It's the inner city culture that is born from welfare policies that incentivizes single mother homes.
It's both. It's a combination of individual behaviors and population statistics.
The difference between 'us' and 'them' is that we still judge individuals as individuals, while the left demands that we "not see race" and judge everybody based on their immutable characteristics.
Denying genetic makeup for intelligence is just as stupid as judging an individual based off of their genetics over their actions. We all know that black people on average have lower iq scores, just as we know that Anglo-Saxon, Slavic and Germanic tribes were once considered to be the dumbest by the Islamic golden age. What this shows, however, is that no race is inherently superior consistently, or that even smaller subsections under race have vastly different results due to better practices over generations.
just as we know that Anglo-Saxon, Slavic and Germanic tribes were once considered to be the dumbest by the Islamic golden age.
The time of the Islamic Golden Age (falsely called Islamic in my view) was also the Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon culture, so this was very much unmerited. But there is one Islamic commentator who said that the more north you go in Europe, the paler they get, and also the dumber they get.
What this shows, however, is that no race is inherently superior consistently, or that even smaller subsections under race have vastly different results due to better practices over generations.
Let us hope so, because if racial inequalities are permanent, then almost every Western country is going to be in a state of perpetual racial strife and civil war.
There is a slight difference though between people in tribal societies being stupid and today. Of course, if a people lives in condition of pure savagery, then the intellectual achievements are not going to be impressive. But when you have all the opportunities in the world, and still score so low, then that becomes more troubling.
But by that same point, you've identified why using race to correlate to IQ generally through genetic markers makes no sense. If there was an innate racial-genetic causal relationship to IQ, you wouldn't see IQ changes in races. Instead you see different IQ groups within races all the time, and related to behavioral factors.
Sure, the Islamic nations probably had a very high IQ... before they started inbreeding. I bet you that incest probably has an impact on IQ.
Germans have a high IQ too, until the IQ of East Germans collapsed under socialism.
What's the best way to blunt a kid's IQ for the rest of his life? Malnutrition at a young age. That, in and of itself, answers a lot of questions about Socialism.
On the other end of the spectrum, Jewish IQ in the use significantly rose since the dawn of the century. Much of the early Progressive arguments about IQ included the arguments that Jews were too intellectually underdeveloped to adapt to western societies.
Think about this point:
smaller subsections under race have vastly different results due to better practices over generations.
And what are those better practices? Culture. What happens when their subsection replaces all the others? We should see a rise in IQ because of culture.
Even more than that, IQ is not a single genetic marker, but a measurement of someone's ability to work with abstraction. That ability to manage abstract analysis also correlates to your success within a western society. Your success in a western society, is something that is going to act women. Women who are sex selecting based on successful males.
Women would be, effectively, sex-selecting higher IQ. Which would cause a significant change in the population as low IQ males aren't mated. By definition, we should see the population's IQ increase overtime in a western society. That suggests, again, this not some static genetic factor, but related to beneficial behaviors.
If you pressure that population with starvation and perpetual threats and stress, where the behaviors of high IQ people are disincentivized (anti-meritocracy, equitable distributions of wealth and property, totalitarian paranoia), you remove Abstract thinking / IQ as useful survival mechanism in favor of others, like brute strength. Meaning that women won't sex select for it, driving down the IQ of a population over time.
Culture clearly has a massive impact on IQ since IQ is more of a measurement related to some genetic characteristics, that populations are selecting for. Rather than it being a static genetic element of race.
Which is a given, cultural practices and environment affect the genes you pass down, the same as bodies being able to tolerate different foods, antibodies from diseases, etc. This makes ethnicity more important to track over race because those markers show success and changes from two similar genetic makeups.
Sure, but that's still leaning heavy on slow genetic changes in populations, but we don't see small, slow, genetic populations over 5-10-50 generations. We see jumps in 1, 2, and 3. That's why the East German example is so dramatic. It's 1 maybe 2 generations, and you're talking about a 1 SD fall in IQ in only a couple decades, and you have, effectively, a control group in West Germany.
