In honor of the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of the Species, let's meet the man who arguably did more to corrupt his ideas than any figure in history: his half-cousin Francis Galton.
Galton was an influential anthropologist and statistician who lived about 40 miles from Darwin's home in Kent, and who interacted with him frequently. After the publication of Darwin's 1859 landmark work, which introduced the first coherent view of natural selection, Galton was among the first to recognize its importance and to see a unique opportunity to advance his own ideas. Galton immediately sought to further define "natural selection" by arguing that differences in human intellect were strictly a matter of biological heredity -- what he called the "hereditary transmission of physical gifts."
Galton did not share the cautious scientific temperament of his cousin Darwin, but was a forceful advocate for what he believed in his gut to be true. In 1869, he published Hereditary Genius, arguing that smart, successful people were simply "gifted" with a superior biology. In 1874, he introduced the phrase "nature and nurture" (as a rhetorical device to favor nature). In 1883, he invented "eugenics," his plan to maximize the breeding of biologically-superior humans and minimize the breeding of biologically-inferior humans. All of this was in service to his conviction that natural section was driven exclusively by biological heredity, and that the environment was just a passive bystander. In fact, it was actually Galton, not Darwin, who laid the conceptual groundwork for genetic determinism. Galton wrote:
"Biographies show [eminent men] to be haunted and driven by an incessant instinctive craving for intellectual work. They do not work for the sake of eminence, but to satisfy a natural craving for brain work, just as athletes cannot endure repose on account of their muscular irritability, which insists upon exercise. It is very unlikely that any conjunction of circumstances, should supply a stimulus to brain work, commensurate with what these men carry in their own constitutions."
Darwin himself later succumbed to this view, writing in "The Descent of Man":
"We now know, through the admirable labours of Mr. Galton, that genius...tends to be inherited."
It has taken us 150 years to unwind that scientific conviction. It may take 150 more to unwind the public misconception.
(Photo credit: wikimedia commons)
(Photo credit: wikimedia commons)
David Shenk
"It has taken us 150 years to unwind that scientific conviction"
And yet it is true, to a large extent!
Recent research confirmed that:
- IQ correlates to 80% with the biological parents', i.e. the best way to predict if a child will achieve a PhD (a certain correlation with intelligence) is to look at the biological parents, not the adoptive parents, even if the child was adopted very young.
- criminal behavior also correlates with the biological parents' and not with the educational ones, which was shown in several recent studies.
http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/biological-influences-on-criminal-behavior/
To state summarily and without scientific proof that there is no connection between high IQ parents and children is a DOGMA, not science. The fact that such ideas were abused by Nazis is not the least bit relevant. Every single scientific discovery can and and probably has been abused. That's not a reason to stop scientific research.
Being a Libertarian, I'm a stern opponent of Nazi-, Communist- or religious ideology. That also means that I can't tolerate lies under the guise of science to make reality more politically correct.
The discovery that reality does not conform to some ideological dogma or does correspond to a very much hated one does NOT mean we have to stop research, but that we have to find ways to compensate for nature's unpleasant features, which is exactly what humanity does all the time in order to survive.
And by "compensate", I certainly don't mean socialist redistribution! That's not a solution, that's just a guaranteed way to subsidize generations of people into wards of the State.
As may be evident from my user name, I am in agreement with many of Galton's views.
In my view, "genius" is probably comprised of:
1) IQ-type intelligence (General Cognitive Ability)
2) Specific talent (e.g. music, verbal skills, spatial skills etc.)
3) Creativity (openess to novelty, nonconformist "thinking outside of the box", Rebel spirit, brash fiery temperament)
4) Luck (has connections with the right people, is in the right place at the right time, etc.)
Of these factors, the first three are primarily mental traits all of which have been shown to have quite high heritabilities (.4 to .8 range). However in regard to the fourth important factor, even I will admit that luck probably isn't genetic.
It is reassuring to me that (contra David Shenk's fervent hopes and unsubstantiated assertions) the serious scientific research still supports old Galton's viewpoint on the high heritability of exceptional talent. As one example in support of this, here is a recent study by Dorret Boomsma and colleagues in the journal Behavior Genetics (Behav Genet (July 2009) 39:380–392), the pdf is available free of charge at this link.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/07pq7u315ku2m196/fulltext.pdf
The heritability of aptitude and exceptional talent across different domains in adolescents and young adults
Anna A. E. Vinkhuyzen / Sophie van der Sluis /
Danielle Posthuma / Dorret I. Boomsma
Abstract: The origin of individual differences in aptitude,
defined as a domain-specific skill within the normal ability
range, and talent, defined as a domain specific skill of
exceptional quality, is under debate. The nature of the variation
in aptitudes and exceptional talents across different
domains was investigated in a population based twin sample.
Self-report data from 1,685 twin pairs (12–24 years)
were analyzed for Music, Arts, Writing, Language, Chess,
Mathematics, Sports, Memory, and Knowledge. The influence
of shared environment was small for both aptitude and
talent. Additive and non-additive genetic effects explained
the major part of the substantial familial clustering in the
aptitude measures with heritability estimates ranging
between .32 and .71. Heritability estimates for talents were
higher and ranged between .50 and .92. In general, the
genetic architecture for aptitude and talent was similar in
men and women. Genetic factors contribute to a large extent
to variation in aptitude and talent across different domains
of intellectual, creative, and sports abilities.
Here are A few examples, two from sports and one from academia, where nature appears to trump nurture pretty clearly.
I'd be much more impressed with your argument if you showed me Wayne Gretzky's son and Stephen Hawking's son performing like their fathers.
And I'd be much more impressed with yours if you showed me Wayne Gretzky's son being physicist or Hawking's son playing in the NHL.
The really explosive issue here is not mere heritability of inborn intelligence, but the assertion that there is some correlation with race.
In other words, one view would be that inherited high intelligence is fairly equally distributed across all races (I'm using the word even though it's a flawed concept with a sociological meaning that exceeds biological facts) -- the other would be that it's concentrated in specific "races" or groups, to the disadvantage of others.
This second view has been used as justification to conquer, oppress and exploit people, as in American slavery and among many Zionist apologists -- who frequently make Herrenvolk assertions about Jews.
I'm not sure there's any way to efficiently prove or disprove this assertion (I believe it's false) without some unthinkable experiments or massive and impractical intelligence tests, which few would agree on or to, anyway.
History does provide a lot of evidence, however. The Romans found the Germans to be illiterate, feckless, irrational, underdeveloped primitives stuck at the level of slash-and-burn agriculture.
I think over the centuries the Germans have accomplished a few things that might surprise the Romans.
And the stunning defeats delivered to Nazi Germany by the "inferior" Russians -- including the development of the T-34 tank -- superior to German models -- stands as a reminder of those who underestimate those who are artificiality labeled as "inferior."
After the Mongols conquered their Eurasian empire, they were confident that fate had selected them as the rulers of humankind. Their descendants have that as a memory, possibly mixed with a measure of irony.
It's also worth remembering the negative assessment that Europeans had of the Indian and Chinese populations. How absurd these look now!
For powerful nations and groups, these delusions are tempting and unhappily, still alive and well in our world.