all 114 comments

[–]magnora7 21 insightful - 5 fun21 insightful - 4 fun22 insightful - 5 fun -  (30 children)

You are posting a lot racial stuff lately huh.

Historic anti-police-misconduct protests are going on, and you're focused on stirring up racial divides.

Man. What a sense of priorities. /s

You might as well work for the establishment with the divide-and-conquer that you're endlessly peddling.

[–][deleted] 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

While your assertion may be true it seems to me that rather than address the content of the message you instead pivoted towards the character of the poster. Ironically, this is like someone on Reddit saying someone should be ignored because they posted on /r/the_donald

I find human biodiversity a rather regrettable reality, but it's still reality. It is by willfully ignoring these differences between groups that we foster an environment ripe for unjust claims of racism. After all, if Africans are just as intelligent as Ashekenazi Jews, why are they poor (on average) while the Jews are rich (on average)? It must be systemic racism and oppression.

I've always found most people have fairly religious views where humans are concerned, although most every biological trait imaginable is heritable. People have no problem pointing out that Somalians are the best runners, or that border collies are the smartest dogs - but mention conscientiousness, IQ, or empathy in a human context; and suddenly we transcend biology and there must be a blank limitless human soul present.

In this magical world an aboriginal from the jungles of New Guinea would surely be one of our top scientists in the future - if only we'd feed, educate, and house him in the west. When he fails to do that - it's obviously because the racists around every corner held him back. What other answer could there possibly be? These riots were predictable months ago - I just didn't know what the excuse would be.

[–]AFutureConcern 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They don't deny human biodiversity because they think it's false. They deny it because they think it helps justify an "oppressive narrative". It's all feelings and "oppression". If some groups are less intelligent on average, and this is due to natural reasons, or in fact any justifiable reason (natural or artificial), then those groups will be justifiably lower on the hierarchy than others. From their perspective, hierarchy is intolerable (and cannot / should not be justified) and so anybody sharing those facts must be "complicit" in what they call "white supremacy" (they call it this even if Asians are shown to have the highest IQ).

Then there are the "useful idiots" who believe the lies the former group tell about human biodiversity not existing. They truly think the Critical Social Justice types are simply complaining about unfair treatment, about prejudiced cops, and that we should strive to erase prejudice, and that we really are all the same underneath. They couldn't be further from the truth. Critical Social Justice activists do not care that human biodiversity exists, they simply want to destroy the narrative that it does. They don't care about "prejudice" because they'll happily pre-judge people if it advances their agenda. They only care about "oppression" which means when any (racial, ethnic, sex) group has more power than any other - and in particular, since white men have more power than other groups, they will deconstruct any narrative that justifies any of that power, regardless of how true it is.

[–]Chipit[S] 18 insightful - 4 fun18 insightful - 3 fun19 insightful - 4 fun -  (16 children)

Dude. Pyramid of debate. You're engaging in a personal attack. Address the substance of the argument. Cite sources.

Intelligence is a heritable trait.

Historic anti-police-misconduct protests

Who was talking about that? You just brought that up out of nowhere. It's got nothing to do with the police, it's a Maoist style cultural revolution.

[–]magnora7 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (14 children)

It's got nothing to do with the police, it's a Maoist style cultural revolution.

So do you think posting divisive content, that divides people by race, in the moment of this revolution, is a good idea? Do you think content like that slows things down, or do you think maybe it exacerbates the exact same tensions the media are trying to inflame?

[–]Chipit[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Race has nothing to do with intelligence. Race is a social construct that doesn't exist.

Come on man, engage with ideas. Personal attacks are at the bottom of your own pyramid of debate.

[–]magnora7 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

You didn't answer my question, or address what I said, you just changed the topic. Engage with my ideas!

Do you think racially divisive content like like you've posted, slows this maoist revolution down, or do you think maybe it exacerbates the exact same tensions the media are trying to inflame?

[–]Chipit[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Intelligence is a heritable trait.

