Genetics

[MNRfan]

What is the Objectivist stance on the nature vs. nurture debate? I understand that free will is primal, but does this necessarily mean that a person is not born with greater abilities and aptitudes in some areas than in others? And if a person is born with such greater attributes, would the differences be only due to prenatal environmental factors, or possibly to genetic causes? How does this effect free will?

Edited December 27, 2005 by MNRfan

[DavidOdden]

What is the Objectivist stance on the nature vs. nurture debate? I understand that free will is primal, but does this necessarily mean that a person is not born with greater abilities and aptitudes in some areas than in others? And if a person is born with such greater attributes, would the differences be only due to prenatal environmental factors, or possibly to genetic causes? How does this effect free will?

It is undeniable that adults have different abilities in one area vs. another, but I don't think that "ability" is the right work to use to describe thing about a newborn. I have the ability to speak English and drive a car, but I did not have that ability at birth. I do not have the ability to actually speak Saami, but I think I have the faculty to learn it. The Objectivist stance on this matter is that man is not born with any built-in knowledge or ideas, but we do have the faculty for doing lots of things. There is no Objectivist stance on the fine-grained details of how to learn, for example Rand did not set forth a philosophy of how to learn a language as an adult. It is really a scientific question, and not a philosophical question, whether there are any physical facts about individuals which determine whether it is easy to discriminate two particular sounds (we know that hearing problems can make such discriminations impossible, which means with such a hearing problem you will be less able to learn certain languages). Color-blindness might make you less capable in certain artistic domains; smell-blindness would make you a crummy wine connoisseur. It's a matter of nature and nurture, and I don't believe that there is anyone (anywhere) who seriously believes that (1) a male can learn to lactate or (2) a person can just fall into knowing calculus without learning it.

[Unconquered]

What is the Objectivist stance on the nature vs. nurture debate? I understand that free will is primal, but does this necessarily mean that a person is not born with greater abilities and aptitudes in some areas than in others? And if a person is born with such greater attributes, would the differences be only due to prenatal environmental factors, or possibly to genetic causes? How does this effect [sic: should be affect] free will?

Nobody is born with any ability beyond basic biological functions. That's the first thing to grasp.

Beyond that, it is clear that for at least some goals, you need the right genetic mix to achieve them. If you're a short 5'6" man, you can forget about playing basketball professionally, no matter how hard you want to play. But growing to 6'10" won't make you a pro basketball player either. It would provide one of the elements, but a very strong will to learn and play the game, which are aspects of free will and consciousness, have to be there too.

I think it's probable that some people simply have brains that perform better than others, as well - better at providing consciousness with memory storage and recall, and so forth. That will have a deep impact on the kinds of goals that people can achieve.

Overall however, free will and associated elements of consciousness (motivation, mental energy, etc.), and rational thinking, play a far greater role than is generally acknowledged today. The children taught in Marva Collins' school, who came from the worst ghettos in Chicago and ended up surpassing the best other schools in the country, is a testimonial to that.

[Hal]

Nobody is born with any ability beyond basic biological functions. That's the first thing to grasp.

I dont think thats a philosophical matter. Some Chomskian nativists argue that a child will naturally acquire a language in the same way that a bird will 'acquire' the ability to fly, and while this might be either true or false, the question of which is not something that can be deduced from purely philosophical principles independently of empirical evidence. If animals can be born with certain hard-wired abilities, theres no obvious reason why humans cant.

Philosophically, I think that all that can be said is that people are born without innate concepts. Everything else is properly speaking a matter of science.

Edited December 28, 2005 by Hal

[DavidOdden]

I dont think thats a philosophical matter. Some Chomskian nativists argue that a child will naturally acquire a language in the same way that a bird will 'acquire' the ability to fly, and while this might be either true or false, the question of which is not something that can be deduced from purely philosophical principles independently of empirical evidence. If animals can be born with certain hard-wired abilities, theres no obvious reason why humans cant.

