"...we’ve become so completely used to accepting the idea that the state should manage the lives of whole sections of society, it does not take a logical leap to accept eugenics."The therapeutic state is powerful enough to implement useful eugenic policy. John Glad's pamphlet also makes a good case for an eco-friendly eugenics that encourages the intelligent and altruistic individuals (i.e., liberals) to breed. I predict the left will embrace eugenics right after Half Sigma is is sworn in as a Supreme court justice. They have the way but not the will.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Leftist Eugenics
Ed West, a blogger for the London Telegraph, is predicting that left will eventually turn to eugenics. He focuses on environmental issues and does not mention a the heritability for favorable traits but he does make one good point
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I don't know. Read Hunt and Carlson's: "Considerations Relating to the Study of Group Differences in Intelligence (2007)."
They argue that the B-W difference in IQ is so socially important that if it turns out to be genetic, society should turn to genetic engineering for a solution.
When I read that I though WTF? So you would engineer Blacks to have the same IQ, on average, as Whites. What about the low IQ whites? -- would you ban them from genetically raising their IQs so to keep the proportionality?
Then I took a walk. And during that walk I decided that quite a few people are irrationally obsessed with Black/White equality. And that it was my duty to tell them the truth about Santa Claus -- and make them deal with it before they could avoid dealing with it.
So...yes, I could see vouchers for Black people handed out by our national healthcare system.
Two unrelated notes:
1. Take a look at this: "Ang et al., 2009. The Flynn Effect within subgroups in the U.S.: Gender, race, income, education, and urbanization differences in the NLSY-Children data"
The Flynn effect sure looks like a (not implausible) "X-factor" across generations. This further substantiates my argument contra Flynn.
2. I found some nice regression towards the mean data:
Murray, 1999. The Secular Increase in IQ and Longitudinal Changes in the Magnitude of the Black-White Difference: Evidence from the NLSY
Let me ask -- in your mind, does genetic regression imply an additive model? By my thinking it would -- or at least it would argue against an active GE model. I fail to see why inheriting half of some IQ increasing studious genes would happen to lead an offspring to spend near half the amount of time studying to give close to the prediction midparent score as predicted by an additive model.I really don't understand regression though -- which is why I ask.
They argue that the B-W difference in IQ is so socially important that if it turns out to be genetic, society should turn to genetic engineering for a solution.
Considering that a very large part of the genome apparently influences intelligence, and the same genes probably affect other traits as well, engineering blacks to have equal IQs to whites would in all likelihood mean turning black people into almost white people -- both behaviorally and appearance-wise.
OA,
"So...yes, I could see vouchers for Black people handed out by our national healthcare system." But would they make blacks use them?
"Let me ask -- in your mind, does genetic regression imply an additive model?" Mathematically, linear correlation between two variables does result in regression to the mean so I would agree with your statement.
As for FE, I have seen work by Wicherts et. al. that makes me wonder, I am working on a post on that. Ang's article found an interaction on one of three tests so it could be spurious. What was your FE argument?
"As for FE, I have seen work by Wicherts et. al. that makes me wonder, I am working on a post on that. Ang's article found an interaction on one of three tests so it could be spurious. What was your FE argument?"
Makes you wonder about what? Flynn offered a GE model for IQ (and group differences.). He argued that the IQ paradox makes this probable. My thinking is that:
1) IQ (g) and its endophenotypes shows no secular rise -
-Undercutting the force of the argument from IQ paradox
2) endophenotypes are uncorrelated with environment
-undercutting an active GE model
3) There are no significant |t1-t2| correlations (t1 + t2)/2. And the relation between first degree relatives and MZ twins is as predicted by an additive model
undercutting the any significant GE
argument for IQ (g)
I wonder if IQ measured over time is measurement invariant. Does an IQ of 100 in 1920 mean the same thing as an IQ of 100 in 2010.
"I wonder if IQ measured over time is measurement invariant. Does an IQ of 100 in 1920 mean the same thing as an IQ of 100 in 2010."
Yes and difficult to say. As for yes, an IQ of 100 then and now represents an IQ at the 50 percentile.
As for difficult to say,
IQ, unlike reaction time or cortical thickness , is not measured on an absolute scale. It's measured on a populations relative scale.
Agreed, but if you could travel in time an take a cohort of IQ 100s from the 1920s how would behave now? Like people with IQ of a 100 or like people with an IQ of 70.
"Agreed, but if you could travel in time an take a cohort of IQ 100s from the 1920s how would behave now? Like people with IQ of a 100 or like people with an IQ of 70."
Neither. Again, software and hardware. People today -- in the West -- with an IQ of 70 are mostly people with low "g." They have been exposed to the same ideas as people with an IQ of 100, but process them slowly. People 100 years ago likely had the same "g," but were working with a different software. In a way I guess they would behave like someone with an IQ of 70 -- but just for that specific type of process.
"Agreed, but if you could travel in time an take a cohort of IQ 100s from the 1920s how would behave now? Like people with IQ of a 100 or like people with an IQ of 70."
You might find this interesting: "
An additional way to address reverse causation is to see whether old estimates of national average IQ do a good job predicting current GDP. Using the raw LV IQ and GDP data included in Sailer (2004), the correlation between pre-1960 national average IQ estimates and log 1998 PPP-adjusted real GDP per worker is 0.83, essentially the same as the 0.82 found in the full LV (2002) sample (N=18 countries, 21 tests, multiple observations from every inhabited continent except Australia (one test only)). That these pre-1960 IQ tests—dating as far back as 1914 for the U.S. and 1933 for Guinea--should predict 1998 productivity so well is quite astonishing. Extending to pre-1970 and pre-1980 IQ tests yield similar strong results. Old IQ tests are extremely useful for predicting a nation’s present-day worker productivity, perhaps as useful as the old measures of “social capability,” (i.e., media penetration) used by Temple and Johnson (1998)"
From: IQ in the Production Function: Evidence from Immigrant Earnings
Clarification about GE interactions and IQ. I added this to my discussion of the H^2 hypothesis -- since there seems to be some confusion on this matter (no doubt artfully sowed):
"There are two types of GE interactions. The first involves non-additive genetics. When it comes to the IQ wars, environmentalists hold out for the possibility of this. With non additive GE:
"What constitutes a good environment for one genotype in terms of the development of the phenotype may constitute a bad environment for some other genotype in terms of the development of the phenotype OR Environmental advantage, through acting in some phenotypic direction for all genotypes may have unequal phenotypic effects on different phenotypes"
This is the type of GE that I’m maintaining plays an insignificant role in the heritability of IQ. The second type of GE involves additive genetics. With this type of GE, environmental differences interact with the heritability of a trait, such that poor environments can depress heritability and rich environments can increase heritability. This is the type of GE that is commonly found. What one notices is that with age the h^2 if IQ for impoverished kids nonetheless increases. My guess would be that by adulthood no gene-environment interaction of this sort is found. Whatever the case, this type of GE is irrelevant to the B-W differences.
Post a Comment