Your ideas are a personal attack. Don't attack me, attack the enemy.

[–]magnora7 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Again, you failed to address the point of the argument, and again you see any questioning as a personal attack. I am not attacking you. I am trying to understand why you are doing what you are doing.

Why can't you follow the pyramid of debate, that you're constantly accusing others of not following?

So again, do you think racially divisive content like like you've posted, slows this maoist revolution down, or do you think maybe it exacerbates the exact same tensions the media are trying to inflame?

Or do you not care about the consequences of your actions? Do you actually care about the pyramid of debate, or do you just use it to shut down those who disagree with you?

[–]bobbobbybob 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

your argument is "shut up about reality because there are people chimping out burning cities and they might get upset". or did i read that wrong?

[–]whereswhat 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Stunned silence.

[–]Lithargoel 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This astounding example of avoidance, deflection, twisting of valid criticism and dismissal of constructive argument in favor of narrative is brought to you by the co-founder of Saidit.net.

He's single-handedly assuring this site will die before it can flourish in the wake of Reddit's incoming bans, policy changes, and glad-handing an appointed position based solely on one required race. My fucking sides.

[–]magnora7 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Chipit is indeed avoiding and deflecting. Nice try to spin it back on me though.

[–]whereswhat 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

All I see are unfounded accusations of ad hominem attacks from Chipit.

The only "constructive argument" that has been ignored is same pointed question magnora7 has submitted 3 times now.

There is nothing wrong with questioning the motives behind this post (as opposed to the premise).

[–]magnora7 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yup he clearly cannot actually argue his point, and clearly does not have a lot of respect for the pyramid of debate, despite constantly using it to silence others. Not a good look for him.

[–]bobbobbybob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

you are the one making an issue over this, by projecting your own beliefs about black people having a lesser intelligence (never said in the OP) onto a cartoon about race realism.

Have you been getting some hassle about the site content or something?

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Do you seriously believe people are not going to think about intelligence levels along human racial lines when they read the OP?

Just based on the comments in this thread alone, it is blatantly obvious that people tend to miss the fact that the genetics that determine race != the genetics that determine intelligence (as far as we know).

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

implying

[–]whereswhat 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Can you define intelligence?

Under any normal interpretation, "intelligence" is much much much more complicated than eye color, e.g., and is not controlled by genes alone, let alone a simple set of genes. It is wrong to call it a trait, imo.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Historic anti-police-misconduct protests are going on, and you're focused on stirring up racial divides.

Man. What a sense of priorities. /s

You might as well work for the establishment with the divide-and-conquer that you're endlessly peddling.

We're manipulated against our better judgement. That has always been the case. There's a reason the divide and conquer strategy works!

[–]magnora7 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You are right, but I have hope more and more are learning to see through the divide-and-conquer tactics, one by one

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The hopefulness is mutual

[–]whereswhat 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you. We are one species, even if our current overlords don't want us to believe that.

[–]solder0 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I concur. Also, given his (overly) simplistic understanding of human biology and developmental psychology, as well as other things I would have to conclude that he is genetically low iq.

[–]Thugnificent 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Is chip actually a shill or is this some kind of meme

[–]Zahn 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's the result of a long and tiresome back and forth between him and user tombombadil who is pretty much the only one vocally harassing/accusing him of being a shill. And Tom is often all too quick to label people shills if they disagree with him. So at this point it's entering meme territory.

[–]whereswhat 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Tom is often all too quick to label people shills if they disagree with him.

Truer words have never been spoken.

[–]Chipit[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

At this point I'm pretty convinced that it's not me that he hates - it's himself. He has big personal problems of some unspecified nature, and harassing me works as some kind of therapy. Calling people shills is the same as calling people racist - it's an easy way to dismiss an argument you're losing.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nothing wrong with truth. When we are forcefed bullshit all day long, it is refreshing to see a bit of light shining through.

