| ||||||||||||||||||
|
Amazon.co.uk Trade-In Store
Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Visit the Books Trade-In Store for more details. Learn more. |
Product details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
But for almost as long, there has been a debate over the relative contributions of heredity and environment. There are implications of this debate for social philosophy, for this reason: liberal social philosophers stress the perfectibility of man, while conservatives have a gloomier, more pessimistic view. Since it is easier to alter environmental than genetic factors, liberals hope that intelligence is more environmentally influenced.
Now enter Arthur R. Jensen, an enormously productive and talented researcher at the University of California. Since the late 1960's, he has produced a barrage of totally persuasive research that shows, beyond much question, that intelligence has much more to do with heredity than with environment. Any hope that all human beings can have an equal amount of ability is now shattered. In retrospect, of course, such a hope was never reasonable.
This is bad news, and not only for the liberals. Jensen's findings make us look at society with less optimism than we would like. His findings do not mean that we must give up on more humane arrangements, nor on our ideals of equal opportunity. But it warns us we must take into account the inequalities in ability that seem here to stay.
Miele's book, in the form of an extended interview with Jensen, tells the story of Jensen's research findings and also of the resistance to accepting these findings. There have been political attacks on Jensen as a "racist," and these attacks are duly rebutted in this book. In fact, much of the book is taken up by such controversies, and this is perhaps as it should be. But foolish attacks aside, there are deeper problems with Jensen's presentation of his work that this books barely touches.
1) It needs to be said more clearly and more strongly that the group differences documented by Jensen -- differences of relative frequency -- are statistical in nature and have no application whatever for the assessment of a given individual.
2) The "mental abilities" that are probed in I.Q. and similar tests represent but a small portion of those attributes on which humans differ. We know from personal observation that some people are kinder than others, have more empathy than others, are less selfish than others. Social science, so far, has had little to say about the distribution of such traits. That is regrettable.
3) Jensen is very much impressed by the "abilities" that determine worldly success. He even uses the term "meritocracy" with some approval. His mindset here is self-consciously tough. He does not seem to have much use or interest in those qualities that we may call "saintliness." If an attribute does not show up on a battery of IQ tests, Jensen is not interested. But some day, perhaps, there will be a science of human assessment with a wider focus.
One gets the impression that public policy problems can't be solved unless the solutions are backed by good, accurate science. You can't solve such problems by wishing that problems and solutions fit a liberal ideology. Otherwise, you'll keep spending money on programs that don't work.
I gleaned a few of his opinions from the book. He still believes in integration, but favors a more individualistic education system with less government control. Vituperative attacts from liberals don't bother him as much as winning approval from people who have their prejudices confirmed by his research. (Although I can't see how an opinion based on scientific research can be called merely a prejudice.) He does not think that mass third world immigration to America will benefit this country. An ethical and voluntary eugenics program would benefit this country, but reducing world population growth is his first concern.
This book is a nice complement to The Bell Curve, the classic on hereditarian science. Some of the technical explanations of how Jenson comes to his conclusions may be hard to understand for the layman. Jenson puts science first above politics in his research, I don't know if we can say the same for other academics.
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|