Rushton on BW IQ

[James Brody]

Daniel,

"There is a lot of unknowns in this field, and I don't pretend I know the answer to everything. But I do see a major fallacy in the logic employed by some of these professional studies. It basically goes like this: a phenomenon is observed in a given ethnic group (high IQ, passivity, etc), without knowing there is a cultural reason for it, researchers attribute it to genetics."


Thank you for the tone of your remarks and their content.

The opposite problem was with us for a long time but failed. That is, the social hypotheses spent a lot of money and optimism attempting to build "The Great Society."

On the one hand I "love" my culture (imprinting also does a lot without much recognition) but recognize that nearly every aspect of my culture can (plausibly) be traced back to biological preferences.

I think you will come, as I have, to an interactionist position. Of course, you will. Nothing else is defensible.

My own passion is to explore the biological piece because 1) of the substantially greater power of "nonshared" environments that we make for ourselves, 2) I just happen to like it!

Furthermore, the genes thing has lots of wind now...groups that hated genetics research in regard to educational outcome now demand more of it in regard to medical conditions that afflict their particular group. And when a "patch" is found for educational problems, long lines will form overnight by mothers insisting that their child is 1) genetically afflicted and 2) entitled to the fix. (I saw it happen with attention deficit and stimulant medications!)

My standard recommendation is that you spend time with Steve Pinker's "Blank Slate." You might also enjoy Jerry Kagan's (1994) Galen's Prophecy: Temperament in Human Nature. NY: Basic Books. Kagan started as a social learning fan but changed his mind when he worked with Oriental babies!

JimB