39 replies to this topic

[Zenob]

That's "cited," not "sited."

A spelling flame? Stooping a bit low, but moving on.

In any case, would you mind trying to answer the question? Please give it a try. You don't even have to have data to back it up. I just want you to briefly describe an even remotely plausible biological mechanism which could account for the *exact* equality in distribution of genetic cognitive potential across (historically) geographically disparate groups of humans.

Why on earth do you keep thinking that every race has some kind of specific IQ associated with it? IQ is fluid. Genes are wild. There is no set IQ between races to even compare. And for some reason you want me to come up with an explanation for a correlation between these imaginary "racial IQs".

I think you meant "lumping all individuals of a given race together as if each one [i.e. race] has its own separate IQ..." Certainly I am not doing that. There is variability that needs to be accounted for at several levels - variability of individuals within the same family all the way up to the variability of between broad racial groups.

No, that is precisely what you are doing. You are arguing that there is a racial difference in IQ. You seem to think that IQ is something that can be bred for therefore it's either lacking or more pronounced in different races. That's called eugenics. It's pseudoscience.

How do you know? Upon what studies do you base this claim?

On the complete lack of any evidence that there is such a phenomenon. So far the only evidence you have offered up that there is such a phenomenon is to quote an article by a known racist and nutjob.


NATURAL HISTORY OF ASHKENAZI INTELLIGENCE
G COCHRAN, J HARDY, H HARPENDING - Journal of Biosocial Science, 2005 - Cambridge Univ Press

Albert Einstein is reputed to have said that 'Things should be described as simply as
possible, but no simpler.' The same principle must be invoked in explaining Einstein
himself. In this study, the hypothesis that the high intelligence test scores observed in
the Ashkenazi Jewish population are a consequence of their occupation of a social
niche over the last millennium that selected strongly for IQ is evaluated. The evidence
of high intelligence test scores in this population, approximately one standard
deviation higher than the north-western European average, is summarized, and then
the relevant social history. We suggest that there was an increase in the frequency of
particular genes that elevated IQ as a by-product of this selective regime, which led
to an increased incidence of hereditary disorders.

They left off the fact that the Ashkenazi jews were very well off financially and as a result had much higher levels of education then most other people around them. This is born out by the fact that Israel is composed of about 50% Ashkenazi jews that immigrated from Europe yet the "heightened IQ" mentioned in this study isn't evident there. Which is more likely, genetics or a loss of finanicial wealth after WWII and subsequently not being able to afford top notch educations?

I'm pretty happy with what nature has bequeathed to me as an individual. I have no need or desire to assert the "superiority" on my own race.

And yet here you are trying and failing to establish some kind of genetic superiority based on race.

PZ Myers has an excellent post on his blog that covers this beautifully.

"Furthermore, intelligence is an incredibly plastic property of the brain. You can nurture it or you can squelch it — the marching morons will birth children with as much potential as a pair of science-fiction geeks, and all that will matter is how well that mind is encouraged to grow. Even a few centuries is not enough to breed stupidity into a natural population of humans — that brain power may lay fallow and undernourished, but there isn't enough time nor enough pressure to make substantial changes in the overall genetics of the brain."

Link

[suspire]

Great. My thread has turned into a eugenics debate. Can the moderators just close down this craziness?

[Connor MacLeod]

Great. My thread has turned into a eugenics debate. Can the moderators just close down this craziness?

No one is debating eugenics. One poster simply invoked eugenics for the purpose of character assassination.

[Connor MacLeod]

PZ Myers has an excellent post on his blog that covers this beautifully.

"Furthermore, intelligence is an incredibly plastic property of the brain. You can nurture it or you can squelch it — the marching morons will birth children with as much potential as a pair of science-fiction geeks, and all that will matter is how well that mind is encouraged to grow. Even a few centuries is not enough to breed stupidity into a natural population of humans — that brain power may lay fallow and undernourished, but there isn't enough time nor enough pressure to make substantial changes in the overall genetics of the brain."

