Should there be research on the possibility of genetic differences underlying intelligence?

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes. It was similar to the papers that Pluckrose, Lindsay, and Boghossian submitted to cultural studies journals (See below).

Have you seen the "Postmodern Generator?" Each time you refresh the page it generates a meaningless paper using "postmodern" jargon and (fake) sources.
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship - Areo

Yeah, I've seen articles on this, and I even posted a vid from some gal who heads of a kind of scientific crack-force to vet out and address this problem in various areas of academia ...

Thanks for the links, especially for the 'Postmodern Generator.' That's a hoot!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not convinced that the inherent value of truth justifies just any kind of research. If potential negative outcomes vastly outweigh the positive (which I am definitely inclined to say is the case here), then it shouldn't be pursued. Should we create deadly viruses just to study them? Is the risk of the deadly virus being released or being reproduced by a bad actor worth the value of understanding? I would say it isn't.

I think I agree with this notion you're positing, but then we'd probably need to scrutinize the difference between the essence of 'Act X' with 'Act Y,' with X here being that of a deadly virus and Y being the genetic existence of human intelligence. We need to qualify the moral quality of as many nuances between X and Y as we can, because it could turn out that knowing something about the genetic make-up of human intelligence turns out to produce some beneficial effect for everyone (who knows)?

Socially speaking, and morally speaking, and in addition to the fine points you've made already, the caveat in what I've just said is that for research to be 'moral,' it also needs to be and remain open to the widest possible interlocution among groups for peer review and finer analyses. That way, we don't get something like the Nazis coming along and saying to the rest of the world, "We've uncoded it, and human intelligence is that and only that ... which WE say it is!!!"

So, for me, I think we can do this kind of research (i.e. research on the genetics of human intelligence) as long as it stays open to constant and never-ending revision and further scrutinizing. In the end, we might all find out that none of us can ever be intelligent enough to find out all there could be known about human intelligence ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm glad you brought this up. If you have read the comment section of the Daily Nous article, the issue of his motives comes up. The fact he has published in Quillette will be a mark against him for some. Here's another take on his motivations.

Nathan Cofnas - RationalWiki

Also, I wonder why a legitimate journal like Philosophical Quarterly would publish him? Surely, they know his history.

Well, they did say the following in the dailynous version of the article's contents:

Cofnas’ paper certainly adopts provocative positions on a host of issues related to race, genetics, and IQ. However, none of these positions are to be excluded from the current scientific and philosophical debates as long as they are backed up with logical argumentation and empirical evidence, and they deserve to be disputed rather than disparaged.
​

I'd say that I agree with them on that point, but I would just ADD that the subject matter always need to be transparent both politically and scientifically and open to constant further testing. On to the rest of the paper I go to read ... I would

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The journal Philosophical Psychology has published an article by graduate student Nathan Cofnas titled "Research on group differences in intelligence: A defense of free inquiry." The publication of the article is receiving pushback and a petition has been started that objects to the publication. The main concern is that either the research is itself racist, or if it is found that genetics contribute to differences in intelligence then such research will encourage racism. Those in support of such research, while acknowledging the dangers, argue for the intrinsic value of truth and utilitarian reasons to value free inquiry.

Article abstract: In a very short time, it is likely that we will identify many of the genetic variants underlying individual differences in intelligence. We should be prepared for the possibility that these variants are not distributed identically among all geographic populations, and that this explains some of the phenotypic differences in measured intelligence among groups. However, some philosophers and scientists believe that we should refrain from conducting research that might demonstrate the (partly) genetic origin of group differences in IQ. Many scholars view academic interest in this topic as inherently morally suspect or even racist. The majority of philosophers and social scientists take it for granted that all population differences in intelligence are due to environmental factors. The present paper argues that the widespread practice of ignoring or rejecting research on intelligence differences can have unintended negative consequences. Social policies predicated on environmentalist theories of group differences may fail to achieve their aims. Large swaths of academic work in both the humanities and social sciences assume the truth of environmentalism and are vulnerable to being undermined. We have failed to work through the moral implications of group differences to prepare for the possibility that they will be shown to exist.

The article is open access. Links below to the article, a write-up in Daily Nous, and the petition at Change.org.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2019.1697803?src=recsys
Scholars Object to Publication of Paper Defending Race Science - Daily Nous
Signez la pétition


Thoughts and concerns?

