How does that make sense ? You read something and then you see it's poorly argued. I'm not a magician.
I don't care if people read that lol. I don't even really care if they believe the nonsense he's spouting. I reckon people like that will always exist.
I'm just telling you that that's not a study. You say you had a study and then you link an opinion piece.
The current social indicators of race make sense. As youd expect since african americans are about 20% european admixture their IQs are inbetween whites and africans. Also the flynn effect is most likely not a real gain in intelligence http://iapsych.com/articles/pietschnig2015.pdf
If you’re asserting that intelligence has a genetic component tied to race, the burden on you to demonstrate that connection
You would need to demonstrate that:
“Race” can be defined in a way that has consistent significance (Our current social indicators of race make so sense biologically)
that intelligence is consistently heritable within those racial categories
that genetics are the source of that heritability to the exclusion of other factors
It’s not enough to simply wave your hand to say “they do roughly classify people with similar ancestry together.”
What we do know is that IQ differences correlate strongly to factors totally unrelated to genetics. Look just at the results of IQ studies within Europe - https://i.imgur.com/IcHt0tu.jpg That data is actually pulled from a book that argues in favor of a generic element to intelligence affecting national wealth, but at a national level instead of a racial one - https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Lynn3/publicati...
The differences the authors find between nations are wildly large. Do you really think that East Germans were nearly 10 IQ points dumber by genetics than the West Germans in 1968-70, or that the Israelis got dumber between 1975 and 1989?
Europeans cluster with Middle Easteners and Central Asians - https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/324/5930/1035/F4.... but the latter groups have universally low IQ, mostly under 90. Palestinians only average 85 - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602... even though they're genetically the same as Meddeterreaneans, who average as much as 102 (Italy). Why define "white" as "European only" when Arabs, Central Asians, South Asians and North Africans have the same shared mutual ancestry? How is IQ primarily inherited and not environmental when non-European caucasians have uniformly low IQ relative to Euros?
I'd also love for you to explain how IQ is consistently going up over the last 100 years across the west? That's like 4 generations, not anywhere enough time for natural selection to kick in.
Those types of results show up time and time again in IQ studies. Whatever genetic component there is to IQ is less important than the environmental component, AND that the genetic element varies so wildly within even homogenous populations that talking about larger constructed population categories like “race” doesn’t actually say anything useful.
