We are profoundly unprepared to delve into such research, in a manner akin to, say, a preschooler attempting to study the structure and process behind the creat

We are profoundly unprepared to delve into such research, in a manner akin to, say, a preschooler attempting to study the structure and process behind the creation of a photorealistic 3DCG scene. They can recognize colors and how they delineate objects, fine. Can they speak to the technical details of the rendering pipeline? How light works, in the abstract? Do they have an understanding of perspective? Of the underlying math involved? In so-called "group differences in intelligence," can we define intelligence satisfactorily? Can we define the "groups"? We understand what a gene is and broadly how it contributes to an organism's physiology, but in complex phenomena such as intelligence, can we yet track how each gene contributes? Can we even break down intelligence into its phenotypical building blocks? Do we even know if it's an additive system, in the manner implied? Or is it perhaps more convoluted, with "helpful" genes in one context "hurting" in others? I'd argue that we're simply not technically equipped to come to any meaningful conclusions, or even to inquire forthrightly, in regard to intelligence, except in the broadest and most surface-level terms, in that the unseen mechanisms driving our models are far more complex than we can see from our current perspective. And god forbid anyone involved in either effort is "colorblind."