If Mort Divine ruled the world

Even if it is hereditary, the point is that it doesn't constitute enough of a difference to warrant deterministic claims about future demographic makeup and/or organization, especially since environment can have a substantial impact on the application of intelligence. Change the environmental conditions and you can significantly change intelligence levels, even if genetics provides the baseline.
 
The 50% marker is problematic, and more recent studies suggest the percentage is smaller (others, alternatively, suggest that it fluctuates and can even be larger):

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-intelligence-hereditary/)

I said roughly 50% because there is some fluctuation around the mark (40-60%), which your quoted portion notes. The "20% in infancy" note is amusing, I don't know how the fuck they could test that with any confidence.

We've more or less given up on finding single genes to predict/determine almost anything. The fact we can't explain our findings genetically yet doesn't mean they aren't there to be found, particularly when we may be looking for something that is more emergent than a simple on/off biochemical process.

Murray's work makes use of significantly unsubstantiated and unverifiable data in order to present a deterministic/predictive argument about future social organization, hence his application of biological IQ to the rise of a "cognitive elite" (or some such nonsense). His work isn't in the name of science, it's in the name of political interests invested in rationalizing the conditions of the social demographic.

Serious research into the relationship between genetics and intelligence is ongoing, and in and of itself isn't controversial. Murray's work shouldn't be the benchmark for this kind of work. He gets press because his work is politically controversial, not because it's scientifically sound.


Well again, I wasn't quoting that article for anything specific to Murray, which is why the quoted portion wasn't referring to him. However, even just assuming you are correct about Murray's work (again, haven't read any of it), given the completely bonkers, not-even-claiming-to-be-scientific nature of the work of grievance mongers (which are welcomed with pomp to universities), there's no legitimate basis for suddenly objecting to a given speaker "because science!". If speakers should be rejected because they aren't engaging in good science, people like Coates or Butler should be deplatformed. If the response is they don't claim to be scientists, even more reason to dismiss them.

My main interest is in the percentage of faculty either in favor of limitations on free speech, and/or at least non-committal.
 
If speakers should be rejected because they aren't engaging in good science, people like Coates or Butler should be deplatformed. If the response is they don't claim to be scientists, even more reason to dismiss them.

That would be my response, and this is a ridiculous assertion. You're being sensationalist, again.

My main interest is in the percentage of faculty either in favor of limitations on free speech, and/or at least non-committal.

At one of the most liberal colleges in the country, only half of the faculty from four humanities departments worth naming signed a letter that didn't once declare that they wanted to limit free speech.
 
That would be my response, and this is a ridiculous assertion. You're being sensationalist, again.

What's sensationalist about pointing out a clear double standard?

At one of the most liberal colleges in the country, only half of the faculty from four humanities departments worth naming signed a letter that didn't once declare that they wanted to limit free speech.

I don't know what letter you keep referring to.
 
Even if it is hereditary, the point is that it doesn't constitute enough of a difference to warrant deterministic claims about future demographic makeup and/or organization, especially since environment can have a substantial impact on the application of intelligence. Change the environmental conditions and you can significantly change intelligence levels, even if genetics provides the baseline.

That would assume that the upper-limit for an individual is primarily constrained by environment, which I haven't seen much support for. A person with parents averaging an IQ of 100 and a person with parents averaging 115 may have the same potential for improvement/decline according to environment, but the person with the biological advantage is almost always going to win out no matter how hard the other one tries.
 
What's sensationalist about pointing out a clear double standard?

It isn't a double standard when the methodological approaches are entirely different.

I don't know what letter you keep referring to.

The one that the author of the article you posted keeps referring to, the impetus for the article itself:

https://middleburycampus.com/article/letter-from-middlebury-faculty/

Yeah, serious attack on free speech there... :rolleyes:

That would assume that the upper-limit for an individual is primarily constrained by environment, which I haven't seen much support for. A person with parents averaging an IQ of 100 and a person with parents averaging 115 may have the same potential for improvement/decline according to environment, but the person with the biological advantage is almost always going to win out no matter how hard the other one tries.

