<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2627" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>Michael, are you on EP-Yahoo list? I very recently queried the 3,000+
membership about something similar to this and got back some interesting
replies...Here are ones from Charles Murray and Herbert Gintis ( in case you're
not member of EP-yahoo):</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>Message: 1
<BR> Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:19:04 -0000<BR> From:
"Alice Andrews" <<A
href="mailto:andrewsa@newpaltz.edu">andrewsa@newpaltz.edu</A>><BR>Subject: BG
studies with progressive social policy implications?<BR><BR><BR>dear
group,<BR> <BR>Just read about a BG IQ/SES twin study that supports a
progressive <BR>social policy. In his 'landmark' study of 600 twins last year,
Eric <BR>Turkheimer showed that <BR> <BR>"in the most impoverished
families,hereditability of IQ is <BR>essentially zero, with environment
accounting<BR>for almost 60 percent of the differences in IQ among individuals.
<BR>The impact of environment declines as socioeconomic level
improves,<BR>playing a nominal role in the most affluent families, for which
<BR>virtually all variability in IQ is attributed to genes."<BR><BR><BR>And
Turkheimer says:<BR>"It suggests that if you're going to work with people's
environment <BR>to try and increase IQ, then the place to invest your money is
in <BR>taking people in really bad environments and making them OK, rather
<BR>than taking people in pretty good environments and making it <BR>better.
"<BR><BR><BR>Now, I've had some pretty intense arguments with sociologists here
<BR>at my university about this stuff, and it would be nice to know of <BR>some
more studies to back up the position that, in addition to the <BR>fact that such
biological etiology studies (with their bad history) <BR>should be supported
because as humans we have a need 'to know'; that <BR>such studies can actually
support progressive ideology/policy.<BR><BR><BR>Can anyone point me toward such
studies?<BR><BR>Thanks!<BR><BR>Alice<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Message: 1 <BR>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:10:40 -0400<BR> From: Charles Murray
<<A
href="mailto:charlesmurray@adelphia.net">charlesmurray@adelphia.net</A>><BR>Subject:
Re: BG studies with progressive social policy implications?<BR><BR><BR>ALL
studies showing high heritability in traits important to success in <BR>life,
whether IQ or any other important trait, have a natural <BR>interpretation
supporting Rawlsian redistributive social policies (If <BR>it's not your fault
that you lack smarts, charm, industriousness, or <BR>whatever, it is just that
the state compensate for nature's <BR>unfairness.)<BR><BR>The reluctance of the
left to use this implication of high heritability <BR>of important traits has
always puzzled me. The left's standard position <BR>instead is that people and
groups can differ only for reasons that the <BR>right policy intervention can
fix at the source. Innate equality of <BR>abilities trumps equality of outcomes.
Not only is this the standard <BR>position; it is usually infused with enormous
emotional commitment. I'm <BR>trying to think through why this should be, for an
article I'm writing, <BR>and welcome any thoughts on the subject.<BR><BR>Charles
Murray <BR><BR>Message: 7
<BR> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:36:19 -0400<BR> From:
Herbert Gintis <<A
href="mailto:hgintis@comcast.net">hgintis@comcast.net</A>><BR>Subject: Re:
Re: BG studies with progressive social policy
implications?<BR><BR> What
socially relevant difference does the Left like to think is <BR>genetic (i.e.,
is wired in so you can't do anything about it)? I can only <BR>think of
homosexuality.<BR> What socially
relevant difference does the Left treat impartially <BR>as genetic or
environmental (the idea of dividing the phase space into <BR>genetic vs.
environmental is a monumental error, but totally common except <BR>for experts)?
Mental illness, athletic ability, beauty, physical maladies, <BR>many
other.<BR> What socially
relevant difference does the Left like to think is <BR>environmental (again, the
idea of dividing the phase space into genetic vs. <BR>environmental is a
monumental error, but totally common except for <BR>experts)? Racial differences
in everything and gender differences in <BR>everything except for the physiology
of reproduction.<BR> You argue
that if blacks are "genetically inferior" (same caveat), <BR>they should get
compensatory income transfers because "it's not their <BR>fault." Why does the
Left (by which I simply mean liberals in the American <BR>meaning of the term)
not use this argument? It is certainly used to support <BR>transfers to the
mentally or physically incapacitated, and this is also <BR>accepted by the Right
as legitimate. Why not to lower IQ for blacks? I <BR>think that the answer is
very simple. The evidence is far too weak to be <BR>overwhelming (our models of
IQ determination are not great, the Flynn <BR>Effect, the effect of aspirations
on performance, the effect of self-esteem <BR>on performance, and so on), and
there is probably a strong self-fulfilling <BR>prophecy: a social ideology of
inferiority for a race is very likely to <BR>lead to statistical discrimination
against its members.<BR> I am
not a liberal (or a conservative, or a member of any other <BR>easily
categorized ideological political grouping), but I think the liberal
<BR>position is correct on this point. Most experts in the field (I am not one,
<BR>but I have a fairly solid track record in the field of social inequality,
<BR>and know the experts) are scientists, not politically motivated hacks, and
<BR>they would agree with
me.<BR> Categorizing a group as
intellectually inferior changes their <BR>status from that of equal to that of
inferior. We can treat inferiors nice <BR>(like our dogs and cats) or nasty
(like our chickens and steer), but they <BR>lose the status of being fully and
functionally human. We are happy to <BR>label those with Down's syndrome as
intellectually inferior and we can <BR>respect their humanity, but we still are
treating them as inferiors to <BR>which charity and paternalism must be applied.
