In DNA Era, New Worries About Prejudice - New York Times
Today the New York Times published an article about the potentially worrisome implications that new scientific research cataloging the genetic differences between human populations may have. What troubles me, reading the comments of folks interviewed for the article or whose comments on blogs were gleaned as testimony, is how so many people have difficulties "accepting" these genetic findings as real and fraught with implications. Do you "accept" the law of gravity or the explanation for why the sky looks blue? Facts are facts regardless of one's opinion. The genetic differences are real, but the implications not necessarily as dire as predicted.
For instance, one point of contention is the link between genetics and intelligence and how certain populations seem to have different sets of "intelligence sequences/genes" than others. Say for example, genetics clusters A, B, and C seem to correlate with higher than average IQs. People of European descent whose DNA was tested have more of the A and B clusters than people of African descent who have few of the A or B clusters but many of the C clusters. Is this genetic proof that Europeans are inherently/innately smarter than Africans? First, look at the measure of intelligence used: IQ, the intelligence quotient. A person's IQ roughly relates their age to their mental skills, such that if two people, one who is 8 and the other 24, get 35/40 questions right on an IQ test, the 8 year-old is said to have a "higher IQ."
The important things to know are what questions were asked and the educational background of the test takers. If you've ever taken an IQ test, you know the kind of questions you can expect. "Which shape goes next?" "Which word does not belong?" "If this object were folded up, what shape would it look like?" ad nauseum. Are these the only criteria by which society measures intelligence? What about memorization skills? The ability to compute large sums without external aids? How about writing plays or composing operas? Note how none of these skills are tested on most IQ tests (for obvious logistical reasons), yet how often many are used to rate "intelligence" in people.
Whence comes this discrimination opportunity? The idea that, oh my goodness, race exists? That people are fundamentally different genetically (otherwise we'd all be identical clones of one another)? What does a genetic basis for race really change? We simply know the reason behind the fact we've known for ages. Does that change the fact in some fundamental way? Just because I know scientifically why the sky looks blue doesn't change its beauty for me.
If we want to avoid feeding discriminatory minds with genetic ammunition, then we need to make clear what our notions of "equality" are. People are not the same physically, emotionally, mentally, or spiritually. People are not the same genetically. What then does "equal" mean for human beings? The the law should treat everyone the same. But what about people with valid mental illnesses who commit criminal actions when out of control ? Students should be put in classes according to age. But what if they're a prodigy and should be advanced several years? We should have rules and exceptions to each for special cases. If that's true, are we really being equal?
So many traits, like intelligence or outgoingness, are both genetic and environmental in nature. You could have all the "right" genes for intelligence, but if those abilities are not nurtured or supported, or if development is hampered by physical or emotional considerations, then a person who is "born smart" may very well score poorly on an IQ test or be considered average or even dumb by society. Conversely, a person "born with average intelligence" who grows up in a household where learning is nurtured and encouraged could become very bright and score brilliantly on such tests.
It's true that many traits are mostly genetic, such as skin or eye color (along with some diseases), and in those cases environment has little affect. That these "facts of life" are ever the basis for discrimination I find simply ridiculous. A person literally had no choice what skin color they were born with. To a large extent they can choose their behavior and what to make of the opportunities (no matter how few or many) open to them. People should be judged for things they have control over, and the more control the better.
In the end, it is our choices that we have control over, not our genetic inheritance, that truly make us who we are and how we interact with our society.
Today the New York Times published an article about the potentially worrisome implications that new scientific research cataloging the genetic differences between human populations may have. What troubles me, reading the comments of folks interviewed for the article or whose comments on blogs were gleaned as testimony, is how so many people have difficulties "accepting" these genetic findings as real and fraught with implications. Do you "accept" the law of gravity or the explanation for why the sky looks blue? Facts are facts regardless of one's opinion. The genetic differences are real, but the implications not necessarily as dire as predicted.
For instance, one point of contention is the link between genetics and intelligence and how certain populations seem to have different sets of "intelligence sequences/genes" than others. Say for example, genetics clusters A, B, and C seem to correlate with higher than average IQs. People of European descent whose DNA was tested have more of the A and B clusters than people of African descent who have few of the A or B clusters but many of the C clusters. Is this genetic proof that Europeans are inherently/innately smarter than Africans? First, look at the measure of intelligence used: IQ, the intelligence quotient. A person's IQ roughly relates their age to their mental skills, such that if two people, one who is 8 and the other 24, get 35/40 questions right on an IQ test, the 8 year-old is said to have a "higher IQ."