Douglas Wahlsten, "The Malleability of Intelligence is Not Constrained by Heritability"

Abstract:
In The Bell Curve, Herrnstein and Murray claim that a high value for heritability of intelligence limits or constrains the extent to which intelligence can be increased by changing the environment.1 In this chapter it is argued that the calculated numerical value of “heritability” has no valid implications for government policies and that evidence of a nonspecific genetic influence on human mental ability places no constraint on the consequences of an improved environment. On the contrary, a very small change in environment, such as a dietary supplement, can lead to a major change in mental development, provided the change is appropriate to the specific kind of deficit that in the past has impaired development. The results of adoption studies, the intergenerational cohort effect, and effects of schooling also reveal that intelligence can be increased substantially without the need for heroic intervention.
 
It isn't a double standard when the methodological approaches are entirely different.

The methodological approaches may be different, but practically speaking what's the difference? Both bad scientists and activist non-scientists purport to be offering unsubstantiated "truths" which should inform policy. The difference quite obviously what is currently considered goodthinkful.


The one that the author of the article you posted keeps referring to, the impetus for the article itself:
https://middleburycampus.com/article/letter-from-middlebury-faculty/

/shrug. Not the portion I was interested. It is normally expected that the degree to which people will sign something is less than the degree to which one will provide anonymous responses that will be aggregated.
 
The methodological approaches may be different, but practically speaking what's the difference? Both bad scientists and activist non-scientists purport to be offering unsubstantiated "truths" which should inform policy. The difference quite obviously what is currently considered goodthinkful.

The methodologies may be different, but practically speaking what's the difference? Dak, stop trying to be difficult.

Look, I'm fine with Murray speaking at the school, but you're generalizing way too much here with regard to different methodologies and fields of study. Butler wouldn't purport to offer any substantive truth or statistical analysis of gender, and her entire project offers nothing like what Murray's claims to. Depending on the field a scholar appeals to, audiences should expect different approaches. You're comparing apples and oranges, and you can't just throw your hands up and say "well it's all fruit!" People have the right to complain if they order orange chicken and it has no orange in it (or worse, it's sprinkled with blueberries).

/shrug. Not the portion I was interested. It is normally expected that the degree to which people will sign something is less than the degree to which one will provide anonymous responses that will be aggregated.

What are you talking about? You based your accusation that the faculty of Middlebury were attempting to restrict free speech on the article that cites this very letter. As far as I can tell, they're not trying to restrict free speech at all.
 
The methodologies may be different, but practically speaking what's the difference? Dak, stop trying to be difficult.

Butler wouldn't purport to offer any substantive truth or statistical analysis of gender, and her entire project offers nothing like what Murray's claims to. Depending on the field a scholar appeals to, audiences should expect different approaches. You're comparing apples and oranges, and you can't just throw your hands up and say "well it's all fruit!" People have the right to complain if they order orange chicken and it has no orange in it (or worse, it's sprinkled with blueberries).

If people like Butler or Coates aren't offering something that even attempts to approach truth (I'm trying to be more nuanced here), then what is it they are doing, and why are "activists" using them as references? I submit that these people are claiming to present a picture of the world "as it is", which I think can be characterized as "truth" claims. Since it is generally apparent that there can't be objective analyses of the sorts of topics they latch onto, and when they are it often runs counter, it is no wonder that even the scientific method itself is sometimes denigrated as "racist", "patriarchical", "participating in and perpetuating power structures", etc.

What are you talking about? You based your accusation that the faculty of Middlebury were attempting to restrict free speech on the article that cites this very letter. As far as I can tell, they're not trying to restrict free speech at all.


I never made any such accusation, nor even mentioned the school; I simply quoted a small portion of a news article. I specifically quoted a section of the article listing data from a large survey, which did happen to use responses on that survey from that one school as a specific example of differences in the northeast compared to the country at large.
 
If people like Butler or Coates aren't offering something that even attempts to approach truth (I'm trying to be more nuanced here), then what is it they are doing, and why are "activists" using them as references? I submit that these people are claiming to present a picture of the world "as it is", which I think can be characterized as "truth" claims. Since it is generally apparent that there can't be objective analyses of the sorts of topics they latch onto, and when they are it often runs counter, it is no wonder that even the scientific method itself is sometimes denigrated as "racist", "patriarchical", "participating in and perpetuating power structures", etc.