Ok. Now for a small counter-measure. One of the 'detractors' who has spoken against Cofnas paper here is philosopher Mark Alfano.

Now, like we did for Nathan Cofnas, let's look at who Mark Alfano is and what his philosophical leanings might be:

About — Mark Alfano

 

[public hermit]

Ok. Now for a small counter-measure. One of the 'detractors' who has spoken against Cofnas paper here is philosopher Mark Alfano.

Now, like we did for Nathan Cofnas, let's look at who Mark Alfano is and what his philosophical leanings might be:

About — Mark Alfano

Actually I wouldn't mind reading Handbook on Humility. I'm a fan of both Tanesini and Lynch.

The political and philosophical leanings of both of these individuals aside, I think the risk is too great to justify this kind of research. I didn't hold that position at the outset of posting this thread. I initially checked "I am unsure." But after reading his paper, considering the unlikely probability of isolating the genes underlying intelligence, and considering the issues related to even defining intelligence, I find the negative of encouraging racist ideas too significant by comparison.

I find the general idea of saying "such and such" should not be researched repulsive. I'm a freedom loving person. But, the devil is in the details. The pragmatic side of me says it's a bad idea and the idealistic side of me agrees. So, surprisingly, we all agree in this instance. Sometimes everybody on the committee in my mind gets on board.

 

[MoreQuestions]

I'd be more interested in a source, since those are beautiful bell curves, but I don't think that's real world data.

If you have already decided that it's not real world data there is no point in me digging out sources.
Do you know how to research these things?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If you have already decided that it's not real world data there is no point in me digging out sources.
Do you know how to research these things?

Even in "Ethics and Morality" it seems that most people have already decided, and no source will change their minds.... they must desire the truth, and seek the truth, to have a good effect in their lives vs continuing in any error they might have previously been taught and accepted.

 

[public hermit]

Even in "Ethics and Morality" it seems that most people have already decided, and no source will change their minds.... they must desire the truth, and seek the truth, to have a good effect in their lives vs continuing in any error they might have previously been taught and accepted.

Well, don't let cynicism win the day. After thoughtful consideration, I changed my mind from being unsure to a definite no. Nontheless, if someone can show that the utility and benefit of this kind of research clearly outweighs the possibilty of supporting racism, then I'll change my mind again.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Rather than men as a source, instead of mankind's/society's research (so-called), there is a better way>

biblehub.com › ephesians

Ephesians 4:14 Then we will no longer be infants ... - Bible Hub

New International Version Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the ...
‎Ephesians 4:14 KJV · ‎Ephesians 4:14 ESV · ‎Ephesians 4:14 Commentaries
biblehub.com › kjv › ephesians

Ephesians 4:14 KJV: That we henceforth be no ... - Bible Hub

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby ...

 

[public hermit]

Rather than men as a source, instead of mankind's/society's research (so-called), there is a better way>

biblehub.com › ephesians

Ephesians 4:14 Then we will no longer be infants ... - Bible Hub
View attachment 270816
New International Version Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the ...
‎Ephesians 4:14 KJV · ‎Ephesians 4:14 ESV · ‎Ephesians 4:14 Commentaries
View attachment 270817biblehub.com › kjv › ephesians

Ephesians 4:14 KJV: That we henceforth be no ... - Bible Hub
View attachment 270818
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby ...

I'm sorry, are those passages directed at me because I took a reasoned approach to my consideration of this issue? If so, I consider it an honor to be ridiculed on that account.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'm sorry, are those passages directed at me because I took a reasoned approach to my consideration of this issue? If so, I consider it an honor to be ridiculed on that account.

Not ridiculed, and not for doing anything God Approves of.
Why would you consider it an honor to trust those opposed to God ?

 

[public hermit]

Not ridiculed, and not for doing anything God Approves of.
Why would you consider it an honor to trust those opposed to God ?

Jeff, you're just one more in a building line of folks on CF who have taken it upon themselves to question my faith, or to use some backhanded way of doing so. First, my level of concern about what others think about me is unsurprisingly low. I just don't care. Second, I will continue to be gracious and loving even to those who set themselves up as judge over me because surprisingly, I just dont care.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Is that right? Do you have a source?

Forgive me brother, just my little joke.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Do you know how to research these things?

Yes. Your artwork was very exaggerated.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Actually I wouldn't mind reading Handbook on Humility. I'm a fan of both Tanesini and Lynch.

