h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>if, God forbid, it were shown that people with one kind of skin colour were genetically less intelligent than those of another colour.

I thought this had been done. Didn't Eysenck get called a racist for showing that the Japanese are more intelligent than whiteys like himself?

Can't remember. But I'm deeply suspicious of people who seem to think they should be investigating genes and intelligence. Firstly, because it's not a very interesting problem scientifically. If you have a lot of genes cooperating to produce a measurable characteristic (such as height) then you will get a normal distribution about a mean. That's been demonstrated countless times already and is exactly what you'd expect. Secondly , the amount of variation between two individuals from different races is 90% due to normal variation between any two individuals, genetically speaking. Only the remaining 10% is due to 'race'
Thirdly, I suspect their motives. Heard of Cyril Burt?

No. Should I google him?

OK. " . . . he had controversial ideas regarding the heritability of intelligence, and there is ample evidence that he used fraudulent data to support his views . . . Throughout Cyril Burt's lifetime he remained committed to proving that intelligence is primarily an inherited characteristic"

Just the sort you don't need on your side. Pinker on the other hand cites many better studies on separated twins, that do reveal inherited traits of surprising persistence. He is at pains to point out however that no moral distinctions whatever follow from inherited distinctions.

. . . which is also a strong argument of Dawkins's.

And one of mine. By all means, let's appreciate the fact that people are different. You are going to get bright people and you are also going to get stupid people. However, I tend to think that regardless of ability we are all created with equal worth.

I don't believe that the sort of society that humanity ultimately should build is one where meritocracy has degenerated into a 'devil take the hindmost' philosophy. I'd be very happy to see it evolve, instead, into the sort of world where it doesn't really matter how bright or stupid you are, and people work for the sake of the things that matter to them, rather than simply to get one up on the neighbours. As a corollary, I'm pretty certain that the likes of Burt and many on the political Right see it as their ultimate aim to prevent such a society from ever coming into being in the first place.

Inequality might remain a fact of life for the tinme being, but what we can *actually do* about it is a lot more under our influence. We can either fold our arms and let nature take its course, or get actively involved and change things. Banging on about how our future is determined by our genes is merely a tactic to get the politicians off the hook.

PS: just for the record, my IQ is 145. Too stupid to get into Mensa, so all this can be dismissed as bitterness and chagrin.

I never did the test. Afraid my ego would get a slap. I have a friend in Mensa, and she is delighted with herself, and delightful too.

>I'd be very happy to see it evolve, instead, into the sort of world where it doesn't really matter how bright or stupid you are

"Evolve" is a curious word to use here. Evolution works by killing you young if you can't outdo your fellow. Not a pleasant process.

No, that's natural selection, just one form of evolution. I use the word in its broader sense.

I have a downer on Mensa. A friend of mine (whom I have drifted away from) took me to a mensa meal once. I was my normal, charming, witty, erudite and humorous self, and at the end of the meal I got the inevitable question: 'Tell me you seem like a very clever chap. Ever thought of joining?'
To which I answered: ' No - too stupid. only got an IQ of 145.'
The atmosphere became a bit solemn and chilly after that...

Sounds weirdly self-conscious. My Dad used to complain about academics that they graded people like eggs. If you had a first-class degree you were ok, otherwise they didn't take you seriously at all.

Well, I got a 2:1, so that's me out of the running. If I'd spent more time actually going to lectures and less time pissing about then I *might* have got a 1st.

Mensa, in my experience, is populated by typically low achievers who think they're clever but don't know how to prove it. Many of them have rather mundane jobs and lives, permetaed by a sense that if only life was fairer to them then they'd have achieved their full potential. Of course, if they'd gone to Public School then they'd be in with a chance, as the main purpose of such an institution seems to be to convince thick people that they're destined for greatness, so imagine what they could do with a raw intellectual talent like yer average Mensa spod.

As for my take on things, I tend to believe that there's plenty of cleverness in the world, and we could do with a lot more kindness and generosity of spirit. The really pressing problems we face aren't created by geniuses, they're created by ordinary people like you and me and are therefore solvable by ordinary people. Darfur, global warming, you name it: all fundamentally simple problems that require a demonstration of moral resolve and fellow-feeling for other people, above any other qualities that might be brought to bear upon them.

Most of the intellectual talent however seems to be directed towards *avoiding* having to confront issues. This is why the Diplomatic Service likes to bang on about how it always recruits the 'brightest and the best'. Making sure that all the best brainpower is dissipated in talk and no useful action whatsoever.

You and I are of a mind with Kurt Vonnegut then.

Many solvable problems are shelved because people decide they are too much bother. They take refuge in stupidity they have no good claim to.