Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1a 12/4/83; site rlgvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!seismo!rlgvax!guy From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Winslow re: Sex and Determinism Message-ID: <1957@rlgvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 29-May-84 00:55:56 EDT Article-I.D.: rlgvax.1957 Posted: Tue May 29 00:55:56 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 1-Jun-84 21:53:42 EDT References: <3805@tekecs.UUCP> <536@ihuxt.UUCP> Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA Lines: 26 > Actually, statistical studies have been made which controlled for economic > background (almost 2 generations ago). Oh? Which studies are these? How was the economic background controlled for? (I presume those studies showed that race X was more intelligent than race Y; what, by the way, were races X and Y?) > Current advances in biochemistry are making heredity seem a lot more > malleable, controllable, and correctable than environment. "Malleable" and "controllable" only if you understand what you're controlling. We may know quite a bit about the biochemistry of genes, but the biochemistry of *intelligence* is what we're concerned with here (an analogy - would a cryptographer or a programmer be better able to develop an algorithm for breaking a particular code?). Which genes would *you* tweak in order to increase mathematical ability? We may know how to tweak those genes, but we're a long way from knowing which ones to tweak. (Which brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation partway back to the original discussion; we don't know where various intellectual abilities come from - please, not where "intelligence" comes from, as it's not clear "intelligence" exists; *pace* William Shockley, who is a very talented physicist but who has "failed abysmally" as a proponent of a "naturist" (and racist) view of intelligence. In some things he's very talented, in others he's just purblind.) Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy