Eugenics: Is it still relevant?

Hi all,

Recently in my PSY-327 course we had a discussion about the genesis and popularity of the eugenics movement. We discussed Sir Francis Galton and his paradigm that intelligence is a product of natural selection, has a genetic basis, and has variability in our population. My peers seemed bothered by this notion that human potential is limited by our biology. More-so, when the concept of negative eugenics popped up, the class became especially quiet. Our instructor posed the question of whether or not a prenatal child diagnosed with down syndrome should be aborted. Or consider another case: What if your child were to be born with a destructive disease which would only serve to bring pain to their lives? Would it be responsible for the parent to bring that child into the world? Would it matter when this information is aquired (before first trimester...etc?). And what are the legal repercussions of this logic? Will there come a day where it is illegal to birth a child with a chronic condition if the parents have previous knowledge of the defect prior to the first trimester? How about crack babies?

Also what if a student fails his/her SAT? Is that societies way of saying you are not intelligent, and therefore 'no college for you!'. Isn't this a form of eugenics, in the sense that you are allowing for higher intelligent individuals to prosper and forcing less intelligent ones to be relegated to non-critical thinking oriented careers? We judge peoples intelligence almost daily and choose to associate ourselves with people of similar intelligence (I recall a study that revealed how we marry individuals with similar IQ's). So it may be that we are fine practicing eugenics on the individual level but have disdain for it on the governmental level. This is very interesting and weird to me at the same time. Please comment with your thoughts on this!

Are some people predisposed to certain conditions which could inhibit there cognitive ability? Of course! Think about ADHD, Trisomy 21, Alzheimer's, and many more! Then does this illustrate that intelligence has a genetic component? Well, a specific allele of the ASPM gene strongly dictates brain size which has a slight correlation with cognitive function. So it's not far fetched to say that genes play a significant role in someones cognitive ability. However, the question becomes: It is unethical to knowingly spread these deleterious genes in a population? If so, who should enforce this mandate? These are almost always sensitive questions because people associate these conditions with a persons sense of being. For instance, as a ADHD child I was called special and unique because I always seemed excited. This became part of who I was a youth. This may be why it is hard for us (me as well!) to answer some of the questions associated with eugenics because we have immense empathy and sympathy for children with these deleterious conditions. Please, I would love to hear your opinions on these topics!

Until my next post,

Ryan

IQ Test's

Hi All,

Recently in PSY 327, we looked at a variety of IQ test's and evaluated the parameters which they use to measure 'g' or intelligence. Questions I had going into this were: Would these test have bias towards certain populations? Do they over-value certain aspects of intelligence?  How do IQ test's evaluate people who have practice taking these exams?

As a group we looked at the WAIS, Standford-Binet, and the Wechsler IQ test. I was surprised to find that there were more similarities between tests than there were differences. All test's had a visual component to them (usually making use of shapes to evaluate an individuals visual processing skills). I was surprised to find none of the test had a auditory component to them. I would venture to say that if intelligence has a visual component to it, it would have a auditory component to it as well. On that thought, would it have a touch or physical sensory component to it as well? Perhaps these points are best left for my next blog post on multiple intelligence's. Either way, I felt that the test lacked diversity among the questions which they asked.

Also, someones previous experience could influence their performance on the test. Our instructor mentioned how historic IQ test's had picture of celebrities, and how an individuals knowledge of the celebrity was implicit on answering the question correctly. I could imagine a scenario where some of the modern tests could have biases may influence test performance. Hopefully we will get to a point in science where we can use empirical data to develop our IQ test's and have a biological basis for intelligence.

Until my next post,

Ryan

Race an IQ? Is there a connection?

Hi All,

For my first official blog entry, I will be commenting on a recent class discussion I had in my Intelligence and Creativity course. We discussed race influences on IQ scoring, in the context of the Ferguson conflict. Questions I had entering this discussion were as follows: Is there morphological diversity among human brains, which correspond to different races? If so, could these differences reflect in different cognitive abilities? For instance, suppose different races had varied pre-frontal cortex size. Would this difference be significant enough to affect an individuals ability to critically think? Also, how about neuron density? How about oligodendrocytes and glial cells? How do the ratios of these cells affect cognitive capacity? And are these factors even affected by race?  Or are racial differences only limited to superficial qualities like skin color?    

Early 20th century results indicated that IQ differed significantly across race. However, factors like test bias, socio--economical situation, and language barriers prevented different races from preforming equally on the IQ test. Studies which standardized participants SES found no significant differences between African American and Caucasian IQ's. However, differences in the amount of words each parent said to their children varied per race, which could have influence on a child's intelligence. However, this is most likely a product of culture and language, rather than any biological mechanism. 

As a class we came to the conclusion that race is not a significant factor that influences intelligence. However, things like SES, and culture (eg. environmental stimuli) do much more so! This makes evolutionary sense, since you would expect to survive human baseline intelligence wouldn't vary (need enough to communicate, work, and live in our dynamic society) ; however, it's ability to be molded by the environment would for the sake of the organisms survival (suppose you are in a society which favors tool building over abstract thought). 

Until my next post,

Ryan