Individual differences in cognitive ability manifest very early in life, long before thousands of hours of ‘practice’ can kick in. Even as early as kindergarten, teachers can readily identify the ‘slow’ students, who are often doomed to failure and or mediocrity in life, and ‘smart’ ones, who have much better odds for socioeconomic success. That’s kinda the depressing reality, that our futures are largely determined long before we even develop the conscious ability to try to change it.
But don’t people have free will? To some extent, yes. I can consciously choose what to eat for dinner, but I cannot will myself to do a three-foot vertical jump–the latter is beyond by biological abilities. Free will is an interesting topics…a deterministic universe may refute free will, but the many-worlds hypothesis may allow each choice to be enumerated through discrete universes.
The left chooses ‘environment’ over genes, because the former justifies the state’s expanded role to promote equality through useless social programs at taxpayer expense, and intrinsic individual cognitive exceptionalism is an affront to the left’s pursuit and belief in equality. The left champions ‘neurological diversity‘ – the autistic kid banging his head against the wall is acting out his own form of ‘diversity’ and is not retarded – but such diversity apparently doesn’t apply to innate intelligence.
But some argue that biological determinism gives a ‘cover’ for bad behavior, as a way of avoiding personal responsibility and accountability. Even so, that doesn’t mean society has to suffer the consequences and perpetuation of socially undesirable behavior that arises from defective genes…
From The Atlantic: No Such Thing as Free Will
According to Harris, we should acknowledge that even the worst criminals—murderous psychopaths, for example—are in a sense unlucky. “They didn’t pick their genes. They didn’t pick their parents. They didn’t make their brains, yet their brains are the source of their intentions and actions.” In a deep sense, their crimes are not their fault. Recognizing this, we can dispassionately consider how to manage offenders in order to rehabilitate them, protect society, and reduce future offending. Harris thinks that, in time, “it might be possible to cure something like psychopathy,” but only if we accept that the brain, and not some airy-fairy free will, is the source of the deviancy.
maybe eugenics is the solution but no one of any importance will acknowledge this, for fear of the social repercussions.
If you compare the book sales and speaking fees of Charles Murray and Steven Pinker versus Gladwell or Cialdini, it’s obvious and not too surprising, in an era of participation trophies and where everyone is ‘above average’, which of course is mathematically impossible, that more people than not seek solace in comforting lies and delusions than to confront the harshness and occasional unfairness of reality. The left constantly says America needs an honest, open discussion about race relations. Why not one about IQ and education, too.