integration in each generation than our predecessors did. While I'd like to believe that this trend can continue forever, I find it hard to believe that it can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2005 7:50 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 07-12-2005 7:39 AM uvscfan has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 30 of 33 (223318)
07-12-2005 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by uvscfan
07-11-2005 9:39 PM


Re: Response to Crashfrog
I'd be disappointed if you didn't. I thought the article (even though it is posted on Wikipedia), particularly the references would lend some credibility to my position.
I didn't see how it did. The article concludes:
quote:
The source of and meaning of the average IQ differences between groups is not known. Many theories have been proposed, but none are generally accepted. Most of the theories are supported by only indirect evidence. The cause may be environmental. Many attribute the difference primarily to cultural factors that disadvantage caste-like minorities. Many researchers in the field of intelligence suggest that the difference is partially genetic and partially environmental. Other observers suggest that the differences may be entirely environmental. The cause of the IQ gap may be identical to the cause of IQ differences between all individuals, or it may represent a race-specific effect. This is an active area of research. In general, simple correlations cannot decide the role of genetics.
I'm sorry but that's a far, far cry from saying that the data definitively supports a genetic, racial basis for IQ differences.
I'm not sure what kinds of knowledge you assume the test assesses
It doesn't matter. You can't offer IQ tests as a metric for assessing some kind of biological, unchanging "brain number" when the test itself measures something that we know is environmental, not inherited.
As I've said, IQ tests measure education, not some innate mental quality. This is confirmed by the fact that IQ tests measure knowledge, and by the fact that you can be trained to increase your performance on them. The Flynn effect would appear to be further evidence of my position.
Moreover - IQ doesn't actually exist. It's a normalized average of performance on these five areas. It's a statistical tool for comparison, not a real measurement.
IQ tests measure something, that's for sure. But taking that to the next step and proposing that the brain actually contains a g factor is diving right off the deep end of pesudoscience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by uvscfan, posted 07-11-2005 9:39 PM uvscfan has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024