To question genetic intelligence is not racism (2007)
Context: We do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to do different things. The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity. It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science.
To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers. It is very likely that at least some 10 to 15 years will pass before we get an adequate understanding for the relative importance of nature versus nurture in the achievement of important human objectives. Until then, we as scientists, wherever we wish to place ourselves in this great debate, should take care in claiming what are unarguable truths without the support of evidence.
"An interview with Nicholas Wade" http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/nicholas-wade, American Scientist (April 2006).
Informal remarks, University of Pennsylvania Law School. http://www.generotberg.com/speeches/2000s/Selected-from-Remarks-Penn-Law-092206.html, 2006
An Interview by Sheena McDonald (1995)
Explaining why he used many different pseudonyms.
Oxford Companion to Children's Literature: "Charles Hamilton" (pages 235-7)
"Biological Potentiality vs. Biological Determinism", p. 251
Ever Since Darwin (1977)
“Man only is endowed with wisdom so as to understand religion, and this is the principal if not the only difference betwixt him and dumb animals; for other things that seem peculiar to him, though they are not the same in them, yet they appear to be alike … What is there more peculiar to man than reason, and foresight? Yet there are animals which make several different ways of retiring from their dens; that when in danger they may escape; which without understanding and forethought they could not do. Others make provision for the future.”
Solus (homo) sapientia instructus est ut religionem solus intellegat, et haec est hominis atque mutorum vel praecipua, vel sola distantia; nam caetera quae videntur hominis esse propria, etsi non sint talia in mutis, tamen similia videri possunt … Quid tam proprium homini quam ratio, et providentia futuri? Atqui sunt animalia, quae latibulis suis diversos, et plures exitus pandant; ut si quod periculum inciderit, fuga pateat obsessis; quod non facerent, nisi inesset illis intelligentia, et cogitatio. Alia provident in futurum.
De Ira Dei (c. 313), Chap. VII; as quoted in Pierre Bayle, Historical and Critical Dictionary (1697), London, 1737, Vol. 4, Chap. Rorarius, p. 903 https://books.google.it/books?id=JmtXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA903.
Interview with actress Nastassja Kinski, Indiantelevision.com, 23 August, 2003
The Status Of Linguistics As A Science (1929), p. 69 <!-- 1958 edition -->
Context: Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the "real world" is to a large extent unconsciously built upon the language habits of the group. No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached … We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.
