One of the things I find difficult to discuss with fellow Liberals is the question of intelligence and its heritability. That observable differences in cognitive function may be no more than learned behavior, or a the most a product of childhood experience, seems to be one of the credos that today's Liberal must share at the risk of losing the label. Of course there is evidence to show that childhood deprivation of several kinds does affect the way one performs on IQ tests and perhaps in the experiences of life, but looking at people who are incontrovertibly brilliant it's hard to select parenting skills as the cause without looking silly. The result is often that people who have achieved great breakthroughs, often incomprehensible to the rest of us: people with great powers to analyze, calculate and create have their accomplishments explained by diligence or the willingness to work. That is something to which we can all aspire and fits into our cultural ethic
I heard in a movie trailer yesterday, that old and quite untrue saw "we only use 10% of our brains" which is patently untrue but survives by offering hope that, like J.N. Barrie's Wendy Darling, we too can aspire to great ability if we only try hard and truly believe. No matter how hard I try, I still cannot follow Einstein's math much less develop the ability to have worked it out myself.
But to preserve the ego: to preserve the hope of a possibility that we're not second or third rate, we analogize with other achievements. After all me can train to run farther or faster, to lift greater weights, to play sports better. We only have to use that latent 90%, to buy the "Baby Einstein" CD's and never mind the lack of evidence for success. We can decide that specific talents are not part of some greater measure of mental ability, and some remarkable ability to calculate or to write music might just be latent in all of us if we try harder. We might decide to see some physical ability as a compensatory type of intelligence to offset our other intellectual lacks and in fact that's a component or the " intelligence is learned behavior" school of Liberal thought. How brilliant must a Gibbon be, a squirrel, a bird!
But as I said, one risks ostracism by the trustees of conventional enlightenment by discussing, even in jest, such shibboleths as the genetic basis of intelligence, of racial features or even physical stature. What I'm saying is that by many measures, we Liberals are not the opposite of conservatives but just another variant. We too believe what is comfortable and what makes others comfortable with us and what is very uncomfortable to all good people is racism. I've heard it said many times that we cannot research certain things lest we play into the hands of racists or sexists or eugenicists and other miscreants. It's so much like that refrain from so many 20th century horror films: "there are things men were not meant to know."
And so we will ascribe that bell curve to other things. We will question, and perhaps rightly, the ability to test intelligence accurately, writing off vast differences in number crunching ability or short term memory or pattern recognition to cultural things, even when culture has little to do with those tests. We talk about 5% differences and ignore the 100% differences that can hardly be written off so easily and not only because we aspire to undeserved greatness, but because we're afraid others will misuse the data.
So it's interesting to see how we very conservative Liberals will see peer reviewed studies like the one in Current Biology that arrives at these conclusions:
•Individual differences in chimpanzee cognitive performance are heritable
•Cognitive traits found to be heritable show significant genetic correlations
•Sex and rearing history do not significantly influence cognitive performance
Will we decide that a biological basis for intelligence only pertains to modern Humans and not our immediate or more distant ancestors? Perhaps it will be decided that our ancestors learned to be sapient the way we learned to lose out body hair and gain larger brains. If not, we're going to have to learn to stop hiding and to address the real problems, the cultural and social and ethical problems of how we treat other people directly. We're gong to have to learn to separate all sorts of human variation from estimations of human worth, rights and dignity. That's far harder to do than to wear a blindfold and demand that others do as well.
My guess is that the "no scientific basis" will remain a strong political force despite any degree of sabotage by science because truly, there is no conservative more tenacious than a Liberal.
It is inherently wrong to assign any special intelligence to any race over any other. That and the fact that it's simply not true. Even if Chinese people did make better musicians than the Scots, there would never be any conclusive proof of that. Science has proven to be an equal opportunity employer. And, yes, it does boil down to a work ethic. My own success was not predicated on a playboy mentality. A strong work ethic is the only thing that matters from day to day in this life.
ReplyDeleteTell you one thing. I was smart enough to marry a beautiful queen who shares my interests in life.
Bottom line. It really doesn't matter exactly how smart you are if you care enough about life and other people to make a difference and be the best that you can be. There is a grain of truth in the liberal point-of-view, since the only people we are really talking about are the children of other successful liberals or the children of the wealthy.
It's all about loving other people and appreciating the gifts that we all possess. That said, children of poverty never have these advantages. Some may rise above the circumstances that life has dealt to them. Such is not the norm. Who had a longer life or more adoration, Duke Ellington or Billie Holliday?
I agree that it doesn't much matter how smart you are, how fast your mind works or how good your memory is when talking about our worth as human beings. Nobody cares whether Gandhi could do integral calculus in his sleep at the age of two or not..What I'm talking about is the kind of denial of science we like to say only the Right wing indulges in. If intelligence were not an inherited trait, then all animals would have equal intelligence. It's not possible for there not to be a genetic component to any brain function or heart function or any part of our physiognomy. Lamark was wrong and Darwin was right yet so may of us are willing to ignore that fact for fear of being labeled.
ReplyDeleteI'm not talking about race at all, just about the human race and variability of all human traits. I'm not talking nor do I care about any possible two or three point difference in IQ or even 10 or 15 -- levels that can be the result of envoronment, nutrition, etc. I'm talking about hundred plus point differences between individuals and agreeing with the data that indicates such differences are in the individual genome.
Mo matter how hard I try, I'm not going to be Einstein or Newton, or Mozart or, as much as I might practice, Duke Ellington and I'm never going to speak 23 languages fluently or more than a mediocre mathematician. and that has nothing to do with how I was raised or how wealthy or successful my parents were or weren't.
Science shows that cognitive ability, like size and pigment and the size of my nose, has a strong genetic component - otherwise I'd be as likely to look like your parents as you do. It's telling though, that when we liberals are forced to discuss human variability we get very uncomfortable and always start off by asserting that all people are the same. No matter how conclusive the science, how irrefutable the evidence -- we will cite anecdotes and tell stories about overcoming limitations. Perhaps I'll go further out on the limb and say something can be fundamentally, ethically or morally wrong, but factually right and nature does not owe us anything like fairness. If it did, I would be a lot taller and smarter and better looking.