Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: The Limited Plasticity of Human Intelligence - Arthur Jensen

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 @ 10:14 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Gender
    Posts
    2,673
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Lightbulb The Limited Plasticity of Human Intelligence - Arthur Jensen

    Originally published in The Eugenics Bulletin, Fall 1982


    [Arthur R. Jensen is Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, California 94720]

    As societies become increasingly technological, the demand for superior intelligence begins to exceed the supply, and the demand for sheer physical labor begins to decline. Increased leisure, early retirement, and a lengthened life-span all raise the premium on intelligence for the social and moral well-being of society. With the eradication of malnutrition and infectious childhood diseases, and as universal public education and the amenities of our technological civilization become more widespread, the improvement of human intelligence, if it is to come about at all, will depend increasingly upon eugenic means.

    We are now gradually emerging from a period of over-optimism regarding the supposed plasticity of intelligence, and the hope of appreciably raising the IQ of those with below-average intelligence through strictly psychological and educational methods. This hope is probably as old as humanity itself. Widespread faith in its practical implementation originated in the 1920's with the radical behaviorism espoused by John B. Watson. Watson's behavioristic conception of intelligence has pervaded psychology even to this day, although it has lost favor among the new generation of researchers in experimental cognitive psychology and psychometrics.

    In the behavioristic view, intelligence became equated with learning. Man's "original nature", psychologically, consisted only of an undifferentiated, general capability for learning. All that developed throughout the course of evolution was an ever-increasing plasticity of the brain for being shaped by the physical and cultural environment. Human mental capabilities were viewed as wholly a product of learning. The wide range of individual differences (except those resulting from some form of brain damage) was attributed to differences in opportunities for learning, or to differences in the content of learning. It was believed that these differences became socially salient merely due to the fact that some forms of knowledge and skills are more highly valued than others in a particular society. Accordingly, what Western industrial societies recognize as "intelligence" and measure by means of standard IQ tests was viewed only as a specialized collection of particular bits of acquired knowledge and skills which happen to be valued within a specific cultural context.

    Given the view of intelligence as essentially a product of learning, it was reasonable to expect that intelligence itself could be taught much the same way one teaches reading or arithmetic. It led to the optimistic expectation that the intelligence of children in the bottom half of the IQ distribution could be dramatically raised by providing them with early learning opportunities like those enjoyed by children in the top half of the distribution. The well-established correlation between children's IQs and their parents' socioeconomic status (SES) was accorded an erroneous causal significance: Low SES children were believed to have lower IQ's and to achieve less well in school because they lacked the cultural advantages and learning opportunities enjoyed by children from higher SES backgrounds.

    Over the past three decades, hundreds of experiments, many carried out on a massive scale, have sought to prove that intelligence can be substantially raised. In a few studies, subjects were given intensive training over a period of several years. No other field of psychological or educational research has commanded such vast funds nor marshalled such concerted efforts on such a grand scale. The truly remarkable finding is not the few points gain in IQ or scholastic achievement occasionally reported, but the fact that gains are so seldom found, and, when they are found, that they are so very small. The theoretical implication of this finding is that the behaviorist view of intelligence as synonymous with learning (or the products of learning) is seriously in error. Predictions based on this view have repeatedly failed to materialize under the prescribed conditions.

    When gains in test performance have occurred as a result of educational treatments, they have displayed one or more of the following characteristics: (1) they have been small, rarely more than five or ten IQ points; (2) they have been of short duration, fading out within a year or so after the training has been completed; (3) they have been restricted to tasks or tests which closely resemble the actual training procedures themselves, and have failed to generalize to a broader range of mental tests.

    Although I have scoured the research literature, I have yet to find a bona fide empirical demonstration that any psychological or educational techniques have succeeded in significantly raising children intelligence. Scores on one particular test or another, or achievement in particular scholastic subjects, may have been raised, usually only temporarily. But these gains are not reflected across a wide variety of tests or school subjects, as would be the case if it were g itself (the general intelligence factor) that had been improved. This conclusion is reinforced by evidence reported in a recent book which summarizes much of the best research and thinking in this field (Detterman and Sternberg, 1982).

