Which is terrible, as there is no inherent evil in knowledge.
So say genetics is 80% and environment is 20%: In discovering this, can we max the environment portion? Does the environment portion change depending on the genetic portion? Hell, we've got RNA-messer-upper jabs now, that genetic portion is suddenly more of a "sturdy barrier" than a "hard line", and knowing which genetics could maximize it, too! And that doesn't even touch on if it flattens or steepens the IQ curve, either of which have huge plusses and minuses! What if one race is IQ 120 but super-steep curved so none ever go above 130, but another is 100 but the shallow curve allows for 160+ IQs? Endless possibilities!
Everyone is so dismal! Oh, if we find out 50%Japanese-25%Iranian-12.5%Nordic-12.5%Irish genetics produce the highest intellect, whatever will we do?! It will be the end of society as we know it! Indians will be relegated to working in phone tech support and Malaysians will be sent to workhouses to mass-produce goods for more successful countries! ...Wait, that's already happening. The knowledge will make no difference to the common person, but could make huge differences in the growth of our species as a whole.
The real issue with IQ is that it’s more of a threshold than a linear function. You don’t need a population with an average IQ of 120 in order to build a functional society, but you probably do need an average greater than 90.
Where does this put populations with a sub 90 average? What are the implications for a nation whose average IQ falls precipitously with mass immigration? Very pertinent questions that no one is permitted to discuss.
Considering an IQ of 90 is an accomplishment of human evolution itself, and there's no way that the first human societies 40,000 years ago got anywhere near that IQ, I don't think your argument makes sense.
That also doesn't account for the fact that IQ has actually inflated it's own scores, such that a 90 IQ of today would be significantly lower 100 years ago.
Actually, they aren't arbitrary. I get what you're trying to say: entire races are biologically incapable of forming societies. That's not true, and I was pointing out that one of the arguments you're using to support that premise is wrong.
There's a single gene that controls brain signaling chemicals where people that have it are basically hopped up on antidepressents 24/7. Imagine trying to sit through an IQ test when chemicals make you do whatever the next thing to enter you mind is - sometimes even if it's suicide the chemical makes you just do it because you thought about it.
Like 5% of black men / 10% of black women in America have this gene, it's probably singlehanded responsible for a large portion of the problem, and could be solved easily by taking a pill every so often.
Helping black people be better helps everyone, but can't happen when pretending everything is fine as-is.
Which is terrible, as there is no inherent evil in knowledge.
So say genetics is 80% and environment is 20%: In discovering this, can we max the environment portion? Does the environment portion change depending on the genetic portion? Hell, we've got RNA-messer-upper jabs now, that genetic portion is suddenly more of a "sturdy barrier" than a "hard line", and knowing which genetics could maximize it, too! And that doesn't even touch on if it flattens or steepens the IQ curve, either of which have huge plusses and minuses! What if one race is IQ 120 but super-steep curved so none ever go above 130, but another is 100 but the shallow curve allows for 160+ IQs? Endless possibilities!
Everyone is so dismal! Oh, if we find out 50%Japanese-25%Iranian-12.5%Nordic-12.5%Irish genetics produce the highest intellect, whatever will we do?! It will be the end of society as we know it! Indians will be relegated to working in phone tech support and Malaysians will be sent to workhouses to mass-produce goods for more successful countries! ...Wait, that's already happening. The knowledge will make no difference to the common person, but could make huge differences in the growth of our species as a whole.
The real issue with IQ is that it’s more of a threshold than a linear function. You don’t need a population with an average IQ of 120 in order to build a functional society, but you probably do need an average greater than 90.
Where does this put populations with a sub 90 average? What are the implications for a nation whose average IQ falls precipitously with mass immigration? Very pertinent questions that no one is permitted to discuss.
Considering an IQ of 90 is an accomplishment of human evolution itself, and there's no way that the first human societies 40,000 years ago got anywhere near that IQ, I don't think your argument makes sense.
That also doesn't account for the fact that IQ has actually inflated it's own scores, such that a 90 IQ of today would be significantly lower 100 years ago.
This comment is highly autistic.
You understood what I meant. The numbers were arbitrary.
No, he's just an agent of evil.
Actually, they aren't arbitrary. I get what you're trying to say: entire races are biologically incapable of forming societies. That's not true, and I was pointing out that one of the arguments you're using to support that premise is wrong.
There's a single gene that controls brain signaling chemicals where people that have it are basically hopped up on antidepressents 24/7. Imagine trying to sit through an IQ test when chemicals make you do whatever the next thing to enter you mind is - sometimes even if it's suicide the chemical makes you just do it because you thought about it.
Like 5% of black men / 10% of black women in America have this gene, it's probably singlehanded responsible for a large portion of the problem, and could be solved easily by taking a pill every so often.
Helping black people be better helps everyone, but can't happen when pretending everything is fine as-is.