That's a kind of bad analogy, since no Chomskian nativist that I've ever encountered (which is not all of them, but plenty of them) would say this, except in a completely unthinking moment of slogan-flinging. Flying and walking are analogous, and human language and chaffinch song are (weakly) analogous. Walking is "built in" but dependent on physical maturation, and requires no external stimulus. Language OTOH has to be learned from what is around you (just as chaffinch song has to be learned), a fact which not even the most rabid nativist would deny. The only real question (which is indeed a scientific question) is whether man has a specialised faculty for language, or does he simply use a general faculty of learning and reason to acquire language (as well as social and survival skills).

[Hal]

Ok, fair point.

[Eternal]

In my opinion genetics play a big role when it comes not only to physical abilities, but mental as well. You can only live up to your full potential, and not a bit beyond that.

Here's a paper I saw on the topic:

http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/r...npdfs/PPPL1.pdf

It mentions the following correlation between IQ and groups:

Blacks: 85

Latino: 89

White: 103

Asian: 106

Jewish: 113

Some may dismiss the statistic as racist, but that is what I have pretty much experienced first-hand both in school and at work. It also nicely explains why Jewish community tends to be quite successful, while on the other hand, my welfare money ends up in pockets of those 'less fortunate'...

[gags]

Eternal, I didn't read the entire paper by Rushton & Jensen, but I wonder about their findings.

For example, given that Arabs and Jews are racially similar (they're both Semitic peoples), do Arabs score as high on the IQ tests as Jews? My hunch would be that they do not. Another hunch would be that cultural differences (nurture) explain these things more than racial differences. Another example would be blacks who are recent immigrants from Africa tend to do much better economically than blacks who have been in this country for generations. Why? They are both from the same race..... but one group embraces a culture of hard work and self-improvement while the other embraces Kanye West and 50 Cent.

These types of objections may be addressed in the paper, I just don't have the time to read the entire thing.

Edited December 29, 2005 by gags

[NewYorkRoark]

It may also be affected by the economic standing in which children of each race are born into. Assuming the study was conducted on a national-basis, I would bet that the same ranking (or something similar) could be used to show wealth distribution. For instance, it may be the case that Jews have higher IQ's than blacks because they are far wealthier. More wealth allows parents to offer their children a better education (not only a better education, but also access to "mental stimulants" like Adderall ( http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...ndpost&p=104339 ) ).

If this is the case, a few other questions arise:

Why are Jews wealthier than blacks?

Which came first, IQ or wealth?

I'm really no expert - but I believe (or I should say - I've heard) that part of the reason Jews are wealthier is that they were able to work as bankers while Christians were prohibited from dealing with money (or something along those lines). This put Jews largely in control of moneylending and in a very powerful economic position, ultimately leading to the economic situations which enabled Hollywood, real estate investments, etc. Thus Jews became wealthy and (when combined with the nurture aspect - a culture that values hard work) wealthy Jews became wealthier, ultimately leading to higher levels and qualities of education.

Note: I've googled this and found very few reliable sources and a bunch of anti-semetic propoganda. I can't validate this assertion.

On the other hand, the lack of wealth in the black community is probably partly due to the fact that slavery ended only 150 years ago. This was (obviously) an economic depressant. Combined with cultural values (one that does not seem to value hard work as much as the Jewish culture), Black Americans have had a difficult time accumulating wealth and therefore, a difficult time accessing high-quality educations.

In conclusion:

Cultural Values (Work Ethic, Intelligence, Etc.) + Economic History / Significance (Religious Impediments / Catalysts, Political Impediments / Catalysts, Etc.) [+ Genetics (possibly)] = IQ

Edited December 29, 2005 by softwareNerd

[Eternal]

Another example would be blacks who are recent immigrants from Africa tend to do much better economically than blacks who have been in this country for generations. Why?