    The limited plasticity of intelligence can be more easily understood in terms of the newly ascending view of intelligence as comprising a small number of elementary information-processing capabilities which are closely dependent upon properties of the central nervous system. Learning itself is only one of many manifestations of these elemental processes involving stimulus encoding, discrimination, comparison, short-term memory capacity, speed of transfer of information from short- and long-term memory, and the like. The fact that ordinary IQ tests measure something more fundamental than acquired knowledge is demonstrated by the correlation of IQ with performance on laboratory tacks, such as reaction time, which have have virtually no intellectual content whatsoever, but which directly measure elemental information-processing capacities (Jensen, 1980, 1982a, 1982b). That these information-processing capabilities are closely linked to brain functions is shown by correlation of both IQ and reaction time measures with brain-wave measurements (termed average evoked potentials) (Hendrickson and Hendrickson, 1980; Jensen, Schafer, and Crinella, 1981).

    It is now generally accepted that individual differences in IQ and information-processing capacity are strongly influences by hereditary factors, with genetic variance constituting about 70% of the total population variance in IQ (Jensen, 1981). There is also evidence that the genes for superior intelligence tend to be dominant, which is what would be theoretically expected if intelligence is a fitness character in the Darwinian sense, and if it had been subject to natural selection through the course of human evolution (Jensen, 1983).

    The genetic and evolutionary view of human intelligence affords a possible explanation for its quite limited plasticity. If intelligence has evolved as an instrumentality for the survival of Homo Sapiens, it could well be that its biological basis has a built-in stabilizing mechanism, such an that of a gyroscope. Some degree of homeostatic autonomy in the ontogeny of mental ability would safeguard the individual's capacity for coping with the exigencies of survival. Mental development then would not be wholly at the mercy of often-erratic environmental happenstance. A too-plastic malleability would give the organism little protection against the vagaries of its environment. Hence, there may have evolved homeostatic processes to buffer the semi-autonomous ontogeny of human intelligence, protecting it from being pushed too far in one direction or the other, either by adventitiously harmful or by intentionally benevolent environmental forces.


    References
    Detterman, D.K., and Sternberg, R.J. (Eds.) 1982, How and How Much Can Intelligence be Increased? Norwood, NJ: ABLEX Publishing Corporation

    Hendrickson, D.A. and Hendrickson, A.E. 1980, The biological basis of individual differences in intelligence, Personality and Individual Differences, 1: 3-33

    Jensen, Arthur R. 1980, Chronometric analysis of intelligence, Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 3: 103-122

    Jensen, Arthur R. 1981, Straight Talk About Mental Tests, New York: The Free Press

    Jensen, Arthur R. 1982a, The chronometry of intelligence, in R.J. Sternberg (Ed.) Advances in the Psychology of Human Intelligence (vol. 1) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbau.

    Jensen, Arthur R. 1982b Reaction time and psychometric A, in Hans J. Eysenck (Ed., A Model for Intelligence New York: Springer-Verlag

    Jensen, Arthur R 1983, The effects of inbreeding on mental ability factors, Personality and Individual Differences, 4: 71-87

    Jensen, A.R., Schafer, E.W. and Crinella, F.M. 1981, Reaction time, evoked brain potentials, and psychometric in the severely retarded, Intelligence, 5: 179-197

  2. #2
    Schimmelreiter
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Hauke Haien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    Monday, September 4th, 2017 @ 09:59 AM
    Ethnicity
    Deutsch
    Location
    Land der Deutschen
    Gender
    Posts
    1,841
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    22
    Thanked in
    19 Posts
    Arthur Jensen explains and defines Intelligence and the g Factor


    Jensen, A.R. (1999). The g Factor: the Science of Mental Ability. (PDF)

    The g factor derives its broad significance from the fact that it is causally related to many real-life conditions both personal and social. These relationships form a complex correlational network, or nexus, in which g is a major node. The totality of real-world variables composing the g nexus is not yet known, but a number of educationally, socially, and economically critical elements in the nexus have already been identified and are the subject of ongoing research.