People like Butler point out chinks in science's armor. Their work is equally important. If it involves interpretive and/or speculative claims, then so be it. It doesn't make their work less valuable; it just means it's different.

I never made any such accusation, nor even mentioned the school; I simply quoted a small portion of a news article. I specifically quoted a section of the article listing data from a large survey, which did happen to use responses on that survey from that one school as a specific example of differences in the northeast compared to the country at large.

I quote:

My main interest is in the percentage of faculty either in favor of limitations on free speech, and/or at least non-committal.

Here's the central passage from your quote:

When I looked at the numbers for the private liberal arts schools of New England, however, things were different. I drilled farther into the data, focusing specifically on the academic departments of professors who signed the letter to Middlebury’s president. While I do not have data on Middlebury faculty specifically, we know which departments the signatories are from. Looking at those departments—sociology, anthropology, film and media studies, among others—almost 50 percent of faculty members from them strongly agreed that colleges and universities should prohibit speech on campus if it can be considered racist or sexist.

The "percentage" you refer to (i.e. 50%) is in reference to the number of faculty whose names appear on the letter--a letter that does not mention the prohibition of free speech.
 
Douglas Wahlsten, "The Malleability of Intelligence is Not Constrained by Heritability"

Abstract:

In The Bell Curve, Herrnstein and Murray claim that a high value for heritability of intelligence limits or constrains the extent to which intelligence can be increased by changing the environment.1 In this chapter it is argued that the calculated numerical value of “heritability” has no valid implications for government policies and that evidence of a nonspecific genetic influence on human mental ability places no constraint on the consequences of an improved environment. On the contrary, a very small change in environment, such as a dietary supplement, can lead to a major change in mental development, provided the change is appropriate to the specific kind of deficit that in the past has impaired development. The results of adoption studies, the intergenerational cohort effect, and effects of schooling also reveal that intelligence can be increased substantially without the need for heroic intervention.

My school unfortunately doesn't provide access to the paper, but the million dollar caveat is highlighted. What that says is a person with an IQ of X, reduced to an IQ of X-20 due to bad nutrition or upbringing, is capable of recovering back to X with fixed nutrition or treatment.
 
My school unfortunately doesn't provide access to the paper, but the million dollar caveat is highlighted. What that says is a person with an IQ of X, reduced to an IQ of X-20 due to bad nutrition or upbringing, is capable of recovering back to X with fixed nutrition or treatment.

That's not what it says. It says that if the correct deficit is addressed, then the subject might improve his/her intelligence by an indeterminate degree. You're the one who keeps saying that a person cannot surpass the average intelligence of his/her parents.
 
Here's the central passage from your quote:

The "percentage" you refer to (i.e. 50%) is in reference to the number of faculty whose names appear on the letter--a letter that does not mention the prohibition of free speech.

No it's not, and the section quoted said as much. The 50% figure is the aggregate responses on the HERI survey line item about prohibiting racist and sexist speech, from all responding professors in the departments that those faculty that signed the letter came from. That number (a) isn't tied to the number of signees on the letter and (b) isn't referring to the content of the letter. Of course, as I said before, I do not see that level of detail in the data available in their press release. You can request the original data from them (HERI) for personal analyses, which is what I assume this author did.
 
That's pretty much what I just said. I'm saying they can surpass their parents, just not by that much. Being able to surpass your parents by one standard deviation due to strong education and upbringing, when your neighbor can maintain the same IQ without any attempt at improvement, means you're still at a permanent deficit due to biology. If the paper does not even quantify the magnitude of education's ability to improve IQ ("by an indeterminate degree"), then there's no way to say that the right upbringing is sufficient to produce a person of top-level intelligence.

