A bedrock assumption for the Left is that unequal outcomes for people reflect environmental inequalities. This is the basic justification for affirmative action and for all the more subtle interventions introduced into our schools and throughout society which aim to minimize distinctions. The self-esteem movement, which has so successfully separated self-esteem from any requisite accomplishment, is a pervasive and damaging system for denying differences. There are two developments that are likely to create a crisis for the Left, and for the liberalism that has emerged from the left-wing matrix of Academia and MSM.
In the New York Times today is a report of some recent research suggesting that the rate of human evolutionary change has been increasing:
Selection Spurred Recent Evolution, Researchers Say
Researchers analyzing variation in the human genome have concluded that human evolution accelerated enormously in the last 40,000 years under the force of natural selection.
The finding contradicts a widely held assumption that human evolution came to a halt 10,000 years ago or even 50,000 years ago.
It is implicit in the Left's conception of nature versus nurture that humans are extremely plastic and can be molded by the system. Their failures to change human nature, from the Soviet Union to China to Cambodia's Pol Pot notwithstanding, if Nature is a most powerful determinant of various traits, the philosophical basis of Leftism is brought into question.
At the same time Leftists are nothing if not devoted to Darwinism and Natural Selection. It is their only explanation for the appearance of intelligent homo sapiens. This leaves them in the position of claiming that evolution essentially stopped 40,000 years ago, as noted above.
Nowhere is the problem more contentious and difficult than around the issue of IQ.
[Please note that IQ is certainly not the only factor involved in success. However, it is one of the most important factors and across populations the mean IQ, reflecting problem solving abilities, will be highly predictive of success in the modern world.]
The popular conceptions that "white men can't jump" and that "Jews and Asians are smart" reflect a consensus that is at best un-PC and at worst the basis of various noxious -isms. In Sunday's Times, Richard E. Nisbett makes an attempt to de-differentiate the data was made which exemplifies the problem, All Brains Are the Same Color:
JAMES WATSON, the 1962 Nobel laureate, recently asserted that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” and its citizens because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.”
Dr. Watson’s remarks created a huge stir because they implied that blacks were genetically inferior to whites, and the controversy resulted in his resignation as chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. But was he right? Is there a genetic difference between blacks and whites that condemns blacks in perpetuity to be less intelligent?
...
In fact, the evidence heavily favors the view that race differences in I.Q. are environmental in origin, not genetic.
Sadly for the author of the piece, the data does not actually support his contention that IQ differences are primarily environmental rather than genetic. I will not summarize the extensive data in the field. John Ray is a Psychometrician who has studied these issues and does his best to shed light on this difficult to discuss topic. He posts a discussion that takes apart Nisbett's article and also has some very comprehensive discussions of the data and the various variables involved.
I have always found such studies extremely troubling. The idea that some genetically distinct populations may be inherently disadvantaged by their genes is distasteful and frightening. Yet the idea that homo sapiens has been somehow untouched by the forces of natural selection is impossible to credit. I am of the firm conviction that Ashkenazi Jews have evolved under the most intense selective pressures imaginable. Since the Jews first appeared on the scene 5700 years ago, "every generation" they have risen up to destroy us. Those who have survived have needed to be the brightest and most clever.
It also seems inarguable that those who evolved on the African Plains, with the abundance of food sources and relatively benevolent climate would suffer from much less selective pressure on their problem solving abilities.
The Left has had little problem dealing with cognitive dissonance in the past. After all, an Al Gore can imagine no contradiction between his exorbitant carbon footprint and his conviction that AGW will destroy the planet. However, it will take someone much cleverer than Al Gore to square the circle as we learn more and more about the genes involved in IQ and the genetic differences that exist between populations, while continuing to deny the impact of those genetic differences. Further, even if they succeed for a time in suppressing the discussion they are still left with an additional problem: If genes do not explain any of the variation between populations then, QED culture and the early environment must have an explanatory impact.
I do not think it is an understatement to say that finding a way to deal with these issues will be one of the most crucial problems facing our society as we race toward the unimaginable future.
Recent Comments