4 ms·

> Whether people like to admit it or not, IQ and biological origin are linked. Can you clarify that? Because it sounds like some pretty racist bad science.

corporateguy5 9y ago
I left it ambiguous to avoid a flame ware, but it is what you think it is. How could you possibly think that societies evolving in different climates under different conditions are the same? Do you understand evolution?
- Finbel 9y ago
  > it is what you think it is. So, racist bad science then?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- seppin 9y ago
  > How could you possibly think that societies evolving in different climates under different conditions are the same? I always love new spins on old racism. Do tell how 'climate' plays a role in potential for technical workforce ability.
  - hiram112 9y ago
    I would imagine the argument is as follows: Climate, along with dozens of other factors, produced variations in human traits. Some of them, like skin color, height, etc. are obvious to everyone. Others, including intelligence, are not so obvious. But the idea that IQ is inheritable and variable between ethnicities is not too terribly controversial, even though it is politically taboo to mention. Thus, you'd find that some groups are more likely to dominate fields than others (due to nature) and not 100% because of societal differences (i.e. nurture). So the actual question for a society in a competitive global economy to ask is what proportion of limited resources are used to help those in the rear catch up vs what proportion is used to push the most gifted farther ahead.
    - seppin 9y ago
      That doesn't really answer the question, does it?
  - corporateguy5 9y ago
    Imagine for instance, the abundance of food based on the landscape in civilizations thousands of years ago. High abundance of animals to eat led to different natural selection than low abundance (which in some ways forces things like agriculture). These things matter, why are we turning a blind eye and screaming bloody myrfer at the truth?
- danbolt 9y ago
  Can you clarify what you mean by "the same" for societies? I could see that a lot of various net outcomes economically similar not due to biological factors, but rather a myriad of environmental ones. The Anna Karenina principle[1] means a lot if some societies get rice and Mediterranean Basins and World Banks, while others get tubers and mountains and slave-trading ships that buy people from you. I feel like those factors would make a more significant difference, as a few thousand years isn't very long in evolution time, from what I understand. 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Karenina_principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Karenina_principle
- coliveira 9y ago
  So we see the resurgence of eugenics. This seems to be the last resort of the racists...

corporateguy5 9y ago

I left it ambiguous to avoid a flame ware, but it is what you think it is. How could you possibly think that societies evolving in different climates under different conditions are the same? Do you understand evolution?

Finbel 9y ago
> it is what you think it is. So, racist bad science then?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
seppin 9y ago
> How could you possibly think that societies evolving in different climates under different conditions are the same? I always love new spins on old racism. Do tell how 'climate' plays a role in potential for technical workforce ability.
- hiram112 9y ago
  I would imagine the argument is as follows: Climate, along with dozens of other factors, produced variations in human traits. Some of them, like skin color, height, etc. are obvious to everyone. Others, including intelligence, are not so obvious. But the idea that IQ is inheritable and variable between ethnicities is not too terribly controversial, even though it is politically taboo to mention. Thus, you'd find that some groups are more likely to dominate fields than others (due to nature) and not 100% because of societal differences (i.e. nurture). So the actual question for a society in a competitive global economy to ask is what proportion of limited resources are used to help those in the rear catch up vs what proportion is used to push the most gifted farther ahead.
  - seppin 9y ago
    That doesn't really answer the question, does it?
- corporateguy5 9y ago
  Imagine for instance, the abundance of food based on the landscape in civilizations thousands of years ago. High abundance of animals to eat led to different natural selection than low abundance (which in some ways forces things like agriculture). These things matter, why are we turning a blind eye and screaming bloody myrfer at the truth?
danbolt 9y ago
Can you clarify what you mean by "the same" for societies? I could see that a lot of various net outcomes economically similar not due to biological factors, but rather a myriad of environmental ones. The Anna Karenina principle[1] means a lot if some societies get rice and Mediterranean Basins and World Banks, while others get tubers and mountains and slave-trading ships that buy people from you. I feel like those factors would make a more significant difference, as a few thousand years isn't very long in evolution time, from what I understand. 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Karenina_principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Karenina_principle
coliveira 9y ago
So we see the resurgence of eugenics. This seems to be the last resort of the racists...