Previous Entry Share Next Entry
An affront to right-thinking people everywhere
james_nicoll
Liberal evilutionists deny the heritability of accent.

Are we allowed to mention improved results through practice vis-a-vis before-and-after IQ tests, as used bu certain sf-inspired religious folk? Or would you prefer not to attract their grep-attention?

As I've said before, this is probably the one subject most likely to get one in a flamewar on a science-oriented Internet forum, and it's not because the liberal PC mafia are shouting down the few brave chroniclers of genetic difference.

I tend to feel reluctant to talk about it myself because, while I think Shalizi is right, I'm not an expert, and the proponents of innate genetic group differences in intelligence as important social force tend to claim majority scientific support and bombard one with citations and claims of authority ("all reputable psychologists believe in g, Gould is generally held to have been a crackpot about this," etc.), and characterize their opposition as irrational sentimentalists on par with creationists. While people I generally trust have said the Murray and Herrnstein stuff doesn't hold water, I haven't done enough homework to argue confidently about it on scientific grounds against a prepared debater, nor do I feel inclined to read The Bell Curve and follow all the footnote citations.

What I'm really trying to say is that the field sorely needs a RealClimate/talkorigins.org-type clearinghouse, if there isn't one already.

A nit-pick. I think that the assumption that people[*] in the 1900's were less industrial, bureaucratic and mass-literate is pretty questionable. We are talking about a period (in the UK, at least) of high literacy[**] and an explosion in books, magazines, etc.

[*] Meaning those in OECD-type countries, which is what I believe Flynn measured.

[**] Somewhere on the web, there are time-series of historical data. Buggered if I can find them now.