Weblog 4
March 26, 2009 lashannon2402
Steven Rose, a neuroscientist and professor believes that investing time and money into finding out if whites are superior intellectually to blacks is an utter waste of time and would serve purposeless. He feels that what truly drives the interests in these particular studies are outdated sexism and racism views. Additionally, the research isn’t well-founded nor can it be proven definitively if done. Rose offers several logical reasons to support his convictions. One is heritability, two is how society is conditioned to treat boys and girls differently, and broadly categorizing entire races into groups will prove fruitless and inconclusive because subpopulations of same ethnic groups have already been shown to vary based on variables that are introduced. Also, Rose brings up the validity of one test carrying such a tremendous weight when it excludes social and emotional intelligence.
Stephen Ceci and Wendy Williams’ claim is that scientific studies should be protected under the right to free speech, and when controversial studies are impeded, progress and new discoveries are halted as well. These two feel that the naysayers are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to topics dealing with race, gender and intelligence. They feel people should have the freedom to voice openly their stance on the issue without fear of undue backlash. Their article advocates open forums so both sides can be heard, so no one idea can be stifled out because it lacks popularity. They support their reasons by naming those who’ve had to resign or been ostracized because of comments that came off as being insensitive.
I agree with Rose’s argument, however, it was hard to follow. I do understand that he was writing for more scientifically inclined readers. His mentioning of the different and widely accepted ways we rear our children and his reiterating of the reason this theory is still being purported is because it allows a discriminatory class line in to be drawn. On the other end of the spectrum, Ceci and Williams’ make a convincing case on the highly volatile subject by linking it to freedom of speech. They write cautiously to avoid ruffling too many feathers and insist that they’re on quest to “understand” not classify.
Resources
Lynn, R. & Vanhanen, T. IQ and the Wealth of Nations (Praeger, 2002).
Lynn, R. & Vanhanen, T. IQ and Global Inequality (Washington Summit, 2006).
Barnett, S. M. & Williams, W. M. Contemp. Psychol. 49, 389–396 (2004).
Flynn, J. R. What is Intelligence? (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).
Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M. & Barnett, S. M. Psychol. Bull. 135, 218–261 (2009).
Entry Filed under: 1
