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

[public hermit]

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?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I heard they isolated the intelligence gene by a process of elimination.

 

[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 and a write-up in Daily Nous.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2019.1697803?src=recsys
Scholars Object to Publication of Paper Defending Race Science - Daily Nous

Thoughts and concerns?

Dailynous, ay? That's cool. I'm going to have to bookmark that one, PH!

As for the issue involved, I don't see any problem with research of this sort as long as it is utterly transparent for all other researchers to replicate and just so long as it FULLY admits to its research limitations---I say limitations because most legitimate research doesn't try to focus on some kind of totalizing position but rather hones in on some one or two tiny aspects of some chosen subject of research. Human Intelligence is, I'm sure, too complex not only psychologically but also socially and environmentally for any one kind of biological research to offer up the "end all" of genetic explanation for human intelligence.

But that's my opionion as I'm giving it off of the top of my head, in retrospect of my own education. But then again, maybe these researchers are "gods"? (.......not!!!!)

 

[public hermit]

Dailynous, ay? That's cool. I'm going to have to bookmark that one, PH!

It's a great site, which I visit daily.

In a very short time, it is likely that we will identify many of the genetic variants underlying individual differences in intelligence.

Notice this statement he makes at the beginning of the article. It seems to imply such research is already underway, and that it's close to identifying genetic variants. But, isn't that the kind of research he is arguing for? Hmmm. Sounds like he's begging the question from the outset.

I do find the utilitarian argument somewhat compelling. If there is more involved than environmental factors, wouldn't it be to the advantage to know them in hopes of addressing them? Of course, what that "addressing them" would look like, I don't know.

On the other hand, if it were discovered that there are genetic differences, there is no doubt in my mind that racists would run with it and use it to affirm their racist's ideas.

I don't see any problem with research of this sort as long as it is utterly transparent for all other researcher to replicate and just so long as it FULLY admits to its research limitations---I say limitations because most legitimate research doesn't try to focus on some kind of totalizing position but rather hones in on some one or two tiny aspects of some chosen subject of research.

This is a good point, because there is already a replication crisis in psychology and sociology.

Psychology’s Replication Crisis - Areo

Human Intelligence is, I'm sure, too complex not only psychologically but also socially and environmentally for any one kind of biological research to offer up the "end all" of genetic explanation for human intelligence.

Exactly. Anyone who has spent time around academics knows that they might be good in their field, and yet more than capable of messing up a pressed ham sandwich. At any rate, how reliable is I.Q. when it comes to intelligence?

 

[public hermit]

I heard they isolated the intelligence gene by a process of elimination.

Is that right? Do you have a source?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's a great site, which I visit daily.



Notice this statement he makes at the beginning of the article. It seems to imply such research is already underway, and that it's close to identifying genetic variants. But, isn't that the kind of research he is arguing for? Hmmm. Sounds like he's begging the question from the outset.

I do find the utilitarian argument somewhat compelling. If there is more involved than environmental factors, wouldn't it be to the advantage to know them in hopes of addressing them? Of course, what that "addressing them" would look like, I don't know.

On the other hand, if it were discovered that there are genetic differences, there is no doubt in my mind that racists would run with it and use it to affirm their racist's ideas.



This is a good point, because there is already a replication crisis in psychology and sociology.

Psychology’s Replication Crisis - Areo



Exactly. Anyone who has spent time around academics know that they might be good in their field, and yet more than capable of messing up a pressed ham sandwich. At any rate, how reliable is I.Q. when it comes to intelligence?

All good points, PH. Also, before I begin reading any book or journal article, I try to scout around to find out more about the philosophical predilections of the author I'm reading. And I ask myself: "Self, what is this person's prior worldview? What is his motive for writing what he's writing? Does he have integrity? Does he seem to believe things that are directed, even if in just insinuation, toward a chosen opposition to some other ideology? Does an Ad Hominem critique seem appropriate in this case, being that I personally believe (in prophetic proportion of meaning) that if 'the shoe fits...................................then it fits.' " Of course, that's also the Social Science side of me coming out along with my Christian predisposition.

I'm still in the process of reading your article here, PH, but I do want to draw your attention to the following page, and I'll have to consider the degree of ideology at play in this author's concerns and/or motives in writing. So then, in looking at the article you've provided, I'm interested in knowing if the author is attempting to critique the topic in question, or to advocate it, or to insinuate something else. We might ask if anything looks a little 'odd' here. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't?

https://www.tandfonline.com/author/Cofnas,+Nathan

Then, we, together, can read his article and, along with other reviewers (as you're offering for us to do here)...................we can vet it together.