    Complex statistical methods have been developed for analyzing correlational data to help determine the direction of causality among the elements of the g nexus. These elements include personally and socially significant variables, such as learning disabilities, level of educational attainment, illiteracy, poverty, employment and income, delinquency, crime, law abidingness, and personal integrity.
    p. 544

    The g factor is not a mere statistical construct. Rather it has significant real-world importance. The effects of g encompass a broader range of uniquely human phenomena than any other psychological construct. Empirical research on g extends well beyond psychometrics. The search for the causal basis of g draws upon research in experimental cognitive psychology and mental chronometry, brain anatomy and physiology, quantitative and molecular genetics, and primate evolution. Applied research has concentrated on the importance of g in education, employment, economic development, health, welfare dependency, and crime.
    p. 545

    One may wonder why individuals' scores on a single test, which has so little apparent resemblance to the practical activities of everyday life, should be correlated with so many pivotal outcomes in peoples' lives. (And the means of the same outcome variables for different subpopulations are even more highly correlated among themselves and with g.)

    The answer, as sociologist Robert Gordon has spelled out in detail with many actual examples, is that everyday life itself acts as an intelligence test, and increasingly so as technology becomes more and more a part of everyday life.

    Every semantic discrimination, every decision, every choice-point, every challenge, every opportunity for performance in everyday life has some degree of g loading, however slight it may be. In almost every particular instance of individual behavior, the "signal" (g variance) is very small compared to the "noise" (all sources of variance other than g). Now these single instances of real-life behavior are perfectly analogous, statistically, to the single items of a highly heterogeneous test. Although each single item in an IQ test reflects g only to a very slight degree, the aggregation of a large number of similar items results in a highly reliable measure of the common factor that is reflected, however slightly, by each item. Any single item has a very small signal-to-noise ratio (typically about .05 on a scale of 0 to 1)), but the aggregation of 100 diverse items yields a total score with a signal/noise ratio of over .90.
    p. 550

    Some sociologists regard individual and group differences in the level of g as wholly a result of inequalities in schooling and in social and economic privilege. In this view, g is merely an epiphenomenon in the nexus of all the socially valued variables with which g is so ubiquitously correlated. However, there are compelling reasons for believing that g is a central and generative causal force in the nexus. As pointed out, while multivariate statistical methodologies, by their inherent nature, cannot prove causality but at best can only increase its plausibility, there are empirical facts which, if taken into consideration, make it extremely probable that g itself is a causal force in the greater social nexus.

    First, there is the high heritability of g, which simply means that the single largest source of individual differences in g is attributable to genetic factors. We therefore know that various social, economic, or environmental variables are not a main cause or explanation of most of the observed variance in g. Moreover, the part of the nongenetic variance in IQ that is commonly attributed to between-families differences in socioeconomic status (SES) constitutes only a very small proportion of the total environmental variance, most of which results from within-family environmental effects. In fact, large IQ differences exist among individuals when SES is taken account of, but SES factors are not related to individuals' IQs after genetic variability is accounted for. Attempts to discredit the evidence for the heritability of g, or to belittle its magnitude, are motivated by the wish to explain all of the variance it has in common with many real-life variables entirely in terms of socioeconomic variables, thereby denying the causal role of g (and along with it, genetics) in human affairs.

    The most effective method for controlling what sociologists refer to as family background and socioeconomic variables (e.g., parents' education, occupation, income, and other variables that are correlated with g) is the use of within-family correlations. About one-half of the total population variance in adult IQ exists among full siblings who have shared the same family background from birth to maturity. Yet the IQs of full siblings (measured when they are children or adolescents) are positively correlated (+.30 to .+40) with measures of their educational, occupational, and economic status as adults. That is, IQ predicts these and many other kinds of individual outcomes independently of differences in family and social background, which, independently of IQ, typically have lesser predictive power than does IQ.
    p. 551-552

