Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Written by James R. Flynn of the "Flynn effect" (the sustained and substantial increase in intelligence test scores across the world over many decades), Intelligence and Human Progress examines genes and human achievement in all aspects, including what genes allow and forbid in terms of personal life history, the cognitive progress of humanity, the moral progress of humanity, and the cross-fertilization of the two.This book presents a new method for weighing family influences versus genes in the cognitive abilities of individuals, and counters the arguments of those who dismiss gains in IQ as true cognitive gains. It ranges over topics including: how family can handicap those taking the SAT, new IQ thresholds for occupations that show elite occupations are within reach of the average American, what Pol Pot did to the genetic potential of Cambodia, why dysgenics (the deterioration of human genes over the generations) is important, but no menace for the foreseeable future, and what might derail human intellectual progress."

"For hundreds of years people have debated what a human is. Some claim humans are those with human DNA. Some claim humans are those with certain traits like rationality. Others say humans are those who are made in the image of God. Scholars in this debate think that if society accepts the wrong definition of a human, people will look at their neighbor as more of an animal, object, or machine-making maltreatment more likely. Despite their seriousness, these claims have never been empirically investigated. This book focuses on human rights as exemplary treatment, and shows that the definitions of a human promoted by biologists and philosophers actually are associated with less support for human rights. Those members of the public who agree with these definitions are less willing to sacrifice to stop genocides, and are more supportive of buying organs from poor people, experimenting on prisoners against their will, torturing people to potentially save lives, and having terminally ill people commit suicide to save money. It appears that the critics are right. However, few Americans agree with these definitions of a human, and looking at how most of the public defines a human, we see a much more nuanced picture, and the presently dominant definitions of a human are unlikely to lead to human rights abuses. Therefore, the critics are right about the definitions of a human promoted by academic biologists and philosophers, but because few Americans agree with these views, concern about widespread maltreatment is overblown."