3 ms·

It isn't particularly controversial that IQ has a genetic component. What is controversial are other conclusions derived from that. Saying that something is con

by mhjas 8y ago

It isn't particularly controversial that IQ has a genetic component. What is controversial are other conclusions derived from that. Saying that something is controversial is often used as a rhetorical device to add credibility to arguments that aren't conclusive.

fzeroracer 8y ago
It's exactly this. It's easy to say that genetic differences account for differences in IQ among human beings. The flaw is when you start to extrapolate that to things like racial issues. Saying that for example black people are less intelligent due to their genetics would ignore a lot of environmental circumstances that can lead to people not achieving their full potential. There's also the conclusion that if someone is born from a poor and dumb family that therefore their genetics must be worse and so forth. Framing the argument as 'nature not nuture' would still ignore that if you had two people with identical genes born into a rich family vs a poor family that their theoretical 'genetic potential' is going to be highly limited by their environment. The genetic argument quickly becomes a tool with which to justify hurting others.
- api 8y ago
  > if someone is born from a poor and dumb family that therefore their genetics must be worse and so forth. That particular assumption would be false because of genetic crossover. Two mentally disabled people could give birth to a genius child if recombination results in an offspring not carrying or expressing whatever causes their disability. The probability of this happening is higher if the pair is less closely related. The inverse can also happen of course, and does. This is really why sexual reproduction seems to exist. It's also why the racial purity crowd has it precisely wrong. One hypothesis on the Flynn Effect is that it could result from increased outbreeding due to modern levels of travel and migration.

by mhjas 8y ago

fzeroracer 8y ago

It's exactly this. It's easy to say that genetic differences account for differences in IQ among human beings. The flaw is when you start to extrapolate that to things like racial issues. Saying that for example black people are less intelligent due to their genetics would ignore a lot of environmental circumstances that can lead to people not achieving their full potential. There's also the conclusion that if someone is born from a poor and dumb family that therefore their genetics must be worse and so forth. Framing the argument as 'nature not nuture' would still ignore that if you had two people with identical genes born into a rich family vs a poor family that their theoretical 'genetic potential' is going to be highly limited by their environment. The genetic argument quickly becomes a tool with which to justify hurting others.

api 8y ago
> if someone is born from a poor and dumb family that therefore their genetics must be worse and so forth. That particular assumption would be false because of genetic crossover. Two mentally disabled people could give birth to a genius child if recombination results in an offspring not carrying or expressing whatever causes their disability. The probability of this happening is higher if the pair is less closely related. The inverse can also happen of course, and does. This is really why sexual reproduction seems to exist. It's also why the racial purity crowd has it precisely wrong. One hypothesis on the Flynn Effect is that it could result from increased outbreeding due to modern levels of travel and migration.