From: usenet@baradel.demon.co.uk
In message , Aqua
writes
>David Friedman wrote:
>> In article <1is8fkbsqtyc5$.1a0dg8vl3dac1.dlg@40tude.net>,
>> "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:04:38 +1000, Aqua
>>> wrote in
>>> in
>>> rec.arts.sf.misc:
>>>
>>>> Gerry Quinn wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> My objections are not to any rational critique of the role or
>>>>>methodology of IQ, but to propagandistic attemps to denigrate any
>>>>>attempt to study or discuss such matters, in the interest of a pre-
>>>>> developed politically correct thesis about human nature. Which is
>>>>>what you're doing, and why you can't propose any reasonable
>>>>>arguments.
>>>> Huh? Do you know _anything_ about cognitive science? IQ is old
>>>>science, 1950s at the latest. [...]
>>> It's even old science *fiction*: Wilmar H. Shiras' _Children
>>> of the Atom_ is the classic, but a lot of J.T. M'Intosh
>>> belongs here, and there are plenty more of that vintage.
>> On the other hand, most of the evidence of heritability is
>>considerably more recent than the 1950's. And that's a good deal of
>>what Aqua is trying to deny.
>
>You do know what "heritability" means, right? You do realise that the
>methods used to calculate heritability demonstrate that both accent and
>ZIP codes are heritable?
>
As a total non-expert, it seems to be that trying to separate out traits
that are heritable from those that are cultural is just about
impossible. Unless you postulate some sort of system where babies are
allocated randomly after birth instead of staying with the natural
parents. However though this might make a somewhat unlikely SF scenario,
in practice it is impossible and unethical.
Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
