>> Dana wrote: >> about every else here whose family doesn't -- are they stupid? Are you >> really saying there is no such thing as cultural bias in an IQ test? >> > >What I'm saying makes much more sense: > >(1.) "intelligence" is 100% determined by genetics.
First define intelligence. BTW the definition is still very controversial in psychology. Also do we use the plain 2 factor definition, the "g" factor definition, the multi-faceted theory of Gardener. You get the idea, there is good evidence for all of them. What about emotional intelligence? Next what specific genes are the determinants of intelligence? Note if you can answer this one, you've just won the Nobel for Physiology. Also what about environmental influences - take 2 groups of kids who are essentially similar genetically and give one group an enriched environments when they grow up. Give the other a very deprived existance. Then test them. You would expect that if intelligence is 100% determined by genetics there would be no differences between the two groups. I'll give you a hint on this one, studies have been done that basically did that (using chance groups, twins separated at birth etc) and have found that environment does play a significant role in intelligence. Moreover the environment does not start at birth. What happens to the mother during pregnancy also has an effect - smoking, drinking, general nutrition, the presence of different chemicals in the environment, maternal stressors etc. > >(2.) We can create taxonomies to describe genetic traits: black >people, curly haired people, Packer's fans. > >(3.) It's 100% likely that a certain code of genes gives you certain >mental abilities. We could group them all up and call them >"intelligence" or we could split them up and call them "emotional >intelligence", "language intelligence", etc. see some of the points I raised in response to your first note. Again how do you disentangle them. Also while heirarchical models of intelligence seem to have the most support right now, the data does not show any solid mapping of intellectual abilities to genes. Moreover researchers have enough difficulty mapping intellectual abilities to brain structures. So you're making some huge leaps in your assumptions here. > >Therefore, depending on the taxonomies we create, we could create a >probability structure based on a population survey that would give a >probably of an individual having trait X given that they have trait Y. The problem with the taxonomies is that there are more exceptions than there are rules. Looking at theose studies of intellectual abilities, generally they've found that there is more variation with ethnic and racial groups than there are between them. This is so fundimental that its in every into to psychology textbook. It should be easy enough to look it up. > >Or we could just all admit that an Augustinian priest has done this >100 years ago with pea plants and be done with it. > >Why is it so damn hard for people to admit that their intelligence is >genetically determined and that it may be tied to other genetic traits >like number of moles or length of fingers. First off while the heriditability index is quite high for intelligence (>50% of the shared variance), its not perfect. Moreover the influence of environment can supercede genetics. As for moles etc, its probably at best epiphenominal - it may only appear to be related. Personally I suspect that intelligence is negatively related to racial bias myself. > >For some reason if you imply that it might be skin color, as Dr. >Watson did, people freak out. Seems just a likely as anything else to >me. People mainly freak out because of the history of racism in this country. Watson was plainly wrong. Intelligence is not his field. I am reminded of that old axiom - When a respected scientist is speaking of something within his field, he's worth listening to. If he's speaking of something outside his field, he's as big of an idiot as anyone else. Watson has amply demonstrated that maxim. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Download the latest ColdFusion 8 utilities including Report Builder, plug-ins for Eclipse and Dreamweaver updates. http;//www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?e=labs%5adobecf8%5Fbeta Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:245401 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
