Re: [evol-psych] Article: It Pays to be "One of Us"
- --- In email@example.com, Irwin Silverman
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, steve moxon wrote:
> > It does not follow that you can't objectively use EP to show that a
> > political theory is untenable. Most certainly you can.
> "Untenable" for what? The connotation of the term is that there
> is some purpose or goal involved, and individuals have different
> and goals. There is nothing in EP or any other science that will tellyou
> whose goals and purposes are more or less worthy. That is always aquestion
> of social values.the
> Suppose we did know to an absolute certainty that group differences
> in IQ were mainly a function of genetics. Some folks might argue that
> this is justification for removing affirmative action programs because
> differences between groups in earning capacity are not due todiscrimination
> (I have seen this argument by academics) Others might say that this isEP
> justification for increasing these programs because the plight of the
> people being helped is not of their making. Again, there is nothing in
> or any other science that will tell you which view is more or lessvalid.
> That comes from the individual's value system (which generally relatesto
> his own socio-economic circumstances)Conversely , however, proponents of one public policy approach over
another must take into account the most persuasive science on
human/group/individual capacities. Whether one comes down on the pro or
con side of affirmative action, one should be guided by the data of
what's possible/practical as well as one's vision for the society one
would like to live in or bequeath to one's offspring. Herein lies the
importance of EP.
As a parallel, the frustration many feel over the US involvement in Iraq
and the Middle East stems from the sense that the policy makers have
little grasp of historical, social and cultural differences "on the
ground"--which may or may not flow from group genetic differences--that
affect the outcomes of the intervention. The current Administration's
strategy ~seems~ uninformed by how things work compared to what is
devoutly to be desired.
Thomas Oliver Merle
- Isn't it amazing how any mention of IQ/race spins off into the same old debate?
Anyway, back from a week's respite from all of this, I just wanted to
say I am quite happy to use "race realist" as a label for those who
argue that there are IQ differences in races due to genetics.
"Racialist" was a tad shorter but I think debates go better when the
labels for different camps are not pejorative.
I disagree with Irwin's suggestion for no labels: Firstly, there are
usually certain core positions in debates that can be captured with a
label for that position. The trouble starts when the labels for each
camp are invented by the opposing camp and then misrepresent what each is arguing. I realise that none of us like to be pigeon-holed on these matters, because we all are likely to have more nuanced positions that differ from the cores. However, and this is my second reason for disagreeing, I remain as yet (despite flirtations to change) a two-fingered keyboard pecker. Anything to shorten repetitive clauses is welcome. ;)
Rick O'Gorman, PhD
Department of Psychology
University of Kent
Canterbury CT2 7NP
Phone: 01227 827374
Fax: 01227 827030
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
J.K. Niemelä wrote:
> Dear all,
> What seems to be the case here is the same old "good guys" versus "the
> bad guys". Ever since Arthur R. Jensen's 1969 Harvard Educational
> Review article "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Aptitude?"
> those who have accepted the possibility of a genetic component in the
> population differences in IQ have been slandered and sometimes even
> physically attacked (e.g. Eysenck and Jensen). So there's nothing
> surprising whatsoever in the euphemisms for "racist". To be labeled as
> "racialist", "racial bigot", "far-right conservative" etc., all you
> have to do is to accept the between-group heritability of IQ and the
> existence of human races. BTW, "race realists" (sorry, Joao!) in turn
> call the ever-ad-hoc-oriented critique of their realism as
> Finally, I think Irwin has a very good point. As Irwin says, I don't
> think calling names is the answer.
> Best Wishes,