Background
Systematic cognitive variation among humans is a biological fact. Within-species cognitive diversity, it
now appears, is also a biological fact among other primates, perhaps in all mammals, and likely in many
non-mammalian species too (Chabris, 2007). Moreover, all species examined thus far seem to exhibit
basically the same major continuum, or dominant dimension, of differences in cognitive ability—
specifically, a general ability to learn and solve novel problems in everyday self-maintenance. Factor
analytic studies reveal that the very same g factor emerges in all human groups tested thus far (ages,
sexes, races, cultures, countries; Jensen, 1998).
To be sure, there are many different abilities, but g seems to constitute the central core of them all. The
different broad abilities therefore tend to rise and fall in tandem over the life cycle when we take a
telescopic look at human groups. Taking a more microscopic view, which is required for some purposes
(such as vocational counseling), we see important differences in people’s profiles of more specific
abilities (Liz is unusually strong in spatial but not verbal ability, while Sally shows the opposite).
When we take the telescopic view on human societies, we learn that relative standing along the g
continuum (say, as measured by IQ) has pervasive social and economic consequences for their individual
members. General intelligence is hardly the be-all-and-end-all of people’s strengths and talents, and it
certainly does not represent a person’s moral worth, but it does affects their odds of good health,
material success, and other valued life outcomes. Low IQ operates like a constant head wind, making
everything a bit more difficult for low-IQ individuals.
From adolescence on, at least in typical families in the developed world, an individual’s standing in g
relative to age-mates (their IQ level) doesn’t seem to change much. Even in childhood, when IQ is only
40% heritable, we still don’t know which environmental influences might raise or depress a child’s IQ
level, and we have no technology yet, educational or otherwise, for bumping up a person’s g level. Like
all other organisms, of course, human children do need species-typical rearing environments to facilitate
their genetically-anticipated course of development. Except for identical twins, all children are
genetically and environmentally unique, and therefore their developmental outcomes tend to differ
somewhat around the average. However, no person, in a free society, is slave to either their genes or
social environments. Both are the cards they are dealt in life, but they can choose how to play them.
We may gain dignity and self-respect from how we play the cards we are dealt, but there is no getting
around the fact that some of us get much better cards to play than do others, through no effort of our
own. The US Declaration of Independence declares that all citizens are equal under God and law, and all
have an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What does it mean for a democratic
republic—or any human group, for that matter—when human cognitive diversity enables some citizens
to prosper much more easily than others?
Human groups throughout the millennia have had to accommodate cognitive diversity. (Had there been
no such diversity, humankind would never have been able to evolve its extraordinary level of
intelligence.) Indeed, biological siblings are two-thirds as different in IQ, on average, as are unrelated
strangers, which means that even families must accommodate sometimes large internal differences in
cognitive ability. The biological fact of human cognitive diversity, especially in g level, creates a variety of
social tradeoffs, or dilemmas, especially for large modern nations with egalitarian aspirations. For
instance, equal treatment does not produce equal results, but we tend to want both. What do we do?
What should we do?
Paper 3 will address the following general topic: How might we, as a society, deal better with the social,
ethical, and political dilemmas that cognitive differences create? Note that this is not a scientific
judgment, though it does require some scientific knowledge and reasoning. We know from the science
that g differences are real and pose some difficult choices, but how a society chooses to respond to
them is a fundamentally political matter—that is, choices made by the body politic. As Rowe described,
and as our final readings illustrate, people can take very different stances about how to respond to the
same facts. For example, some people argue that if racial differences in IQ are partly genetic, then we
should end all racial preferences; others argue the exact opposite—that we should have more racial
preferences and make them permanent. As the 25th item in the “Mainstream” reading said, scientific
evidence can help us figure out the means to reaching our goals, but it cannot dictate our goals.
Your last set of readings makes the point that cognitive diversity forces difficult tradeoffs upon us, as
individuals, families, and societies. Whether we recognize it or not, we are constantly striking
compromises between equally valued goals that conflict owing to cognitive diversity —for example,
between equal treatment and equal outcomes. You have seen others already: how much should schools
spend on special education vs. gifted and talented programs vs. the average student? When admitting
students, should colleges give increasing importance to social diversity, life experience, and personality
and less to GPA and SAT scores? What happens if employers deemphasize cognitive skills to get a more
racially or gender diverse workforce or, conversely, select the best qualified job applicants without
regard to race and gender?
Paper topic
Please identify one dilemma or tradeoff that is created by human diversity in g, and then propose a
better way for us to deal with it than we tend to now. Be sure you address all the following questions
during the course of your paper.
a. What is the dilemma? Explain the dilemma or tradeoff and how g diversity creates it. Be sure to
describe the valued social goals that g differences put into conflict.
b. What is the typical approach or “solution,” today, to this dilemma/tradeoff? To the best of your
knowledge, how is your chosen tradeoff usually depicted, explained, and dealt with by the
individuals, institutions, or politicians involved? Does g figure into their explanations and
decisions, even if only in disavowals of its relevance? Is the dilemma or tradeoff even
acknowledged, or is it denied?
c. Why do we need a better approach? The current approach will have some plusses, but explain
why it is inadequate, flawed, or may even do more harm than good.
d. What would a better approach—your approach—look like? Think about which social goals are
most important to you (or to some fictional character), or what sorts of choices or tradeoffs do
you consider most “fair”? Then use your scientific knowledge about g to recommend a more
effective means or set of social practices (hiring or admissions policies, parental behavior, school
funding, testing practices, charity work, religious principles, health care, etc.) to reach your
preferred ends. Include at least one specific, concrete example of how your approach would
differ from current ones; it could be just one small element in a broader strategy. Don’t forget
to explain why you think your approach, if implemented, would be better—more effective,
constructive, or just.
Evaluation criteria




The usual—clear thesis; organized line of argument; specific evidence and examples to support
key points; and clear signs of your mind at work!
You can specify whatever balance in social goals you wish—from the political left to the political
right. I will grade them only on their clarity.
Be careful not to change or deny any of the basic scientific conclusions about intelligence, for
example, as listed in the “Mainstream Science on Intelligence” statement or in the APA Task
Force report, “Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns.” Likewise, do not posit implausible
solutions, for example, eliminating differences in g or their value in learning and reasoning. (You
just wrote that paper!) Recall that the aim in Paper 3 is to figure out how to work with the
human reality we have, not the one we might wish for. So, since we can’t eradicate cognitive
differences (should that be one’s goal), can we find better ways—more effective, humane,
constructive ways— to respect and accommodate them?
Please contact me if you have any questions about this assignment.