\doc\web\99\10\abrown.txt
From:           	ABrown5568@aol.com
Date sent:      	Thu, 15 Jul 1999 00:51:09 EDT
Subject:        	Re: intelligence diversity web site
To:             	arthurhu@halcyon.com


One source supporting this claim is in chapter 13 of The Bell Curve, on
page 275.  The authors claim, "Jews-specifically, Ashkenazi Jews of
European origins-test higher than any other ethnic group...somewhere
between a half and a full standard deviation above the mean..."  The
authors list their sources as Storfer and Lynn in the footnote.


Kirk Douglas and William Shatner are both purportedly Ashkenazi Jews; like
many, they are indistinguishable from other Caucasians.


As for the "chosen people" hypothesis, Jews aren't the only religious
group that claims to be "chosen".  Being agnostic, I find it hard to
believe that the Jews, or anyone else, would be singled out by a supreme
being and given a little extra dose of intelligence.


I'm not sure what "causes" IQ scores myself.  It seems as though there is
a lot of evidence showing correlations to both genes and environment, but
little evidence supporting a causal relationship.


The debate is very interesting, but I see a tendency for people to make up
their minds first about the issues and then go looking for evidence to
support their viewpoint.  This seems particularly true of those the two
extremes - racists at one end, and social reformers at the other.  Neither
tends to address the points made by the other.


How can we explain that identical twins separated at birth and raised in
different environments usually score very closely on IQ tests?  How can we
explain that adopted children tend to score closer to their biological
parents than to their adoptive parents or adoptive siblings?  On the other
hand, adopted children usually score higher than their biological parents;
they are usually somewhere in between their natural and adoptive parents. 


My personal opinion is that there is some degree of genetic component to
intelligence, and since race is determined by genes, there is some degree
of racial component.  On the other hand, there is some degree of
environmental effect on intelligence also.  We just don't know what
portion of IQ performance is due to race (genes) and what is due to
environment.


What do you think?


I'm probably one of the few people that watches more nova than
Jerry Springer (I've seen none of his shows), but some low brow
culture like Star Trek and Star Wars is good for the soul, people don't appreciate how much modern culture has displaced
"classic" culture when Star Wars, Star Trek Gilligans Island and Dr. Suess are more well known than Homer and the Iliad. Mass
marketing has done more for promoting literature than any amount
of formal education. My 3 yr old has a remarkable grasp of english,
learned mostly from all the kids shows I let him watch, this would 
not be the case 70 yrs ago.




From:           	ABrown5568@aol.com
Date sent:      	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:48:17 EDT
Subject:        	Re: intelligence diversity web site
To:             	arthurhu@halcyon.com


> As for Shatner playing the "least jewish role in television", I'm not sure I 
> would agree with that, unless you presuppose up front that strong military 
> leaders must be anglo-saxon protestants.  
> 
> As for your other email, I agree that culture is very important, but I 
> disagree that culture has genetic roots.  Maybe stupid people are attracted 
> to low-class culture, but I think that's as far as one can take the genetic 
> roots of culture.  Culture is defined in many textbooks as "the sum total of 
> all learned behavior exhibited by a group".  
> 
> Unfortunately, learned behavior can be negative.  That's one reason why I 
> despise so much of popular culture that is displayed on our media - rap 
> music, soap operas, Jerry Springer/Jenny Jones/Riki Lake, the illiterate 
> criminals playing professional football and basketball that society worships, 
> gratuitous violence in movies and video games, etc etc.  Pop culture teaches 
> us nothing good, and often teaches us things that are downright bad for us.  
> It glorifies humans as nothing more than animals that consume, copulate, and 
> kill, with no boundaries on their behavior.  Any animal can accomplish those 
> things - they aren't really much of an accomplishment at all.  
> 
> If you don't agree with me about the negative effects of media, ask yourself 
> why advertising is a $200 billion a year industry - the director of marketing 
> at Coca-Cola or any other successful corporation knows media affects 
> behavior, or he/she wouldn't buy advertising.  If advertising influences 
> behavior, at least to some degree, than the bombardment of negative messages 
> in popular media is influencing behavior also, especially among those with 
> modest intelligence and/or no counervailing positive influences in their 
> lives.
> 
> The true heroes, the people making things and accomplishing things, and 
> pushing the boundaries of knowledge are underpaid, and ridiculed and 
> marginalized by pop culture - I'd bet a lot more people watch Springer than 
> watch Nova, and I bet a lot of people think doctors make too much money, but 
> don't feel that Latree Spreewell makes too much.   A lot more people can name 
> the MVP from some basketball game than can name the guy who invented light 
> bulbs, or polio vaccine, or many other things that have benefitted us in our 
> day-to-day lives.  Yet how does sticking a ball through a metal hoop help 
> society?  
> 
>  So as far as that goes, if and when I have children they aren't going to get 
> to watch much TV!
> 
> What do you think?