Monday, April 28, 2008
The genetic basis of cognitive style
If I understand Jeremiah Wright's speech in front of the NAACP, he believes there is a genetic difference in brain function between people primarily descended from Africans and people primarily descended from Europeans. An interesting theory, which we will undoubtedly be called upon to put into "context." Recognizing that Wright is certainly correct when he says that "different is not deficient," his speech begs an obvious question: Since African-Americans learn by entirely different means (according to Wright), are we now obligated to restructure our educational system to accomodate "subject learning" rather than "object learning"? Is Wright not making an argument for de jure segregation, at least in schools and at least by cognitive style, which we now learn is tied to one's ancestral proximity to Africa?
In any case, the audio track of Wright's speech is certainly NSFW. If a co-worker heard you listening to it and took offense, your HR department would have no choice but to discipline you.
CWCID: Michelle Malkin.
12 Comments:
By 
Andrew Hofer, at
Mon Apr 28, 11:34:00 AM:
Well, he joins an interesting group here, spanning Larry Summers to Prof. Hernstein to Jimmy the Greek.
Does he suggest that this cognitive method is present and uniformly strong in *all* people of African ancestry? Does he have an observed basis for making this generalization? It would be interesting to know what priors, viewed as objectively racist or otherwise, factor into his scientific opinion.
I'd also like to know how he perfected his '"Obama/Wright detractor" impression.
By 
, at
Mon Apr 28, 11:37:00 AM:
Is he going to be fired from espn?
By Georg Felis, at
Mon Apr 28, 01:11:00 PM:
If this were to stand unchallenged, would we then have to make a different educational experience for every human difference? I am all in favor of smaller class sizes, but this seems to be approaching single digits. Home schooling perhaps?
By Escort81, at
Mon Apr 28, 02:27:00 PM:
This comment has been removed by the author.
By Escort81, at
Mon Apr 28, 02:29:00 PM:
A serious interviewer has to ask Rev. Wright about his AIDS comment, and get him to retract it or support it with evidence. It's hard to take him seriously, or his use or citation of anybody else's academic or scientific studies (as he did during his NAACP speech), until that happens.
Rev. Wright's church has done many good works under his leadership, and it has grown in membership. But as a community leader (whether or not he preaches a Christian message), he has a responsibility to his community not to speak what amounts to a blood libel. He has enough intelligence on both sides of his brain to figure out the U.S. government did not infect African-Americans with the AIDS virus. He must also come to realize that, to some degree, he undercuts all of his good works with a statement like that. Christians believe sin (bearing false witness, in this case) can be forgiven, so he should be given a reasonable chance to walk that statement back. Senator Obama should ask him publicly to do so publicly.
By randian, at
Mon Apr 28, 03:58:00 PM:
For Wright, I'm pretty sure this is about one thing: stealing from others to benefit blacks.
By Escort81, at
Mon Apr 28, 04:33:00 PM:
OK, sorry, I am slow today, before I even posted, Wright stood by his previous statement on AIDS when he spoke at the event in D.C. on Monday. He also made some other remarks that will be replayed over and over.
This is getting stranger by the minute.
What must the Obama campaign be thinking right now?
By , at
Mon Apr 28, 05:22:00 PM:
"What must the Obama campaign be thinking right now?" - Escort81
"Doh!" - Homer Simpson, slapping forehead.
On the other hand, perhaps this is leading to a penultimate "Sistah Souljah" moment for Baracky, where he gets to tell of Rev. Wright, and look all mainstreamy. I guess everybody at the NPC presser didn't get the memo from Bill Moyers. Heh.
-David
By , at
Mon Apr 28, 06:03:00 PM:
The solution is to simply have the black children stand on their heads while in class.
Or the white kids.
We can rotate it every month or so.
Maybe the teachers?
By , at
Mon Apr 28, 06:52:00 PM:
I watched as much of this racist's speech this morning and turned it off. He's an idiot, and doing a lot of damage to Obama, and blacks who don't hide behind their skin. Keep the camera rolling, cause this is going to keep Hillary believing that she's got a shot. In spite of taking time away from the issues, and letting McCain talk up his agenda, this is just fabulous for undoing 40 years of Democrats chumping blacks into believing they actually care about them. And it's doing a ton of damage to the more liberal people who believe that we 'owe' blacks something beyond generational welfare and continuing affirmative action.
Wright needs to learn a fundamental point about public speaking - don't take the encourages of yeah, and right on bro (or their equivalent) to actually mean that you're making sense, or appealing to those outside your audience, who where by my limited observation, mostly black.
By , at
Mon Apr 28, 10:05:00 PM:
Shame on you for posting words and concepts that do not appear anywhere in his talk (I watched all 11 minutes to make sure). He does not use the word "brain", nor "genetic", nor "subject learning", and neither do the comments that appear below the video ("right-brained", "inborn biological difference", "innate", etc.). I'm happy to consider criticisms on things he actually said, but find it impossible to offer context on things he didn't. You're almost as bad a sophist as Al Gore.
In any case, one does not have to resort to genetic explanations for the kinds of differences the Reverend Wright exposes. As I've explained before on this board, culture is powerful and has powerful effects on all the ways in which we understand and interact with the world, and African-Americans have a distinct culture which has been passed down generation to generation, evolving as it goes but always maintaining certain key values and frames of reference. If you disagree with Wright that culture has a profound effect on one's thinking and actions, then logically, you can not simultaneously subscribe to Samuel P. Huntington's view in "The Clash of Civilizations" that we have entered an age in which the source of primary conflicts is cultural differences. I trust I do not have to provide context on that essay, though it says here you haven't read it yet:
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2008/01/was-samuel-p-huntington-right-after-all.html
By , at
Sat May 03, 10:19:00 AM:
"Are we now obligated to restructure our educational system to accommodate "subject learning" rather than "object learning"?"
Sadly the answer to that is, yes. Welcome to the world of multicultural education that goes beyond integrating cultural awareness into the curriculum. Teachers are required to match their teaching styles to the supposed learning styles of students from different racial cultural and social groups in what they call the "equity pedagogy."
Proponents reject the idea of the American melting pot and instead see us as a big salad bowl. When as Anon pointed out the "source of primary conflicts is cultural differences" this does not bode well for future generations when we stress differences in education rather than inclusion.
