geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks) (08/09/89)
> For this to be the case, the inability to solve x-type problems would have >to prevent the given race from breeding successfully. Culture would play >much more of a role than genetics. i.e. because of the way Culture Y has >taught me to think and learn, I am better at solving problems of type X. > Physical properties may work differently. The environment of one society >may have killed anyone who didn't have a certain strength, while those living >in gentler climes may not have been so affected. Also, perhaps the stronger >would breed more successfully (the alpha male idea). > But I see little evidence that the same is true for intelligence. In >history, those with the greatest intelligence may be better at solving >problem X, but this does not increase their breeding chances greatly. If problem X is such a serious problem that its solution promotes survival of the individual, then intelligence will be selected for. Obviously this occurs, otherwise, we'd all still be Chimps, no? Why do you think we became intelligent in the first place? To say that now we have reached the point that further evolution in intelligence has no survival value is a nice speculation, but needs more than a statement to convince me. Cultural factors may also play a role in biologic selection of intelligence. In some societies, the intelligencia have been celibate priests, hardly conducive to selecting intelligence. In others, they have been polygamous rulers, making the opposite the case. > Does anyone have an example of a society where this HAS been the case? >I would be interested in hearing about this. How about the Jews? You had to be a pretty smart cookie to make it through the persecutions from about 70AD to 1945, didn't you? Does anyone doubt how smart they are now? What is more, smarts are very highly valued by Jewish culture. Jewish women have traditionally preferred a clever man to a jock for a husband.
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (08/10/89)
From article <3229@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU>, by geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks): " ... If problem X is such a serious problem that its solution promotes " survival of the individual, then intelligence will be selected for. " Obviously this occurs, otherwise, we'd all still be Chimps, no? Why do you " think we became intelligent in the first place? A uniformitarian argument: intelligence was once selected for, therefore it is the presumption that it is now being selected for. Ok. But what if special intelligence never was selected for? It may have been manual dexterity that was the advantage, and intelligence got a free ride on the extra control mechanisms needed for dexterity. (This is a naive statement of a view proposed by the anthropologist Sherry Washburn some time back.) " ... In some societies, the " intelligencia have been celibate priests, hardly conducive to " selecting intelligence. ... It's pretty naive to assume the "intelligentsia" has higher intelligence, isn't it? " What is more, smarts are very " highly valued by Jewish culture. Jewish women have traditionally " preferred a clever man to a jock for a husband. Even adopting this silly assumption that jocks aren't intelligent, we don't come to the point until we find how many children they have. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) (08/10/89)
In article <4537@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: >From article <3229@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU>, by geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks): > >" ... If problem X is such a serious problem that its solution promotes >" survival of the individual, then intelligence will be selected for. >" Obviously this occurs, otherwise, we'd all still be Chimps, no? Why do you >" think we became intelligent in the first place? > >A uniformitarian argument: intelligence was once selected for, >therefore it is the presumption that it is now being selected for. Ok. Greg, I thought you were going to point out that intelligence may have been selected for directly up until, say 50,000 years ago, but has not been selected for since our culture became sufficiently complex. The third possibility is: >But what if special intelligence never was selected for? It may have >been manual dexterity that was the advantage, and intelligence got a >free ride on the extra control mechanisms needed for dexterity. There is a very strong inverse correlation between mean number of children per family and mean family income. This is certainly the case in the US and Canada, and I imagine pretty much the rule in the "developed" countries at least. So, we can say that human poverty is being very strongly selected for at present. :-) And, since there is probably at least a mild positive correlation between intellectual ability and income, that means there probably is currently selective pressure on human intelligence in the DOWNWARD direction. :-) * 2 David Mark dmark@cs.buffalo.edu
es@sinix.UUCP (Dr. Sanio) (08/16/89)
