Academics in the New Millennium
I get excited when my students get excited. Recently I was talking about intelligence and family size, pointing out that the average family IQ is negatively related to the number of children in the family. Large families on average have lower IQs than smaller families.
Once she had a chance to think this through, one of my students called me at the office and left this voice mail: “If it’s true that the least intelligent people are having the largest families, what does this mean about the future of the human race?”
An honest answer to this is so politically incorrect that most scientists and most textbooks refuse to address it. There are sociologists and some die-hard behaviorists who argue that intelligence is NOT inherited and thus, with appropriate social interventions, low IQ can be overcome. The chairman of my division at the college where I teach, a sociologist, has until recently espoused such a view.
A more honest and realistic analysis confirms that intelligence is MOSTLY inherited and that environment plays a significant role only in the most extreme of cases. It is indeed true that the lower the IQ of the parents, the larger the family is likely to be. Also of interest is the finding that, on average, each child in the family will have a lower IQ than the child born immediately before. So in a family of seven kids, the whole family is likely to be of low intelligence and the last child will be the slowest of the bunch. Of course, there are ethnic implications as well. What does this forecast for the future of the human race? Nothing good. The answer, from the politicians, is to hope and believe that these differences CAN be overcome with social programs, affirmative action, and so forth. Sandra Day O’Connor said recently in her court opinion supporting affirmative action that “hopefully these measures will no longer be needed in 25 years.” Let’s pray she’s right. Clearly this is the type of thing that, when mentioned in an undergraduate class, will get the instructor in VERY hot water with the administration and local and state leaders of ethnic communities, who then demand that such heresies, true or not, not be presented to students in public settings. Don’t ask me how I know.
A few years ago a meeting was scheduled at the University of Maryland to examine genetic issues in crime. The legislators in Washington got wind of it and insisted that it be canceled. Which it was. Why? “There are some things about each other we are better off not knowing,” said one of them.
It is said that the wife of a lord bishop upon hearing the details of Darwin’s theory of evolution remarked, “Let us hope that what Mr. Darwin says is not true; but, if it is true, let us hope that it will not become generally known.”
Ye shall know the truth, and the truth will likely upset someone with political influence.
So we learn to keep our mouths shut about these issues in class. Free speech in this country and academic freedom are both happy illusions.
Once she had a chance to think this through, one of my students called me at the office and left this voice mail: “If it’s true that the least intelligent people are having the largest families, what does this mean about the future of the human race?”
An honest answer to this is so politically incorrect that most scientists and most textbooks refuse to address it. There are sociologists and some die-hard behaviorists who argue that intelligence is NOT inherited and thus, with appropriate social interventions, low IQ can be overcome. The chairman of my division at the college where I teach, a sociologist, has until recently espoused such a view.
A more honest and realistic analysis confirms that intelligence is MOSTLY inherited and that environment plays a significant role only in the most extreme of cases. It is indeed true that the lower the IQ of the parents, the larger the family is likely to be. Also of interest is the finding that, on average, each child in the family will have a lower IQ than the child born immediately before. So in a family of seven kids, the whole family is likely to be of low intelligence and the last child will be the slowest of the bunch. Of course, there are ethnic implications as well. What does this forecast for the future of the human race? Nothing good. The answer, from the politicians, is to hope and believe that these differences CAN be overcome with social programs, affirmative action, and so forth. Sandra Day O’Connor said recently in her court opinion supporting affirmative action that “hopefully these measures will no longer be needed in 25 years.” Let’s pray she’s right. Clearly this is the type of thing that, when mentioned in an undergraduate class, will get the instructor in VERY hot water with the administration and local and state leaders of ethnic communities, who then demand that such heresies, true or not, not be presented to students in public settings. Don’t ask me how I know.
A few years ago a meeting was scheduled at the University of Maryland to examine genetic issues in crime. The legislators in Washington got wind of it and insisted that it be canceled. Which it was. Why? “There are some things about each other we are better off not knowing,” said one of them.
It is said that the wife of a lord bishop upon hearing the details of Darwin’s theory of evolution remarked, “Let us hope that what Mr. Darwin says is not true; but, if it is true, let us hope that it will not become generally known.”
Ye shall know the truth, and the truth will likely upset someone with political influence.
So we learn to keep our mouths shut about these issues in class. Free speech in this country and academic freedom are both happy illusions.
posted by Satterwhite | 5:58 AM
5 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
>>You can say whatever you want -- I think maybe what you DON'T want in class is for someone to disagree with you (rightly or wrongly).
The most common challenge: "That can't be right. That's not my experience." Example - Men have better math skills as a group than women. "That can't be right. My math skills are better than my brother's."
Second most common challenge: "That can't be right. That goes against what it says in the Bible and the Bible is the literal word of God."
Third most common challenge: "That can't be right. I'm real threatened by the information and so the science is flawed." How is it flawed. "I don't know, I just know that can't be right."
Why should I tolerate such stupidity? I will never be able to convince them to consider the science, because the emotional needs they have are way too deep to change what they believe.
"Challenge me if you have a valid logical argument, or shut the hell up" is my position. For this I am called racist, sexist, liberal, conservative, anti-American, atheist, etc.
The people in the presidential election didn't vote the issues, they voted their fear of change.
My personal favorite fallacy is argumentum ad bullshittum, which is what you should expect from young learners. The true test of your calling is patience -- on your part. Teach them logic, don't slay them with it or use their lack of familiarity with it as an exscuse to dismiss their views outright. You will be their first encounter with logic. Be gentle.
Oklahoma logic:
Two Okies, Bubba and Cooter, decided that they weren't going anywhere in life and thought they should go to college to get ahead. Bubba goes in first, and the professor advises him to take math, history, and logic.
"What's logic?" asked Bubba.
The professor answered, "Let me give you an example. Do you own a weed-eater?"
"I sure do," answered the Okie.
"Then I can assume, using logic, that you have a yard." replied the professor.
The professor continued: "Logic will also tell me that since you have a yard, you also have a house."
Impressed, the Okie shouted, "GAWL-LEEE!!"
"And since you own a house and a house is tough to take care of by yourself, logic dictates that you have a wife."
"Sally Mae! This is incredible!" (Bubba is obviously catching on.)
"Finally, since you have a wife, logically I can assume that you are heterosexual rather than homosexual" said the professor.
"You're absolutely right! Why that's the most fascinatin' thing I ever heard of. I can't wait to take this here logic class."
Bubba, proud of the new world opening up to him, walked back into the hallway where Cooter is still waiting.
"So what classes are ya takin?" he asks.
"Math, history, and logic," replies Bubba.
"What in tarnation is logic?"
"Let me give you an example. Do ya own a weed-eater?"
"No." says Cooter.
"You're a queer, ain't ya?"
#
Why have you stopped writing?
You were on a roll and just quit.
Post a Comment
<< Home