Nick Miller interviewed a pink-haired Jesse Prinz in a Manhattan cafe about a new book which the City University of New York philosopher has written challenging the supposed orthodoxy of genetic determinism. But the current consensus on the old nature versus nurture question is not genetic determinism: it is a view which recognizes the complex interactions between human genes and the environment. Prinz is also arguing against the idea that our brains are, as it were, primed for language. And he tries to undermine the credibility of the studies of identical twins which underlie current mainstream views.
There is something going on here. Such overweening intellectual ambition and contrarianism can't be driven solely by a dispassionate reassessment of the evidence. Fortunately, Professor Prinz is very upfront about the ideological motivations of his ideas. Like his CUNY colleague, Massimo Pigliucci, his intellectual work is inextricably bound up with his passionate commitment to progressive causes. The trouble is, mixing ideology and science is at best a distraction, a muddying of the waters, and at worst positively dangerous.
For his article, Miller also interviewed Geoffrey Miller of the University of New Mexico who effectively undermined the line which Prinz was taking by confirming what anyone with even a passing interest in these matters already knows: that studies of identical twins over the past two decades have demonstrated conclusively that virtually every aspect of personality is heritable (to a significant extent).
Steven Pinker, who has written on what he calls our language instinct as well as on broader issues of evolutionary psychology, is the most prominent public spokesman for the mainstream position which Prinz is setting out to attack. The following passage is from Pinker's book, The Blank Slate:
Identical twins, whether separated at birth or not, are eerily alike in just about any trait one can measure - verbal, mathematical and general intelligence, in their degree of life satisfaction, personality traits such as introversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness and openness to experience. They have similar attitudes towards controversial issues such as the death penalty, religion and modern music. They resemble each other in gambling, divorce, committing crimes, getting into accidents and watching television. They even boast dozens of shared idiosyncrasies such as giggling incessantly, giving interminable answers to simple questions, dipping buttered toast in coffee and writing indistinguishable syndicated advice columns.
If we want to improve our lives, the first step surely is to understand as best we can the situation we are in and this involves a recognition of the truly surprising power and influence of our genes.
Showing posts with label intelligence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intelligence. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Ten examples of racially-based thinking
1. A subjective preference to live and interact with one's own population group (defined in terms of genetic relatedness).
2. A subjective preference to marry within one's own population group.
3. A conviction that members of one's own population group are morally obliged only to marry within the group.
4. A belief that population groups (defined in terms of genetic relatedness) exhibit statistically significant differences in terms of psychological and cognitive characteristics and abilities.
5. A belief that one's own population group exhibits a higher incidence and/or higher levels of subjectively desirable psychological or behavioral characteristics than some other groups.
6. A belief that one's own population group exhibits a higher incidence and/or higher levels of subjectively desirable psychological or behavioral characteristics than all other groups.
7. A belief that one's own population group exhibits higher levels of objectively quantifiable cognitive abilities than some other groups.
8. A belief that one's own population group exhibits higher levels of objectively quantifiable cognitive abilities than all other groups.
9. A belief that one's own population group is intrinsically superior to some other population groups.
10. A belief that one's own population group is intrinsically superior to all other population groups.
2. A subjective preference to marry within one's own population group.
3. A conviction that members of one's own population group are morally obliged only to marry within the group.
4. A belief that population groups (defined in terms of genetic relatedness) exhibit statistically significant differences in terms of psychological and cognitive characteristics and abilities.
5. A belief that one's own population group exhibits a higher incidence and/or higher levels of subjectively desirable psychological or behavioral characteristics than some other groups.
6. A belief that one's own population group exhibits a higher incidence and/or higher levels of subjectively desirable psychological or behavioral characteristics than all other groups.
7. A belief that one's own population group exhibits higher levels of objectively quantifiable cognitive abilities than some other groups.
8. A belief that one's own population group exhibits higher levels of objectively quantifiable cognitive abilities than all other groups.
9. A belief that one's own population group is intrinsically superior to some other population groups.
10. A belief that one's own population group is intrinsically superior to all other population groups.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Stupid intelligent versus intelligent stupid
The topic of intelligence is one is I intend to look at from time to time and from various angles. There are scientific and factual issues, many quite controversial, which can be addressed, but also conceptual issues and questions of attitudes to the importance of (various types of) intelligence.
Let me begin by referring back to a piece I wrote over a year ago, drawing on something Jason Streitfeld (a follower of the 20th-century philosopher Gilbert Ryle) wrote on the topic. The basic point I was making was that intelligent behavior is what matters, not some hypothetical quality residing inside the head. The tests for cognitive ablility conducted by psychologists are very important tools, and in my opinion they should be more widely used and applied (for example, in helping individuals make choices about careers). What they do not and cannot do, however, is to deal with the sort of complex processing involved in making the sequences of real life decisions which to a large extent determine our individual fates. (The notion of emotional intelligence, which is supposed to address some of these issues, is still in the process of being defined and there is no consensus on the value of existing tests.)
Imagine two individuals, two scenarios. One person has a very high IQ and is able to cope easily with advanced mathematics but is socially awkward, and doesn't bother to organize mundane aspects of his life like personal finances. The other person has a lowish IQ did poorly at school but is socially adept, a hard worker and a good listener. Let's say he recognizes his limitations and devotes his limited intellectual powers to seeking out intelligent and trustworthy advisers. He invests his savings wisely and lives a long, happy and prosperous life within a trusted circle of friends and family. Who would you prefer to be?