Some questions and comments about IQ discussion: In the discussion twin studies have been mentioned. It was pointed out that a former "classic" inquiry contained faked results. On the other hand, a newer inquiry on hereditary/adapted capabilities of twins was mentioned, which claimed to have proved superiority of inherited capabilities. Could somebody give a qualified summary of the study mentioned above? Other bibliographical hints to this subject would be appreciated as well. If no public interest, pls. mail (thanx in ahead). Anyway, some comments: This kind of discussion, which goes on time by time in the universities, press (and now on the net) very often declines to an emotional or ideological level (I appreciate that this discussion has developed in a rather quiet and tolerant athmosphere). Anyway, two things have to be sharply distinguished: First, the hypothesis about the origin of human capabilities, which can be summarized as following: "Certain human capabilities (here:'intelligence' - whatever this may mean) are genetically fixed and cannot be significantly influenced - at least not beyond a certain level - by learning, education, social or economical circum- stances (in short:the environment)." Or, on contrary: "Human capabilities - though they may differ by hereditary reasons in a certain range - can so widely be extended by training, education etc. that the impor- tance of hereditary differences is small or even zero under long range or lar- ge number considerations." This kind of discussion still remains in a scientific environment and can/should be carried out sine ira et studio, honestly discovering any fact supporting/ disproving the one or the other position. Something rather different is the ideological level. It is evident and not sur- prising that people whith a more liberal/leftist point of view tend to agree to the second position, because it opens better possibilities for their ideas of changing certain things in their societies, whereas more conservative people might appreciate the first position to prove true, as this might strengthen their position (as far as it is theirs) to regard the current social/political educational situation in their countries (as far as they may agree with) as a quasi-natural, necessary result of evolution, where it is rather foolish to oppose. My proposal: Let us ask ourselves: "Did I find facts proving/disproving the position I agree/oppose? Or should I simply wish this to be true/false? Am I searching for truth (under this respect) or do I simply try to preach my political religion? Do I beware suspecting others ideologically rather than listening to what they contribute to the discussion?" Myself, I tend to agree to the second hypothesis, which matches my social and political point of view, which is liberal/leftist rather than conser- vative, but I am aware of the danger to be leaded by my prejudices. I would appreciate the discussion to go on e.sanio
ahmad@icsib6.Berkeley.EDU (Subutai Ahmad) (08/17/89)
The morning news today reported a study conducted by the
University of Minnesota. The study concerned the relationship
between IQ score and the environment/genetics. The results
reported were:
1) Children adopted by well to do parents tended
to score higher on the IQ test than children
adopted by less well to do parents.
2) Adopted children whose real parents were well
off did better than adopted children whose real
parents weren't well off.
3) Adopted children whose real parents were well
off and whose foster parents were well off
performed the best overall.
Conclude what you want.
--
Subutai Ahmaddmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) (08/18/89)
In article <16369@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, ahmad@icsib6.Berkeley.EDU (Subutai Ahmad) writes: > 3) Adopted children whose real parents were well > off and whose foster parents were well off > performed the best overall. > > Conclude what you want. A rising tide lifts all yachts. Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu
ghh@clarity.princeton.edu (Gilbert Harman) (08/19/89)
In article <16369@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> ahmad@icsib6.Berkeley.EDU (Subutai Ahmad) writes: >> The morning news today reported a study conducted by the >> University of Minnesota. The study concerned the relationship >> between IQ score and the environment/genetics. The results >> reported were: >> 1) Children adopted by well to do parents tended >> to score higher on the IQ test than children >> adopted by less well to do parents. >> 2) Adopted children whose real parents were well >> off did better than adopted children whose real >> parents weren't well off. >> 3) Adopted children whose real parents were well >> off and whose foster parents were well off >> performed the best overall. If there is a correlation between having well off real parents and well off adopted parents, then (1) could account for (2) and (3). Has this factor been taken into account? -- Gilbert Harman Princeton University Cognitive Science Laboratory 221 Nassau Street, Princeton, NJ 08542 ghh@princeton.edu HARMAN@PUCC.BITNET
cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (08/21/89)