[–]phenylanin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A historic China-esque cultural revolution is going on, and you're focused on shutting down people speaking truths that the mob doesn't like.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

This content is about as clever and retarded as that poor dog with a drooling face.

I think it was posted by user because of "um, purely economic factors."

[–]Hellothereawesome 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They have no clue about intelligence, IQ is what they've put in most of their time on and it has so much criticism going against it that its ridiculous. Of course some people act like they know, but in reality they don't know anything about what intelligence is and where it comes from, a billion different definition with nothing to back any of them up. Welcome to psychology, where there is lots of dogma and much less certainty.

[–]whistlepig 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm pretty sure intelligence has more to do with a conscious choice to use it rather than to choose emotional reaction when it comes to people. To negate your obvious progressive messaging.

[–]Foxape 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

How do you explain low IQ white people? Ever been to West Virginia? How do you explain high IQ black people? Ever been to suburban Maryland?

[–]Zahn 14 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 4 fun -  (10 children)

How do you explain low IQ white people?

Genetics

How do you explain high IQ black people?

Genetics

[–]whereswhat 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

So you agree that this racially charged post is inappropriate?

[–]Zahn 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

No, I don't think it's racially charged. It's not right or wrong, it just is what it is.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Then you have a more optimistic lens than I do. To me, this post is insinuating that black people are genetically predisposed to be less intelligent than other races, which is an unfounded claim.

[–]Zahn 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Though I don't care so much about the racial aspect of inherited Iq, invariably it will gravitate toward that topic.

[–]whereswhat 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I respect and agree with that.

[–]Chipit[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Why'd your brain immediately jump to that? Psychological projection? You're secretly racist as fuck, and to stop the horrible effects of cognitive dissonance, you need to constantly accuse others of your own faults?

It's a method that works, to be sure.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If I were looking for justification of my own racial superiority, this is exactly the type of thing I might latch on to. I would be wrong to do so though.

If this concerns you too, then I suggest you make a comment clarifying how you intended this post to be interpreted.

[–]Chipit[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Wow, for someone who's not racist, you certainly have a good handle on what you think your enemies think. One might get the idea that you're actually what you hate inside, which is why you're so loud about it - best not to let others catch on.

It is rather interesting how predictable people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (and NPD is more than just being full of yourself) can be. Their thinking is flawed in that they can not conceptualize of people thinking any differently than they do. And so they will often give away their true thoughts and beliefs unintentionally through their accusations of others.

And if you say something that makes them think negatively, they believe you are the problem, not them.

[–]whereswhat 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Did you reply to the wrong comment? This is completely irrelevant to what I said.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

you appear to be projecting

[–]Chipit[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

It's a bell curve. There are going to be outliers at both ends. At one end are going to be a lot of people in prison, because one of the hallmarks of low intelligence is low impulse control, which means you do whatever you think of at the time without any regard of how it will affect you in the future. At the other end is going to be a lot of well-off people, because they can make plans and follow them through for a long-term payoff.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Common ground found. Intelligence, however you define it, is likely a normal distribution. Now, do you think the "bell curve" would shift significantly when filtered by race?

[–]Chipit[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Sure it does. But that result is politically unacceptable, so you are immediately faced with anti-science protesters who can and will do everything they can to stop the truth from getting out. It's because leftists have harm reduction as their only value, whereas everyone else has many values which we balance. See Haidt which I already cited. He explains the whole thing.

https://wqad.com/2019/10/03/new-study-concludes-women-and-liberals-more-likely-to-support-censorship-hold-double-standards/

Recent work has suggested that Liberals have sacred values about protecting low-status groups and thus are particularly prone to bias against any information that portrays those groups unfavorably. In a preregistered study (n = 559), we tested whether Liberals would support more censorship of information that portrays low status groups unfavorably (that men evolved to be better leaders than women, that Islam is violent and incites terrorism, and that white people score higher on intelligence tests than black people) than similar information that portrays high status groups unfavorably (that women evolved to be better leaders than men, that Christianity is violent and incites terrorism, and that black people score higher on intelligence tests than white people).