He is a political hack who studies fish; the statement from his blog that you quoted should be viewed in this light. Does he have any publications where he offers data and scientific arguments to back up this view? I doubt it. In any case, his views on the heritibility of human intelligence (as measured by IQ scores), at least as reflected in the quote you provided, are not in the mainstream among researchers from what I can tell.

http://www.sciencedi...8a41783f038d272

The relationship of speed-of-information-processing (SIP), as derived from reaction times (RTs) on experimental tasks, and intelligence has been extensively studied. SIP is suggested to measure the efficiency with which subjects can perform basic cognitive operations underlying a wide range of intellectual abilities. Observed phenotypic correlations between RT and IQ typically are in the −0.2 to −0.4 range, and the question is addressed to what extent this relationship is determined by genetic or environmental influences. In a group of Dutch twins the heritabilities for RT tasks at age 16 and 18 years were estimated longitudinally and the nature of the RT-IQ relationship was investigated. At age 16 years heritabilities for a simple reaction time (SRT) and choice reaction time (CRT) were 64 and 62% and the average phenotypic correlations between the RTs and IQ, assessed by the Raven standard progressive matrices, was −0.21. At the second test occasion lower heritabilities were observed for the RTs, probably due to modifications in administration procedures. The mean correlations between the RTs and WAIS verbal and per formal subtests were −0.18 and −0.16. Multivariate genetic analyses at both ages showed that the RT-IQ correlations were explained by genetic influences. These results are in agreement with earlier findings (Baker et al., Behav Genet 1991;21:351–67; Ho et al., Behav Genet 1988;18:247–61) and support the existence of a common, heritable biological basis underlying the SIP-IQ relationship.

http://www.loni.ucla...01_genetics.pdf

Here we report on detailed three-dimensional maps revealing how brain structure is influenced by
individual genetic differences. A genetic continuum was detected, in which brain structure was
increasingly similar in subjects with increasing genetic affinity. Genetic factors significantly
influenced cortical structure in Broca's and Wernicke's language areas, as well as frontal brain
regions (r2
MZ > 0.8, p < 0.05). Preliminary correlations were performed suggesting that frontal gray
matter differences may be linked to Spearman's g, which measures successful test performance
across multiple cognitive domains (p < 0.05). These genetic brain maps reveal how genes determine
individual differences, and may shed light on the heritability of cognitive and linguistic skills, as well
as genetic liability for diseases that affect the human cortex.

http://arjournals.an...655?cookieSet=1

Genetic influences on brain morphology and IQ are well studied. A variety of sophisticated brain-mapping approaches relating genetic influences on brain structure and intelligence establishes a regional distribution for this relationship that is consistent with behavioral studies. We highlight those studies that illustrate the complex cortical patterns associated with measures of cognitive ability. A measure of cognitive ability, known as g, has been shown highly heritable across many studies. We argue that these genetic links are partly mediated by brain structure that is likewise under strong genetic control. Other factors, such as the environment, obviously play a role, but the predominant determinant appears to genetic.

http://www.nature.co.../nn0202-83.html

The recent study by Thompson and colleagues¹ reported high heritability of gray-matter volume in several cortical regions using voxel-based MRI techniques. Gray matter substantially correlated with general intelligence, or 'g'. These findings prompt three major questions: (i) is the high heritability specific to gray-matter volume, (ii) is the correlation with g specific to gray-matter volume and (iii) is the correlation between gray-matter volume and g of genetic or environmental origin?

We addressed the first question in a large Dutch sample of twins and their siblings (258 Dutch adults from 112 extended twin families)². We found high heritability for total brain gray-matter volume (Table 1), comparable to the estimate reported by Thompson and colleagues¹. In addition, we found high heritability for total brain white-matter volume.

http://www.sciencedi...9be7a911d5eb6cf

The factors determining the large variation seen in human corpus callosum (CC) morphology are as yet unknown. In this study heritability of CC size was assessed by comparing the concordance of CC midsagittal area in 14 monozygotic and 12 dizygotic twin pairs with a mean age of 27 years, using magnetic resonance imaging and various methods of calculating trait heritability. Heritability was high regardless of method of assessment. The application of a structural equation model resulted in the estimate that 94% of the variance in CC midsagittal size is attributable to the genome. This indicates that under normal conditions and before the effects of normal aging, there is very modest influence of the environment on CC morphology. The results suggest that correlates of CC size, such as the pattern of cerebral lateralization, cognitive abilities and neuropsychiatric dysfunction may be associated with the genetic determinants of CC morphology.

[Zenob]

He is a political hack who studies fish; the statement from his blog that you quoted should be viewed in this light. Does he have any publications where he offers data and scientific arguments to back up this view? I doubt it. In any case, his views on the heritibility of human intelligence (as measured by IQ scores), at least as reflected in the quote you provided, are not in the mainstream among researchers from what I can tell.

