From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: _The Mismeasure of Man_
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 04:31:27 GMT

In article <GERRY.92Apr12165028@onion.cmu.edu>
 gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>A fascinating book, but it does leave me with a question.  [Is there a
>net.reader out there who can put it to Gould and post his response?]

Why not print this and send it to him at Harvard (?) or the New York
Review of Books?  I bet he'll respond.

>I agree quite strongly with Dr. Gould that "intelligence" tests dont.
>I use as empirical evidence my scores on the GRE when I retook them
>recently.  Studying can seriusly affect the outcome of the exam,
>therefor, they do not measure "native intelligence".

A couple problems:

a) The GRE is not, and does not claim to be, an intelligence test.   Nor
does it purport to measure "native intelligence."

b) GRE scores *usually* go up on the retest.  They know this.

c) Just because they went up doesn't mean that the studying you did was
the cause.  

d) Studying is *supposed* to affect the outcome of the exam.  ETS will
tell you as much.

>My question is this though: does Dr. Gould believe/suggest/imply that
>all people have the same mental potential at birth? 

Why do you ask?  Does he imply this?  

The answer is no.  Gould is arguing against the reduction of estimates
of mental potential to a few numbers.  As a geneticist, Gould can hardly
be expected to hold tabula rasa views.

> [I know that the
>pre-natal environment can affect this potential, but let's ignore that
>for now.]  It seems to me that, at birth, certain individuals are
>endowed with greater potentials in certain areas of endeavor than
>others.  No one would call me names if I were to claim that Bo Jackson,
>at birth, had greater potential for becoming a great athlete than I.
>But many people might call me names if I were to say that at birth I
>was endowed with greater potential for mental achievement than he.

Which is not at ALL what you were talking about above!!!  *Different*
mental potential and *higher/lower* mental potential involve two quite
different viewpoints.  

>Therefore, it seems that there IS some native, inheredited potential
>that is independent of environment. 

Sure, and few will dispute that.  What the *effect* of this is, of
course, is disputable indeed, because the environment MUST act on the
organism before *any* potentialities are realized.

> And, since, as I claim that this
>inheredited potential must exist, is it possible to identify and
>measure it in some manner?

We haven't even settled what it's a potential *for*.  First things
first.  

Also, note that "intelligence" as we tend to define it (with or without
tests) involves some sort of adaptation to one's environment.  More
intrelligent people are those who can deal with new problems as they
arise.

But humans live in all sorts of environments, and we're at the stage at
which we're now *modifying* hte environment, especially the mental
environment.  So perhaps the definition of intelligence will change?
Perhaps the relevant potentialities of today are not those of tomorrow
or yesterday?

>Another question that arose from the book has to do with the
>differentiation of the human species into "races".  According to the
>book, and I have no reason to doubt this, the differentiation of the
>races is a relatively modern phenomenon (about 10,000 years ago).

Do you mean the evolutionary event or the development of the human
concept of race?  Either way, I'd be fascinated to know how you place
the event at 8,000 BCE.         

>Understanding the causes of the differentiation and some of the
>results is not difficult: more melamin and the reduced ability to
>digest milk in tropical races, less melamin and the continued ability
>to digest milk in the nordic races, etc. 

Most of this is pretty hypothetical, i.e., those are the best stories we
can come up with.  Many of the differences don't match any environmental
history we know of.

> But why did different
>"superficial" differences appear?  (Such as the narrow eyes of the
>oriental, the skin color of the oriental, the flattened nose and
>sloped forehead of the african negro, etc.) 

This happened 10,000 years ago?????

> Furthermore, since these
>differences would seem to imply that the races were reproductively
>isolated, so why then can the races interbreed today?  It would be

Why can different breeds of dog interbreed? 

The answer is that the mutations were not sufficient to cause
speciation.  

>interesting to determine if the rate if miscarraiges for inter-racial
>couples is higher or lower than for intra-racial couples.

You need to read a bit more genetics.  

Roger

(and *please* shorten that .sig.  Noble sentiments, but not exactly
necessary at the end of each post...)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.music.classical