Matsuzawa needs to learn what good controls are. Her chimps have been learning this shit for months. Meanwhile, humans fresh off the street can't do it. Apples != oranges. If three-year-olds can solve Rubik's cubes in 114 seconds, damn straight a few weeks of training will allow any human to reliably reproduce the pattern of 9 numbers.

Chimps aren't always so kind to each other. Primatologist Jane Goodall observed them for years in the wild, and saw them sometimes treat each other in very human (i.e. inhumane) ways, including inter-group conflict involving killing. She did say this, however:

>>"It can seem as you look out that it's just chaos and that we behave in terrible ways and we never really seem to get better. But we have to remember that compassion and love and altruism is equally deeply rooted in our primate heritage. They are just as evident in chimpanzees as the brutal, aggressive side of chimpanzee nature. We humans, therefore, have a choice ahead of us, we don't have to go the aggressive route. We can push and push and push towards love and compassion. That is where I believe human destiny ultimately is taking us."

May the Creative Forces of the Universe stand beside us, and guide us, through the night with the light from above (speaking metaphorically).

I don't need to look at chimps (or bonobos for that matter) to know that my own species can reach extremes of venality and cruelty on the one hand and altruism and kindness on the other. I also need no scientific theory to support my belief that we should seek to disempower the former and empower the latter.

How do we do that? Well that's the stuff of politics, isn't it, not primatology.

Isn't Abe Foxman one of the first to grin subtly when the Ashkenazi advantage is brought up?

Ted: Ashkenazi advantage, forgive me, but what is that? (seems like a disadvantage if I try to join the country club)
(as an afterthought? ONLY YOU, THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER, CAN FORCE CONGRESS TO IMPEACH. 1-202-225-0100 DEMAND IMPEACHMENT)

saurabh - well, yes.... (you may remember that CMU experiment where undergrads got to learn how to memorize a hundred-digit numbers) but one could also argue the control should go the other way. Doesn't K-12 give humans an unfair advantage? (Please no snark...)

mistah charley - wasn't Jane Goodall embroiled in controversy about making chimps unintentionally aggressive by feeding them?

Ted - before it drifted into zoology, my post was initially about a philosophical question that has been with me for a long time: how should a fair society reward intelligence? I am still conflicted about this, which is why I gave up on that post because I couldn't make my points concise enough. Some other time.

Bernard, I don't like your basic question, "how should a fair society reward intelligence?"

Why should a society reward intelligence at all? Intelligence is its own reward.

Also, by "intelligence", do you mean "greater intelligence"? If so, once again I still don't see why it should be "rewarded" by "society." That would seem to indicate that people with more of this vaporous substance should get more than those with less of it, and I don't see why that should be.

During the controversy over The Bell Curve years ago, the late Ellen Willis wrote: "If I bought the authors’ [Herrnstein and Murray] thesis, I would still be allergic to their politics. I don’t advocate equality because I think everyone is the same; I believe that difference, real or imagined, is no excuse for subordinating some people to others. Equality is a principle of human relations, not Procrustes’ bed."

I actually thought, while reading this, that surely Mike wouldn't be able to shoehorn in his usual spam about calling Pelosi for impeachment. I'm so naive.

Duncan - I, too, dislike the question. But it is a question one must ask. It is a fact that society rewards intelligence (defined in the narrowest sense possible). In the end I suspect I might land closer to your position than you might think. But you must recognize that it is not a simple, cut-and-dry issue.

For example, if intelligence is its own reward, then perhaps society should tax it. Like it taxes luxury yachts. Perhaps members of our society who lack the ability to enjoy the benefits of a rich intellectual life should be given financial compensation. Why not? I am not advocating this. I am just saying these are reasonable questions.
(Mao tried variants of this in the Cultural Revolution -- didn't work out too well.)

There are obvious economic incentives to reward intelligence but there are equally strong ethical reasons not to.

Let me illustrate this:

Consider the moral principle underlying the way in which we line up to go see a movie. We use a first-come first-serve system because it seems fair. First, note how ethics is structurally embedded in simple things like movie going.
The system means that Mike Tyson has no advantage over an old lady.

Now, what would we think if, instead, we had a system where people lined up 100 yards away from the theater parallel to it, and when given the signal would rush ahead as fast as they can, elbowing out whomever stands in the way?
We wouldn't much like it because it would give Mike Tyson's innate physical strength an unfair advantage.

But why is it more unfair than getting into Harvard (or even Stutts)? There's no first-come first-serve system there. You get to race from a given starting line. (And if you come from the right families, then you get to start closer to the finish line.) So privileges and intelligence get to be rewarded. Everyone with a conscience will agree that rewarding privileges sucks, but intelligence?

I happen to believe that the most important factor in intelligence is people's willingness to make themselves more intelligent. (I've always claimed that I could teach calculus to anyone on earth who wants to learn it.) And I've studied complex systems long enough to know that those who look for the IQ gene do not have a freaking clue of what they're talking about. You might as well try to understand what a computer does by looking for a green blinking light.

