They concede that IQ (a) exists, (b) predicts many life outcomes, (c) differs between groups, and (d) is partly heritable. If an alien at this point were presented with these premises, does anyone suppose its natural conclusion would be, "this must be <i>completely</i> due to environmental factors, and not in the least genetic ones?"<p>Surely claiming a difference of outcome is entirely due to environmental factors is as extreme as claiming it's entirely due entirely to genetics. Yet imagine the uproar if someone had claimed the latter. Contrast that with the support Vox has gotten for their article.<p>It is dangerous to require a conclusion to be true rather than being open to whatever is.
I listened to the Sam Harris podcast a while ago and found I held some objections that I couldn't formulate until some time passed. The problem with Sam's view is not even as complicated as these authors make out. Consider a similar scenario based on a redfined IQ:<p>In this world, IQ is measured by proficiency in programming languages. Would it be surprising to find that the high IQ people are not predominately women, or black? Or that this new IQ score is highly predictive of positive financial outcomes, better health, good familiy lives and high life satisfaction scores? Should this result be interpreted as a discovery of the genetic inheritance of intelligence?<p>We commonly understand "IQ" to be synonymous with intelligence, yet its a test that defines a very narrow range of human capabilities. So these broad studies of various people's performace on a test will confound numerous other variables with the score. In my example scenario this would be the recently surging economic value of pushing electrons around in an orderly way.<p>I'll try to relisten to Sam Harris's treatment of it, maybe i missed some circumspection at a later part but I'll state the following:<p>The heritage of human intelligence stretches back through the eons, before there were civilizations or even races as we know them. Human intelligence is primal, in the sense of the primates we descended from and in fact are still.
This is a subject no-one dare broach without getting labelled 'racist' or a 'white supremacist' etc. People need to be free to pursue science free of political and social ideology.<p>Are all people equal? No. Should all people be treated equally? Of course. That's the distinction a lot of these people don't make, the article is all 'yap, yap yap' and very light on facts.