This makes sense to me Simon, as far as it goes, but to conclude that because a couple of key characters were frauds that means no one dares explore the subject again does not make sense to me. Pure sciences like physics and astronomy have had their fair share of frauds. But academics in that sector did not conclude that therefore they shouldn't try to do any more astronomy. The reason for avoiding the subject is not because there were some frauds in the past but because it is socially unacceptable to believe IQ maybe racially distributed.
I think that there was already, in the 1970s, a desire to ditch the idea of inherited intelligence and the implication which went with the idea. Burt's fall from grace simply provided a goo opportunity to trash the whole idea.
I am reminded of the book "the Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker. In it, he details the lives of identical twins, separated at birth and each brought-up ignorant of the other, in very different socio-economic circumstances. They each became concert pianists. Thus Pinker favours Nature over Nurture.
Although Pinker slyly avoids taking a position on race differences in intelligence, offering weak environmental hypotheses about the causes of iq differences.
I knew Professor Hearnshaw, as he was a colleague at Liverpool University. He was devastated when he discovered Burt's apparent dishonesty. However, a friend of mine who is an educational psychologist tells me that there is some evidence that the two researchers did exist.
Seems to me that European and Africans have many biological differences - these are no doubt due to different environments which have impacted on our evolution along with Europeans and Asians also having a mix of Neanderthal genes and Denisovan in the case of Asians - why, given these basic facts, would we expect intelligence to be the same across races when other inherited characteristics are not.
Ive always thought that both upbringing and enviornment as well as genetics were almost equally important. obviously you have to start with good material to have a good start from wich to grow anything, wether it be brains and intellegence, or soil and plants to produce food. Both the physical structure and the inputs are important. Also, intelligence is a tricky thing to describe and acess. someone in one culture and place may be deemed by one people as very smart, while transplanted into another they may be seen as next to useless. place matters, culture matters, class matters, schooling and the students efforts to learn, all matter. I've also looked at the physical conditions in wich some groups of peoples are brought up. if you have lead pipes, lead paint chippings on the floor, lack of good nutrition, abuse both physical and mental and then exposure to drugs and or alcohol, you can see that the cards may be stacked against an individual from the begining. Even still, people can, with help, rise above their origins. Their are definite deiffernces between peoples and groups, race is a bit outdated as a term and idea, but certainly we need a way to lump together peoples so as to study them. The most diverse people on earth reside on the African continent. because this is the oldest human population. All one has to do is look at the Khosan and compare them to say Bantus, and you can see huge differences. Also Pygmies and Berbers. We need to stop thinking of all africans as one group, it is unscientific, damaging and terribly unhealpfull to everyone. Anyways, thanks for the great read Simon Webb, I always enjoy your ideas and musings on any subject, I hope you have many years to come doing more of the same, this world needs your analysees. Me especially, I enjoy very few things more than watching your videos and reading your writings right now. I wish I'd discovered you earlier in your history career! Oh P.s. just an aside, have you ever seen or read anything to do with the book called, "The River?" About the possible origin of the AIDS epidemic in the Congo? There is a fascinating video on youtube with the author and its right up your alley intellectually speaking.
A correspondent on the History Debunked YouTube channel pointed me to the book "Science, Ideology, and the Media" by Ronald Fletcher, Transaction Publisher, 1991. This is a thorough investigation of the (alleged) scandal that completely exonerates Burt. I have read the book and found it convincing.
The study of intelligence in the modern era is being hampered by political correctness. Much as the study of science in general was hampered by religion in the past. The potential problem with relating differences in IQ to race is that it will likely lead to some pretty unpleasant attitudes, as well as some potentially negative outcomes for those groups who are deemed to have a lower IQ. Maybe there is a good argument to be made for keeping certain “truths” hidden.
Is this article part of a book? The author states:
In the last chapter we considered the devastating effect which the Holocaust had upon discussions in the western world about the two topics of race and eugenics.
It is part of an unpublished book of mine. I have had around a hundred books published, ranging from academic stuff on education, to pulp westerns. I thought this one might be better in the public domain though, for free.
The human genome has been mapped and no genes for intelligence have been found. Intelligence comes from the individual human spirit, not the genetic composition of their bodies. The views of Burt etc are thus nothing more than a materialistic misdiagnosis.
Really, so have genes for intelligence now been found? I would appreciate knowing more about why you consider my comments are 'nonsense', providing some evidence on this.
Partly environmental factors, but mainly the character and experience gained from previous lives. The essential component of humans is spirit, sometimes referred to a mind, and it is eternal, whereas our bodies are temporary abodes during our lifetimes. Thus intelligence cannot be inherited from our parents. I know you take a different view, but on this issue you should try to 'think outside the box' a bit more and not embrace the materialistic assumptions of Prof Dawkins, whose pronouncements receive very little pushback in our conformist society.
So the musical genius of Mozart or the scientific genius of Newton derive from their "human spirits"? Since specific genes have not been identified, therefore they cannot exist? What decides who gets these exceptional spirits? God?
This makes sense to me Simon, as far as it goes, but to conclude that because a couple of key characters were frauds that means no one dares explore the subject again does not make sense to me. Pure sciences like physics and astronomy have had their fair share of frauds. But academics in that sector did not conclude that therefore they shouldn't try to do any more astronomy. The reason for avoiding the subject is not because there were some frauds in the past but because it is socially unacceptable to believe IQ maybe racially distributed.