To do this for those of <BR>African decent would be a gross, gross, gross
(repeat the term 100 more <BR>times) injustice. Or so I believe, and many who
are not "liberals" would
agree.<BR> Of course, I have
considerable contempt for those who would try to <BR>silence the debate and cast
aspersion on those who try to show that there <BR>is a genetic basis for the
inferiority or superiority of a group (I <BR>defended Larry Summers in this
group, and was assailed for ding so). People <BR>who "want to throw up" when
they hear an argument they don't like should go <BR>into theology, not
science.<BR><BR>Best,<BR><BR>Herb Gintis<BR><BR>><BR><BR>Herbert
Gintis<BR>Professor, Central European University, Budapest<BR>Visiting
Professor, University of Siena, Italy<BR>External Faculty, Santa Fe
Institute<BR>775-402-4921 (USA Fax)<BR>Recent papers are posted on my <<A
href="http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~gintis>web">http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~gintis>web</A>
site.<BR>Get Game Theory Evolving (Princeton, 2000) at <BR><<A
href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691009430/qid=1057311870/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8882889-4632849?v=glance&s=books>Amazon.com">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691009430/qid=1057311870/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8882889-4632849?v=glance&s=books>Amazon.com</A><BR>Look
for Moral Sentiments and Material Interests (MIT Press, 2005)<BR>Get Unequal
Chances: Family Background and<BR> Economic Success (Princeton UP,
2005)<BR>Get Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic
Experiments<BR> and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen
Small-scale<BR> Societies (Oxford UP, 2004).<BR>Quote of the
week:<BR> There is no sorrow so
great that does not find<BR> its
background in
joy.<BR>
Niels Bohr (1938) <BR><BR>[This message contained
attachments]<BR><BR><BR><BR>________________________________________________________________________<BR>________________________________________________________________________<BR><BR>Message:
8 <BR> Date: Tue, 26
Apr 2005 18:11:24 -0400<BR> From: Charles Murray <<A
href="mailto:charlesmurray@adelphia.net">charlesmurray@adelphia.net</A>><BR>Subject:
Re: Re: BG studies with progressive social policy implications?<BR><BR><BR>This
is interesting, but the point I was making is much broader than <BR>race or, for
that matter, gender, and much broader than IQ. My <BR>experience is that there
is passion about denying the heritability of <BR>traits that contribute to
success in life, period. Thus to say that <BR>(for example) white people below
the poverty line have higher <BR>genetically-based impulsivity than whites above
the poverty line, and <BR>are poor partially for innate reasons would be
distasteful to most <BR>people on the left for some deep-seated but (to me)
mysterious reasons.<BR><BR>Charles Murray<BR><BR>PS I assume that when you talk
about people categorizing blacks as <BR>"genetically inferior" you were
referring to some hypothetical person, <BR>not me.<BR><BR>On Apr 26, 2005, at
5:36 PM, Herbert Gintis wrote:<BR><BR>> What socially relevant difference
does the Left like to think <BR>> is genetic (i.e., is wired in so you can't
do anything about it)? I <BR>> can only think of homosexuality.<BR>> What
socially relevant difference does the Left treat <BR>> impartially as genetic
or environmental (the idea of dividing the <BR>> phase space into genetic vs.
environmental is a monumental error, but <BR>> totally common except for
experts)? Mental illness, athletic ability, <BR>> beauty, physical maladies,
many other.<BR>> What socially relevant difference does the Left like to
think <BR>> is environmental (again, the idea of dividing the phase space
into <BR>> genetic vs. environmental is a monumental error, but totally
common <BR>> except for experts)? Racial differences in everything and gender
<BR>> differences in everything except for the physiology of
reproduction.<BR>> You argue that if blacks are "genetically inferior" (same
<BR>> caveat), they should get compensatory income transfers because "it's
<BR>> not their fault." Why does the Left (by which I simply mean liberals
<BR>> in the American meaning of the term) not use this argument? It is
<BR>> certainly used to support transfers to the mentally or physically
<BR>> incapacitated, and this is also accepted by the Right as legitimate.
<BR><Snip><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=anonymous_animus@yahoo.com
href="mailto:anonymous_animus@yahoo.com">Michael Christopher</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=paleopsych@paleopsych.org
href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, April 27, 2005 4:47
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Paleopsych] Black-White-East
Asian IQ differences</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>>>Black-White-East Asian IQ differences at least <BR>50%
genetic, major law review journal concludes<<<BR><BR>--If this is true,
how should society change to deal<BR>with it? Also, what is the IQ difference
for someone<BR>with a male or female parent of a different race, or<BR>for
various
blends?<BR><BR>Michael<BR><BR><BR><BR>__________________________________________________<BR>Do
You Yahoo!?<BR>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection
around <BR><A href="http://mail.yahoo.com">http://mail.yahoo.com</A>
<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>paleopsych mailing
list<BR><A
href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</A><BR><A
href="http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych">http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych</A></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>