 

[public hermit]

All good points, PH. Also, before I begin reading any book or journal article, I try to scout around to find out more about the philosophical predilections of the author I'm reading before and while I'm reading any chosen book or article. And I ask myself: "Self, what is this person's prior worldview? What is his motive for writing what he's writing? Does he have integrity? Does he seem to believe things that are directed, even if in just insinuation, toward a chosen opposition to some other ideology? Does an Ad Hominem critique seem appropriate in this case, being that I personally believe (in prophetic proportion of meaning) that if 'the shoe fits...................................then it fits.' " Of course, that's also the Social Science side of me coming out along with my Christian predisposition.

I'm still in the process of reading your article here, PH, but I do want to draw your attention to the following page, and I'll have to consider the degree of ideology at play in this authors concerns and/or motives in writing. So then, in looking at the article you've provided, I'm interested in knowing if the author is attempting to critique the topic in question, or to advocate it, or to insinuate something else. We might ask if anything looks a little 'odd' here. Maybe is does, maybe it doesn't?

https://www.tandfonline.com/author/Cofnas,+Nathan

Then, we, together, can read his article and, along with other reviewers (as you're offering for us to do here)...................we can vet it together.

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.

All this taken into consideration, does his motivations (whatever they be) mean we shouldn't consider the general question as to whether this kind of research should be done? To be forthcoming, I haven't given this issue any attention prior to this, so I really don't know what to think. In general, I would think research is research. Let it be done. Then again, I have no interest in affirming racist's positions or ideas. So, I am cautious about the whole thing.

 

[pleinmont]

Whatever your race or gender you can be highly intelligent or not.

 

[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.

Wow. Just wow! That's where the old connection between politics and science (despite contestations to the contrary about how 'neutral' science is) comes into play .........

Besides, it's not like governments and politically predisposed scientists have never had personal agendas running amok and betwixt themselves ................................ just as was taking place as you remember (and I'm sure you do) in the eugenics fiasco that was transpiring a hundred years ago.

I'm not sure why Philosophical Quarterly would publish him. Of course, weirder things have happened off and on. Remember (was it) Alan Sokal?

 

[public hermit]

Whatever your race or gender you can be highly intelligent or not.

So, your position is that genetic research on intelligence should not be allowed?

 

[public hermit]

Wow. Just wow! That's where the old connection between politics and science (despite contestations to the contrary about how 'neutral' science is) comes into play .........

Besides, it's not like governments and politically predisposed scientists have never had personal agendas running amok and betwixt themselves ................................ just as was taking place as you remember (and I'm sure you do) in the eugenics fiasco that was transpiring a hundred years ago.

Exactly. Nothing comes out of a vacuum.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Exactly. Nothing comes out of a vacuum.

Anyway, it might be by tomorrow or so before I get the article read, being that I have work to do and some pressing family matters to tend to, PH.

Thanks for bringing this interesting issue to our attention!

 

[essentialsaltes]

Article abstract: In a very short time, it is likely that we will identify many of the genetic variants underlying individual differences in intelligence.

I doubt that. 'Intelligence' appears to be a complicated result of hundreds of genes.

 

[public hermit]

I doubt that. 'Intelligence' appears to be a complicated result of hundreds of genes.

Thanks for the article.

Edit: I think I misunderstood this situation. Research is already underway in regards to the genetic underpinnings of intelligence.

"Intelligence is highly heritable and a major determinant of human health and well-being. Recent genome-wide meta-analyses have identified 24 genomic loci linked to variation in intelligence but much about its genetic underpinnings remains to be discovered."

Genome-wide association meta-analysis in 269,867 individuals identifies new genetic and functional links to intelligence | Nature Genetics

 

[dzheremi]

Yes. Anything that can be backed up by relevant data and is reproducible and falsifiable should be able to be pursued. Like essentialsaltes, however, I question the basic premise that the paper appears to rest upon.

As an aside, I'm really sick of this "We can't do anything that someone, somewhere, at some point may use to make a racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever argument" idea. Stop getting your Tumblr in my academia.edu, you jerks.

 

[public hermit]

So, I take it, one question is to whether such research is even possible. That aside, even though there is work being done to understand genetic underpinnings of intelligence (and cognitive function, in general) it does not appear that there is this specific kind of research happening. But, I am open for someone clearing this up for me, too. Please.

I was assuming that general research of the genetics of intelligence would give the answers to the question of whether or not racial differences are involved. But, that is not the case, I don't think. One would have to specifically target that issue in their research to answer that question.

 

[public hermit]

Sam Harris: "I do remain skeptical about the wisdom of looking for cross-cultural or interracial differences in things like intelligence. I’m not sure what it gets you apart from a lot of pain. So many of the topics I discussed in the podcast with Murray are not topics I would ordinarily think about, or recommend that you think about." From the introduction of his interview of Charles Murray who co-authored Bell Curve

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2019.1697803?src=recsys

 

[zippy2006]

Thoughts and concerns?

I'd say that there probably is some danger, particularly in a materialistic-scientific world. The idea that things like this won't lead to eugenics isn't plausible. Granted, censoring scientific inquiry isn't easy to justify, either.

At any rate, how reliable is I.Q. when it comes to intelligence?