The political and philosophical leanings of both of these individuals aside, I think the risk is too great to justify this kind of research. I didn't hold that position at the outset of posting this thread. I initially checked "I am unsure." But after reading his paper, considering the unlikely probability of isolating the genes underlying intelligence, and considering the issues related to even defining intelligence, I find the negative of encouraging racist ideas too significant by comparison.

I find the general idea of saying "such and such" should not be researched repulsive. I'm a freedom loving person. But, the devil is in the details. The pragmatic side of me says it's a bad idea and the idealistic side of me agrees. So, surprisingly, we all agree in this instance. Sometimes everybody on the committee in my mind gets on board.

I agree. But here's the trick I'm trying to insinuate here: By keeping the research open and fully transparent, then the kind of conclusions that would lead to racism, being that there'll also likely be found, as there often is, a boat-load of additional environmental, social, biological, and other mediating factors, probably won't reach the point of racist application through that research, especially with our hindsight that history has already given us after we've had to put up with the German Nazis.

Then, there's the whole other mediating, non-biological philosophical tangent that intermixes in all of this where we ask: what is human intelligence, what is it good for, and who gets to decide the standards that make for so-called "high intelligence"? I mean, just understanding the same kind of psycho-social bio-metrics that, say, the F.B.I. looks at should be a place to start to indicate that intelligence, all by itself----and with Kierkegaard in tow to buttress the imputation here----doesn't mean or guarantee that a person will be sane, fully rational, or even safe to be around.

What IF it turned out that not only are White people the most intelligent people on the planet, BUT they're also the most prone to psycho-pathic behaviors? Would we want to know that? What would we then do with that information? And in asking these biologically based philosophical questions, as controversial as they could be, I mean to imply that Reality (capital R), overall, has a strange way of upending human endeavors and undoing our most seemingly rational goals. The irony of human existence is that sometimes, we have to learn the hard way, and learn the hard way we do.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@public hermit, I rewrote the first paragraph in the post above since it wasn't coherent. Sorry for the confusion. I know it's hard to read my stuff sometimes ...

... if at anytime something I write just doesn't seem to be grammatically and syntactically coherent, please feel free to tell me so.

Anyway, I know you've come to your own conclusion, and I say can't I blame you. It is a controversial subject and one that should be handled with great care, if it's handled at all on a genetic level. I will say one thing additional before I finish with my little side of things: if at any time such genetics research on human intelligence overlaps or (God forbid!) amplifies the Transhumanist agenda, then for me, on that count, all bets are off.

 

[public hermit]

By keeping the research open and fully transparent, then the kind of conclusions that would lead to racism, being that there'll also likely be found, as there often is, a boat-load of additional environmental, social, biological, and other mediating factors, probably won't reach the point of racist application through that research, especially with our hindsight that history has already given us after we've had to put up with the German Nazis.

Yes, after @essentialsaltes offered some clarification on the probability of isolating the genetics underlying intelligence, I am inclined to think it's not likely to happen (any time soon?). And, as you point out, there are a number of other factors involved. I would like to think past experience would help us avoid the same pitfalls and failures of the past, but I'm not so sure about that. Each new generation seems to breed and nurture its own new batch of racists that are more than willing to carry the demonic torch of their predecessors.

what is human intelligence, what is it good for, and who gets to decide the standards that make for so-called "high intelligence"? I mean, just understanding the same kind of psycho-social bio-metrics that, say, the F.B.I. looks at should be a place to start to indicate that intelligence, all by itself----and with Kierkegaard in tow to buttress the imputation here----doesn't mean or guarantee that a person will be sane, fully rational, or even safe to be around.

Again, I agree. Who decides? Those in power? Is that too cynical? Maybe it is. Being intelligent, whatever that means, does not necessarily correlate with being good and gracious. My goodness Philo, if we keep agreeing like this, we're going to have to find something else to discuss.

What IF it turned out that not only are White people the most intelligent people on the planet, BUT they're also the most prone to psycho-pathic behaviors? Would we want to know that? What would we then do with that information? And in asking these biologically based philosophical questions, as controversial as they could be, I mean to imply that Reality (capital R), overall, has a strange way of upending human endeavors and undoing our most seemingly rational goals. The irony of human existence is that sometimes, we have to learn the hard way, and learn the hard way we do.