Across multiple topics and conditions, women were consistently more supportive of censorship than men. The one exception was for text that argued that women evolved to be better leaders than men. For this passage, women were equally as (non)supportive of censorship as men.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Notice the correlation between average IQ and country in the plot at the top of the article linked below. I suspect you are hung up on data like that. To understand what the data actually indicates, you must read the commentary:

None of the studies used here, conclude that the intelligence quotient is influenced by a particular race. In some cases, differences within population groups were found (e.g. in Basil: Blacks 71, Mulatto 81, Whites 95, Japaneses 99), but all differences could be attributed to their origin, level of education or other factors.

In 2006 Donald Templera and Hiroko Arikawab found a connection between increasing skin pigmentation and a decreasing IQ. Even this was not racially dued, because the pigmentation grade is climatically conditioned. The observations were also made within the same groups of other races, e.g. caucasians.

Criticism: The IQ was developed by West Europeans for West Europeans according to West European standards. It is still debatable whether this procedure can be applied to people(s) with entirely different social structures, cultures, values and ways of thinking.

https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php

[–]Chipit[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ah, yeah that's the old data. Modern intelligence tests are language and culture-free. I know the intelligence tests you're talking about. Today they don't ask questions like "how many innings in a baseball game?" any more. Those are long gone.

Intelligence can be measured more accurately than anything else in the social sciences. It differs tremendously and importantly between individuals. It is the single most important determinant of life success. You need to read the modern research.

"Dr. Richard Haier has recently written a major book on the topic, The Neuroscience of Intelligence http://amzn.to/2em55A9, summarized in the following manner: “This book introduces new and provocative neuroscience research that advances our understanding of intelligence and the brain. Compelling evidence shows that genetics plays a more important role than environment as intelligence develops from childhood, and that intelligence test scores correspond strongly to specific features of the brain assessed with neuroimaging."

In understandable language, Richard J. Haier explains cutting-edge techniques based on genetics, DNA, and imaging of brain connectivity and function. He dispels common misconceptions, such as the belief that IQ tests are biased or meaningless, and debunks simple interventions alleged to increase intelligence. ” We recently spent an hour and a half talking about such things."

Dr. Haier: http://www.richardhaier.com/

[–]whereswhat 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That is actually a fantastic reference. It is acknowledged over and over in the text, however, that we do not yet understand the correlation between the genetics associated with race and intelligence. The book also claims that the classic 1970s argument from Lewontin cannot be discarded in light of more recent evidence. We need more evidence.

You may find the paper below to be an interesting read too. It focuses on the social stigma against such research being done but also acknowledges that this is not something we understand yet.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2019.1697803

Let's not jump to conclusions.

[–]bobbobbybob 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

it isn't normal. the distribution is very skewed, and upper tail length varies significantly with genetic history (race)

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Care to share any sources on that? The only data I know to exist that you might be talking about is binned by country, not race.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I could have 20 years ago, but these days that science is no longer available. even my JSTOR account doesn't bring up the early allele studies anymore. The guy who discovered DNA even got cancelled for continuing to speak the truth about it.

who am I kidding. Its all still there. I'm just too lazy to go and do a google scholar search to find it, when you could if you could be arsed. I'm not here to convince you, just call out your BS.

Prove it doesn't exist.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. In this case, you are making the claim.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

says the person making all the claims.

sad.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I have provided evidence for everything I have claimed. I asked you to provide data for one specific claim of yours and you have only given me excuses for why you can't share the data in response.

Now you are just trolling. Bravo.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yes, there exists no data on the subject of Jerry Springer fan base "intelligence". That's not my problem though.

also

I have provided evidence for everything I have claimed

liar.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

with genetics.

[–]Crad 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The difference between quality of education for kids.

[–]whereswhat 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (41 children)

What a spectacularly stupid insinuation.

Dogs != humans.

Maybe if you had a better education you would understand more about how humans learn and perceive intelligence.

