Violence itself is a natural trait also. So it's one of those "violence may cause it but genetics cause the violence that causes it". Malnutrition is going to have a factor of course because then people genetics can't properly develop. I think a lot of the modern research on this though is not done fairly. Example: A country like Canada only really has black people because Canada immigrated in black people. Canada has standards for black people that immigrate in this Canada will only accept on average higher IQ blacks as part of its normal immigration process. To then compare Canadian blacks as well-nourished and then compare them to blacks back in their home country who are malnourished is going to give a highly biased result. Of course the Canadian blacks have higher IQ because they were filtered out specifically for their higher IQ as part of the immigration process.
If you take black people in the same country who are well-nourished vs. those who are not, you're again creating a bias because generally speaking the people with better genetics are going to end up getting more nourishment as a factor of their better genetics. Better genetics leading to them being more capable to get into position where they can get more resources and being born to families of superior genetics that have more resources etc...
To truly do an unbiased study, you need to essentially find a village that split into two randomly. The one village go good nourishment and the other village did not. Then compare IQs but that's not how a lot of the studies on nourishment are done. The way in which the studies are done, often lead to a lot of biases in them. However since nourishment advocates the "environment" angle, despite the flaws, it is pushed heavily by many in the field.
Violence itself is a natural trait also. So it's one of those "violence may cause it but genetics cause the violence that causes it".
That's true for most of genetic relation to behaviors. It's never all nature or all nurture. There's always both, that's how humans adapt.
And that goes to my primary issue regarding emphasis on racial or ethnic "genetics". Race has almost nothing to do with it. IQ is malleable over populations both up and down, and a huge portion of that is culture and sex-selection based. A lot of racial science argues this absolute hard & fast rule that there are just entire ethnicities and races that are all but incapable of forming any semblance of human civilization because they are too cognitively impaired as a race to improve. But this isn't based on reality in the slightest.
To truly do an unbiased study, you need to essentially find a village that split into two randomly.
A study was done on that with East / West Germany. The East had more paranoia, starvation, and violence, and as an average was 1 standard deviation lower than the West Germans. Given the length of East Germany, the sudden drop in IQ in only a couple generations confirms to me that the effect of environment is very important factor.
Could also be due to racial factors regarding the racial makeup of East vs. West along with the impacts of the war of demographics. The Germans were humiliated after the war with Jews pushing black marriages on the women. Tons of rape from non Germans etc... Still an interesting study but still with potential flaws unless those variables were hammered out. Still, is that 1 standard deviation the 20%? Though that would imply more like 33%+.
Personally, I happen to think it's more like 50/50. Nature should not be so easily discounted by most people.
The Germans were humiliated after the war with Jews pushing black marriages on the women.
The germans had no war against jews, because most of those jews that were killed in germany were german. It was only Socialists who had a war against reality and jews in particular.
Marriages between blacks and germans were effectively non-existant, and still are.
Nutrition and starvation absolutely is a massive factor in IQ. That alone is all you need to explain East/West Germany. I have no idea why 'paranoia' would affect IQ, and am not sure about 'violence' (I suppose head trauma would likely negatively affect IQ though.)
As I recall, the statistics I've seen indicate that children actually exposed to direct violence against them will lower IQ, likely due to injury.
The reason I talked about paranoia is because being hypersensitive to threats is a promotion of very short term time preference. Short term time preferences don't sex-select for long-term time preferences, and short term time preferences don't incentivize IQ either. This is because anything that requires high IQ, requires a significant amount of investment in brain power, which requires other needs to have been secured first. You're making a large capital investment in intellect for it's long term benefits. If you don't feel like you can make a large capital investment in intellect because of other perceived threats, then you keep just going along with short term time preferences.
A fair enough criticism to be sure, but that still leaves violence and malnutrition which are more well documented.
Violence itself is a natural trait also. So it's one of those "violence may cause it but genetics cause the violence that causes it". Malnutrition is going to have a factor of course because then people genetics can't properly develop. I think a lot of the modern research on this though is not done fairly. Example: A country like Canada only really has black people because Canada immigrated in black people. Canada has standards for black people that immigrate in this Canada will only accept on average higher IQ blacks as part of its normal immigration process. To then compare Canadian blacks as well-nourished and then compare them to blacks back in their home country who are malnourished is going to give a highly biased result. Of course the Canadian blacks have higher IQ because they were filtered out specifically for their higher IQ as part of the immigration process.
If you take black people in the same country who are well-nourished vs. those who are not, you're again creating a bias because generally speaking the people with better genetics are going to end up getting more nourishment as a factor of their better genetics. Better genetics leading to them being more capable to get into position where they can get more resources and being born to families of superior genetics that have more resources etc...
To truly do an unbiased study, you need to essentially find a village that split into two randomly. The one village go good nourishment and the other village did not. Then compare IQs but that's not how a lot of the studies on nourishment are done. The way in which the studies are done, often lead to a lot of biases in them. However since nourishment advocates the "environment" angle, despite the flaws, it is pushed heavily by many in the field.
That's true for most of genetic relation to behaviors. It's never all nature or all nurture. There's always both, that's how humans adapt.
And that goes to my primary issue regarding emphasis on racial or ethnic "genetics". Race has almost nothing to do with it. IQ is malleable over populations both up and down, and a huge portion of that is culture and sex-selection based. A lot of racial science argues this absolute hard & fast rule that there are just entire ethnicities and races that are all but incapable of forming any semblance of human civilization because they are too cognitively impaired as a race to improve. But this isn't based on reality in the slightest.
A study was done on that with East / West Germany. The East had more paranoia, starvation, and violence, and as an average was 1 standard deviation lower than the West Germans. Given the length of East Germany, the sudden drop in IQ in only a couple generations confirms to me that the effect of environment is very important factor.
Could also be due to racial factors regarding the racial makeup of East vs. West along with the impacts of the war of demographics. The Germans were humiliated after the war with Jews pushing black marriages on the women. Tons of rape from non Germans etc... Still an interesting study but still with potential flaws unless those variables were hammered out. Still, is that 1 standard deviation the 20%? Though that would imply more like 33%+.
Personally, I happen to think it's more like 50/50. Nature should not be so easily discounted by most people.
The germans had no war against jews, because most of those jews that were killed in germany were german. It was only Socialists who had a war against reality and jews in particular.
Marriages between blacks and germans were effectively non-existant, and still are.
Nutrition and starvation absolutely is a massive factor in IQ. That alone is all you need to explain East/West Germany. I have no idea why 'paranoia' would affect IQ, and am not sure about 'violence' (I suppose head trauma would likely negatively affect IQ though.)
As I recall, the statistics I've seen indicate that children actually exposed to direct violence against them will lower IQ, likely due to injury.
The reason I talked about paranoia is because being hypersensitive to threats is a promotion of very short term time preference. Short term time preferences don't sex-select for long-term time preferences, and short term time preferences don't incentivize IQ either. This is because anything that requires high IQ, requires a significant amount of investment in brain power, which requires other needs to have been secured first. You're making a large capital investment in intellect for it's long term benefits. If you don't feel like you can make a large capital investment in intellect because of other perceived threats, then you keep just going along with short term time preferences.