>>11825401>And then when you tried to make it about rural/urban for some reason, I pointed out that AA's are more urban.This is bordering on non sequitur. Perhaps the environmental roadblocks faced by urban blacks are still greater than those faced by rural whites. But that's a side discussion and barely related to the point.
Again, that point was this: rural whites are outperformed by urban whites, which, if environmental factors aren't dominant, should NEVER be observable. You simply cannot reconcile this fact with the assumption you opened with.
And so you backpedal:
>No one ever claimed that. Just that racial group has an effect and plays a large role. We're speaking in relative terms.Good! It took some hand-holding, but you're catching up, slowly but surely.
Now, you can finally start to think rationally about the topic.
What exactly are the relative effect sizes?
Should we weight well-understood, repeatable causality (e.g. "iodine deficiency impairs mental development") more than we weight mere correlations (e.g. "the people in that landlocked nation are all the same race, and their average IQ is low")?