EDIT: re Einherjar
 
No it's not, and the section quoted said as much. The 50% figure is the aggregate responses on the HERI survey line item about prohibiting racist and sexist speech, from all responding professors in the departments that those faculty that signed the letter came from. That number (a) isn't tied to the number of signees on the letter and (b) isn't referring to the content of the letter. Of course, as I said before, I do not see that level of detail in the data available in their press release. You can request the original data from them (HERI) for personal analyses, which is what I assume this author did.

I see what he's saying now.

He's saying that of those who signed the letter, about 50% also told the survey that they support restricting speech that could be classified as racist or otherwise objectionable. Seems like an intentionally vague article presented in an intentionally vague way. It would be helpful to see how he got that information, or if he's assuming that information based on the letter itself (which, based on the article, he very well could be).

That's pretty much what I just said. I'm saying they can surpass their parents, just not by that much. Being able to surpass your parents by one standard deviation due to strong education and upbringing, when your neighbor can maintain the same IQ without any attempt at improvement, means you're still at a permanent deficit due to biology. If the paper does not even quantify the magnitude of education's ability to improve IQ ("by an indeterminate degree"), then there's no way to say that the right upbringing is sufficient to produce a person of top-level intelligence.

EDIT: re Einherjar

It isn't really what you just said. I'm saying the improvement could be indeterminate. You're saying there's a hereditary limit. The point of Wahlsten's article is that heredity imposes no necessary limit.
 
I see what he's saying now.

He's saying that of those who signed the letter, about 50% also told the survey that they support restricting speech that could be classified as racist or otherwise objectionable. Seems like an intentionally vague article presented in an intentionally vague way. It would be helpful to see how he got that information, or if he's assuming that information based on the letter itself (which, based on the article, he very well could be).

Not quite. In analyzing the data from the HERI survey (which again, I'm having to assume he requested the raw data to get this level of detail, since it isn't in the press release I found and linked to), he pulled the sum of responses on that line item in the survey (which does use the language "prohibit") from all professors in the various departments that the select group that signed the letter are members of. It's very particular language that is common to reading statistical analyses. I have to read these all the time for my education, so while I don't have too much difficulty parsing them, I will agree that the nature of this specificity isn't really in line with the general nature of the article.

As an example of his methodology of analysis: Imagine that you were on faculty at BU, and the entire school faculty took that HERI survey, and at some point yourself (from the English department), and a single professor from the sociology department, the psychology department, and the philosophy department signed a similar letter. I then, to see the degree to which "positive attitudes on prohibitions on free speech" are a cultural thing within said departments, I look at the aggregate responses from those 4 departments on that line item, which may total over 100 professors combined, while only 4 signed the letter.
 
Not quite. In analyzing the data from the HERI survey (which again, I'm having to assume he requested the raw data to get this level of detail, since it isn't in the press release I found and linked to), he pulled the sum of responses on that line item in the survey (which does use the language "prohibit") from all professors in the various departments that the select group that signed the letter are members of. It's very particular language that is common to reading statistical analyses. I have to read these all the time for my education, so while I don't have too much difficulty parsing them, I will agree that the nature of this specificity isn't really in line with the general nature of the article.

As an example of his methodology of analysis: Imagine that you were on faculty at BU, and the entire school faculty took that HERI survey, and at some point yourself (from the English department), and a single professor from the sociology department, the psychology department, and the philosophy department signed a similar letter. I then, to see the degree to which "positive attitudes on prohibitions on free speech" are a cultural thing within said departments, I look at the aggregate responses from those 4 departments on that line item, which may total over 100 professors combined, while only 4 signed the letter.

Okay, I see. Thanks.

So why is Middlebury college indicative of a trend across the Northeast? I could be misremembering that detail, as I'm not referring back to the previous page. Middlebury is one of the most liberal colleges in the country, so it could also be safe to say that its statistics represent an outlier, not the norm.
 
Okay, I see. Thanks.

So why is Middlebury college indicative of a trend across the Northeast? I could be misremembering that detail, as I'm not referring back to the previous page. Middlebury is one of the most liberal colleges in the country, so it could also be safe to say that its statistics represent an outlier, not the norm.

