Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: RACE and IQ
Message-ID: <jqbCzus0o.Dow@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <jqbCz0Lpz.KpF@netcom.com> <CzDHyD.FJr@festival.ed.ac.uk> <jqbCzKCuM.JII@netcom.com> <Czu52n.Buu@festival.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 1994 02:24:24 GMT
Lines: 119

In article <Czu52n.Buu@festival.ed.ac.uk>,
Chris Malcolm <cam@castle.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <jqbCzKCuM.JII@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>>In article <CzDHyD.FJr@festival.ed.ac.uk>,
>>Chris Malcolm <cam@castle.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>I wondered a while back why people got so illogically steamed up about
>>>this question, when it would be rather surprising if different races
>>>did not have have different distributions of mental capabilities,
>>>since they do differ in lots of physiological details. I recently
>>>heard part of a radio programme which made it horribly clear that I
>>>was very naive.
>
>>>A professor of psychology, and some other academic big-wigs, were
>>>asked to comment on the recent claim by some researcher that different
>>>races were differently mentally endowed. *Everyone* agreed that:-
>
>>Perhaps you could identify this handful of people that you found so impressive.
>>Or would you just like to imply that their opinions are identical with those
>>of the entire community of critics?
>
>I found them impressively naive. I don't know who they were. My guess
>is that if a handful of academics and academic journalists all agree
>about something, then the view is likely to be at least held by a
>large minority.

I think it more likely that the view is one that the producers of the
program meant to promote or ridicule, or simply chose to present as a means
of titillation.  It certainly worked in this case.  My opinion is somewhat
informed by a particular interest in the media and how it shapes public
opinion, and by discussions with professional journalists, including my brother.

>>There is currently no way to translate statistical differences in behavior
>>among races or other social groups into genetic differences.  So claims of
>>genetically produced differences in cognitive skills between such groups are
>>unsupportable.
>
>The really important question is whether this is a question of
>principle, or just an accident of current experimental technology. You
>phrase it as though it were contingent, but you seem to suggest it has
>an importance worthy of principled impossibility.

I don't see why you think that to be "the really important question".  The
importance of questions are defined by context.  In this context, people make
(have made) claims of genetically produced differences; I argue that those
claims are unsupportable (cannot currently be supported) because there is
"*currently* no way to translate statistical differences in behavior among
races or other social groups into genetic differences".  You don't seem to be
interested in rebutting my argument, but instead want to shift to some issue
of principle, and speak to what I "seem to suggest" about a principle I wasn't
discussing.  When or if it becomes practical to get from statistical
differences in behavior to genetic differences, then people may be able to
make valid arguments based upon those techniques; we'll see.  I really don't
see why your question has any import at all.  The *current reality* is that
people have historically argued from statistical differences to genetic
differences, that such arguments are flawed due to "an accident of current
experimental technology", and that such arguments are generally used to
support political ideologies.  When bad science has consistently been used to
derive a particular result that is then used to justify particular social
policies, it seems to me rather naive, bordering on disingenuous, to point out
that *in principle* good science might lead to the same result.

>>>	b) All the scientists who have ever asserted differently have
>>>been grinding right wing political axes, and their research has very
>>>easily been shown to be flawed, or even, in some cases, fraud.
>
>>Can you rebut the claim?  Certainly many, if not most, such instances have
>>been documented.  See Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" and Lewontin et. al.'s
>>"Not in Our Genes".
>
>There's certainly a lot of it about. But this is true of BOTH sides of
>the debate, e.g. the Burt controversy, and can't be used to blacken
>just one side.

Eh?  Burt's research fell on the nature side, supported right wing ideologies,
was fradulent, and is a major target of "Not In Our Genes".  In any case,
no amount of fraud "on the other side" rebuts (b).  That's just a tu quoque
argument.  I still await your rebuttal of (b).  (Of course, one could argue
about how easy it was to show that Burt's research was fraudulent.)

>>>Since there are definite differences in brain quality between
>>>different people, this clearly means that intelligence has nothing to
>>>do with quality of brain. Which means that artificial intelligence is
>>>barking up the wrong tree, since AI depends a lot on quality of
>>>computer.
>
>>Well, only if you accept as true a position that you don't believe to
>>be true.  So what's your point?  That some people you heard on the radio
>>said something that, ad reductio, is absurd?  Gee, how novel.
>
>In the case of gender differences in mental capabilities the arena has
>become so politicised that almost all the people left working in the
>field are women, since no man could be consensually trusted to be
>unbiassed. My point is that the arena of race differences in IQ has
>also become so politicised that it has become unstudyable and
>undiscussable by anyone who is not both black and educationally
>disadvantaged, i.e., it has become a completely forbidden area.

The claim that men and non-blacks have been forced out of the discussion is
itself a highly charged statement of a political nature.  This is clearly
nonsense, since it is studied and discussed by all sorts, including you, me,
and the authors of "The Bell Curve".  There is certainly plenty of research
funded by The Pioneer Fund, who also funded Shockley and Jensen and
California's prop. 187, and those folks aren't educationally disadvantaged
blacks.  As for gender differences, I used to date a radical feminist
academic, and her bookshelf had works by men dealing with just such issues.
The politicization comes from the political agendas of both those who read the
books and those who write the books.  How can one complain about
politicization, implying that the fault is feminists and <blackists?>, and
ignore the fact that books such as "The Bell Curve" are explicitly political,
and that very few feminists are published in the mainstream media compared to
the number of their critics who decry politicization while grinding their
political axes (note the current popularity of such anti-feminist female
intellectuals as Camille Paglia, Kate Roiphe, and the author of "Who Stole
Feminism?")?

BTW, what does this discussion have to do with AI?  I forget; did it once?
If I'm the one who led it astray, I apologize.
-- 
<J Q B>