He's a developmental biologist. As for "studying fish", if you knew anything about actual science you would know that the lion's share of research is carried out on those fish as well as fruitflies(don't tell Palin) and nematodes. Apparently your knowledge of science is on par with McCain's VP.

Apparently after I dismantled your second attempt to offer up evidence for you nonsense you went back to google again. I must have overlooked it in those links you posted, where did any of them suggest a racial link to intelligence? Let's recap, the first attempt you made to support your claims you apparently grabbed the first thing that popped up on google and ended up using material from a known racist and quack. After that you at least vetted the material you found on google a little better, but if you had actually looked into a bit you would have realized that reality contradicted the premise of the article. This time it looks like you spent a good 30 minutes or so googling and attempted some modified version of a Gish Gallop. lol

Just so you know, genetic links to brain size/morphology don't directly translate into intelligence. For one thing, there are several animals with larger brains then humans. Tell me, are you smarter then a whale? How about Einstein? His brain was examined after his death and it was perfectly normal size(althought there were two sections that were simply missing). What about sex? The main difference in brain size from one individual to the next is sex. Are men smarter then women because their brains are larger?

[Connor MacLeod]

He is a political hack who studies fish; the statement from his blog that you quoted should be viewed in this light. Does he have any publications where he offers data and scientific arguments to back up this view? I doubt it. In any case, his views on the heritibility of human intelligence (as measured by IQ scores), at least as reflected in the quote you provided, are not in the mainstream among researchers from what I can tell.

He's a developmental biologist. As for "studying fish", if you knew anything about actual science you would know that the lion's share of research is carried out on those fish as well as fruitflies(don't tell Palin) and nematodes. Apparently your knowledge of science is on par with McCain's VP.

Do you really think every competent scientist is aware of (or cares) that PJ Meyer's studies nematodes in addition to zebrafish? Come on. You are just lobbing grade school level insults. The point I was making, which I think is quite clear, is that Meyer's specialization is not human cognition, human genetics, or neurophysiology. I understand that you think the quote you pulled from his blog is "beautiful", but there is no academic standard in place for people making posts on their personal blogs. Let's see some of his academic publications where he backs up his blog post.

Apparently after I dismantled your second attempt to offer up evidence for you nonsense you went back to google again.

No researcher talks about assigning a single IQ score to a population - the debate pertains to differences in *distributions* of IQ scores over populations. I thought that was so obvious that it didn't need to be spelled out. Apparently I was wrong. In any case, you seem to already have your mind made up regarding what you think I know so I see no point in trying to argue with you. I don't really have anything to prove. I'm just trying to aid your understanding, while also probing the depth of ignorance.

I must have overlooked it in those links you posted, where did any of them suggest a racial link to intelligence?

My last post was in reply to your PJ Meyers quote you took from his blog, where he was evidently denying any genetic basis for intelligence. I have given you several reference that refute that claim. In response you offer insults, but no science.

Just so you know, genetic links to brain size/morphology don't directly translate into intelligence.

Of course. No one is saying there is 100% correlation. That is silly. 100% correlation does not exist in the biological sciences...just like exact equality (or exact equality of distributions) does not exist in the biological sciences.

For one thing, there are several animals with larger brains then humans. Tell me, are you smarter then a whale?

We are not talking about comparing humans to whales here. Come on.

How about Einstein? His brain was examined after his death and it was perfectly normal size(althought there were two sections that were simply missing).

Actually the part of his brain that is associated with math skills and spatial processing was found to be about 15% larger according to some studies.

In any case, here is some more research that you might find of interest.

http://www.nature.co.../nn0202-83.html

The association between brain volume and intelligence is of genetic origin

The recent study by Thompson and colleagues¹ reported high heritability of gray-matter volume in several cortical regions using voxel-based MRI techniques. Gray matter substantially correlated with general intelligence, or 'g'. These findings prompt three major questions: (i) is the high heritability specific to gray-matter volume, (ii) is the correlation with g specific to gray-matter volume and (iii) is the correlation between gray-matter volume and g of genetic or environmental origin?

http://www.ncbi.nlm...._RVAbstractPlus

Genetic influences on brain structure.