In article <GHH.89Aug18205215@clarity.princeton.edu>, ghh@clarity.princeton.edu (Gilbert Harman) writes: > In article <16369@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> > ahmad@icsib6.Berkeley.EDU (Subutai Ahmad) writes: < >> The morning news today reported a study conducted by the < >> University of Minnesota. The study concerned the relationship < >> between IQ score and the environment/genetics. The results < >> reported were: < >> 1) Children adopted by well to do parents tended < >> to score higher on the IQ test than children < >> adopted by less well to do parents. < >> 2) Adopted children whose real parents were well < >> off did better than adopted children whose real < >> parents weren't well off. < >> 3) Adopted children whose real parents were well < >> off and whose foster parents were well off < >> performed the best overall. > > If there is a correlation between having well off real > parents and well off adopted parents, then (1) could account > for (2) and (3). Has this factor been taken into account? The article in my paper had the effect in 2) greater than that in 1). Any substantial correlation would make the environmental effect low. I have not seen the raw data, but from my professional standpoint, it looks much better for heredity than environment from what was in the article. It also looks like the study was not very well done. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)
cam@edai.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.edai 031 667 1011 x2550) (08/25/89)
In article <519@athen.sinix.UUCP> es@athen.UUCP (Dr. Sanio) writes: > >Some questions and comments about IQ discussion: >In the discussion twin studies have been mentioned. It was pointed out >that a former "classic" inquiry contained faked results. The following notes are taken from a review in the Guardian of "The Burt Affair", R.B. Joynson, Routledge, the review by Dr Clare Burstall. In 1976 Burt was accused of falsifying research results in order to bolster his views on selective education, and of inventing research assistants. In 1979 Prof Hearnshaw's biography of Burt endorsed these charges, and added more. In 1980 The Council of the British Psychological Society accepted Hearnshaw's arguments as "evidence of fraud". I quote: "The flaws in Hearnshaw are so glaring and ubiquitous that it seems as though no one had seriously attempted to check ... the catalogue is damming ... suspicion did duty for evidence ... Joynson states: `the attempt to confirm Hearnshaw's account has failed; not occasionally and incidentally, but repeatedly and crucially ... this enquiry provides fresh grounds for supposing that Burt's most important data were in fact genuine ... no reliable indication of fabrication whatever ... The Burt affair must never be forgotten. It is a paradigm of the corruption of scientific judgement by the common sense, the values, and the controversies of the everyday world.' ... This is a scholarly and measured account of of a patient and painstaking examination of the evidence assembled in attempts to convict an innocent man of acandalously fraudulent and deceitful behaviour." Why? Joynson suggests, and Burstall agrees, that while Burt's data (suggesting a substantial genetic component in IQ) at the time were squarely in line with popular liberal views on education (e.g., that IQ testing and streaming lifted up and gave a proper opportunity to clever children whose background fell foul of teachers' prejudices), in the 1970s popular liberal views felt that grading and labelling children's academic performance was a bad thing to do, and that any scientific evidence suggesting the inheritance of intelligence smacked dangerously of elitism, racism, etc.. So Burt was demolished, the strength of popular feeling overwhelming scientific objectivity to the extent that unsubstantiated rumour based on wishful thinking became textbook fact. The controversy apparently still rages in comp.ai! Several posters have argued in very strong terms that the notion that humans differ in basic mental genetic endowment is tantamount to fascism, a denial of basic human rights, a contradiction in terms, socialist nonsense, evolutionarily improbable, manifestly silly, etc. etc. I'm cross-posting to sci.psychology to find out what academic psychologists think :-) -- Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.edai 031 667 1011 x2550 Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (08/29/89)
In article <528@edai.ed.ac.uk> cam@edai.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes: }In article <519@athen.sinix.UUCP> es@athen.UUCP (Dr. Sanio) writes: }> }>[ Condemnatino of Burt's work. ] }[ Vindication of Burt's work. Burt seen as victim of social mores. ] }I'm cross-posting to sci.psychology to find out what academic }psychologists think :-) A point usually forgotten by both sides of the Burt argument is that Burt's honesty, or lack of it, has nothing to do with the question in hand. There have long since been mountains of further studies, good and bad, on the same subject. Academically, Burt's work is merely one footnote among many, and hardly definitive. The consensus of these studies, to the best of my knowledge, remains inconclusive. The nature/nurture debate rages on. Most reasonable, scientific psychologists will agree that both play a significant part. Which dominates under what conditions at what time of a person's life remain questions for further research. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
kja@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (krista.j.anderson) (08/29/89)
<> No answers here, but I do have some related questions: Have any studies been done on SAT or ACT scores that use an analysis of variance or other technique to see whether (and if so how) scores are affected by the students' *parents'* educational level and socio-economic class? Then next step, of course, would be to look at adopted children's scores compared to their step-parents. :-) -- Krista A.