Again - I'm basing things on my personal observations, but the reason immigrants (this goes for all races) tend to do much better than their counterparts is the fact that you have to be quite resorceful and determined in order to immigrate here. More often than not, your average Joe Shmoe with a low IQ, doesn't have what it takes to get here, so in a way you're sampling only the best. Those people succeed, despite the fact that they start with nothing, and have a language barrier to conquer.

[gags]

What you say about immigrants is likely true. I wonder about the Arab vs. Jew issue. They're both Semitic races, yet I believe one would outperform the other in terms of IQ.

[DavidOdden]

Eternal, I didn't read the entire paper by Rushton & Jensen, but I wonder about their findings.

Those findings are actually from the book The Bell Curve by Hernstein & Murray, 1994. The obvious thing to do (which I haven't done, and prolly won't do) is look at their methodology for reaching the conclusion, especially when they control economic variables -- i.e. see whether upper middle-class blacks score worse than lower class Jews. There is a huge industry of addressing that book, also Jenkins' research.

[Eternal]

What you say about immigrants is likely true. I wonder about the Arab vs. Jew issue. They're both Semitic races, yet I believe one would outperform the other in terms of IQ.

If Arabs and Jews do have identical genetic makeup - then it would certainly be a case for culture, over genetics.

Although I believe that genetics affect culture, the opposite must be true as well (given enough time). So I think the question really comes down what came first.

Perhaps the fact that Arabs are chained down by Islam, prevents them from reaching their presumably superior potential. Or maybe the fact that this cultural obstacle has been affecting them for so long, led to the gradual loss of the genetic superiority (if you don't use it - you lose it).

Who would grow up to be more intelligent? A Black baby raised by a Jewish family, or an Arab baby raised by the same Jewish family?

Edited December 30, 2005 by Eternal

[JMeganSnow]

If Arabs and Jews do have identical genetic makeup - then it would certainly be a case for culture, over genetics.

IIRC we're something like 98% genetically "identical" to chimpanzees.

Yet no two people are genetically "identical". So how exactly is that term used?

[DavidOdden]

Although I believe that genetics affect culture, the opposite must be true as well (given enough time). So I think the question really comes down what came first.

Perhaps the fact that Arabs are chained down by Islam, prevents them from reaching their presumably superior potential.

Let's just take this issue. The standard but factually false view is that all Arabs are Muslim, just like all Europeans are Christian and all Indians are Hindu. In fact there are significant exceptions to the generalization. There is an entire Arab country where that is not the case, namely Malta which is almost exclusively Catholic. AFAIK all of the Arabs on Cyprus are Maronite Christians. Lebanon is 40% Christian, Syria is 10% Xian, there's a good 5% of Jordan that's Xish, about 7% of Egypt is Xer and so on. Obviously, the way to test these race/culture claims is to do some proper research that actually controls the variables. Until someone bothers to do a decent study on the subject, it seems to me totally pointless to conjecture about supposed correlations between culture or race and intelligence. GWB is a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant moron; Thomas Sowell is a brilliant black; Abdus Salam, a Pakistani Muslim who won the Nobel Prize was a genius; Nazir Ahmed, another Pakistani Muslim and the most famous Pakistani of today, was a bloody moron (he slit the throats of his 3 daughters and his step-daughter).

In my experience, neither race nor culture have any connection with intelligence. Culture has something to do with IQ testing, mostly whether you have any idea what to do with these tests.

[Eternal]

In my experience, neither race nor culture have any connection with intelligence. Culture has something to do with IQ testing, mostly whether you have any idea what to do with these tests.

So should we dismiss the fact that out of all 750 Nobel Prize winners, 158 were Jewish as a mere coincidence?

[softwareNerd]

So should we dismiss the fact that out of all 750 Nobel Prize winners, 158 were Jewish as a mere coincidence?

I doubt it is coincidence. Culture (as in values) is the cause, not genes.

[DavidOdden]

So should we dismiss the fact that out of all 750 Nobel Prize winners, 158 were Jewish as a mere coincidence?

No, we should explain it based on Yeshiva, where they get rigorous mental training.