Here we report on detailed three-dimensional maps revealing how brain structure is influenced by individual genetic differences. A genetic continuum was detected in which brain structure was increasingly similar in subjects with increasing genetic affinity. Genetic factors significantly influenced cortical structure in Broca's and Wernicke's language areas, as well as frontal brain regions (r2(MZ) > 0.8, p < 0.05). Preliminary correlations were performed suggesting that frontal gray matter differences may be linked to Spearman's g, which measures successful test performance across multiple cognitive domains (p < 0.05). These genetic brain maps reveal how genes determine individual differences, and may shed light on the heritability of cognitive and linguistic skills, as well as genetic liability for diseases that affect the human cortex.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ogdbfrom=pubmed

Genetic contributions to human brain morphology and intelligence.

Variation in gray matter (GM) and white matter (WM) volume of the adult human brain is primarily genetically determined. Moreover, total brain volume is positively correlated with general intelligence, and both share a common genetic origin. However, although genetic effects on morphology of specific GM areas in the brain have been studied, the heritability of focal WM is unknown. Similarly, it is unresolved whether there is a common genetic origin of focal GM and WM structures with intelligence. We explored the genetic influence on focal GM and WM densities in magnetic resonance brain images of 54 monozygotic and 58 dizygotic twin pairs and 34 of their siblings. For genetic analyses, we used structural equation modeling and voxel-based morphometry. To explore the common genetic origin of focal GM and WM areas with intelligence, we obtained cross-trait/cross-twin correlations in which the focal GM and WM densities of each twin are correlated with the psychometric intelligence quotient of his/her cotwin. Genes influenced individual differences in left and right superior occipitofrontal fascicle (heritability up to 0.79 and 0.77), corpus callosum (0.82, 0.80), optic radiation (0.69, 0.79), corticospinal tract (0.78, 0.79), medial frontal cortex (0.78, 0.83), superior frontal cortex (0.76, 0.80), superior temporal cortex (0.80, 0.77), left occipital cortex (0.85), left postcentral cortex (0.83), left posterior cingulate cortex (0.83), right parahippocampal cortex (0.69), and amygdala (0.80, 0.55). Intelligence shared a common genetic origin with superior occipitofrontal, callosal, and left optical radiation WM and frontal, occipital, and parahippocampal GM (phenotypic correlations up to 0.35). These findings point to a neural network that shares a common genetic origin with human intelligence.

[Connor MacLeod]

NATURAL HISTORY OF ASHKENAZI INTELLIGENCE
G COCHRAN, J HARDY, H HARPENDING - Journal of Biosocial Science, 2005 - Cambridge Univ Press

Albert Einstein is reputed to have said that 'Things should be described as simply as
possible, but no simpler.' The same principle must be invoked in explaining Einstein
himself. In this study, the hypothesis that the high intelligence test scores observed in
the Ashkenazi Jewish population are a consequence of their occupation of a social
niche over the last millennium that selected strongly for IQ is evaluated. The evidence
of high intelligence test scores in this population, approximately one standard
deviation higher than the north-western European average, is summarized, and then
the relevant social history. We suggest that there was an increase in the frequency of
particular genes that elevated IQ as a by-product of this selective regime, which led
to an increased incidence of hereditary disorders.

They left off the fact that the Ashkenazi jews were very well off financially and as a result had much higher levels of education then most other people around them.

Several of the studies they cite came after WWII and the Holocaust, and of those that took place before WWII the authors write this:

This high IQ and corresponding high academic ability have been long known. In
1900 in London Jews took a disproportionate number of academic prizes and
scholarships in spite of their poverty (Russell & Lewis, 1900). In the 1920s a survey
of IQ scores in three London schools (Hughes, 1928) with mixed Jewish and
non-Jewish student bodies showed that Jewish students had higher IQs than their
schoolmates in each of three schools – one prosperous, one poor, and one very poor.
The differences between Jews and non-Jews were all slightly less than one standard
deviation. The students at the poorest Jewish school in London had IQ scores equal
to the overall city mean of non-Jewish children.

This is born out by the fact that Israel is composed of about 50% Ashkenazi jews that immigrated from Europe yet the "heightened IQ" mentioned in this study isn't evident there.

