Share this comment
Good piece!
I have one quibble: I think I disagree with the definition of the hereditarian thesis. Plomin and Bouchard both called themselves hereditarians back in the day, and once when they were called to debate one another, it ended up being a hereditarian-off: arthurjensen.net/wp-con…
Both attempted to avoid controversy by limiting the…
Good piece!
I have one quibble: I think I disagree with the definition of the hereditarian thesis. Plomin and Bouchard both called themselves hereditarians back in the day, and once when they were called to debate one another, it ended up being a hereditarian-off: https://arthurjensen.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Falmer-International-Master-Minds-Challenged-4-Sohan-Modgil-Celia-Modgil-Arthur-Jensen_-Consensus-And-Controversy-Routledge-1987.pdf
Both attempted to avoid controversy by limiting their discussions to the topic of individual differences rather than differences between groups. I also don't think that either has ever doubted that hereditarianism doesn't imply inevitable social outcome differences. For example, consider vaccine uptake. People vary in intelligence for largely hereditary reasons and this is a likely cause of some of the differences in vaccine uptake across social classes, but that isn't an inevitability. Consider Uppsala. They used prebooking and, as a result, managed to cut the cognitive gap in uptake to ribbons: https://twitter.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1702132021030490514/
Urbach defined the "hard core" of the hereditarian programme based on two propositions, of which I think the second better defines the hereditarian programme, if amended slightly. As laid out by Bouchard in his chapter of the above book: "Differences between individuals and between groups... are [to varying extents] the results of inherited differences."
Looking forward to the next piece!
Meaning that a cognitive ability-related gap was not an inevitability.