{"id":2786,"date":"2012-04-01T08:45:35","date_gmt":"2012-04-01T07:45:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/?p=2786"},"modified":"2012-04-01T08:58:57","modified_gmt":"2012-04-01T07:58:57","slug":"quotes-from-nyborg-ed-the-scientific-study-of-human-nature","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/2012\/04\/quotes-from-nyborg-ed-the-scientific-study-of-human-nature\/","title":{"rendered":"Quotes from Nyborg (ed.) The Scientific Study of Human Nature ("},"content":{"rendered":"

The Scientific Study of Human Nature – Helmuth Nuborg ed<\/a><\/p>\n

I had thought about reading this book, but decided against it due to its age (1997). The reasoning is that significantly more data has emerged since that time (15 years!), and so the book generally may be out-dated. However, some particular chapters still sounded so interesting to me that I cudn’t help but read them. The quotes below are from them.<\/p>\n

“The description of the behavioral scientists contrasted that of the physicists
\nand biologists in almost every conceivable way. Behavioral scientists tended to
\nbe highly gregarious, and to be socially active at an early age. Often they were
\nacknowledged leaders already in school, where they practiced intense and
\nextensive early dating. They were deeply concerned with human relations,
\nshowed many dependent attitudes, much rebelliousness, and considerable
\nhelplessness. They tended to be quite openly aggressive, and to experience a
\nhigh divorce rate (41%).
\nRoe further noted that very few of these highly gifted scientists came from
\nthe South of the U.S.A., none were Catholics, five came from Jewish homes,
\nand the rest were raised in Protestant homes. However, irrespective of
\nbackground very few scientists had any serious interest in religious matters.
\nTable 20.1 (from Nyborg, 1991) summarizes, in modified form, Roe’s
\nobservations of the overall pattern of representation of abilities and personality
\nin the different academic disciplines, and contrasts them with data for blue-
\ncollar workers.
\nThe table illustrates how abilities clearly distinguish natural from social
\nscientists. Roe, in fact, even found group differences within these
\ncategorizations. To get that far, special tests to map exceptional verbal (V),
\nspatial (S), and mathematical (M) abilities had to be constructed by the
\nEducational Testing Service, as currently available standard tests were much
\ntoo easy for many of these eminent scientists. The physicists without question
\nscored highest on these demanding tests, but theoretical physicists performed
\nrelatively better on verbal tests, and experimental physicists relatively better on
\nspatial and mathematical tests. Among the scientists, the biologists,
\nphysiologists and botanists scored relatively higher on verbal, and geneticists
\nand biochemists relatively higher on nonverbal tests. Social scientists obtained
\na significantly lower overall IQ score than physicists. However, even within this
\ngroup of scientists, social psychologists and anthropologists performed
\nrelatively better on verbal tests, and experimental psychologists better on
\nspatial and mathematical tests. Some of the anthropologists were, in fact,
\nunable to understand the mathematical tasks, whereas the most difficult of
\nthese items were too easy for some of the physicists. Here, perhaps, we have
\nidentified an important factor in the differential developmental status and
\nsophistication of various scientific areas!” (p. 432)<\/p>\n

“Postwar (but perhaps not prewar) fertility, as measured by number of
\noffspring, is lower in high IQ individuals (Vining, 1982, 1984), but their life
\nexpectancy is higher (Danmarks Statistik, 1985). There is a tendency for high
\nIQ boys to behave less physically aggressive, and for high IQ girls to behave
\nmore physically aggressive than the average (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). Roe
\n(1952b) noted that exceptionally creative natural scientists tend to have few
\nchildren, social scientists more, but lower IQ.
\nWhat about sociability? Highly creative children in elementary schools tend
\nto feel estranged from their teachers and peers (Torrance, 1962), as do creative
\nadolescents (Getzels & Jackson, 1962) and high IQ children. Cattell and
\nButcher (1968) found, like Roe, that adult research scientists tend to be<\/p>\n

skeptical, withdrawn, unsociable (McClelland 1962; Taylor & Barron 1963;
\nTerman & Oden 1959) critical, precise, apt to express socially rather
\nuncongenial and “undemocratic” attitudes (Van Zelst & Kerr, 1954)
\nassociated with dominance (Rushton, Murray, & Paunonen, 1983; see also
\nchapter 19), to hold the belief that most other people are rather stupid, and to
\nshow a surprising readiness to face endless difficulties and social discourage-
\nment in order to have it their way. Barron (1965) finds that the original
\nindividual rejects regulation by others, and has a strong need for personal
\nmastery, involving self-centeredness and self-realization. MacKinnon (1962,
\n1964, 1970) finds profound skepticism, rebelliousness, self-assertiveness, and
\nindependency characteristic for highly creative architects, already manifested
\nclearly in school and onwards (Dudek & Hall, 1984).” (434-5)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Scientific Study of Human Nature – Helmuth Nuborg ed I had thought about reading this book, but decided against it due to its age (1997). The reasoning is that significantly more data has emerged since that time (15 years!), and so the book generally may be out-dated. However, some particular chapters still sounded so […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1839,1653],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2786","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-psychometics","category-psychology","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2786","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2786"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2786\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2789,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2786\/revisions\/2789"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2786"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2786"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2786"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}