This is where I am open to changing my mind. If it can be shown that such research has clear utility and benefit, then I say we (Ha! Not "we" but those gifted folks who do such research) should go for it. Simple speculation on the possibility is not enough for me, at this point (not that what I think really matters). And, perhaps, there will be a future time when the vast majority of folks in our society will be reasonable and willing to approach these matters with a healthy dose of interest for the sake of the greater good, only. I don't know. I don't think that's today.

 

[Kaon]

The journal Philosophical Psychology has published an article by graduate student Nathan Cofnas titled "Research on group differences in intelligence: A defense of free inquiry." The publication of the article is receiving pushback and a petition has been started that objects to the publication. The main concern is that either the research is itself racist, or if it is found that genetics contribute to differences in intelligence then such research will encourage racism. Those in support of such research, while acknowledging the dangers, argue for the intrinsic value of truth and utilitarian reasons to value free inquiry.

Article abstract: In a very short time, it is likely that we will identify many of the genetic variants underlying individual differences in intelligence. We should be prepared for the possibility that these variants are not distributed identically among all geographic populations, and that this explains some of the phenotypic differences in measured intelligence among groups. However, some philosophers and scientists believe that we should refrain from conducting research that might demonstrate the (partly) genetic origin of group differences in IQ. Many scholars view academic interest in this topic as inherently morally suspect or even racist. The majority of philosophers and social scientists take it for granted that all population differences in intelligence are due to environmental factors. The present paper argues that the widespread practice of ignoring or rejecting research on intelligence differences can have unintended negative consequences. Social policies predicated on environmentalist theories of group differences may fail to achieve their aims. Large swaths of academic work in both the humanities and social sciences assume the truth of environmentalism and are vulnerable to being undermined. We have failed to work through the moral implications of group differences to prepare for the possibility that they will be shown to exist.

The article is open access. Links below to the article, a write-up in Daily Nous, and the petition at Change.org.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2019.1697803?src=recsys
Scholars Object to Publication of Paper Defending Race Science - Daily Nous
Signez la pétition


Thoughts and concerns?

As the abstract suggest, it is ignorant (at best); that ignorance can be turned into racism when used to justify disproportion.


For example, one may ignore the amount of lead in the water of one community that happens to score poorly by state standards, while others around the neighbourhood have concentrations at much lower rate (and therefore, on average, score much better by state standards). In order to connect intelligence with "race" or phenotype, one would have to ignore the x-factors like lead, and even the possibility that contamination is purposeful.

But, we have no choice but to see this through, make a genetic registry, and ultimately create a world-wide caste system that subjugates a large chunk of the world without possibility of progressing beyond birthright. It's been done several times before, which is why it is extremely ignorant, and also a predictable failure for humanity.

 

[Chesterton]

I don't know why scientists want to study intelligence so much. I find it's one of the the least important aspects of a human. I'd rather be a friend or associate of a Forest Gump, than of a highly intelligent person who's snobby, talks about me behind my back, won't stand by me when the chips are down, etc. Why aren't they trying to find the gene for friendliness, or the gene that causes greediness? Better yet, isolate and find that gene that makes my neighbor blow her leaves in my yard. I'll fund that research.

Intelligence just isn't that important, and I can prove it. Just think of your favorite Victoria's Secret model. Would you think any less of her if she were a moron?

I've read and listened to a lot about the race/IQ question in the past. I've been reading this thread and the articles, and I wanted to say something serious in this thread, but I keep flip-flopping. I finally decided to just vote "I'm not sure".

 

[public hermit]

I don't know why scientists want to study intelligence so much. I find it's one of the the least important aspects of a human. I'd rather be a friend or associate of a Forest Gump, than of a highly intelligent person who's snobby, talks about me behind my back, won't stand by me when the chips are down, etc. Why aren't they trying to find the gene for friendliness, or the gene that causes greediness? Better yet, isolate and find that gene that makes my neighbor blow her leaves in my yard. I'll fund that research.

Man, I hadn't thought about it this way, but I think you're absolutely right. There are so much more interesting (and probably more helpful) things to study. I really appreciate this comment.

Intelligence just isn't that important, and I can prove it. Just think of your favorite Victoria's Secret model. Would you think any less of her if she were a moron?

Well, now that you put it that way. As I've said before, every time I see a beautiful woman my thought is exactly the same, "She would make me just as miserable as the last one."