So, even though I do agree with you that intelligence is enough of its own reward that it does not justify excess rewarding, I also believe that being smart is not a simple matter of inheritance: Einstein and Prince Charles are not the same.

But Saletan's point is that they are.

Given our strong normative rejection of inherited privilege, Saletan is not just wrong: he's dangerously wrong.

One more thing: one could argue that getting into Yale is not much of a reward anyway, so it doesn't matter if admission is not fair.
Nonsense. It provides huge financial rewards down the road and it gives you the power to screw over the hungry masses. The case of Yale alum Jonathan illustrates both points perfectly.

Reward intelligence? What is intelligence?

CW says intelligence is problem-solving ability. Howard Gardner said it could be any of eight or nine other abilities. Common sense says it might include traits and abilities such as creativity, character, intiative and patience. And then there's nature v. nurture, some saying that the latter is paramount. The truth is that success can manifest itself in many ways with a multitude of factors.

There is the famous example of a child who was delayed in speech, was a poor student who dropped out of school at one point and failed to pass the entrance examination for admission to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich--Albert Einstein.

So what good is an IQ test, which commonly tests only logical-mathematical and linguistic skills, and even might have been a problem for Einstein? How can it possibly, as Saletan claims, be a predictor of modern social and economic success? It can't and it hasn't. Even if, if, on average more 'successful' people have higher IQ scores, then it is not a predictor of success for individuals.

And what is 'success'? Weren't Hemingway, Picasso and Sinatra successes? They may not have mastered the calculus. How about an inner-city woman who is a social activist and raises four kids on her own? How about, on the other hand, the recently deposed CEO of Merrill-Lynch who got paid tens of millions while he lost billions for investors?

Success--even if rewarded--is an arbitrary and arguable measure of what one does, and is not measurable by a test one takes.

And what is a 'reward'? Money? Shekels? An attaboy from Mr. Boss? Love from another? An unburdened conscience? On and on we go. Thank you Bernard.

Bernard:

It provides huge financial rewards down the road and it gives you the power to screw over the hungry masses. The case of Yale alum Jonathan illustrates both points perfectly.

Exactly right. Whenever I wonder whether it was worth all the work and study, I look down at the throne made of human skulls on which I sit, and think: yes it was.

(Note that the human skull thrones are only awarded to those with undergraduate Yale degrees. Those with the far less valuable--indeed, virtually worthless--Yale PhDs get some kind of keychain.)

Posted @1:35: Have YOU called yet? Don't wait until it's all over to say you are a WINNER, CALL AND CALL OFTEN, then spread it around.

Bernard - you're probably right about reversing those controls, humans have a lot of general training with regard to numbers, patterns and memorization that they can exploit in such a task. But it's a silly test, anyway. We're obviously way smarter than chimps. I've never heard of chimps killing anyone in a drive-by - chimps don't have guns OR cars. Maybe we should be calling them "chumps"?

When a male chimp gets into a new relationship with a female, he will kill any infants belonging to the last male.

There are also homicidal (well, chimpicidal) rampages every once in a while.

I wonder with their superior memories if they hold grudges.

(seems like a disadvantage if I try to join the country club)

Well, that's what leads to education as a transportable asset that they can't take away during the inevitable pogroms. Besides, being a member of the country club isn't really good for anyone; better one should have something to strive for -- a hunger to excel, if you will. The country club is too cushy, too finally made it and now time to relax...the slow wait for death.

Jonathan - I had dinner at Mory's every day for a year, so what do you have to say?
OK, technically, I didn't really have dinner, but my bedroom in HGS was adjacent to the ventilation system of Mory's kitchen, so it's AS THOUGH I had dinner every day at Mory's. Now I hope you'll learn to show proper respect.

Bob - What you're saying is deeply hurtful. I don't know why the anti-Chimp brigade has to congregate on a Saturday to indulge their anti-primatological hatred.

Don - You make an excellent point. IQ is defined mostly in circular fashion anyway: you go where you want to end and then you reverse your steps. And then you end up with really profound statements like people who grow up surrounded by tennis champions tend to have a decent forehand.

But I was shocked, though, to see Saletan cite research in phrenology! Is David Duke his scientific consultant?

Re. African-Americans, I can't imagine how they manage to put up with that crap so calmly: 30 percent of them get locked up in jail; and the other 70 percent can use their freedom to read Mr Saletan's "proof" that they are morons and that they're absolutely nothing they can do about it.

It's beyond nauseating.

"So, even though I do agree with you that intelligence is enough of its own reward that it does not justify excess rewarding..."

But the term excess is so elastic. One person's excess is another's bare minimum for a modicum of dignity.

The problem is this: Once one accepts the premise that intelligence, in and of itself, is something which society is morally obligated to reward, well, to what institution does the responsibility fall? Whatever one's answer, human nature being what it is, any institution charged with that responsibility will inevitably formulate criteria based on the mutual admiration society of the individuals comprising the institution. Social constructs are like their human architects and other life forms: vehicles for self-replication. In rewarding others who are like ourselves, are we not punishing those who are not? And isn't this precisely why we find ourselves in such a profoundly fucked up society?

