Fred,
Yes, your point is perfectly sound, Fred. Just because the normal curve has two tails doesn't mean they are symmetric in value. I'd rather be 7 feet tall than 2 feet tall also, even though personally I'd rather be a little over 6 foot if I had the choice, rather than freakishly tall. I doubt that freakish intelligence comes without a price in general as well, but I'll agree it's a minor point. The original point was whether differences intelligence are something that should have social and political policy implications, not whether talent is free or has a cost or the unlikelihood that more talent is the answer to every human problem.
My point is that the empirical question of heritable group differences does not automatically resolve the question of how it relates to social policy. Read Sowell's "Conflict of Visions" for a thought-provoking example of how differently the same facts can be interpreted through different social visions and different concepts of human nature.
Quote:
|
Well, assuming you appreciate that it’s much better, on average, to be at the high end of the curve rather than the low end, and since I’ve concluded you’re not actually a real atheist, no, we probably don’t have much of a disagreement here, nor on most other issues—you probably just like to hassle me with your often insignificant and usually effusive/convoluted uncertainties.
|
If my choice is convoluted uncertainties or clear and false certainties, yes I guess I'll pick the former. A matter of temperament?