osborn@pipiens.usc.edu (Tom Osborn) (08/30/89)
In article <1434@cbnewsd.ATT.COM> kja@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (krista.j.anderson) writes: >No answers here, but I do have some related questions: >Have any studies been done on SAT or ACT scores that use an >analysis of variance or other technique to see whether (and >if so how) scores are affected by the students' *parents'* >educational level and socio-economic class? About ten years ago a friend of mine - Les Bobis - did a similar study to the one you suggest in Newcastle, Australia. I helped with the statistics. The study involved 15 year olds and looked at parent occupation, parent education, parent aspirations for themselves and for the kids, and on the kids' side, aspiration and performance in various aptitude and performance tests. "Social status" of the parents' occupations was also included, and the study was stratified. The correlations were SO HIGH, that the write up was mainly as case studies. All factors were significant (6+ sigmas, mostly)!!! Basically, the kids performed and aspired to a level a bit higher than the parents expected of them and a bit higher than the parents had achieved. This also applied to IQ (except, of course, the parents didn't 'expect' their kids' IQ scores, but they did rate their 'smartness' in a rankable way). >Then next step, of course, would be to look at adopted children's >scores compared to their step-parents. :-) As far as I know, Les didn't publish, but may get 'round to doing a more extensive study one day. I do recall his study including citations to similar work. >Krista A. Tom Osborn. *** AT USC for 6 months *** --- Tom Osborn, | Doon or Task Varoom School of Computing Sciences, | the Belt holes - University of Technology, Sydney, | Eat holes, PO Box 123 Broadway 2007, AUSTRALIA. | few.
jim.mitchell@canremote.uucp (JIM MITCHELL) (09/05/89)
To argue the genetic versus the enviromental factor as the main determinant in social beings is an irresponsible and inhuman waste of time. The real problem is how to shape our lives closer to our ideals. There are many reasons for lack of will to face this problem. The fact is we inherit both our genes and our enviroment; and, hopefully, a sense of social responsibility from the combination. To survive we must control both as best we can; not waste our time in sophistic argument. The thing to remember is that argument that truly obscures social necessities is hardly worthy of the attention of any scientist (except the social scientist - in a clinical context). For the life of me I can't see why AI would confuse the attempt to construct an artificial brain with the problems of the mind. The first may be possible but the mind will always be a program that cannot exist outside of the social context and still be recognized as artificial HUMAN intelligence. And if it ain't Human haven't we already done it? C.Yah... jim. --- * QDeLuxe 1.10 #2583 Best WP is WasteBasket!
jim.mitchell@canremote.uucp (JIM MITCHELL) (09/05/89)
The adopted children study seems to show that enviroment extends to conception - or is that too obvious? Is the enviroment of the first nine months after conception no different for rich and poor - or is this a factor that cannot be considered in poverty-free America? Shall we consider that people don't adopt without the means, unless they are related. What the study seems to show is that a child of poverty has a better chance if she is adopted; but not as good as a child of affluence. On the other hand a child of affluence will probably not sink lower than an adequate financial level. The child of poverty faces only one real hurdle - getting past its relatives to adoptive parents who have been means tested. C.Yah... jim. --- * QDeLuxe 1.10 #2583 Best WP is WasteBasket!
tsu00256@koryu.statci.junet (ohsaka) (09/10/89)
q