Starve the people, disincentiveize the people, and tyrannize the people, and their IQ collapses. That's not genetic even predominantly genetic.
It's both. It's a combination of individual behaviors and population statistics.
The difference between 'us' and 'them' is that we still judge individuals as individuals, while the left demands that we "not see race" and judge everybody based on their immutable characteristics.
Denying genetic makeup for intelligence is just as stupid as judging an individual based off of their genetics over their actions. We all know that black people on average have lower iq scores, just as we know that Anglo-Saxon, Slavic and Germanic tribes were once considered to be the dumbest by the Islamic golden age. What this shows, however, is that no race is inherently superior consistently, or that even smaller subsections under race have vastly different results due to better practices over generations.
The time of the Islamic Golden Age (falsely called Islamic in my view) was also the Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon culture, so this was very much unmerited. But there is one Islamic commentator who said that the more north you go in Europe, the paler they get, and also the dumber they get.
Let us hope so, because if racial inequalities are permanent, then almost every Western country is going to be in a state of perpetual racial strife and civil war.
There is a slight difference though between people in tribal societies being stupid and today. Of course, if a people lives in condition of pure savagery, then the intellectual achievements are not going to be impressive. But when you have all the opportunities in the world, and still score so low, then that becomes more troubling.
But by that same point, you've identified why using race to correlate to IQ generally through genetic markers makes no sense. If there was an innate racial-genetic causal relationship to IQ, you wouldn't see IQ changes in races. Instead you see different IQ groups within races all the time, and related to behavioral factors.
Sure, the Islamic nations probably had a very high IQ... before they started inbreeding. I bet you that incest probably has an impact on IQ.
Germans have a high IQ too, until the IQ of East Germans collapsed under socialism.
What's the best way to blunt a kid's IQ for the rest of his life? Malnutrition at a young age. That, in and of itself, answers a lot of questions about Socialism.
On the other end of the spectrum, Jewish IQ in the use significantly rose since the dawn of the century. Much of the early Progressive arguments about IQ included the arguments that Jews were too intellectually underdeveloped to adapt to western societies.
Think about this point:
And what are those better practices? Culture. What happens when their subsection replaces all the others? We should see a rise in IQ because of culture.
Even more than that, IQ is not a single genetic marker, but a measurement of someone's ability to work with abstraction. That ability to manage abstract analysis also correlates to your success within a western society. Your success in a western society, is something that is going to act women. Women who are sex selecting based on successful males.
Women would be, effectively, sex-selecting higher IQ. Which would cause a significant change in the population as low IQ males aren't mated. By definition, we should see the population's IQ increase overtime in a western society. That suggests, again, this not some static genetic factor, but related to beneficial behaviors.
If you pressure that population with starvation and perpetual threats and stress, where the behaviors of high IQ people are disincentivized (anti-meritocracy, equitable distributions of wealth and property, totalitarian paranoia), you remove Abstract thinking / IQ as useful survival mechanism in favor of others, like brute strength. Meaning that women won't sex select for it, driving down the IQ of a population over time.
Culture clearly has a massive impact on IQ since IQ is more of a measurement related to some genetic characteristics, that populations are selecting for. Rather than it being a static genetic element of race.
Which is a given, cultural practices and environment affect the genes you pass down, the same as bodies being able to tolerate different foods, antibodies from diseases, etc. This makes ethnicity more important to track over race because those markers show success and changes from two similar genetic makeups.
Sure, but that's still leaning heavy on slow genetic changes in populations, but we don't see small, slow, genetic populations over 5-10-50 generations. We see jumps in 1, 2, and 3. That's why the East German example is so dramatic. It's 1 maybe 2 generations, and you're talking about a 1 SD fall in IQ in only a couple decades, and you have, effectively, a control group in West Germany.
Starve the people, disincentiveize the people, and tyrannize the people, and their IQ collapses. That's not genetic even predominantly genetic.