Morosoph's Journal: An Extremely Delicate Subject

Something has been on my mind - on and off - for the last few weeks - in the light of James Watson's pressured resignation as Chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

That thing is the possibility of scientific views that are at odds with society's real or perceived interests, and the effects of the clashes between those views upon science. This is a difficult topic, for I'm sure that we're generally happy (in principle) with our moral views impinging upon the progress of medicine, even though we might differ upon specifics.

The case of James Watson's utterances that led to his pressured resignation is interesting not because of what he said, but because Steven J. Gould said something equivelent in his book "The Mismeasure of Man"; a book criticising the IQ test.

Moving onto specifics, Watson said "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really" , whereas Gould said that IQ tests are biased towards skills that are exercised, and valued in Western culture. Neither authour specifies cultural or genetic causes.

I am not competent to comment upon the validity of their respective statements, but I find it notable that whereas Watson was condemned, Gould was lionised for his comments. What concerns me is that this episode reveals how non-science influences acceptable spoken or published scientific views, and so risks crippling science itself, since recorded science is the sum total of scientific publications. Within NASA, a manager attempted to suppress views that were contrary to "young earth" creationism, and inconvenient views on climate change - of all hues - are suppressed differently in different contexts, making a bit of a political football of it.

More and more, we expect people in respected positions to resign for expressing unpopular views. Does this risk accumulating to the point where it harms science? Publishing an unpopular paper could harm the "standing" of a well-respected journal. There are of course other journals, but there's a point where you can only publish in a poisonous rag which has no peer review.

It isn't only a matter of political correctness, but also modern, manipulative neo-Straussian* moves to control speech that is perceived as being harmful to society by undermining the myths that bind us. The best that we can do at this stage is to remain clear-eyed as to what is going on, and those of us who are batting for one political side or another should see that truth is harmed as we persist in tit-for-tat political censorship.

At the root of this is the growing feeling that reality is known and individual, rather than unknown but shared. Either we cannot accept that we might be wrong, or else, we don't want anyone to be wrong. But apart from being non-sense, we open ourselves up to manipulation, risking eventual tyranny born of solipsism.

*I don't personally believe that Leo Strauss holds the views that some of his "followers" have read into his works. The problem with being subtle is that subtlety can be read as cunning.

no comment...

[DisownedSky]

... but I think you are right on.

IQ as "Measured" by Weschler, Stanford-Binet

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

is like the polygraph - a pseudo-scientific instrument that measures data of dubious utility. It reinforces establishment biases, and flatters those who have successfully adopted that bias.

I have a stratospheric WAIS - in my teens I went beyond the the statistical accuracy of the instrument to measure, +95%. My Binet tests were in the 140+ region, childhood and early teens.

Nonetheless, I have a number of friends far more astute, capable and generally intelligent than myself. They are unlikely to score mu

You'd Enjoy Gould's Book

[Morosoph]

In general it casts the utility of the IQ test into doubt. As an early book in this genre, you're expect him to miss a few tricks.

I remember that I didn't get a massive IQ, but I was the best metematician in my college, in my year (Girton college, Cambridge); I used to hand in first drafts without error. Trouble was that I became disconnected and stopped studying, failing my finals through depression (the to be Field's medalist, Richard Borchards, my first year pure maths supervisor, expected me to get

metematician

[Morosoph]

Hah. What a mispelling. Shows something. Probably tiredness.

Re:

[Abm0raz]

IQ, like polygraph, are not absolute. They measure specific traits which are then extrapolated toward a probable outcome. The problem becomes that general populations tend not to understand probability and statistics (see: the Lotto).

If a person shows increased sweating, heartrate, blood pressure, and left brain activity, these are signs that the person is agitated and is using the creative, rather than the analytical parts of his brain. A person trying to lie under pressure tends to show the same result

"That's a measure of intelligence..."

[Morosoph]

Your examiner was being lazy. He was probably testing the class and didn't want to do you twice; you might have deserved a couple of extra points, even five for initiative, but to bias the whole (section of) the test like that has to be disproportionate. Additionally, there are tests for social intelligence, and allowing such interference between measured quantities discredits both.

I have a diagnosis for Aspergers, and the test there is even worse, in that AQ is codetermined by EQ and IQ, making for qu