Re: Intelligence, Genetics and Equality (was "The Paradoxes...)

[Judi Hirsch <judih@OUSD.K12.CA.US>]

Leo,
When you say, "if you wipe out certain vital areas of the brain, you can
hardly expect it to function as a whole brain would," I think you are
revealing some ignorance of the field of this kind of research. Just a few
years ago, a ayoaung man from England who began to have siezures in his
teens, has half of his brain removed. Guess what? He moved to Israel and
began working under Reuven Feuerstein's direction, and learned to read,
write and speak in Hebrew--(which he had NOT known before). So, who knows
what our brains are capable of doing??? As of now, I understand that we are
using only a small portion....
Judi
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. Leo Casey <LeoCasey@AOL.COM>
To: <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 3:05 PM
Subject: Intelligence, Genetics and Equality (was "The Paradoxes...)


> My first reaction to Rumme's commentary was just to ignore it, given that
the
> rather heavy-handed sarcasm it employs is not a very good predictor that
> meaningful conversation will ensue if one responds to it. But if we are
going
> to make a thread out of his commentary, as Judi's and Deb's replies tend
to
> do, I do think we have to start out with an understanding of how utterly
> unscientific this genetic theory of human intelligence is, despite its
> self-presentation as axiomatic truth. To simply mention the color of human
> eyes, the basketball prowess of Michael Jordan and the human intelligence
of
> Albert Einstein in one breathe, as if they were all demonstrative -- and
> self-evidently so -- of the determinative role of genetics demonstrates a
> lack of careful and clear thought about the question.
>
> Let's dissect these claims, and hold them up to some closer scrutiny. The
> color of human eyes is genetically based, and purely genetically based. If
> someone in a laboratory somewhere has not already discovered the
particular
> gene fragment which encodes the color of the human eye, he or she soon
will.
> So what? There is a reason why those classical educational experiments
> designed to show the irrationality of racism focused on genetic
endowments,
> such as eye color and left or right-handedness, which are as insignificant
> (in everything but a social sense) as skin color: it is because where
there
> is a clear, unambiguous and undiluted one-to-one genetic determination of
> such human characteristics, it tells nothing us of any significance about
a
> person except his physical appearance.
>
> Even Michael Jordan's prowess at the game of basketball is a far more
complex
> matter, which involves all sorts of interplay between his genetic
endowment
> and his actual development as a human being: genes for height, speed, keen
> eyesight and physical dexterity have to interact with a healthy diet and
> appropriate physical exercise and rest, as well as opportunities to learn
and
> practice the game, in order to produce a Michael Jordan. (And think of all
> the different aspects of just one of those physical attributes, good
eyesight
> -- accuracy in vision, depth perception, wide scope vision, hand-eye
> coordination, etc. -- and the extent to which they are genetically
distinct
> -- good depth perception bears no necessary relationship to hand-eye
> coordination. More importantly, they are as much learned capacities as
they
> are genetic givens. There is a reason why you practice foul shooting.)
>
> Moreover, there is an intelligence to playing that game well, summed up in
> what we might call questions of strategy, just as there is an intelligence
in
> the strategy of chess or war or any competition between human beings.
There
> is also the capacity to work well with and provide positive leadership for
> one's teammates. And at the risk of sounding slightly Nietzschian, I would
> even say that there is even a character element of an immeasurable 'will'
to
> win. So while physical features which involve a genetic element, such as
> height, speed, eyesight, etc., do provide an advantage in a game like
> basketball, they are clearly far from all determinative -- witness a
minute
> Mugsy Bogues and a flat-footed Larry Byrd.
>
> The very best claim one could make here, based on logical argument and
> scientific evidence, is that prowess at the game of basketball is an
> extraordinarily complex development. A number of quite different genetic
> endowments provide, in combination, a physiological medium through which
the
> physical and social development of a number of complex skills take place.
> It's a summary that becomes a mouthful precisely because far from being
> determinative in any strong or powerful sense, genetics plays a minor
role,
> and are mediated by an extraordinary number of other factors. And this is
a
> game which is, by definition, physical in nature.
>
> But despite all of this complexity, the example of Michael Jordan is
quickly
> asserted in discussions of genetic determinism. Why? I believe it happens
> because the example fits so nicely into our cultural and racial
stereotypes:
> African-Americans excel at athletics because they have the right genes for
> 'physicality,' not because they work hard at it and or because they
approach
> it with intelligence, leadership and character. White boys just can't jump
> (run, shoot) like black boys. So if African-Americans are
disproportionately
> represented among professional athletes, it can't be because so many young
> and impoverished African-American males see athletics as the one viable
road
> out of the inner city to social success and a decent life, it must be
because
> they have a natural, comparative genetic advantage at things like jumping,
> running and shooting. Given that natural comparative advantage, the color
of
> the world of professional sports is just the law of supply and demand
working
> itself out.
>
> But not a comparative advantage at a cerebral, non-physical intelligence.
> Here we must leap to (How did that nasty athletic metaphor slip by the
> mind-body dualism? No, here we must contemplate) an example of a white
man,
> indeed, a white Jewish man, an Albert Einstein, to employ the full impact
of
> our cultural, racial and ethnic stereotypes on behalf of a "self-evident"
> argument for genetic determinism. Everyone can't be an Einstein, meaning
> everyone can not develop an intelligence capable of producing the types of
> insights Einstein produced in his field of study.
>
> Now, there clearly is an outside genetic boundary to this issue, for a
human
> brain which is not properly formed is clearly not capable of the
development
> of full human intelligence; if you wipe out certain vital areas of the
brain,
> you can hardly expect it to function as a whole brain would. A child born
> with the genetic deformation which causes Downs syndrome, for example, is
not
> going to develop anything like a full human intelligence, as long as we
are
> limited by our current level of understanding of human physiological
> development. But where does that observation take us? It is like saying
that
> a children born without legs is not going to be a track star: it is a
> self-evident proposition which tells us nothing about why those who are
born
> with two legs (or a whole brain) develop different ranges of ability in
the
> use of those organs. [And it is important to note that most of the
> physiological impediments to normal brain functioning are not genetic but
the
> results of various traumatic intrusions on normal or ordinary
physiological
> development {i.e., fetal alcohol and drug syndromes, blows to the head,
> shaken baby syndrome, accidental loss of oxygen and blood flows to the
brain,
> even low birth weight}.]
>
> Let us leave aside, for the moment, the extraordinarily narrow conception
of
> human intelligence which is proffered when one produces Einstein as the
> paradigmatic example of that quality. Accepting a concept of human
> intelligence along the lines of an Einstein (what a Howard Gardner might
call
> a logical-mathematical intelligence) and having as a premise normal
> physiological brain development, what evidence is there that the
differences
> in that intelligence, from one individual to the next, are explained by
> genetic differences? None. This is an argument by pure supposition, or
should
> I properly say, no argument at all, for it simply asserts or assumes that
> these differences can not be explained by the effects of the virtually
> infinite number differences in the physical and social environment of
human
> beings, from the moment of conception, and therefore, must be genetic.
There
> is no research here grounded on the physiology of the brain, which shows
that
> some brain can intellectually jump higher than other brains, or on
genetics
> as a science. Indeed, all of the most recent research in genetics runs
> completely against the grain of this supposition. Luigi Cavalli's _Genes,
> People, and Languages_, for example, combines insights from the recent
study
> of genetics with work in linguistics to produce a scientific tour-de-force
> which blows the lazy, careless inferences that a _Bell-Curve_ made between
> race (and therefore, genetics) and intelligence right out of the water.
But
> that will remain, for some, drivel, for it runs against those axiomatic
> cultural stereotypes.
>
> |That's a nice way to think about the issue
> |--and in keeping with the meaning
> |of "all men are created equal."  Deb
>
> >It's not so much that everyone can be an >Einstein as it is that we don't
> >know who will be an Einstein, so we ought to
> >treat everyone as if they
> >could, and then see what happens. Certainly
> >nothing will hapeen if all we do
> >is humiliate and oppress people.
> >Judi
>
> >From: Theodor Rumme <tedrumme@EARTHLINK.NET>
> >To: <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
> >Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 1:01 AM
> >Subject: Re: The Paradoxes of Certain Democratic Educational Slogans (was
> >Algebra...)
>
> >> "It is essential, I insist,
> >> to reject such a view, and to insist that
> >> while children are different, and
> >> will learn in different ways and at
> >> different paces, children have
> >> fundamentally equal capacities for learning
> >> and intellectual growth."
>
> >> Yeah, right, and everyone can be an Einstein. >> Or, for that matter, a
> Michael
> >> Jordan. One might also argue with equal
> >> validity that everyone can be tall
> >> or have blue eyes. I don't know at what deep >> font you guys slake
your
> >> intellectual thirst, but this stuff, not to >> put too fine a point on
it,
> is
> >> drivel.
>
> Leo Casey
> United Federation of Teachers
> 260 Park Avenue South
> New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869)
>
> Power concedes nothing without a demand.
> It never has, and it never will.
> If there is no struggle, there is no progress.
> Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men
who
> want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and
> lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters.
> -- Frederick Douglass --
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.