The important things to know are what questions were asked and the educational background of the test takers. If you've ever taken an IQ test, you know the kind of questions you can expect. "Which shape goes next?" "Which word does not belong?" "If this object were folded up, what shape would it look like?" ad nauseum. Are these the only criteria by which society measures intelligence? What about memorization skills? The ability to compute large sums without external aids? How about writing plays or composing operas? Note how none of these skills are tested on most IQ tests (for obvious logistical reasons), yet how often many are used to rate "intelligence" in people.
Whence comes this discrimination opportunity? The idea that, oh my goodness, race exists? That people are fundamentally different genetically (otherwise we'd all be identical clones of one another)? What does a genetic basis for race really change? We simply know the reason behind the fact we've known for ages. Does that change the fact in some fundamental way? Just because I know scientifically why the sky looks blue doesn't change its beauty for me.
If we want to avoid feeding discriminatory minds with genetic ammunition, then we need to make clear what our notions of "equality" are. People are not the same physically, emotionally, mentally, or spiritually. People are not the same genetically. What then does "equal" mean for human beings? The the law should treat everyone the same. But what about people with valid mental illnesses who commit criminal actions when out of control ? Students should be put in classes according to age. But what if they're a prodigy and should be advanced several years? We should have rules and exceptions to each for special cases. If that's true, are we really being equal?
So many traits, like intelligence or outgoingness, are both genetic and environmental in nature. You could have all the "right" genes for intelligence, but if those abilities are not nurtured or supported, or if development is hampered by physical or emotional considerations, then a person who is "born smart" may very well score poorly on an IQ test or be considered average or even dumb by society. Conversely, a person "born with average intelligence" who grows up in a household where learning is nurtured and encouraged could become very bright and score brilliantly on such tests.
It's true that many traits are mostly genetic, such as skin or eye color (along with some diseases), and in those cases environment has little affect. That these "facts of life" are ever the basis for discrimination I find simply ridiculous. A person literally had no choice what skin color they were born with. To a large extent they can choose their behavior and what to make of the opportunities (no matter how few or many) open to them. People should be judged for things they have control over, and the more control the better.
In the end, it is our choices that we have control over, not our genetic inheritance, that truly make us who we are and how we interact with our society.
Posts
2 comments:
Trying to use the small but very real genetic differences between people, which we group under labels like 'race' or 'ethnic group', to show that some people are smarter or superior than others is inherently flawed.
As for intelligence, it is well known that the oft-mentioned IQ test is very, very, good at measuring 'something', but no one exactly knows that that 'something' is. The results from the test are consistent and have been tested countless times. Yes, interesting results do appear in which groups of people consistently obtain different scores. But what does this imply? Until you actually figure out what the IQ test is measuring, it doesn't mean much at all.
Second, for 'superiority', on what grounds do you evaluate this? Whether a group of people invented the steam engine, the social contract, Jesus, or discovered the atom?
I am a vocal disciple of Jared Diamond's thesis as he expressed in Guns, Germs, and Steel. The influence of geographical differences among the various groups is the overwhelming factor in what society often defines as 'success'. The small genetic differences are many many orders of magnitude below.
If that's what Diamond thinks about "success", then I'd have to agree. I don't think this article was talking about "success" as much as more specific traits in people, like intelligence. Success is clearly measured quite differently in different cultures. Being rich could earn you big points in America while it may not count for much among a tribe in the Amazon where social connections are more highly valued. But are standards for intelligence also so varied? If so, can there really be a standard IQ test?
Sure, IQ tests seem quite predictive in our society, but that could be due to our educational system that emphasizes those skills in the first place. What if wordplay (punning, verbal games, etc) were tested too? I can think of a few societies I've studied who would easily beat many Americans (and other "Westerners") in that category.
I'm not sure exactly what IQ tests measure. Reasoning? Pattern recognition? How are those weighted in relation to each other, or are they considered equally?
My main point, which I should have stated more explicitly, is that environment and individual choices are much better and more important determinants of many personality, mental, and emotional traits that also have a genetic basis. I think it's being simplistic and frankly lazy to just put everything on genes and discount personal responsibility and influence.
Oh, and it feels weird commenting on my own blog.
Post a Comment