James T

In tangiellis's post the suggestion was made to come to MF&P to pursue Pseudo-Deity's suggestion that we Let's say I agree with your overall premise. What then? How does this evidence affect the individual and society as a whole in everyday discourse or policy? which seems to me a cool suggestion, so here's the thread.

If you just want to deny the issue, the proper place is in the S&S thread.

The AntiChris

The moral dimension is really, how should we use this information (rather than how does it affect society?)?

Chris

gstafleu

My apologies for being dumb, but what exactly are we discussing here? Do we start from the assumption that e.g. IQ is measurably different between "races" (intuitively defined) and sexes? And if so, what are the moral consequences of this?

Gerard Stafleu

James T

Chris's restatement is more sensible.

Say you identify that ... let's pick a real one. Blacks are subject to a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia. There is a drug that has passed approval for use on blacks as a result of this.

Should we permit insurance companies to charge blacks a higher insurance premium because of this genetic fact?

My view is that this type of discrimination should be specifically prohibited because I believe that people should be given equal opportunity to the extent possible, and while we cannot rewrite their genes we can ensure that they don't have to pay a premium on their insurance bill because of it.

0

So you are against people being penalized in health care due to genetic differences and traits. I can agree with this.
What about social programs, education, and employment?
I'm asking questions because I'm honestly interested in your thoughts on the subject as I believe you've probably given it a good deal of introspection.

aegis

I don't think this information should be used in any way.

Even IF blacks on average are not as smart as whites, and even if the reasons are biological, that should not influence policy because policy will affect all blacks, some of whom will be right up there with the smartest whites.

It is one thing if data said that some particular group of people ALL have IQ of 90 or something and therefore trying to improve their performance is pointless. But that information (if true) is about averages.

James T

This is an interesting one, since the insurance industry is often given specific exemption from many anti-discrimination laws.

Social programs, which recognise and target with race as a contributing factor to the targeted choice, could be called affirmative action. I actually support these provided some care is taken not to let idealism set unrealistic goals. The reason I support them is because it is often an efficient pragmatic choice to target a specific societal problem. Why spent $100 million with a program aimed to all the population when $20 million targeted at 1/10th the population would get 50% of the target group.

Education, this raises the IQ gap difficulty. If you say that there must be the same percentage of doctors from each race as there are in general population you are making a prior assumption that racial IQs are equal. If, however, you see a lower representation of a particular race then this might indicate a enviromental cause so you could target educational help to these groups while still requiring they meet the entry standard that applies to everyone. In NZ, if you were Maori, you could be stupider and still be a doctor, which I view as wrong.

Employment, bloody difficult. Employers are very good at giving excuses that are not racial even if race was the reason. Application of statistical tools for larger employers is a little dangerous. I seem to recall a case where these were applied. Statistical monitoring I see as good. Making choice by race illegal I agree with. Affirmative action programs I also see as useful in this area. However the target should not be perfect proportional representation in all walks of life, since this again makes the prior assumption that all races are identical.

Essentially, I think equal opportunity is a good goal. Unproportional representation is a sign of potential inequality of access but this is not necessarily the case. Where potential inequality of access is present some affirmative action may be required, but the entry standards - in terms of task performance - should remain the same.

Thanks, at iidb it seems that the first step is simply to nay-say the uncomfortable but real facts, it's nice to get past that once in a while.

James T

I see this as potentially denying the possibility that lower black IQ is partially environmental (something I don't deny) and therefore denying the possibility of using this information to take some positive action to overcome those undesirable environmental factors that may exist.

aegis

I was thinking more in terms of people saying IQ doesn't depend on environment but rather depends on genetics and therefore we shouldn't help groups who register a lower IQ since the reason for them being behind is biology.

James T

[edit] I wrote crap, happens I suppose.