Arvin: I do not accept the premise that society is morally obligated to reward intelligence. In fact, it definitely is not. There is an economic justification to reward people whose brains will produce better mousetraps because of its collective benefit. But even that comes with caveats. If investment bankers were paid less, what would be lost to society? It's not like they would choose to become taxi drivers the minute their bonuses falls below 10 mil.

Thank you, Bernard. Such questions have been bothering me for a long time, but I've never seen them expressed so well. This is the first comments thread I've ever saved to my hard drive.

"I do not accept the premise that society is morally obligated to reward intelligence."

That's a relief. The excess threw me.

"There is an economic justification to reward people whose brains will produce better mousetraps because of its collective benefit."

Will produce? How can it be ascertained what anyone's brain will produce, much less that it will produce something which benefits society as opposed to subjugating it? I guess what I'm failing to understand is why a reward (perhaps preward would be a better term in this context) increases the likelihood that its recipient will use his or her intelligence in a way which benefits the collective?

At a time when the very concept of public (public good, public education, public property, public access, public health, public roads, etc.) continues to depreciate at an astounding rate, I have serious doubts as to the validity of the assumptions underlying the economic justification you cite.

I'm not trying to be obtuse. Just curious.

Speaking of brains, apologies in advance if I've misread what you're saying, Bernard. It's entirely possible. I've been up all night attending to a sick spouse and sick dog. Both are expected to survive, but I'm not exactly sharp this morning.

chimpanzees arent so nice indeed! they'll sneak up on a rival tribe, rape, kill and eat them, whereas humans rarely engage in cannibalism. (pause for laughter)

as far as the "war vs love" choice suggested above, a more relevant choice for this post would be "chimpanzee vs bonobo"

Arvin - You're absolutely right. I use the word "will" in the sense of "consistently." Economics typically averages interactions over time so the sense of pre/post becomes moot. But my use of the word "reward" is less than ideal, you're correct to point that out.

Sorry to hear about your spouse and dog. Best wishes to both.

Ted - Thanks for the link. I find the recent work in behavioral economics fascinating: research on "spite" is cool (how could it not be?) Or one the pioneering papers in the field that explained why New York taxi drivers work less when rides are easy. Of course, the counterargument is that one encounters such "paradoxes" in real life all the time, so one may want to ask why it took so long for economists to outgrow their infatuation with simplistic utility functions.

I'm too lazy to go looking for links, but Michael Albert and Robin (I think) Hahnel have been thinking and writing for decades about the fairness and economic desirability of rewarding the talented for their talents--they're against it. They've come up with an alternative system called parecon, which is their version of a (supposedly) workable utopia. It's based on the notion that you reward people not for their innate abilities, over which they have no control, but for how much effort they put into socially desirable activity. The trick is how to measure effort.

I'm one of those people who is theoretically fascinated by economics, if only I could keep my eyes open when I actually start reading about it, so I don't have a firm opinion about parecon. But Arvin Hill's posts reminded me of this.

Re. African-Americans, I can't imagine how they manage to put up with that crap so calmly: 30 percent of them get locked up in jail; and the other 70 percent can use their freedom to read Mr Saletan's "proof" that they are morons and that they're absolutely nothing they can do about it.

It's beyond nauseating.

If a black person complains about it he's "angry."
If he votes based on this information he's "on the plantation."
If he points it out he's "playing the race card."
If he points out illogical points in a racist (yet carefully p.c.) screed he's "race baiting."

So, yeah, it's rough.

chimpanzees arent so nice indeed! they'll sneak up on a rival tribe, rape, kill and eat them, whereas humans rarely engage in cannibalism. (pause for laughter)

Chimps, I thought, aren't much for cannibalism, and I thought humans were the only species on Earth capable of rape. Can you be more specific here?

Thanks for the pointer to Saletan's series of articles; they're an excellent overview of this subject, and he's clearly spent a lot of time synthesizing the material and considering it both from a scientific and moral viewpoint. And with all due respect, your response to him isn't much more than name-calling (literally: "crackpot pseudoscience", "totalitarian", "bunk", etc) which does nothing to answer the extensive body of information he adduces.

I'd recommend that anyone who's been following this discussion go and read Saletan's articles (and some of the numerous studies and articles he cites throughout them as well) if you haven't already, and hold off on reaching any conclusions until you do. If you're interested in this topic more generally I'd also recommend How the Mind Works and The Blank Slate, by Steven Pinker; I don't recommend them without reservations by any means, but they're both well worth reading. In the latter book Pinker cites this quote from Noam Chomsky, which exactly expresses my own views:

"It is, incidentally, surprising to me that so many commentators should find it disturbing that IQ might be heritable, perhaps largely so. Would it also be disturbing to discover that relative height or musical talent or rank in running the one-hundred-yard dash is in part genetically determined? Why should one have preconceptions one way or another about these questions, and how do the answers to them, whatever they may be, relate either to serious scientific issues (in the present state of our knowledge) or to social practice in a decent society?"