sorry if i offended anyone
- Nov 26, 2008
The papers you link to fail to account for the reliability of IQ tests, which is around 87%, meaning 13% of the variance is down to error (resulting form people getting slightly different IQ each time it is measured).The figure can be as high as 80% but 50-70% is probably a more realistic figure for e.g.
They don't have to be the same genetic factors, nobody thinks that the exact same genes explain skin tone and intelligence variation. But people of different backgrounds have different clusters of genes, and so it's perfectly reasonable to expect that different populations would have difffernt genetic potentials for intelligence.While it is true that we can identify different backgrounds by DNA, the question is to whether the same genetic factors determine racial/skin tone differences and IQ differences,
And now even molecular genetic research is showing that this is in fact the case:
Using data from the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort, we examined whether European ancestry predicted cognitive ability over and above both parental socioeconomic status (SES) and measures of eye, hair, and skin color. First, using multi-group confirmatory factor analysis, we verified that...
Admixture regression methodology exploits the natural experiment of random mating between individuals with different ancestral backgrounds to infer the environmental and genetic components to trait variation across culturally-defined racial and ethnic groups. This paper provides a new...
Environmental factors can explain variation in intelligence. It doesn't mean they necessarily do in a certain place and time. Experiencing severe caloric deficiency as a child impacts your adult IQ, but it doesn't mean that childhood caloric deficiency explains all or even most intelligence variation between populations (and it usually explains none of it except for the poorest of countries).and considering there are environmental factors it could also be a compounding effect regardless. I'm yet to do my research into this so don't quote me on this just yet aha
The broader scientific community is kind of irrelevant. Most of the broader scientific community likely could not give a satisfactory definition for the general intelligence factor.But interestingly though a lot of hereditarian research is generally not widely accepted amongst the broader scientific community - so that does present its challenges in thinking through this topic...
(J.P. Jackson & Winston, 2020)
Most intelligence researchers believe that IQ measures intelligence and that the heritability of IQ is high.
It literally is a social construct. These categories do not exist in nature. I can just say "race is the result of observing biological reality" too.Observation of biological reality is what results in species classification - so I wouldn't define that as a social construct imho. That's like saying any classification in science is a social construct.
The means were really not as bad as people claim. And the average black south african was better off during apartheid rule than they are today, and most black south africans during apartheid chose to move to apartheid south africa (or their parents did). It wasn't something forced on an indigenous population.Irrespective of whether apartheid was an improvement or not, I don't think the ends justify the means. Both matter.
But again, look at rage at apartheid compared to the apathy towards genocidal zulus. Some people even celebrate shaka zulu ffs.[/QUOTE]