    Applied psychologists working in personnel selection have established that low IQ is more reliably predictive of vocational outcomes than is high IQ. This is because g is only one of the many psychological factors and personal characteristics that affect how one responds to the various challenges of life and thereby influences the opinions of other people — parents, teachers, classmates, employers, and co-workers — with whom one interacts. Ability creates opportunity to a large extent. A person with a high IQ but lacking other desirable traits can fare worse in life than many people with a low IQ who have these other qualities. A low IQ, however, provided it is a valid assessment of the individual's standing on g, invariably restricts an individual's educational and occupational options, the more so, the further their IQ falls below 100 (the average level). This is true regardless of the person's standing on other traits, which, when favorable, to some extent mitigate the disadvantaging effects of low g.

    Contrary to much popular wisdom, the IQ score per se does not act as a self-fulfilling prophecy. IQ predicts and is related to certain life outcomes not because the person's IQ happens to have been measured, or because anyone happens to know the person's IQ as such. If mental tests had never been invented, parents, teachers, and employers would still be able to make successful predictions about individuals. The IQ is simply a rough index of g, which reflects underlying individual differences in the efficiency of certain brain processes that are manifested as one of the important factors in human affairs.
    p. 552-553

    After g itself, education is the most important variable in the nexus. This is because the effects of general education and of specialized intellectual skills (whether acquired in school or elsewhere) are the main mediators for the indirect effects of g as manifested in present-day society. Performance in life (outside the testing room) reflects in large part the interaction of g and education. The effects of education and g are not additive, but multiplicative. (That is, their joint effect can be represented as the product of g X education.) When educational opportunity is equalized, g becomes the major predictor of performance. (Only when g is held constant does education become the major predictor.) For persons in the same educational setting and at every level from first grade to graduate school, highly g-loaded tests predict more of the variance in educational performance than any other single variable or set of variables independent of g, including all of the usual SES or family background variables that are so commonly regarded as the major determinants of educational achievement. (As selection for and by education, from elementary school through college, progressively reduces the variance in g, special talents and certain noncognitive traits come to play an increasingly important role in successful performance.) It is important to note that, independent of g, the variables of race or ethnicity per se contribute virtually nothing to the prediction of educational achievement.
    p. 556-557

    The distinctness of g from many other valued personal characteristics was clearly recognized within ten years after Spearman discovered it. In 1915, one of Spearman's doctoral students, E. Webb, published a factor analysis of a matrix of correlations including a number of highly g-loaded tests and a number of ratings of character, or personality. The particular personality traits chosen for study and obtained from ratings by students' teachers and associates were actually selected because they were expected to be related to g, and hence to show significant loadings on the g factor. This expectation, however, was completely contradicted by Webb's analysis, which yielded two wholly distinct factors — g and a general "character" factor, which Webb labeled w and characterized as "will" and "persistence of motives." The types of items most highly loaded on the w factor were described as: perseverance, as opposed to willful changeability; perseverance in the face of obstacles; kindness on principle; trustworthiness; and conscientiousness. It seemed puzzling that this cluster of traits would emerge independent of g. Teachers' and other people's subjective impressions of any given person's level of intelligence create a "halo effect" which biases the observers' ratings of that person's personality traits. Despite this bias of the personality ratings by halo effects, Webb's factor analysis, because it included objective tests of g, gave a clean-cut separation of the two domains. What Webb's study and subsequent studies seemed to indicate was that g, even as fallibly measured by psychometric tests, is an entirely cognitive variable.
    p. 573

    An individual's investment of g is never spread equally or randomly over every type of knowledge or skills offered by the environment. Rather, it is highly selective, depending on interests and personality and chance events. These non-cognitive factors are themselves hardly, if at all, correlated with g, yet they are strong determinants of achievement, provided the individual's level of g exceeds the threshold required for initially acquiring the basic knowledge or skills in a particular field of achievement. A particular interest tends to focus one's g resources. But I would hypothesize that there is also what might be termed the "spread of g" effect in knowledge acquisition (analogous to E. L. Thorndike's "spread of effect"), which would account for the fact that high-g persons show a lot of incidental learning; that is, they soak up bits of information from the environment even on subjects in which they have little or no interest. (Hence the high g loading of tests of "general information," which sample a wide variety of factual information.) More of their experience of the world "sticks" in their incidental knowledge repertoire, even though much of this experience is adventitious and never really aroused the person's interest or focus of attention.