Well, you might find this of interest.

http://journals.camb...l...&aid=944380

INTELLIGENCE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EUROPEAN AND ORIENTAL JEWS IN ISRAEL

It has been proposed by Cochran, Hardy and
Harpending (2006) that this can be explained by the occupational constraints
imposed on the Ashkenazi for many centuries in Europe, when they were
largely confined to money-lending. They propose that this selected for the
high verbal and mathematical intelligence that has several times been found
in American Ashkenazim. The current study investigates how far this theory
holds for European and Oriental Jews in Israel. A review of studies shows
that Oriental Jews in Israel have an average IQ 14 points lower than that of
European (largely Ashkenazi) Jews.

Edited by Connor MacLeod, 01 November 2008 - 12:53 PM.

[RighteousReason]

I tried to warn him...

Zenob you are debating a scientific point... don't get upset when your intuition gets rejected.

[Zenob]

Do you really think every competent scientist is aware of (or cares) that PJ Meyer's studies nematodes in addition to zebrafish? Come on. You are just lobbing grade school level insults. The point I was making, which I think is quite clear, is that Meyer's specialization is not human cognition, human genetics, or neurophysiology. I understand that you think the quote you pulled from his blog is "beautiful", but there is no academic standard in place for people making posts on their personal blogs. Let's see some of his academic publications where he backs up his blog post.

You are the one who said he was just a "political hack". Which one do you think is more qualified to testify to the genetic bases of intelligence, an actual developmental biologist or a guy who measures dicks because he thinks it correlates to IQ?

No researcher talks about assigning a single IQ score to a population - the debate pertains to differences in *distributions* of IQ scores over populations. I thought that was so obvious that it didn't need to be spelled out. Apparently I was wrong. In any case, you seem to already have your mind made up regarding what you think I know so I see no point in trying to argue with you. I don't really have anything to prove. I'm just trying to aid your understanding, while also probing the depth of ignorance.

Your initial point was that there was a potential racial elemental to hereditary intelligence. In order to try and support that, you quoted a known racist and nutjob, then cited an article discussing a correlation between a certain sub set of jews and supposed higher IQs(but the study failed to address correlations that clearly contradicted it's hypothesis), then you cited a bunch of articles discussing brain morphology and size(which don't directly correlate with IQ). Which one of those do you think supports your position that there is a racial element to intelligence? I couldn't find anything in any of them that did.

My last post was in reply to your PJ Meyers quote you took from his blog, where he was evidently denying any genetic basis for intelligence. I have given you several reference that refute that claim. In response you offer insults, but no science.

No, you haven't. See above.

Of course. No one is saying there is 100% correlation. That is silly. 100% correlation does not exist in the biological sciences...just like exact equality (or exact equality of distributions) does not exist in the biological sciences.

No, but your claim is that the there is a skewing of the correlations based on race which you still have not yet found ANYTHING to support.

We are not talking about comparing humans to whales here. Come on.

Those articles you posted were discussing the genetic basis for brain size and morphology. You posted them not me. If you don't think brain morphology or brain size is releveant to your claim, then why did you post them?

Actually the part of his brain that is associated with math skills and spatial processing was found to be about 15% larger according to some studies.

Actually his brain weighed 1,230 grams. The average human brain is about 1,400 grams. Granted there could have been some age related loss of mass. This is from a study published by Neuroscience Articles on his brain in 1996. His brain had some unusual folding and was 15% wider(the whole brain, not just one section), not more massive. From what I've read there is a stronger correlation with brain folding(ridges) then size when talking about intelligence. Einstein's brain would support that.

In any case, here is some more research that you might find of interest.

I didn't see anything in any of those that backed your claim that their is a racial component to intelligence.

[Connor MacLeod]

Do you really think every competent scientist is aware of (or cares) that PJ Meyer's studies nematodes in addition to zebrafish? Come on. You are just lobbing grade school level insults. The point I was making, which I think is quite clear, is that Meyer's specialization is not human cognition, human genetics, or neurophysiology. I understand that you think the quote you pulled from his blog is "beautiful", but there is no academic standard in place for people making posts on their personal blogs. Let's see some of his academic publications where he backs up his blog post.

You are the one who said he was just a "political hack". Which one do you think is more qualified to testify to the genetic bases of intelligence, an actual developmental biologist or a guy who measures dicks because he thinks it correlates to IQ?

I have cited at least a half a dozen papers which give evidence that there is a genetic factor involved in intelligence. The academic papers I am citing are by people who work in the areas of human cognition, human genetics and neurophysiology. None of these papers are by Jensen or Rushton. On the other hand, at this point the only evidence you have provided for the extraordinarily implausible idea that genetics has no role in intelligence is a post on the personal blog of a researcher whose primary area of study is fish, nematodes and fruitflies. Please.

