There are some questions that are so dangerous that most people simply refuse to consider them. However as our technology begins to offer new tools, some of our unthinkable questions may well be answered within a mere generation.
One such question concerns the third rail of sociology: Are some groups incapable of success because of congenital deficits?
Racists and bigots have traditionally labeled other ethnic groups as deficient and defective. The Nazis took this its ultimate level in their attempt to destroy Jews, Gypsies, and all others who fell short of their conception of the master race, but the Nazis were neither the first nor the last to advocate and practice genocide. In fact, a good argument can be made that throughout human history genocide of failed cultures has been the rule rather than the exception. In this I am using an operational definition of (past) failed culture, ie cultures that proved to be unable to defend themselves.
The two cultures that stand out as failures (as measured by common metrics) in our current times are sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab world, with the greater Muslim world in a more ambiguous condition. Part of the philosophical basis for invading Iraq was to establish that an Arab country could in fact become a modern state and join the developing world. It remains unclear how this will play out.
We are now approaching a time when the genotypy and phenotypy of intelligence may be amenable to exploration in a scientific manner. The implications of this are dramatic and cannot be understated. Without a great deal of preparation the outcome of such research is likely to be extraordinarily traumatic.
Randall Parker at Future Pundit reports on some provocative research:
Twin Brain Scan Studies Find Genetic Influences On Intelligence
(The first two paragraphs are quotes from the report of the studies involved; the third paragraph is Parker's commentary.)
Evidence is accumulating that brain structure is under considerable genetic influence [Peper et al., 2007]. Puberty, the transitional phase from childhood into adulthood, involves changes in brain morphology that may be essential to optimal adult functioning. Around the onset of puberty gray matter volume starts to decrease, while white matter volume is still increasing [Giedd et al., 1999].
Recent findings have shown, that variation in total gray and white matter volume of the adult human brain is primarily (70–90%) genetically determined [Baare et al, 2001] and in a recent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain study with 45 monozygotic and 61 dizygotic 9-year-old twin-pairs, and their 87 full siblings also high heritabilities have been found [Peper et al, in preparation]. Thus, while environmental influences may play a role in later stages during puberty, around the onset of puberty brain volumes are already highly heritable.
The more genes are found that influence intelligence the greater will be the desire of future parents to use reproductive technologies to make little Jill and Johnnie smarter. Reports like this one indicate that we are coming up on a mad scramble to use offspring genetic engineering technologies. Us older people will be dumb compared to the average child born 50 years from now. If you are smart then are you prepared to find yourself in the left hand side of the intelligence distribution? Or do you plan to use cybernetic implants to keep up with the younger generations?
Parker goes on to suggest that within a reasonable amount of time we will actually begin to identify the specific genes invovled in intelligence. Once we have that capacity, we will no longer be trying to speak about intelligence in ways which are designed to muddle the distinctions. This will lead to two very significant conclusions.
One, exemplified by Nobel Prize Laureate James Watson, emphasizes genetic differences in intelligence:
Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners
Celebrated scientist attacked for race comments: "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really"
The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.
If this is true, it is explosive. Can the world deal with such a problematic outcome?
The second possibility is exemplified in the subtext of a long article by Dr. Sanity on An In-Your-Face-Moment for the David Dukes of the World. She discusses the incredible discrepancy between the number of Nobel Prize winners who are Jewish and the exceptionally revealing dearth of such winners who are Muslim. As part of her long post, she describes an interview with an Islamic researcher living in Europe, Samir 'Ubeid (courtesy of MEMRI) in which he can apparently only imagine that the reason for the discrepancy must be racism:
Samir 'Ubeid: "Are we Arabs not included in the transfer of the scientific genetic code? We, the descendants of Al-Khawarizmi, Al-Jahez, Al-Razi, Avicenna, and Ibn Al-Haytham - are we all born idiots? Is there not a single scientist among us? Are we not included in the genetic code? Is intelligence not transferred down among us Arabs?"
Interviewer: "Scientific creativity occurs in freedom and democracy, brother."
Samir 'Ubeid: "Democracy does not explain how it was awarded to 167 Jews, from among those 15 million scattered around the world, while abandoning 1.5 billion Chinese, a billion Indians, and 380 million Arabs. This is racism."
Dr. Sanity suggest a second possibility:
Let us analyze the remarkable cri de coeur of the interviewee. His is a hearfelt and passionate exclamation that stems from his righteous outrage and indignation at the unfairness of it all: "Are we all born idiots?"
That is a very important question, indeed. Are idiots of the magnitude displayed by the two experts above born--or are they made? If the former is the case, then there is not much hope that the culture or the religion will ever be able to function normally in civilized society.
I am not aware of any research that suggests that the differences in intelligence between different religious groups is large enough to account for such a significant discrepancy in outcome regarding the Nobel Prize. And it is worth noting, that, not only is the Nobel Peace Prize --which of all the Nobel Prizes probably represents the one that is most politically correct and awarded on the basis of prevailing political winds-- not awarded much to Islamic politicians (I wonder if that could it have something to do with the fact that many of them are psychopathic tyrants, despots, and religious bigots?) or even to citizens of the rigidly controlled Islamic regimes; there is also a noticeable lack of Arab/Islamic winners in all the other categories--i.e., medicine, physics, chemistry; as well as in literature and economics. Other subtle clues that might explain this state of affairs might found here, here, and here.
The implications of this research is profound. This research will continue, even with the approbation of the PC thought police who will be terrified of the outcome, because so many people have a huge investment in enhancing the intellectual abilities of their offspring (and themselves.) The modern world rewards problem solving ability handsomely; problem solving ability is at least partly measured by IQ, though it is not perhaps definitive.
[John Ray is a Psychometrician who has a decent summary of some of the issues invovled in a book review of Race differences in intelligence: An evolutionary analysis by Richard Lynn.]
The question of nature versus nurture in relation to intelligence and peripherally to the success or failure of different groups will not go away and the answers may well begin to emerge within the next several years. The implications of a failed culture occurring secondary to intellectual shortcomings is profound. The implications of a failed culture occurring secondary to non-intellectual shortcomings is equally profound.
The PC approach of simply ignoring the issue (and, after all, the sine qua non of PC thought is the denial of unpleasant aspects of reality) is no longer tenable.
Recent Comments