3 ms·

>Everybody acknowledges that some individuals are born smarter than others. Nina Jablonski explicitly said the opposite, which is the genesis of this thread.

pron 11y ago
She most certainly did not. When she says "we are all born etc.", she means all groups, not all individuals. I think it is painfully obvious from the context ("cultural framework", "cultural differences"). Why would you assume that a scientist would say something false rather than assume she would say something true, especially if in order to assume as you do you have to pull her words out of context?
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  I assume that her words meant what they said. I'm assuming you're using "group" as a euphemism for race, and in that same article Nina explicitly says race is not a genetic construct either. Does she change her stance depending on context?
  - pron 11y ago
    She did mean what she said, and when she says "we are all" in the very same paragraph she discusses cultural differences, she means every culture, not every individual. That's basic reading comprehension. She also doesn't need to change her stance. The genetic variation between racial groups are positively tiny compared to intra-group variation. It makes a lot of sense to say "we", as in all groups, are all the same, where as "we", as individuals, are not. The reason it makes sense to say that is that that's the truth, and I see no reason to assume a scientist wouldn't say the truth especially if you need to read her words with an autistic (and ill-intending) interpretation to understand them to say falsehood. Another reason she doesn't need to change her stance is that while innate differences in intelligence between individuals are large compared to those between groups, there are also bigger, non-innate differences that have been shown to have a very significant effect on intelligence.

pron 11y ago

She most certainly did not. When she says "we are all born etc.", she means all groups, not all individuals. I think it is painfully obvious from the context ("cultural framework", "cultural differences"). Why would you assume that a scientist would say something false rather than assume she would say something true, especially if in order to assume as you do you have to pull her words out of context?

oldmanjay 11y ago
I assume that her words meant what they said. I'm assuming you're using "group" as a euphemism for race, and in that same article Nina explicitly says race is not a genetic construct either. Does she change her stance depending on context?
- pron 11y ago
  She did mean what she said, and when she says "we are all" in the very same paragraph she discusses cultural differences, she means every culture, not every individual. That's basic reading comprehension. She also doesn't need to change her stance. The genetic variation between racial groups are positively tiny compared to intra-group variation. It makes a lot of sense to say "we", as in all groups, are all the same, where as "we", as individuals, are not. The reason it makes sense to say that is that that's the truth, and I see no reason to assume a scientist wouldn't say the truth especially if you need to read her words with an autistic (and ill-intending) interpretation to understand them to say falsehood. Another reason she doesn't need to change her stance is that while innate differences in intelligence between individuals are large compared to those between groups, there are also bigger, non-innate differences that have been shown to have a very significant effect on intelligence.