This post was edited by questioner at 2012-1-17 10:57|
This is not "mainstream science". It is acollection of theorists with a mechanistic, quantitative bias in theirunderstanding of human intelligence. If you bother to read any genuine analysison human intelligence you will find that there is no mainstream consensus onwhat intelligence is, or how it functions. There is no single accepteddefinition. There are no universally defined domains, nor an agreement whetherintelligence incorporates cognitive functions beyond the verbal-linguisticparameters which the scientists listed above ASSUME define human intelligence.There is a widely held acknowledgement that it is very difficult to create anintelligence test question which does not contain cultural elements andassumptions. Take the "similarities and differences" sub-test".Which thing is different: a banana, a rhinoceros, a kangaroo, a tiger? Theanswer of course, as any Chinese person knows, is the kangaroo, because itcannot be used to stimulate sexual arousal.
Intelligence cannot be reduced to genetics. It is not a singular physicalattribute: it is possibly a complex emergent property, and I doubt it isreducible to component sub-systems (i.e. neurons and genes).
Furthermore, recent research shows that gene expression is stronglyenvironmentally mediated.
The increased understanding of neural plasticity is just about the final nailin the coffin of rigid, quantitative models of intelligence, like the thinkerslisted in the OP. The Flynn Effect shows that IQ scores have risen dramaticallyin all modern countries (but only in the sub-tests that the country place valueon - e.g. abstraction and visual-spatial acuity). 98% of intelligence testtakers would beat the average test taker from 100 years ago. That's how muchscores have risen. How can intelligence be a property of the brain alone - letalone be a singular, domain general 'score - when it is so malleable? The FlynnEffect is clear evidence that culture has an enormous effect on intelligence.
Race is hardly a definitive parameter. When Jews came to America theyscored lower in IQ tests than average, but later came to score higher onaverage. Their obsession with education and social advancement meant that theyspent an inordinate amount of time studying and using the kinds of skills thatIQ tests measure: verbal-linguistic and mathematical-logical thinking. It isreasonable to assume that this is what lay behind the sudden rapid increase inIQ test scores for Jews.
Any culture where people are exposed regularly to pen and paper tests, andwhere modern education is valued, will score higher in IQ tests, and forobvious reasons. Before 1949 Chinaconsisted of 92% peasants. I doubt whether they would have scored any higherthan the Russian peasants that were tested by Luria, the famed Russianpsychologist, in the 1st half of the 20th century. Those Russian peasants werefound to be incapable of any kind of abstraction process.
In short, the theorists listed in the OP are attempting to pass off outmodedphilosophy as hard science. Overly rigid IQ theories like this are built onsand, not hard science.
Unfortunately both naive media writers and individuals with a social or racialagenda often misrepresent the arguments to suit their motives.