jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (05/25/84)
> The nurture adherents have had three generations at least to eliminate > race as a predictor of success in intellectual endeavors and have failed > abysmally. Clinging to unsuccessful theories hardly strikes me as > progressive. There are at least two misconceptions in this quote. First: In those three generations, the environments the various races live in have not changed to the point where one could say they were equally encouraged and taught in intellectual endeavors. Therefore, even the straight "nurture" theory would predict racial differences in intellectual success. Since this is what is observed, the theory is quite successful. The only problem is that it is impossible to distinguish innate racial effects from those caused by the different environments that the different races, on the average, live in. Second: Even if your first statement was correct, Kym was not claiming that the straight "nurture" theory is progressive, but rather, one in which both heredity and environment play a part. That is far more progressive than the old racial superiority theories you seem to favor. Prejudice (especially against "lower class Europeans") dies hard, doesn't it? Jeff Winslow