I think? he was trying to prove a point about the culture. It may indeed be an outlier in the strength of response. However, in the aggregate on that press release I linked - which was before the PC stuff really hit "peak" (the HERI survey rotates that item in and out for some reason, so it wasn't in the most recent iteration), over 60% answered in the affirmative to some degree across all faculty across the country.
 
A portion of Thomas Sowell's review of The Bell Curve:

[Herrnstein and Murray] seem to conclude… that… biological inheritance of IQ… among members of the general society may also explain IQ differences between different racial and ethnic groups…. Such a conclusion goes… much beyond what the facts will support….

[T]he greatest black-white differences are not on the questions which presuppose middle-class vocabulary or experiences, but on abstract questions such as spatial perceptual ability…. [Herrnstein and Murray’s] conclusion that this “phenomenon seems peculiarly concentrated in comparisons of ethnic groups” is simply wrong. When European immigrant groups in the United States scored below the national average on mental tests, they scored lowest on the abstract parts of those tests. So did white mountaineer children in the United States tested back in the early 1930s. So did canal boat children in Britain, and so did rural British children compared to their urban counterparts, at a time before Britain had any significant non-white population. So did Gaelic-speaking children as compared to English-speaking children in the Hebrides Islands. This is neither a racial nor an ethnic peculiarity. It is a characteristic found among low-scoring groups of European as well as African ancestry.

In short, groups outside the cultural mainstream of contemporary Western society tend to do their worst on abstract questions, whatever their race might be….

Perhaps the strongest evidence against a genetic basis for intergroup differences in IQ is that the average level of mental test performance has changed very significantly for whole populations over time and, moreover, particular ethnic groups within the population have changed their relative positions during a period when there was very little intermarriage to change the genetic makeup of these groups….

Perhaps the most dramatic changes were those in the mental test performances of Jews in the United States. The results of World War I mental tests conducted among American soldiers born in Russia–the great majority of whom were Jews–showed such low scores as to cause Carl Brigham, creator of the Scholastic Aptitude Test, to declare that these results “disprove the popular belief that the Jew is highly intelligent.” Within a decade, however, Jews in the United States were scoring above the national average on mental tests, and the data in The Bell Curveindicate that they are now far above the national average in IQ.

Strangely, Herrnstein and Murray refer to “folklore” that “Jews and other immigrant groups were thought to be below average in intelligence. ” It was neither folklore nor anything as subjective as thoughts. It was based on hard data, as hard as any data in The Bell Curve. These groups repeatedly tested below average on the mental tests of the World War I era, both in the army and in civilian life. For Jews, it is clear that later tests showed radically different results–during an era when there was very little intermarriage to change the genetic makeup of American Jews….

Herrnstein and Murray openly acknowledge such rises in IQ….But they seem not to see how crucially it undermines the case for a genetic explanation of interracial IQ differences. They say:

“The national averages have in fact changed by amounts that are comparable to the fifteen or so IQ points separating blacks and whites in America. To put it another way, on the average, whites today differ from whites, say, two generations ago as much as whites today differ from blacks today. Given their size and speed, the shifts in time necessarily have been due more to changes in the environment than to changes in the genes.”

While this open presentation of evidence against the genetic basis of interracial IQ differences is admirable, the failure to draw the logical inference seems puzzling. Blacks today are just as racially different from whites of two generations ago as they are from whites today. Yet the data suggest that the number of questions that blacks answer correctly on IQ tests today is very similar to the number answered correctly by past generations of whites. If race A differs from race B in IQ, and two generations of race A differ from each other by the same amount, where is the logic in suggesting that the IQ differences are even partly racial?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Einherjar86
It isn't really what you just said. I'm saying the improvement could be indeterminate. You're saying there's a hereditary limit. The point of Wahlsten's article is that heredity imposes no necessary limit.

Can you quote/describe the portion that mentions how he determined that there is no hereditary limit on intelligence? He cites adoption studies as one example in the abstract, but several studies have come out since then showing that identical twins have more correlated IQs than a child with an adoptive sibling. All he seems to say is that adoption/upbringing can influence intelligence, which as I've said multiple times now is obviously true, just not necessarily the most important factor determining an upper limit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dak