4 ms·

Is it really so outlandish to suggest that populations have diverged cognitively after tens-hundreds of thousands of years of separation? Or are you really that

Is it really so outlandish to suggest that populations have diverged cognitively after tens-hundreds of thousands of years of separation? Or are you really that determined to pretend that all population differences just stop at the shoulders? The consistently different outward expression of genetic variation among populations is obvious - skin color, height, weight, fat proportion, hair type, eye color, predisposition to disease - everything is influenced by our genes. But you don't think you're performing Olympic level mental gymnastics in pretending that a structure as complex as the brain isn't deeply influenced by heritable genes? You cannot judge plausibility by convenience. Nature is cruel, and your outrage is inappropriate.

komali2 7y ago
> Is it really so outlandish to suggest that populations have diverged cognitively after tens-hundreds of thousands of years of separation? Yes, actually, because civilization is only (barely) 10,000 years old, which is not many generations to develop "cognitive" difference. Take a newborn member of one population, plop it in one on the other side of the planet, and in 20 years they'll be indistinguishable from anyone else (minus whatever effects that society applies to the child due to differences in their appearance). I disagree the genetic heritage of an individual affects their cognitive ability in a way to overcome statistical error, with all the cognitive "noise" of society existing. It should therefore be disregarded.
- fromthestart 7y ago
  Humans diverged long before the appearance of civilization. According to Wikipedia[1], the first homo sapien migration out of Africa began 300,000 years ago. >Take a newborn member of one population, plop it in one on the other side of the planet, and in 20 years they'll be indistinguishable from anyone else (minus whatever effects that society applies to the child due to differences in their appearance). Your point that all differences arise from societal treatment is debatable. There are adoptive population studies from the late 20th century where non-white infants adopted by white families were evaluated during adolescence and consistently showed measurable, significant differences SAT scores, for example. Of course, how much of that is still an effect of nurture neither of us can say. Ultimately it is still an open question, but, appropos to the article, the current political climate of the scientific establishment will unlikely allow for an unbiased study, or any study, into the subject.

komali2 7y ago

> Is it really so outlandish to suggest that populations have diverged cognitively after tens-hundreds of thousands of years of separation? Yes, actually, because civilization is only (barely) 10,000 years old, which is not many generations to develop "cognitive" difference. Take a newborn member of one population, plop it in one on the other side of the planet, and in 20 years they'll be indistinguishable from anyone else (minus whatever effects that society applies to the child due to differences in their appearance). I disagree the genetic heritage of an individual affects their cognitive ability in a way to overcome statistical error, with all the cognitive "noise" of society existing. It should therefore be disregarded.

fromthestart 7y ago
Humans diverged long before the appearance of civilization. According to Wikipedia[1], the first homo sapien migration out of Africa began 300,000 years ago. >Take a newborn member of one population, plop it in one on the other side of the planet, and in 20 years they'll be indistinguishable from anyone else (minus whatever effects that society applies to the child due to differences in their appearance). Your point that all differences arise from societal treatment is debatable. There are adoptive population studies from the late 20th century where non-white infants adopted by white families were evaluated during adolescence and consistently showed measurable, significant differences SAT scores, for example. Of course, how much of that is still an effect of nurture neither of us can say. Ultimately it is still an open question, but, appropos to the article, the current political climate of the scientific establishment will unlikely allow for an unbiased study, or any study, into the subject.