[–]Zahn 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/03/12/dna-tests-can-predict-intelligence-scientists-show-first-time/

You're pretty quick to ad hominem. Makes me wonder about your own intelligence level. It's ok if you can't science but you can't be cherry picking if you believe science or not once it doesn't fit your narrow minded viewpoint of the world.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2163484-found-more-than-500-genes-that-are-linked-to-intelligence/

[–]whereswhat 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

Ad hominem? Seems a stretch to me. My quip about education was to highlight how nurture can be more important than nature.

Contrary to your apparent assumption, I don't deny that genetics dictate what our brains are capable of. That doesn't end the discussion on the importance of nature versus nurture though. For examlple, a poorly trained neural net still performs just as poorly when run on a super-computer or a desktop PC. By analogy, the same is true for both human and dog brains. Overall brain power is only useful if the brain is taught to do useful things.

The big difference between human and dog brains is the physical architecture. Variations in human intelligence are relatively small compared to that of dogs because our baseline intelligence is so much higher (due to completely different architecture).

Both of the sources you linked acknowledge that nurture plays a significant role in "intelligence" levels. There are so many other studies to consider though (you may want to check out some of the twin studies that have been done). Most of the available evidence suggests that with the right nurture, almost any human can become a positive contributor to society.

[–]Chipit[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

So there is little difference between the humans who watch Jerry Springer and those who read The Atlantic?

I'll inform the Atlantic readers at once that they are quite similar. Do you think they will agree?

[–]bobbobbybob 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think that people get "created equal in the eyes of god" and "made exactly the same apart from skin color" confused

[–]whereswhat 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

There is little difference in the genetically determined architecture of their brains, yes. There are likely significant differences in how their brains have developed after they were born though. I don't care if they agree and am not going to speculate on that.

[–]Chipit[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

So, Atlantic readers and Jerry Springer watchers are the same? Come on, that's a lie and you know it.

You can't make unintelligent people intelligent by raising them, neither can you make intelligent people stupid.

I thought we all despised stupid people, did that change?

[–]whereswhat 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

You can't make unintelligent people intelligent by raising them, neither can you make intelligent people stupid.

Did you even read my comment?

So, Atlantic readers and Jerry Springer watchers are the same?

Don't put words in my mouth please. Details matter. Genetics plays no role in determining one's likelihood of being a Jerry Springer fan. Once someone is a Jerry Springer fan, however, the damage is probly done and I agree there is likely no hope.

[–]Zahn 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's estimated an average person can only gain 5 Iq points via education/environment. The majority of intelligence is inherited.

This is so obvious that I'm concerned with your attempts at explaining it away with so much extraneous complication. Many of your explanations play only a minor role. Quora had some unusual alacrity on this topic: https://www.quora.com/Can-I-raise-my-IQ-by-becoming-more-educated

[–]H3v8 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's estimated an average person can only gain 5 Iq points via education/environment.

There are countries where the prevalent concept is that everyone should go to university and get a degree and intelligence doesn't matter. Parents spend a fortune on private tutors and private schools to get their offspring into university, and even then you end up with young adults who are clearly not able to grasp slightly complex concepts or even write a small essay. While other kids study on their own and succeed using minimal means.

However, because society thinks that intelligence doesn't matter, we end up with all of them treated the same, getting the same degree through a system of corruption and favoritism, and the result is the global crisis we witness these days.

On the other hand, nobody says that everyone can be a football player because genetics don't matter, and the crowds worship athletes who are often unable to utter a coherent sentence. Sometimes they are elected as MPs and the result is embarrassing.

EDIT: I should add that I'm talking about relatively racially homogenous countries, and what I described is not US-specific.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Are we equating IQ with intelligence now?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

What are you concerned about? This is a complex subject. Details matter.

