Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The problem with the genetic basis for IQ argument is that not all genetic markers leading to higher IQ have been discovered. There is not a single way to evolve intelligence, and there's substantial evidence in nature for that (e.g: mammalian neocortex and the avian nidopallium evolved independently with similar goals).

Then, there are many aspects behind IQ. Take one kid, make him drink barely clean water with parasites, feed him poorly with non iodized salt, expose him to lead poisoning, and don't provide significant stimulation from an early age and his IQ will be much lower than a kid that didn't suffer from those issues, maybe even the same kid.

Most of the 20+ points of IQ gap comes in African countries comes from those issues. The problem is that racists have used that data out of its context to substantiate a genetic basis for racism. But of course they're wrong about that. Just like they're wrong about everything involving a minimum amount of education and common sense. I strongly suggest you stop following low IQ hate-speech idiots like the alt-right.




That's a nice story, but no numbers. Why would the environment be "most", i.e. 50-100% of the gap? How do you know it's not 30% or 130%?


I will not start a discussion around the validity of research because that conversation belongs in academic peer review and at this level it is pointless and it will end nowhere. But feel free to look for studies on these topics and form your own opinion:

- Proper nutrition helps IQ. Iodine consumption helps IQ.

- Poor health conditions, including presence of sub-saharan parasites, lowers IQ.

- Lead poisoning (e.g: lead-based paint and mining activities) lowers IQ.


A couple of other points:

1) Kind of self-evident, but variations among individuals is much larger than between populations, i.e. if you meet someone from a population where the IQ is lower, does not mean that person has a lower IQ.

2) A corollary of the impact of upbringing and the environment: if IQ is mostly stable/fixed at the individual level, this is not the case for a population average over time. For example Western IQ was much lower a few generations ago ("Flynn effect"). So it's possible that the populations who score lower today will catch up if their condition improves.


Also the fact that IQ is a very relative scale.

IQ = 100 is defined as the median IQ, and as the median moves the meaning of IQ = 100 is redefined.

15 points of IQ is defined as 1 sd. And again, as variance changes, the equivalence of IQ points changes as well.


Yeah, and, What I'm asking is, why wouldn't Africans, let's say, from a particular country, have a genetic intelligence advantage hidden by these factors. After all, Western society has been quite dysgenic lately. But somehow I get the sense what your wording has revealed is that you have some expectation that will make you comfortable, like equality or it being relatively close, and then you've gone on to seek out explanations that satisfy you, and then stopped. It sounds like a bunch of feel good story-telling.


[flagged]


Western society is dysgenic because career women put off having children and have fewer of them. Lately.


But fewer children does not necessarily mean fewer genetic diversity as population is now higher.

So where is the "accumulation of disadvantageous genetic traits" (definition of dysgenics) here?

I am sure that's not what you really meant. Try again.


What. Stupid people outbreeding smart ones. That's where.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: