From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 21:56:21 -0800 (PST)
To: "E. Allen Smith" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Subject: Re: Redlining
In-Reply-To: <01ICXFPL6XZOAEL7YC@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Message-ID: <32B0EF3D.F5E@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


E. Allen Smith wrote:
> From:   IN%"dthorn@gte.net"  "Dale Thorn" 12-DEC-1996 14:56:52.69
> >Actually, there is not only good evidence for the environmental argument,
> >but you can reason it out yourself if you give attention to some things
> >that don't make it into most discussions on this topic.

> Yes, there are strong arguments for the environment being the determining
> factor. there are also strong arguments (such as interracial adoption still
> leaving blacks below the average IQ of adopted siblings) for it being genetics.

It is possible to understand intelligence as "pattern matching" skills,
without having to have attendant math and statistics to define it more
precisely or clinically. This understanding (if you have it) is the key
to knowing that Black persons do *not* have less IQ than White persons,
regardless of the standardized tests.  Something I know about, as I've
scored in the top 1/1000 of one percent, etc.

> We won't be able to find out which is which until we know what the genetic
> determinants of intelligence are, which will take some time. (Using current
> techniques, several hundred years at the minimum... but I'm not prepared
> to predict how good techniques will get). As I previously stated, I don't
> believe it is any part genetic.

Nice that you have good intuition on this point, however, the big question
in your paragraph is not wherefore the genetic determinant, rather, it is
the understanding of intelligence in its overall context, which I dare say
most researchers in that field are probably ill-equipped to grasp.