[–]Chipit[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Genetics plays no role in determining one's likelihood of being a Jerry Springer fan

It's entertainment beloved by people of low intelligence. Springer shows that there are even worse people out there than they are. This makes them feel good, because their own lives are so low-status and it's nice to look down on someone for a change, seeing that the rest of the world looks down on them. Don't you look down in low intelligence people? It's something very common among a certain segment of high intelligence people. If you don't...why not? Low intelligence people cause most of the problems in the world. Trump, Brexit, populism, the list goes on.

Atlantic readers are of high intelligence. Nobody but high intelligence people would find their content stimulating. Low and medium intelligence people regard reading The Atlantic as worse than having to write a book report.

Did you know you could do very well by moving to a country full of low intelligence people? You can easily fool them, hoodwink them, cheat them, and make a ton of money doing so. You would also get to look down on pretty much everyone in society.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Replace "intelligence" with "education" and you might be on to something.

[–]Chipit[S] 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Low intelligence people find school - and learning in general - tiring and they don't like it. That's sort of the hallmark of low intelligence, the inability or disinclination to learn. High intelligence people love learning. That's why they read The Atlantic, there's always something to learn in it.

You can't put low intelligence people into Harvard and turn out Atlantic readers.

It's funny how all anyone has to do is mention "West Virginia" and suddenly the hereditary nature of intelligence suddenly comes back. "You cousin-fucking scum suckers have been stupid for five generations!" LOL

[–]bobbobbybob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

already established and referenced that education can't shift IQ by much.

[–]H3v8 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Dogs are living creatures with many similarities to man. And if you have ever been in a group of people attending the same class, then you know that statistically some are just not capable to learn anything even if they try.

[–]whereswhat 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Dogs are living creatures with many similarities to man.

Yep.

statistically some are just not capable to learn anything even if they try.

Nope. Nearly all concepts taught in classroom settings can be understood by nearly every human (barring those with severe genetic abnormalities). Statistics tells us nothing about what the human mind is capable of. Most humans will never reach anywhere close to their full potential in the classroom because of a combination of many factors related to nurture (e.g. poor motivating incentives, poor instruction, distracting problems at home, etc.).

[–]Zahn 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The article stated that up to 80% of intelligence is inherited. The nurture theory is old news, and you're clinging to an increasingly antiquated idea, grandpa. You can provide someone as much environmental education as possible and they will still never be a Mozart. You must not have much real life experience, or you would know that you cannot educate someone to be a genius.

The identical twins study:

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-factors-determine-intelligence-2795285

*Tips Fedora

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

When did I claim you could educate someone to reach the IQ level of genius?

There are geniuses of all races. What do you make of that?

[–]Zahn 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Yes there are geniuses of all races. In Nigeria, there is about 1 genius per 400 people, in Scotland there is about 1 genius per 40 people.

[–]bobbobbybob 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

hah. that's the tail on the not-normal curve coming into play

[–]whereswhat 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Still waiting on the source for those numbers.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Where are you getting those numbers from? Having a hard time finding any data on the genius rate in Scotland or Nigeria.

I don't deny average IQ is much lower in some countries than others. That is not a valid indication that genes associated with race are also associated with intelligence though.

[–]Zahn 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I don't deny average IQ is much lower in some countries than others

It's like you're choosing to ignore an important detail. Those countries are comprised of particular ethnic groups/races.

[–]whereswhat 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, some countries are also much hotter than others. Some don't have safe drinking water. Some are plagued by malaria. The only way to expose a causal relationship between race and intelligence is to understand it on a genetic level. We have not identified such a relationship to date.

None of the studies used here, conclude that the intelligence quotient is influenced by a particular race. In some cases, differences within population groups were found (e.g. in Basil: Blacks 71, Mulatto 81, Whites 95, Japaneses 99), but all differences could be attributed to their origin, level of education or other factors.

In 2006 Donald Templera and Hiroko Arikawab found a connection between increasing skin pigmentation and a decreasing IQ. Even this was not racially dued, because the pigmentation grade is climatically conditioned. The observations were also made within the same groups of other races, e.g. caucasians.