I think that there was already, in the 1970s, a desire to ditch the idea of inherited intelligence and the implication which went with the idea. Burt's fall from grace simply provided a goo opportunity to trash the whole idea.
Bingo, pay the man.
I am reminded of the book "the Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker. In it, he details the lives of identical twins, separated at birth and each brought-up ignorant of the other, in very different socio-economic circumstances. They each became concert pianists. Thus Pinker favours Nature over Nurture.
Although Pinker slyly avoids taking a position on race differences in intelligence, offering weak environmental hypotheses about the causes of iq differences.
I knew Professor Hearnshaw, as he was a colleague at Liverpool University. He was devastated when he discovered Burt's apparent dishonesty. However, a friend of mine who is an educational psychologist tells me that there is some evidence that the two researchers did exist.
Seems to me that European and Africans have many biological differences - these are no doubt due to different environments which have impacted on our evolution along with Europeans and Asians also having a mix of Neanderthal genes and Denisovan in the case of Asians - why, given these basic facts, would we expect intelligence to be the same across races when other inherited characteristics are not.
Ive always thought that both upbringing and enviornment as well as genetics were almost equally important. obviously you have to start with good material to have a good start from wich to grow anything, wether it be brains and intellegence, or soil and plants to produce food. Both the physical structure and the inputs are important. Also, intelligence is a tricky thing to describe and acess. someone in one culture and place may be deemed by one people as very smart, while transplanted into another they may be seen as next to useless. place matters, culture matters, class matters, schooling and the students efforts to learn, all matter. I've also looked at the physical conditions in wich some groups of peoples are brought up. if you have lead pipes, lead paint chippings on the floor, lack of good nutrition, abuse both physical and mental and then exposure to drugs and or alcohol, you can see that the cards may be stacked against an individual from the begining. Even still, people can, with help, rise above their origins. Their are definite deiffernces between peoples and groups, race is a bit outdated as a term and idea, but certainly we need a way to lump together peoples so as to study them. The most diverse people on earth reside on the African continent. because this is the oldest human population. All one has to do is look at the Khosan and compare them to say Bantus, and you can see huge differences. Also Pygmies and Berbers. We need to stop thinking of all africans as one group, it is unscientific, damaging and terribly unhealpfull to everyone. Anyways, thanks for the great read Simon Webb, I always enjoy your ideas and musings on any subject, I hope you have many years to come doing more of the same, this world needs your analysees. Me especially, I enjoy very few things more than watching your videos and reading your writings right now. I wish I'd discovered you earlier in your history career! Oh P.s. just an aside, have you ever seen or read anything to do with the book called, "The River?" About the possible origin of the AIDS epidemic in the Congo? There is a fascinating video on youtube with the author and its right up your alley intellectually speaking.
A correspondent on the History Debunked YouTube channel pointed me to the book "Science, Ideology, and the Media" by Ronald Fletcher, Transaction Publisher, 1991. This is a thorough investigation of the (alleged) scandal that completely exonerates Burt. I have read the book and found it convincing.
The study of intelligence in the modern era is being hampered by political correctness. Much as the study of science in general was hampered by religion in the past. The potential problem with relating differences in IQ to race is that it will likely lead to some pretty unpleasant attitudes, as well as some potentially negative outcomes for those groups who are deemed to have a lower IQ. Maybe there is a good argument to be made for keeping certain “truths” hidden.
Yes, it is almost impossible to carry out objective research now.
Is this article part of a book? The author states:
In the last chapter we considered the devastating effect which the Holocaust had upon discussions in the western world about the two topics of race and eugenics.
How can I find this "last chapter" etc?
It is part of an unpublished book of mine. I have had around a hundred books published, ranging from academic stuff on education, to pulp westerns. I thought this one might be better in the public domain though, for free.
The human genome has been mapped and no genes for intelligence have been found. Intelligence comes from the individual human spirit, not the genetic composition of their bodies. The views of Burt etc are thus nothing more than a materialistic misdiagnosis.
This is nonsense.
Really, so have genes for intelligence now been found? I would appreciate knowing more about why you consider my comments are 'nonsense', providing some evidence on this.
You seem to be saying that intelligence is not inherited at all and is all due to environmental factors, is that right?
Partly environmental factors, but mainly the character and experience gained from previous lives. The essential component of humans is spirit, sometimes referred to a mind, and it is eternal, whereas our bodies are temporary abodes during our lifetimes. Thus intelligence cannot be inherited from our parents. I know you take a different view, but on this issue you should try to 'think outside the box' a bit more and not embrace the materialistic assumptions of Prof Dawkins, whose pronouncements receive very little pushback in our conformist society.
Man, lay off the LSD.
So the musical genius of Mozart or the scientific genius of Newton derive from their "human spirits"? Since specific genes have not been identified, therefore they cannot exist? What decides who gets these exceptional spirits? God?
Thank you for your question which is a good one. Please see the response I have given to Simon Webb which provides the answer.
Is there a reliable study available on the IQ of the different tribes of the aboriginal people of Australia and New Guinea?
Please don't burn my house down for asking.
Robert Plomin's book Blueprint on genetic research ponts to a high degree of heritability of IQ. Not in the 80s but certainly in the 60%s.