The Impact of Genetic Heritability on Intelligence: Fact or Fiction?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paleo-Conservative
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Iq
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the heritability of intelligence, referencing Professor Arthur R. Jensen's work which indicates that IQ heritability increases from 0.40 in early childhood to 0.80 in older adulthood. The conversation explores the implications of genetic differences in intelligence across races, highlighting concerns about potential misuse of this information for eugenics or oppression. Participants express a need for a humane approach to understanding these differences, advocating for education and awareness to prevent negative societal consequences.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of genetic heritability concepts
  • Familiarity with intelligence testing methodologies
  • Knowledge of the historical context of eugenics
  • Awareness of sociopolitical implications of race and intelligence research
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Jensen's theories on contemporary psychology
  • Study the methodologies of intelligence testing and their criticisms
  • Explore the history and ethics of eugenics movements
  • Investigate current debates on race and intelligence in academic literature
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for psychologists, sociologists, educators, and policymakers interested in the intersection of genetics, intelligence, and social equity.

  • #181
russ_watters said:
BV, this must stop.
I'm just playing ball. Evo did flame me first. I merely return the favor.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #182
Monique said:
As we agree it is off topic, don't go into it any further or this topic will be locked. Also, BlackVision, please stop calling other members dumb or stupid as it only undermines your own intellect. This has been going on long enough.
Apologies. But as I've said, Evo started the flame war. I merely played along. Notice that I haven't been flaming anyone else.

I must wonder why when Evo does it, it goes unnoticed. Cause she's been here longer? She get's more leadway? Regardless, in respect for everybody, I am done.
 
Last edited:
  • #183
BlackVision said:
Apologies. But as I've said, Evo started the flame war. I merely played along. Notice that I haven't been flaming anyone else.

I must wonder why when Evo does it, it goes unnoticed. Cause she's been here longer? She get's more leadway? Regardless, in respect for everybody, I am done.
Yes, I am guilty of starting it, I was growing tired of your snide remarks and insults, but I should not have called you names, I have no excuse for losing my temper. I apologize.

I did stop and try to bring it back up to a normal discussion though, I've been refraining from calling you names recently, it hasn't been easy.
 
  • #184
Evo said:
Yes, I am guilty of starting it, I was growing tired of your snide remarks and insults, but I should not have called you names, I have no excuse for losing my temper. I apologize.

I did stop and try to bring it back up to a normal discussion though, I've been refraining from calling you names recently, it hasn't been easy.
Yeah you haven't been lately but once it starts, hard to refrain from it afterwards. I apologize as well.
 
  • #185
The M. L. Finch experience

Evo said:
hitssquad said:
Evo said:
But this test was administered by M.L. Finch . . . hardly a pure, unbiased scientist.
In politics, absence of bias is a requirement for authenticity.

There is no such requirement in science, and this partly because authenticity is not an aim of science.
Is this something in a link I posted?
No. It is part of the excerpt from the "excellent report" by Tim White that you reproduced in this post.




I don't even know who M. L. Finch is.
If you do an Advanced Search of Physics Forums with the Show Results as Posts option selected and for the argument finch, you will find a link to your Post 156 from this thread wherein you wrote:


  • Anyone familiar with The Bell Curve knows that although it lists a lot of references, the study was based primarily on just a few studies.

    Most significant was the data provided by Richard Lynn.

    Here is an exerpt from an excellent report being worked on explaining the sources and actual data used by The Bell Curves' authors...

    Another of the "definitive" studies cited by Lynn in his own article was a 1929 study, in which 293 blacks in South Africa were given the Army Beta Test and scored a mean of 65. But this test was administered by M.L. Finch, an open protagonist of the view that blacks were inherently inferior, even before he had done any studies to "prove" such a thing: he was, in other words, hardly a pure, unbiased scientist. Furthermore, the Beta Test was one of the most culturally biased tests in the world at that time: one question on the 1929 version in dispute showed people playing tennis without a net. To get full credit for the question, one would have to draw the net in the picture—something few black Africans could have possibly known to do in 1929, having never been exposed to the game. A leading proponent of the Beta Test, C.C. Brigham, actually admitted that the test had no validity whatsoever for non-Americans: a fact totally ignored by Lynn, and by the Bell Curve.
 
Last edited:
  • #186
BlackVision said:
Yeah you haven't been lately but once it starts, hard to refrain from it afterwards. I apologize as well.
Well, as I said it was my fault for starting it, so I am the one that needs to apologize to everyone.

It appears we both are certain we are right about the posts, and I think we are both guilty of being too vague to the point that we both went down different roads, both right and both wrong, and we are both too stubborn to admit we might have contributed to the confusion, at least I am. One of my MANY faults. But since I am always right, I guess it's forgiveable. (joking, kind of) :-p

Truce?
 
  • #187
Evo said:
Well, as I said it was my fault for starting it, so I am the one that needs to apologize to everyone.

It appears we both are certain we are right about the posts, and I think we are both guilty of being too vague to the point that we both went down different roads, both right and both wrong, and we are both too stubborn to admit we might have contributed to the confusion, at least I am. One of my MANY faults. But since I am always right, I guess it's forgiveable. (joking, kind of) :-p

Truce?
Topics such as these tend to get very heated given the subject matter. And one slight mishap will collapse the entire infrastructure. Not an excuse for the way this debate has progressed but it's more understandable that it happens in such a topic then it would be in other topics.

And yes. Truce.
 

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
11K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
9K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
9K
  • · Replies 107 ·
4
Replies
107
Views
14K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K