5 ms·

we have no data either way that can even begin to address whether one group is innately better than any other Does all of world history count as data? What sh

we have no data either way that can even begin to address whether one group is innately better than any other Does all of world history count as data? What should we go by? Propose a test.

btilly 4y ago
Given that I said we have no data that can begin to address this question, it is at best disingenuous. Because how can I offer a test without data? It is true that all of world history is data, but it is not necessarily data that can answer any particular question. The problem is the age-old nature versus nurture debate. Both genetics and environment are important to IQ. Both generally affect IQ through long, convoluted, and poorly understood reasons of cause and effect. Therefore we can establish evidence of differences, but can't necessarily distinguish between theories about the causes of those differences. What would make a difference is a theory of mechanism. For example it is uncontroversial that people with ancestry from Nigeria are better at sprinting, and people with ancestry from Kenya are better at long distance running. For this we can identify specific facts about body type that help with sprinting versus long distance running, and we can identify strong evidence that these body type differences are due to genetics. But we have no such theory of mechanism that can be applied to IQ. And therefore the mass of data we have about the existence of differences does not distinguish between potential causes of said differences.
- hijghula 4y ago
  You accept that some people run faster ("uncontroversial") but somehow it is "unknowable" whether some people think faster?
  - btilly 4y ago
    No. That there are differences in thinking speed is verifiable. We can also verify that differences in thinking speed between individuals has a large component due to genetics, and also another large component due to environment. Everything from diet to the quality of parental interactions in early childhood. What we can't determine is to whether genetics contributes to the differences in thinking speed between groups of people. We can identify important environmental factors like culture and racism. We can show that environmental facts matter. For example children of mixed race couples have a higher average IQ if they have white mothers. But nobody has found a way to measure what difference genetics might or might not make.
    - runsWphotons 4y ago
      maybe we should just let the smartest individuals into the best colleges
- alienthrowaway 4y ago
  > For example it is uncontroversial that people with ancestry from Nigeria are better at sprinting, and people with ancestry from Kenya are better at long distance running. World class sprinters have an over-representation of individuals descended from a specific region of Nigeria - you can't generalize that to "Nigerians sprint faster than Europeans",or "Black people sprint faster than white people" the way people do with IQ. It is also prudent to note that Kenya has a whole ecosystem nurturing long distance runners; with a wealth of scouts, academies, and trainers available to the young who show some talent, so ascribing Kenyan's prowess to nature alone is incorrect. Nutrition and IQ are correlated independent of race; especially early-childhood nutrition. Standardized testing is further compounded by test prep and tutors (proxy for wealth). Wealth in a family correlates to parents' education level. The lack of education in older African Americans has an obvious historical explanation. Most black Americans are descended from slaves from West Africa, but don't do as well as recent West African immigrants - 29% of Nigerian-Americans have advanced degrees; more than any other immigrant group. The vast chasm between the academic outcomes of two groups that are both largely of west African descent disproves "nature" is the sole determinant of poor outcomes for African Americans.

we have no data either way that can even begin to address whether one group is innately better than any other Does all of world history count as data? What should we go by? Propose a test.

btilly 4y ago

Given that I said we have no data that can begin to address this question, it is at best disingenuous. Because how can I offer a test without data? It is true that all of world history is data, but it is not necessarily data that can answer any particular question. The problem is the age-old nature versus nurture debate. Both genetics and environment are important to IQ. Both generally affect IQ through long, convoluted, and poorly understood reasons of cause and effect. Therefore we can establish evidence of differences, but can't necessarily distinguish between theories about the causes of those differences. What would make a difference is a theory of mechanism. For example it is uncontroversial that people with ancestry from Nigeria are better at sprinting, and people with ancestry from Kenya are better at long distance running. For this we can identify specific facts about body type that help with sprinting versus long distance running, and we can identify strong evidence that these body type differences are due to genetics. But we have no such theory of mechanism that can be applied to IQ. And therefore the mass of data we have about the existence of differences does not distinguish between potential causes of said differences.

hijghula 4y ago
You accept that some people run faster ("uncontroversial") but somehow it is "unknowable" whether some people think faster?
- btilly 4y ago
  No. That there are differences in thinking speed is verifiable. We can also verify that differences in thinking speed between individuals has a large component due to genetics, and also another large component due to environment. Everything from diet to the quality of parental interactions in early childhood. What we can't determine is to whether genetics contributes to the differences in thinking speed between groups of people. We can identify important environmental factors like culture and racism. We can show that environmental facts matter. For example children of mixed race couples have a higher average IQ if they have white mothers. But nobody has found a way to measure what difference genetics might or might not make.
  - runsWphotons 4y ago
    maybe we should just let the smartest individuals into the best colleges
alienthrowaway 4y ago
> For example it is uncontroversial that people with ancestry from Nigeria are better at sprinting, and people with ancestry from Kenya are better at long distance running. World class sprinters have an over-representation of individuals descended from a specific region of Nigeria - you can't generalize that to "Nigerians sprint faster than Europeans",or "Black people sprint faster than white people" the way people do with IQ. It is also prudent to note that Kenya has a whole ecosystem nurturing long distance runners; with a wealth of scouts, academies, and trainers available to the young who show some talent, so ascribing Kenyan's prowess to nature alone is incorrect. Nutrition and IQ are correlated independent of race; especially early-childhood nutrition. Standardized testing is further compounded by test prep and tutors (proxy for wealth). Wealth in a family correlates to parents' education level. The lack of education in older African Americans has an obvious historical explanation. Most black Americans are descended from slaves from West Africa, but don't do as well as recent West African immigrants - 29% of Nigerian-Americans have advanced degrees; more than any other immigrant group. The vast chasm between the academic outcomes of two groups that are both largely of west African descent disproves "nature" is the sole determinant of poor outcomes for African Americans.