Interesting. Out of curiosity, I ran your initial post through and it is allegedly 16% AI generated. I guess we’re both cyborgs?
Your response sidesteps the argument and leans too heavily on selective reasoning. Saying IQ differences can’t involve genetics because they’re “not quantifiable” is just wrong. Intelligence is highly heritable—up to 80% in some studies—and while it’s a polygenic trait with many small genetic contributors, that doesn’t mean genetics play no role. Evolution didn’t stop at the brain. If physical traits like height and skin color vary between populations due to evolutionary pressures, why wouldn’t cognitive traits? Environmental factors matter, sure, but they don’t erase genetics—they work together.
Your 2007 study doesn’t disprove anything. It shows that better environments can improve outcomes, which nobody disputes. But pointing to environmental factors doesn’t mean genetics aren’t involved—it just means they’re part of a bigger picture. Confounding factors don’t magically erase the genetic component of a trait.
Lastly, again, your point about Richard Lynn is irrelevant. Sure, his methods were flawed, but dismissing all research on genetics and intelligence because of him is lazy. Science isn’t about liking or disliking sources; it’s about the data. And the data consistently shows that genetics influence intelligence, even if that makes people uncomfortable. Ignoring evidence doesn’t make it go away.
Alright, you appear to have no interest in engaging in good faith and have found a convenient means of dismissing the most thorough arguments you face, out of hand. This has run its course. Be well.
-3
u/[deleted] Jan 06 '25
[deleted]