Criticism: The IQ was developed by West Europeans for West Europeans according to West European standards. It is still debatable whether this procedure can be applied to people(s) with entirely different social structures, cultures, values and ways of thinking.

https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php

[–]Zahn 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

(These) studies are not entirely uncontroversial as they're often considering only specific population groups or only a few individuals per countries.

I'm not so much into the racial aspect of hereditary intelligence, but as said before, it's inevitable. For the most part then it's true that people from Singapore have a greater predisposition to higher intelligence and people from New Guinea have a lower one. Everyone else is in between these two extremes.

I accept that real equality is not natural or genuinely even possible. That I am smarter than some people and some people are smarter than me. I'm not offended by this. It's a beautiful revelation for a world view, that different approaches can be created around how various people perceive reality and require different methods of learning.

Instead we think everyones the same and will have the same outcomes. That we can solve everything wrong with people of all backgrounds by forcing and repeating the mantra of education/environment as if it's some social snake oil. That theory is clearly not working.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's only because of the WORLD-ENDING level of dumbing down in classes over the past 80 years.

Take a good part of the population and teach them latin. See how far you go.

Oh and Latin used to be the very BASIS of any decent education.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

you have no real life experience, and it shows.

[–]Chipit[S] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Eye color is a heritable trait. Hair color is a heritable trait. Is intelligence a heritable trait?

[–]whereswhat 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm sorry, can you define intelligence?

[–]AFutureConcern 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It doesn't actually matter, the exact definition. The point is to pick a definition and stick with it, so that we can discover things about it. The psychometric variable underpinning IQ tests is general intelligence, or "g". But it doesn't matter if it's not quite right or exact. I can see where you're going. Intelligence is not well-defined => it can't be said to be heritable or genetic => all groups are just as naturally smart as each other.

The reason you do this is because you see that IQ differences caused by genetics help to "uphold" a "narrative" that "oppresses" groups who have low IQ. Of course, it does do exactly that, because it's true, but people being naturally less intelligent, whilst called "oppression" by Critical Social Justice activists, is totally justified because it is meritocratic. If intelligence were so well-defined and its genetic component so obvious that it was impossible to deny, Critical Social Justice would simply focus on dismantling the moral axiom that "truly meritocratic systems are justified".

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It doesn't actually matter, the exact definition.

I disagree. You can pick a definition, study trends associated, then change the definition and the same trends will change. I promise.

The reason you do this is because you see that IQ differences caused by genetics help to "uphold" a "narrative" that "oppresses" groups who have low IQ.

Not really. I agree that genetics affects IQ. Are you aware of any study that shows race is a good proxy for IQ though? The genetic differences that lead to the expression of traits associated with different races are poorly correlated with IQ, if at all, from what I understand.

[–]bobbobbybob 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

i promise

you don't have the authority to make that claim

actual t.neuroscientist

[–]Bowiebow 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

There was a study I saw probably august last year that confirmed dog breed played a part in its behavioural characteristics. This is therefore true for only dogs and not humans

[–]Zahn 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Inherited traits including intelligence is a well established fact.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

But do the genes that control the expression of race also control intelligence?

[–]Zahn 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sometimes, sometimes not, gene expression can vary. I'm not specifically talking about race. What about, what about.....

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not specifically talking about race.

If that's the case, I don't think our opinions differ all that much. I am exlusively talking about genetics related to race though. Sorry if I haven't been clear on that.

[–]bobbobbybob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There are a large number of genes involved with various aspects of mind, the distribution of which changes by race, race being the result of tens/ hundreds of thousands of years of divergent evolution under dissimilar selection pressures.

It is theorised that emergent qualities, like culture and civilisation are also genetically based.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Chipit[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    See? It's all fun and games saying intelligence isn't heritable - right up until you get to low intelligence groups that it's socially acceptable to shit on. Then suddenly the knives come out and people are stupid because their parents are stupid.

    [–]Zahn 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Genetics

    [–]Crad 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Some dogs have smaller brain therefore less intelligence?