A certain level of raw cognitive ability is necessary to achieve success in life. But when people use the epithet 'intelligent', they are often indicating high levels of cognitive ability - call it cleverness or 'braininess'. My point is simply that this kind of (high level) intelligence is overrated and less important than most people think. More important - especially in respect of the wellbeing of the individual concerned - is that other sort of intelligence which incorporates a gift for friendship, which allows one to recognize one's limitations, to make astute social judgements, to put a high value on the future and financial independence, and to act accordingly.
Let me begin by referring back to a piece I wrote over a year ago, drawing on something Jason Streitfeld (a follower of the 20th-century philosopher Gilbert Ryle) wrote on the topic. The basic point I was making was that intelligent behavior is what matters, not some hypothetical quality residing inside the head. The tests for cognitive ablility conducted by psychologists are very important tools, and in my opinion they should be more widely used and applied (for example, in helping individuals make choices about careers). What they do not and cannot do, however, is to deal with the sort of complex processing involved in making the sequences of real life decisions which to a large extent determine our individual fates. (The notion of emotional intelligence, which is supposed to address some of these issues, is still in the process of being defined and there is no consensus on the value of existing tests.)
Imagine two individuals, two scenarios. One person has a very high IQ and is able to cope easily with advanced mathematics but is socially awkward, and doesn't bother to organize mundane aspects of his life like personal finances. The other person has a lowish IQ did poorly at school but is socially adept, a hard worker and a good listener. Let's say he recognizes his limitations and devotes his limited intellectual powers to seeking out intelligent and trustworthy advisers. He invests his savings wisely and lives a long, happy and prosperous life within a trusted circle of friends and family. Who would you prefer to be?
A certain level of raw cognitive ability is necessary to achieve success in life. But when people use the epithet 'intelligent', they are often indicating high levels of cognitive ability - call it cleverness or 'braininess'. My point is simply that this kind of (high level) intelligence is overrated and less important than most people think. More important - especially in respect of the wellbeing of the individual concerned - is that other sort of intelligence which incorporates a gift for friendship, which allows one to recognize one's limitations, to make astute social judgements, to put a high value on the future and financial independence, and to act accordingly.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Intelligent behavior
The mark of intelligence is active learning - changing behavior in response to circumstances and past successes and failures. In his remarkable and largely forgotten book The concept of mind (1949), Gilbert Ryle distinguishes between a passive approach of 'satisfying criteria' (or following rules blindly) and an active one of 'applying criteria' (which involves making choices about when to apply which criteria, that is, continually modifying the rules one lives by).
Ryle writes: "To be intelligent is not merely to satisfy criteria, but to apply them; to regulate one's actions and not merely to be well-regulated. A person's performance is described as careful or skillful, if in his operations he is ready to detect and correct lapses, to repeat and improve upon successes, to profit from the examples of others and so forth. He applies criteria in performing critically, that is, in trying to get things right."
Ryle's work is difficult to categorize. It is not scientific psychology, but nor is it anti-scientific. It is concerned with the basic logic of psychological explanations. He called the area in which he worked 'philosophical psychology'.
As Jason Streitfeld points out, Ryle challenges "what he calls 'the dogma of the ghost in the machine,' the tradition of Cartesian dualism which says that minds and bodies are distinct entities, each with their own causal properties. Ryle says this is a category error. When we speak of minds, we are not speaking of states, entities, or events. The language we use to talk about minds employs a logic of dispositions, and not simply of occurrences. Rather than think of the mind as a particular place or thing, Ryle asks us to imagine it as a complex set of abilities, capacities, skills, and so on ...
... Ryle's argument is not that we do not have private thoughts, or that we do not imagine, think, or feel. He does not ignore the richness and potency of experience. Rather, he says that the marks of the mental are not intrinsically private. Sometimes they are public, such as when we speak or write, or otherwise perform publicly. Thoughts are only sometimes private, and then only by convention or circumstance. Furthermore, such private acts do not confer intelligence to outward, public acts. Ryle's insight is this:- Intelligent behavior is not the product of intelligence - it is intelligence itself."
Ryle writes: "To be intelligent is not merely to satisfy criteria, but to apply them; to regulate one's actions and not merely to be well-regulated. A person's performance is described as careful or skillful, if in his operations he is ready to detect and correct lapses, to repeat and improve upon successes, to profit from the examples of others and so forth. He applies criteria in performing critically, that is, in trying to get things right."
Ryle's work is difficult to categorize. It is not scientific psychology, but nor is it anti-scientific. It is concerned with the basic logic of psychological explanations. He called the area in which he worked 'philosophical psychology'.
As Jason Streitfeld points out, Ryle challenges "what he calls 'the dogma of the ghost in the machine,' the tradition of Cartesian dualism which says that minds and bodies are distinct entities, each with their own causal properties. Ryle says this is a category error. When we speak of minds, we are not speaking of states, entities, or events. The language we use to talk about minds employs a logic of dispositions, and not simply of occurrences. Rather than think of the mind as a particular place or thing, Ryle asks us to imagine it as a complex set of abilities, capacities, skills, and so on ...
... Ryle's argument is not that we do not have private thoughts, or that we do not imagine, think, or feel. He does not ignore the richness and potency of experience. Rather, he says that the marks of the mental are not intrinsically private. Sometimes they are public, such as when we speak or write, or otherwise perform publicly. Thoughts are only sometimes private, and then only by convention or circumstance. Furthermore, such private acts do not confer intelligence to outward, public acts. Ryle's insight is this:- Intelligent behavior is not the product of intelligence - it is intelligence itself."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)