csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club) (06/08/84)
Mario Vietri attacks the doctrine of "biological determinism" (which he implicitly equates with my stance) on historical grounds. He states: > ... the worst, most > prejudiced,most unfair research probably ever done is that carried out > under the egida of biological determinism > Some might argue with the superlatives in the above statement, but on the whole I agree with him. However, it should be pointed out that there has been some competent research concerning possible influences of genotype on human "intelligence". The interpretation of the results is a matter of some controversy (see e.g. Intelligence: Nature, Determinants and Consequences. E. Brody and N. Brody, Academic Press, 1976). Certainly the question is not settled, and it may never be settled. My original point was that we do not at this time have sufficient evidence to support the conclusion "All observed differences between the sexes, except for obvious physical ones, are due entirely to environmental influences", nor do we have sufficient evidence to reject this conclusion. The questions involved are extremely complicated and it may be that for many observed differences the issue will never be resolved. I feel that it is important to accept that the way things are, and the way we would like things to be, may be different. I illustrated the above point by considering mathematics. There is a very low percentage of women among top mathematicians. There are almost certainly many factors which account for this, among them the sex discrimination which has been pointed out by Lisa Chabot and many others. Whether there is a genetic component which helps to explain this low percentage is not at this time known (and may never be known). Despite this many people, including the author of the article to which I was replying, state categorically that there is no genetic component. The supporters of "biological determinism" usually argued that their scientific conclusions supported certain types of social policy (hierarchical schools, a different type of education for minority groups, outlawing of interracial marriage!, sterilization!!!). (These policies often made little sense even if you accepted the questionable data on which they were based!) Because of this, anyone who advances the thesis, there may be a genetic component here, is assumed to be supporting some type of social policy. (It was widely assumed from my original article that I felt a genetic component to mathematical ability would be important in determining social policies. This is not my opinion. There have been several articles posted explaining why a such a genetic component would have little or no significance to questions of social policy.) However, it is quite possible to study genetic effects without drawing idiotic conclusions. It may not be possible to study genetic effects without others drawing idiotic conclusions, this is a major problem. It is quite possible to study genetic effects while realizing that environment may be dominant and that genetic "deficiencies" may be corrected with the proper environmental stimulus. It is not necessary to invoke social policy questions in order for research to be interesting and important. The value of "pure" research has been proven many times over. Mario Vietri seems to suggest that advocating research into possible genetic influences means accepting the conclusions of the supporters of "biological determinism". This is about on par with the argument that anyone who advocates full employment must also advocate genocide; after all, Hitler supported full employment... William Hughes