[DavidOdden]

So should we dismiss the fact that out of all 750 Nobel Prize winners, 158 were Jewish as a mere coincidence?

I shouldn't have given you a pass on that question. Of course we should. Do you have an argument that it isn't one? Like, is there something significant about the number 158? Now, if you want to ask whether it's a coincidence that Richard Feynman (who I understand was Jewish in some sense) won the Nobel Prize for work on quantum electrodynamics, I would say that it was deserved, although I'm not at all an expert in physics so I can't judge his research. But I understand that it was really good, and ground-breaking work. Does that answer your question?

[Eternal]

Do you have an argument that it isn't one? Like, is there something significant about the number 158?

A simple exercise:

(Jewish Population) / (World Population) = 14,596,017 / 6,430,856,221 = 0.227%

(Jewish Noble Prize Winners) / (World Noble Prize Winners) = 158 / 750 = 21.067%

Yup - you're right - there's no significance there at all...

[NewYorkRoark]

A simple exercise:

(Jewish Population) / (World Population) = 14,596,017 / 6,430,856,221 = 0.227%

(Jewish Noble Prize Winners) / (World Noble Prize Winners) = 158 / 750 = 21.067%

Yup - you're right - there's no significance there at all...

There's obviously significance... but the kind of significance you're referring to is not the kind in question. Those statistics don't tell you anything about why Jews have won more Nobel Prizes, just that Jews have won more.

[DavidOdden]

(Jewish Population) / (World Population) = 14,596,017 / 6,430,856,221 = 0.227%

(Jewish Noble Prize Winners) / (World Noble Prize Winners) = 158 / 750 = 21.067%

I see -- this is based on the "proportional diversity" theory, that for any way of characterising the population of the world, you expect any subset to be populationally propertional w.r.t. all other characteristics. Like, if blonde hair is your selection criterion and if people under 20 are 40% of the world's population, then you expect 40% of all blondes to be under 20. I think you've sandbagged the statistics a bit, because it would really be better to look not at world population, but the population of university professors (and related professions) in the areas that the prize is awarded in. The Nobel Prize is primarily given for achievement in research, and most researchers are in universities. So it would be more appropriate, if you want to argue that this is a significant number, to use "total number of Jewish professors" as your basis for comparison. As far as I know, the percentage of Jewish Nobel Prize winners is population-proportional to the Jewish population in academic positions in science, but maybe you have figures that indicate otherwise.

[AlexL]

In my opinion genetics play a big role when it comes not only to physical abilities, but mental as well.

[...]

correlation between IQ and groups:

Blacks: 85

[...]

Jewish: 113

The Jewish IQ in the US changed dramatically within one generation; for example, in 1915, the Jews from Russia averaged at about 85, according to Thomas Sowell's "Ethnic America", Chap. 4:

"As late as World War I, soldiers of Russian - mostly Jewish - origin averaged among the lowest mental test scores of any of the ethnic groups tested by the U.S. Army."

The 85 figure is from Sowell's "Race and Culture", chapt. 6

Alex

[Hal]

There is no basis for claiming that IQ tests measure 'intelligence', unless you want to simply define intelligence to be whatever it is that is measured by IQ testing. You cant really use IQ scores as a single value representing a person's "mental abilities", and use them to claim that one race is mentally superior to another. A high IQ isnt a better indicator of intelligence than (eg) being able to write decent poetry, or being able to survive in the wild.

edit: that isnt to say that the correlations between IQ and cultural/genetic factors arent interesting. There's obviously something that IQ tests are measuring, it just probably isnt what the word 'intelligence' means in standard English.

Edited December 31, 2005 by Hal

[Eternal]

As far as I know, the percentage of Jewish Nobel Prize winners is population-proportional to the Jewish population in academic positions in science, but maybe you have figures that indicate otherwise.

Then perhaps, there's something to be said why the members belonging to 0.227% of general population, make up over 20% of college faculty?