    What are the chief personality traits which, interacting with g, relate to individual differences in achievement and vocational success? The most universal personality trait in this respect is conscientiousness, that is, being responsible, dependable, caring, organized, and persistent. It applies to every kind of job success from professional and managerial to semiskilled work. It is commonly thought that persons who are high in conscientiousness are not apt to be successful in the creative arts. But this is a false perception based on observation of the often highly egocentric, unconventional, nonconformist, or eccentric life style of certain famous composers, artists, and writers. The one thing that the biographies of such individuals consistently show, however, is that, without exception, they have been exceedingly conscientious in the work for which they are famous. While their personal lives may often seem chaotic, their work habits and their work products are not.

    Besides a reasonably high level of g, those who are successful in the realm of intellectual achievement also have high levels on two highly correlated personality factors, TIE (typical intellectual engagement) and "openness to experience."

    The sine qua non of truly exceptional achievement, or greatness, in any field is an extraordinary level of ambition and zeal in one's endeavors. Zeal is probably what makes possible the enormous amount of diligent practice in one's pursuit without which a world-class level of performance is simply not possible. The extraordinary level of virtuoso skill seen in great musicians, Olympic athletes, world-class mathematicians, chess champions, and top-level surgeons, for example, owes at least as much to their many years of disciplined study and practice as to their inborn talent. Their talent, in fact, might actually consist in large part of their unusual drive and capacity for assiduous persistence in developing their specialized skills over many years. Ten years seems to be about the minimum amount of "practice time" needed for attaining a high level of expertise in one's vocation, even for famous geniuses.
    p. 575-576

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Friday, October 7th, 2016 @ 03:13 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Cape Province Cape Province
    Gender
    Family
    Youth
    Religion
    none
    Posts
    972
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Dr. Jensen is the man. He revolutionized the study of the heritability of intelligence and his 1969 work ought to be mandatory study for every school child.

    It is amazing, Catterick, but he calls himself a psychologist.

  4. #4
    Schimmelreiter
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Hauke Haien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    Monday, September 4th, 2017 @ 09:59 AM
    Ethnicity
    Deutsch
    Location
    Land der Deutschen
    Gender
    Posts
    1,841
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    22
    Thanked in
    19 Posts
    Charles Spearman, who discovered the g factor, studied in Leipzig under Wilhelm Wundt, who was the first person to ever call himself a psychologist. Wundt was mainly interested in gaining reliable knowledge of the human psyche through experiment without paying much attention to human differences, effectively treating them as measurement errors. Nevertheless, he produced many useful results and founded the whole field of experimental psychology.

    Spearman was also influenced by Francis Galton and effectively continued his idea of measuring human differences of the mind (i.e. differential psychology). Galton was most interested in genius and "eminence", tying to find out in what ways the elite of his time systematically differed from other people. The title of his book Hereditary Genius shows that he already knew these traits to be hereditary. Unfortunately, the tools of mathematical statistics, which he helped advance, were not sufficiently developed in their time to fully appreciate the data that Galton and Spearman had gathered.

    Even today, it is often hard to explain the validity of psychometrics and its findings outside of the language of mathematics. IQ is commonly and erroneously dismissed as junk science by non-experts while speculative concepts invented by the New Age religions of "psychoanalysis" and "analytic psychology" not only enjoy wide acceptance, but practically define what psychology and being a psychologist is supposed to be about as far as the general public is concerned.