Of course. No one is saying there is 100% correlation. That is silly. 100% correlation does not exist in the biological sciences...just like exact equality (or exact equality of distributions) does not exist in the biological sciences.

No, but your claim is that the there is a skewing of the correlations based on race which you still have not yet found ANYTHING to support.

What the heck is a "skewing of the correlations." I can't even make sense of what you are saying. I am beginning to suspect that you don't possess the statistical background to judge the strength of evidence in these academic papers.

We are not talking about comparing humans to whales here. Come on.

Those articles you posted were discussing the genetic basis for brain size and morphology. You posted them not me. If you don't think brain morphology or brain size is releveant to your claim, then why did you post them?

Those papers did not discuss the comparison of the sizes of the brains of humans and whales. It is an irrelevant point that you are trying to make.

In any case, here is some more research that you might find of interest.

I didn't see anything in any of those that backed your claim that their is a racial component to intelligence.

I am making a very weak claim, to wit: there is a non-zero difference in the means between (just about) any two defineable populations with respect to (just about) any measure. I am not claiming the difference is large, or that it is pratically significant. I'm also not claiming to know which direction the difference goes (i.e. whether it favors green people, or orange people, etc.) I am simply claiming it is non-zero. Do you understand? This is, scientically speaking, by far the most plausible scenario in the absence of compelling data one way or the other. You on the other hand are making a much more striking claim. You are claiming that the difference in the means is *exactly* 0. This would be an incredible coincidence. This absolutely requires evidence in the form of data as well as some elucidation of the mechanism that would give rise to such a surprising phenomenon.

The following paper touches on this issue (as well as others regarding the misuse of hypothesis testing) within the context of psychological research. Of course, the same ideas are applicable to most empirical sciences, including biology, genetics, human cognition, etc.

http://faculty.washi...ds/CPChance.pdf

What's the point of rejecting a hypothesis you know is false to begin with? One is hard pressed to think of a situation in which a null hypothesis might plausibly be true. Consider a typical experiment in which, say, one is examining the difference between two clinical treatments. One group of people is given Treatment A and the other is given Treatment B. The null hypothesis is that the population mean outcome measures are exactly the same for the two treatments.

No one would seriously consider this hypothesis to be literally true. So the results of a hypothesis test can only tell you is whether you have sufficient experimental power to detect the presence of whatever treatment effect must inevitably exist. Yet the conclusions from the experiment (and its suitability for publication) rest entirely on whether one is able to reject the null hypothesis. It's bizarre. Gigerenzer et al. provide an apt summary from Nunnally (1960): "if rejection of the null hypothesis were the real intention in psychological experiments, there usually would be no need to gather data." (p. 210)

Essentially what the authors are saying is that there is no point in collecting data in order to test whether the means of two populations (or two treatments) are different. We know they are different beforehand. The differences may be incredibly small, but we know there will be a difference. Where you go wrong is in your dogmatic adherence to the idea that there can exist *no difference whatsoever*, no matter how small or practically insignificant. I understand why you do this. You do this because you are afraid that once the door is opened to the possibility that there may exist some difference, it could turn out that the differences are large and practically significant. I agree that this is a worrying possibility. That's why I think the Founding Father's (in particular Jefferson with a bit of help from Franklin) were so wise to write:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

Of course, from Jefferson's writings it is clear enough that he didn't believe that all men were born with equal potential (see for example "The Natural Aristocracy" - a letter to John Adams); he believed that there was an hereditary aspect to virtue and talents. What is meant by "created equal" is that all humans have the same spiritual value (i.e. their worth in the eyes of their Creator.) It is a spiritual foundation upon which we can base our respect for our fellows humans which cannot be threatened by future discoveries in science, etc. Here's a quote from the end of the Jensen-Rushton paper which addresses this point quite eloquently.

As E. O. Wilson (1978) aptly noted: "We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm freedom and dignity" (p. 52). He went on to quote the sociologist Bressler (1968): "An ideology that tacitly appeals to biological equality as a condition for human emancipation corrupts the idea of freedom. Moreover, it encourages decent men to tremble at the prospect of 'inconvenient' findings that may emerge in future scientific research" (E. O. Wilson, 1978, p. 52).

Edited by Connor MacLeod, 05 November 2008 - 02:45 AM.