martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (05/27/84)
Actually, statistical studies have been made which controlled for economic background (almost 2 generations ago). The whole issue becomes irrelevant if genius can be produced through genetic engineering. Current advances in biochemistry are making heredity seem a lot more malleable, controllable, and correctable than environment. The nurture advocates seem ideologically unwilling to consider the possibilities offered by modern genetics. This refusal strikes me as quite reactionary.
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (05/29/84)
> Actually, statistical studies have been made which controlled for economic > background (almost 2 generations ago). Oh? Which studies are these? How was the economic background controlled for? (I presume those studies showed that race X was more intelligent than race Y; what, by the way, were races X and Y?) > Current advances in biochemistry are making heredity seem a lot more > malleable, controllable, and correctable than environment. "Malleable" and "controllable" only if you understand what you're controlling. We may know quite a bit about the biochemistry of genes, but the biochemistry of *intelligence* is what we're concerned with here (an analogy - would a cryptographer or a programmer be better able to develop an algorithm for breaking a particular code?). Which genes would *you* tweak in order to increase mathematical ability? We may know how to tweak those genes, but we're a long way from knowing which ones to tweak. (Which brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation partway back to the original discussion; we don't know where various intellectual abilities come from - please, not where "intelligence" comes from, as it's not clear "intelligence" exists; *pace* William Shockley, who is a very talented physicist but who has "failed abysmally" as a proponent of a "naturist" (and racist) view of intelligence. In some things he's very talented, in others he's just purblind.) Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy