4 ms·
The problem I see on this topic is that many people takes sides on the debate it as if it were an immutable story, to be used as a judgement for all time, fueli
by kepler1 3y ago
The problem I see on this topic is that many people takes sides on the debate it as if it were an immutable story, to be used as a judgement for all time, fueling people's good or bad political purposes.
But if anything, time and history has shown us that even if you adopt the proposition that IQ scores measure something meaningful and some groups score less than others -- the situation is totally changeable and moveable. People become more educated, more skilled, share more culturally over time.
There is nothing intrinsic about IQ that cannot change. So to use is as if it means someone is "inferior" is just a fallacy or at best a blinded snapshot in time.
Don't use the concept this way.
- beaned 3y agoI said nothing of the sort. I said that the difference exists and asked if we should be able to talk about it.
- kepler1 3y agoSorry, I didn't mean to imply you, I meant the general reader.
- triggerw4rn 3y ago[flagged]
- Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago>People become more educated, more skilled, share more culturally over time. If the cause of group differences in intelligence is found to be genetic then this will be of little avail.
- kepler1 3y agoAgain, "genetic" is not maybe what some people want to think it means, as an immutable thing. People's genes (as a population) change over time, education and culture select for different things. One group now, even if you said that they were "genetically" less performing, might well change within a few generations.