    A large part of the reason for this is of course found in the promise of "curing 'mental illness'" through a sort of talking cure, employing metaphors from the field of medicine to give a false impression of what they are doing. In truth, it is rather difficult to explain why people exhibit or do not exhibit a recognisable mental disorder and why one "therapy" should work rather than another or doing nothing at all. In cases where one approach is statistically shown to be somewhat effective at reaching its goals, it is still quite unclear what exact actions did what exactly to achieve that end. This differs from neurological disorders (e.g. neuropathic pain), which are treated as physiological diseases of the nervous system.

    In the Indo-European medicinal tradition, there was once again a tripartite notion of the tools employed by healers. The use of potions, the use of the knife and the use of the word (poetry and spell-song). You can find reference to this fact in Calvert Watkin's work on the Indo-European poetic tradition, which was inherited and diversified just like the languages themselves. The book is titled How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics and the relevant chapters are 58. Indo-European medicinal doctrine and 59. The poet as healer. There we find quoted a passage from the Third Pythian Ode of Pindaros (if only one item of Hellenic culture should happen to survive the next cycle of destruction, it absolutely must be the victory hymns of Pindaros):

    Quote Originally Posted by Pindaros
    They came to him with ulcers that the flesh had grown,
    or their limbs mangled with gray bronze, or bruised
    with the stone flung from afar, or the body stormed with
    summer fever, or chill; and he released each man and led him from
    his individual grief. Some he treated with gentle incantations; some
    with healing potions to drink, or he tended their limbs with salves
    from near and far; and some by the knife he set on their feet again.
    Examples in this vein from our cultures would be the Nine Herbs Charm, the Merseburg Incantations, the Lorsch Bee Blessing, For a Swarm of Bees, the Wessobrunn Prayer, Millstätter Blutsegen, Contra caducum morbum, Abdinghofer Blutsegen, Wiener Hundesegen, Sigrdrífumál.

    What the Jew Sigmund Freud and his Jewish friends inaugurated in his field of "psychology" that has at all times been dominated by Jews, is the attempt to fill the aforementioned function with formulas of his own that effectively turn our values and traditions into sicknesses while turning sickness into virtue. This is especially obvious with his successors, such as the Jew Wilhelm Reich, who "discovered" authority and hierarchy as a source of sickness and promoted whoring as a source of liberation, and the Jew Erich Fromm, a prominent member of the Frankfurt School of Jewish Subversion, who identified lack of support for his neo-Marxist notions as a sign of mental illness. In this way, "psychoanalysis" became a political force with a strongly predetermined purpose, which is to show that society has to be changed drastically because it is sick and unscientific (and hostile to Jewish desires). Sigmund Freud had already anticipated this, envisioning a sort of council of philosopher-kings staffed by "psychoanalysts".

    This is why, at a time when the precursors of the German Greens were already preparing for foreign colonisation and busily trying to ruin their children with anti-authoritarian education and the Kinderladen movement and writing spirited defenses of homosexuality and pedophilia, Arthur Jensen was being harassed, slandered and maligned for telling the truth and giving us the tools we need to promote greatness among our people, one of the proudest of Germanic traditions.

    For this reason, we have to tell the truth and be loud and clear in praising what is truly great. Oftentimes, we do not even know ourselves, because the enemy has only ever taught us lies and filth. There is a whole continent full of wisdom and culture for us to rediscover and we can read and hear and see it all for the very first time. Think how blessed we are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Atharvaveda 7.88: A charm to cure a snake-bite
    Go away, you are the enemy, you are indeed the enemy;
    in poison you have mixed poison, poison indeed you have mixed.
    Go straight away to the snake, smite him.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Catterick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 7th, 2017 @ 01:29 AM
    Ethnicity
    Mixed Germanic and Celtic
    Ancestry
    British Isles & Scandinavia
    Subrace
    Borreby x Nordic
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Aqua
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Gondolier
    Posts
    2,196
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    20
    Thanked in
    20 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    Dr. Jensen is the man. He revolutionized the study of the heritability of intelligence and his 1969 work ought to be mandatory study for every school child.

    It is amazing, Catterick, but he calls himself a psychologist.
    I support scientific inquiry, but those making much noise how science is censored tend now to be cultural libertarians. They delight in high Ashkenazi and Chinese IQ as reason to support selective multiculturalism. Low African and Mestizo IQ lets them promote exclusion at the same time.