I think this is part of the problem: pigeon-holing intelligence.

This might just be one of those things that is off-limits for our modern civilization, which struggles so much with scientific manipulation and eugenics, and tends to view "intelligence" and "rationality" as monolithic terms.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So, I take it, one question is to whether such research is even possible. That aside, even though there is work being done to understand genetic underpinnings of intelligence (and cognitive function, in general) it does not appear that there is this specific kind of research happening. But, I am open for someone clearing this up for me, too. Please.

This is best answered by a competent geneticist, so neither I nor Nathan Cofnas are qualified.

I don't know whether Cofnas' gripe about 'The majority of philosophers and social scientists' is true or not, but those people are also not the best people to comment on the issue, nor to carry out experiments on the matter.

Meanwhile, geneticists have been carrying out studies on the genetic basis of intelligence, and what they've found (as I understand it) is that hundreds of genes play a role in intelligence, and each of them is only responsible for a tiny fraction of the human variation in intelligence. And I doubt it is an 'additive' process. If gene A is associated with +0.03 IQ points, and gene W is associated with -0.01 IQ points, then the effect of having both genes is not necessarily +0.02 IQ points. (I doubt this is actually how such things are measured at all, but hopefully my point is clear.) The sheer number of genes that play a role, and the great genetic variation within racial groups makes me doubt that there will be any clear 'racial genes' that play a significant role in intelligence.

I was assuming that general research of the genetics of intelligence would give the answers to the question of whether or not racial differences are involved. But, that is not the case, I don't think. One would have to specifically target that issue in their research to answer that question.

The racial differences on performance on IQ tests (inasmuch as that is a measure of 'intelligence') is quite large. The effects of each individual gene on intelligence is quite small. It seems to me that if the racial difference in IQ performance were due to genetic differences, it would shout from the data. It doesn't.

---

From Wikipedia on genetics of race and intelligence.

Intelligence is a polygenic trait. This means that intelligence is under the influence of several genes, possibly several thousand. The effect of most individual genetic variants on intelligence is thought to be very small, well below 1% of the variance in g. Current studies using quantitative trait loci have yielded little success in the search for genes influencing intelligence. Robert Plomin is confident that QTLs responsible for the variation in IQ scores exist, but due to their small effect sizes, more powerful tools of analysis will be required to detect them.[138] Others assert that no useful answers can be reasonably expected from such research before an understanding of the relation between DNA and human phenotypes emerges.[82] Several candidate genes have been proposed to have a relationship with intelligence.[139][140] However, a review of candidate genes for intelligence published in Deary, Johnson & Houlihan (2009) failed to find evidence of an association between these genes and general intelligence, stating "there is still almost no replicated evidence concerning the individual genes, which have variants that contribute to intelligence differences"

 

[public hermit]

This is best answered by a competent geneticist, so neither I nor Nathan Cofnas are qualified.

I don't know whether Cofnas' gripe about 'The majority of philosophers and social scientists' is true or not, but those people are also not the best people to comment on the issue, nor to carry out experiments on the matter.

Meanwhile, geneticists have been carrying out studies on the genetic basis of intelligence, and what they've found (as I understand it) is that hundreds of genes play a role in intelligence, and each of them is only responsible for a tiny fraction of the human variation in intelligence. And I doubt it is an 'additive' process. If gene A is associated with +0.03 IQ points, and gene W is associated with -0.01 IQ points, then the effect of having both genes is not necessarily +0.02 IQ points. (I doubt this is actually how such things are measured at all, but hopefully my point is clear.) The sheer number of genes that play a role, and the great genetic variation within racial groups makes me doubt that there will be any clear 'racial genes' that play a significant role in intelligence.



The racial differences on performance on IQ tests (inasmuch as that is a measure of 'intelligence') is quite large. The effects of each individual gene on intelligence is quite small. It seems to me that if the racial difference in IQ performance were due to genetic differences, it would shout from the data. It doesn't.

---

From Wikipedia on genetics of race and intelligence.

Intelligence is a polygenic trait. This means that intelligence is under the influence of several genes, possibly several thousand. The effect of most individual genetic variants on intelligence is thought to be very small, well below 1% of the variance in g. Current studies using quantitative trait loci have yielded little success in the search for genes influencing intelligence. Robert Plomin is confident that QTLs responsible for the variation in IQ scores exist, but due to their small effect sizes, more powerful tools of analysis will be required to detect them.[138] Others assert that no useful answers can be reasonably expected from such research before an understanding of the relation between DNA and human phenotypes emerges.[82] Several candidate genes have been proposed to have a relationship with intelligence.[139][140] However, a review of candidate genes for intelligence published in Deary, Johnson & Houlihan (2009) failed to find evidence of an association between these genes and general intelligence, stating "there is still almost no replicated evidence concerning the individual genes, which have variants that contribute to intelligence differences"

This is very helpful, thank you.