>>12764229For one, Wikipedia is just a bunch of random dudes, so you might as well just explicate the argument they're using to see if it holds up. But explicating any argument in detail is bad on this board because of the 2k character limit.
Anyways, a lot of the arguments are based on subtest heritability gap, but I haven't looked into these in detail.
>>12764486There are people who literally believe in "convergent evolution" for the brain. Probably a cope, but it's a real thing people believe.
>>12764498"genetic factor" usually just means heritable, which is what you were talking about. You probably mean to say something like "I think the black-white IQ gap in the USA is only 10 percent heritable" which would mean perfect environmental control would (if that were right) bring it from 85/100 to 98.5/100.
>>12764623Stop giving bad arguments. You should be showing stuff like subtest heritability to actually prove it. All you're doing is explicating what it would MEAN for the b-w IQ gap to be "genetic".
>>12764646An egalitarian would just counter that these are all due to systemic env. differences, you have to show the mechanism (they do too, which is what they often forget).
>>12764731Lolno, you don't have to know the genes, this attitude only became prominent when racial IQ differences came to the forefront, you can obviously use stuff like twin studies to infer height heritability and nobody ever denied that because it wasn't so basely political.
>>12764874It's one thing to say that "X thing causes IQ decrease" versus saying "X thing causes the entire observed gap in IQ in the US at this time". To make it obvious, drinking gasoline probably lowers IQ really consistently, but is the variance in IQ between groups due to differences in gasoline consumption? Same with lead levels in water, etc.
Really poor, shit arguments from both sides.