    No this isn't an attack on Jensen, Rushton or such people. Who are usually non-political despite the harassment they got.

  6. #6
    Schimmelreiter
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Hauke Haien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    Monday, September 4th, 2017 @ 09:59 AM
    Ethnicity
    Deutsch
    Location
    Land der Deutschen
    Gender
    Posts
    1,841
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    22
    Thanked in
    19 Posts


    In a moral community that protects itself with prohibiting rules set out by custom and maintained as law, you will find in addition sets of tasks and purposes that its members receive and strive to fulfill. It is through this effort that the moral worth of each person is determined. The traits we can identify as helpful in holding our position in the web of obligations and functions that come with our concrete relationships, we define as virtues and seek to strengthen in order to make strong all those people and personalities bound together in common fate and destiny.

    Given that the practical course of progress (towards disorder and decline) has been the transfer of religious, political, military and economic power from kinship group and oath brotherhood to bureaucratically managed corporations such as the church, the state, the army and business corporations, where common tasks define membership instead of the reverse, and impersonal rules provide an anonymous framework for the participation of interchangeable people, we find our lives progressively drained of their specific dignity and meaning.

    In this moral climate, libertarian ideology arrives as another form of social disorder, breaking with the customs of the ancestors, who thought that freedom was found in frith. The ideal man for libertarian tastes is Grettir the Strong, but we already know that there is no salvation in outlawry.

    We should keep these considerations in mind when thinking about people who are intelligent or people who are doing research on intelligence in order to determine the value and meaning of their efforts.

    In the early days of the Soviet Union, there were plenty of Mendelian geneticists who knew about the heredity of psychological traits and were willing to use that knowledge to craft a new Soviet man. Rationalist utopianism has, after all, been one of the central tenets of the Enlightenment and Communism is a rationalist and enlightened faith.

    But those geneticists were soon to learn painfully that the Soviet state had no need for their services. It is the nature of enlightened societies to press-gang the undifferentiated masses into a bureaucratic machine that dispenses favours (bread & circuses) in exchange for loyalty. Having power means holding decisive positions in that machine and knowing how to manipulate its function effectively.

    Knowledge of human differences has negative value in public discourse because it does not create a moral title for their rulers to rule. Their rule is not based on good birth or their g-loaded virtuosity in reaching common goals, but it rests on flattering the vanity of the masses: by pretending that they rule, by telling them that there are no essential differences between them and greater men, and making them materially dependent on such tales. Under a thin layer of wishful thinking and pretense, everyone knows that these are lies, but they desperately cling to them because they have nothing else.

    For this reason, merely presenting scientific data without providing an underlying sense of meaning would seem unlikely to succeed in changing attitudes since the same value-drained facts can be made to serve vastly different ends or come to be rejected outright as incompatible with preconceived notions.

    On the topic of Resistance and Persuasion, Knowles and Linn have gathered many insights. I believe it is necessary to restate and illustrate on all occassions the proper way to live while attacking the underlying assumptions that inform a false life. The final disillusionment of carefully held notions and eventual replacement of haphazardly maintained realities will be a consequence of that effort gaining credible power in the workings of the world.

Similar Threads

  1. Race Differences Are Real (by Prof. Arthur Jensen)
    By Ahnenerbe in forum General Anthropology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 04:20 PM
  2. Crows Have Human-Like Intelligence
    By Blutwölfin in forum Research & Technology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Thursday, June 15th, 2006, 04:25 AM
  3. Arthur R. Jensen on IQ: The Limited Plasticity of Human Intelligence
    By Sigrun Christianson in forum Bio-Anthropology & Human Variation
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 09:31 PM
  4. Range of Heights in Human Demonstrates Plasticity of Human Species
    By Glenlivet in forum General Anthropology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, June 30th, 2004, 10:28 AM
  5. Arthur Keith on Human Evolution
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Paleoanthropology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Tuesday, April 13th, 2004, 09:29 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •