First of all if negative thinking is associated with cognitive decline and if what you say is also generally true then humans will also be pretty much, in general, be in cognitive decline.

Humans all being generally in a state of cognitive decline doesn’t make sense from an evolutionary perspective because natural selection will weed out degraded cognitive performance. So most people won’t be in this state. Anecdotally, you likely don’t see all your friends in cognitive decline so likely most of them don’t have a negative bias.

So your conclusion is likely to not be true. In fact I’m being generous here. Your conclusion is startling and obviously wrong both from a scientific perspective and an anecdotal one.

In fact the logic from this experiment and additionally many many other psychological studies points to the opposite. Humans naturally have a positive bias for things. People lie to themselves to stay sane.

Anecdotally what I observed is people don’t like to be told they are wrong. They don’t like to be told they are fat and overweight slobs. Additionally stupid people by all objective standards exist but practically every culture on earth has rules about directly calling someone a dumbass even if it’s the truth.

Like this is not a minor thing if I violate these positive cognitive biases with hard truths it will indeed cause a visceral and possibly violent reaction from most people who want to maintain that positive cognitive bias.

For example racial equality. Black people in America are in general taller and stronger than say Asians. It’s a general truth. You can’t deny this. Strength and height has an obvious genetic basis putting equality from a physical standpoint to be untrue. It is objective reality that genetics makes Asians weaker and smaller than black people in America.

So genetics effects things like size between races, it even effects things like size between species… black people are bigger than mouses. But you know what else? it affects intelligence between species. So mice genetically are less intelligent than black people and also black people are genetically more intelligent than fish. So what am I getting at here?

Genetics affects hair color, physicality, height, skin color between races. Genetics also effects intelligence between species (you are more intelligent than a squirrel) but by some black magic this narrow area of intelligence between races say Asians and black people… it doesn’t exist. Does this make sense to you? Is this logical? Genetics changes literally everything between species and races but it just tip toes around intelligence leaving it completely equal? Is all intelligence really just from the environment when everything else isn’t?

I mean at the very least the logic points to something that can be debated and discussed but this is not an open topic because it violates our cognitive biases.

Some of you are thinking you’re above it. Like you see what I’m getting at and you think you can escape the positive bias. I assure you that you can’t escape it, likely you’re only able to escape it because you’re not black. If you were black there’s no way what I said is acceptable.

But I’m Asian. How come I can accept the fact that I’m shorter and weaker than black people? Maybe it’s because height is too obvious of a metric that we can’t escape it and intelligence isn’t as obvious in the sense that I can’t just look at someone and know how smart he is.

But let’s avoid the off topic tangent here about racial intelligence and get back to my point. I know this post will be attacked but this was not my intention. I need to trigger a visceral reaction in order for people to realize how powerful positive cognitive bias is. That’s my point. It is frighteningly powerful and it’s also frighteningly evident but mass delusion causes us to be blind to it. Seriously don’t start a debate on racial intelligence. Stick to the point: positive cognitive bias.

Humans as a species that viscerally and violently bias in the cognitively positive direction.

Parent poster could not be more wrong. We are delusional and we lie to ourselves to shield ourselves from the horrors of the real world. It is so powerful that we will resort to attacks and even violence to maintain our cognitively positive delusions.

▲

jncfhnb 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

There’s not much evidence of rigorous differences in intelligence across racial groups that could not be explained by environmental and cultural differences. Statistical analysis generally suggests that if there is one, the effect size is small.

The current observed gap is much smaller than gains than have been observed within racial communities over time as a result of environmental changes.

So… no. You don’t have a lot of credible evidence for what you claim is a delusion to doubt. And even the observed effect size disregarding confounding effects is less than individual variation.

▲

yowlingcat 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I know this is such a controversial livewire of a topic and borderline taboo, but the evidence is pretty substantial. That being said, the intra-group variation is also extremely substantial (IE the variation between genius/median in any particular group is simultaneously a) far more than median in one group and median in another group and b) far less than genius in one group vs genius in another group). All that being said, I think this contributes to rather than detracts from GP's comment. These "studies" (as with much of modern psychological "research") are so poorly designed so as to be meaningless, hence the replication crisis. I think they're actually worse than meaningless because they're misleading and create infohazards.

▲

jncfhnb 2 days ago | parent [-]

I disagree. It strongly detracts from the GP’s claim.

If we see huge variation in intelligence scores intra group, that strongly suggests that there are social/cultural/environmental factors in play driving a large part of this.

It may be true that some racial backgrounds offer an advantage; but there is no evidence to suggest that this advantage is materially large relative to many of the social structural drivers that are obvious.

The subtext of the claim is not that a statistically significant effect exists. It’s that there is a big important difference in intelligence across races intrinsically derived from genetics. And there’s no compelling evidence to support that.

▲

ninetyninenine 2 days ago | parent [-]

>If we see huge variation in intelligence scores intra group, that strongly suggests that there are social/cultural/environmental factors in play driving a large part of this.

Correlation does not equal causation. Variation in genetics in a group can realistically be a factor as well. Three probable possibilities here: Only environment, Only genetics, both genetics and environment. Common sense says it's both genetics and environment.

>It may be true that some racial backgrounds offer an advantage; but there is no evidence to suggest that this advantage is materially large relative to many of the social structural drivers that are obvious.

I never commented how large this advantage was relative to the social driver. I agree with you... the social structure likely the greater driver. But the genetic driver is not insignificant.

>The subtext of the claim is not that a statistically significant effect exists. It’s that there is a big important difference in intelligence across races intrinsically derived from genetics. And there’s no compelling evidence to support that.

There is evidence. But there is huge political debate and attacks around the evidence. There are many studies that study IQ among races independent of environment and many of those studies show there is a statistically significant difference. Those studies suffer from the replication crisis, but so do all conflicting studies within psychology as well.

▲

tptacek a day ago | parent | next [-]

Cite them. Let's see which ones you're talking about. We know there are studies that say what you say! But it's hard to engage when the studies themselves are abstractions.

▲

ninetyninenine 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Studies Where Gaps Persist Despite Equalized Environments

1. Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study • Design: Black, biracial, and White infants adopted into White, middle-class families in Minnesota. • Findings: • As children, Black and biracial adoptees scored well above national Black averages — strong evidence of environmental uplift. • By adolescence, average scores diverged again: White adoptees ≈106, biracial ≈99, Black adoptees ≈89. • Critiques: • Equalizing family SES ≠ equalizing peer environment, discrimination, or racial identity stress. • Some adoptees were placed later or under selective conditions. • Attrition and different test batteries complicate comparisons. • Counters: • Even within the same families, mean differences persisted into adolescence, suggesting environment raises averages but doesn’t fully eliminate gaps in this design. • The pattern is consistent across multiple test batteries and waves. • Even environmental theorists acknowledge this is the hardest case for their position.

Citation: Scarr & Weinberg (1976, Intelligence); Weinberg, Scarr & Waldman (1992, Intelligence).

⸻

2. Texas Adoption Project • Design: Hundreds of adoptees reared in middle-class homes; IQs of both biological and adoptive parents measured. • Findings: • Adoptees’ IQs resembled biological parents more than adoptive parents, showing strong heritability. • At the same time, adoption into advantaged homes raised average scores. • Critiques: • Sample was mostly White, so not directly a race-gap study. • Possible selective placement inflated genetic resemblance. • Counters: • Demonstrates the principle: environment lifts the whole distribution, but genetic differences remain visible within the same rearing context. • Longitudinal data show both genetic and environmental effects over time.

Citation: Horn, Loehlin & Willerman (1979, Behavior Genetics); Loehlin, Horn & Willerman (1989, Personality and Individual Differences).

⸻

3. SES-Controlled Large-Scale Datasets • Design: National longitudinal samples (e.g., NLSY/AFQT, NAEP) where Black and White individuals are compared after matching or controlling for parental education, income, and related SES variables. • Findings: • Gaps shrink substantially but often do not vanish. Residuals of ~0.5 SD (7–10 IQ points) remain in some analyses. • Critiques: • SES controls are incomplete — they don’t capture school quality, wealth, neighborhood safety, health disparities, toxin exposure, or cumulative disadvantage. • Gaps have narrowed markedly over decades, inconsistent with a fixed genetic explanation. • Counters: • Residuals are real and cannot be dismissed; they represent variance unexplained by measured SES. • Long-term trend data (e.g., NAEP) show that policy, resources, and social changes can close much of the gap.

Citation: Herrnstein & Murray (1994, The Bell Curve); Neal (2006, Handbook of the Economics of Education); Reardon, Kalogrides & Shores (2019, American Journal of Sociology); NAEP Long-Term Trend Data.

⸻

4. Smaller Adoption and Foster Care Studies • Design: Transracial adoption in Britain and Europe; biracial children reared in Japan. • Findings: • Minority adoptees gained substantially over national averages. • In some cases, their averages remained slightly below White adoptees in the same homes. • Critiques: • Small sample sizes, often nonrandom placements, and institutional rearing environments complicate conclusions. • Counters: • Consistency across multiple settings shows substantial environmental effects; where gaps persist, they tend to be smaller than national averages.

Citation: Tizard (1972, Race); Tizard & Phoenix (1974, New Society); Eyferth (1961, Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie); Nakao & Treas (1994, Social Science Research).

⸻

The Bigger Picture • Persistent Gaps: Some adoption studies and large-scale SES-controlled datasets show that residual group differences remain even under attempts to equalize rearing conditions. • Critiques: These designs don’t fully equalize environment — schooling, peer context, health, and discrimination are all hard to control. • Counters: The fact that residuals persist shows we cannot dismiss genetic explanations entirely. At the same time, environmental levers (education, health, toxins, nutrition, early interventions) have been shown repeatedly to narrow or close most of the gap.

ChatGPT wrote this according to my specifications.

▲

tptacek 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Please don't dump ChatGPT stuff onto threads. It's specifically against the rules here. If your uncertainty was whether we could set up dueling ChatGPT sessions: we very definitely can.

▲

ninetyninenine 7 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

	▲	tptacek 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sorry, but you're wrong about this: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

▲

jncfhnb 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I’m not talking to your bot but these studies largely dont even support your claim

	▲	ninetyninenine 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[flagged]

▲

ninetyninenine a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I will. On a train rn. I can cite them tonight. Hopefully you’ll respond.

▲

jncfhnb a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Correlation does not equal causation. Variation in genetics in a group can realistically be a factor as well. Three probable possibilities here: Only environment, Only genetics, both genetics and environment. Common sense says it's both genetics and environment.

Common sense says nothing about the weight of these factors nor does it say anything about “genetics” being archetypally delineated by race. Genetics for sure plays a role in intelligence.

You are appealing to non cognizance as a premise to support your biases. But that’s… dumb.

You are welcome to point to specific studies if you wish but the general consensus is that there is no statistical evidence of what you’re claiming to be obvious.

Most studies that attempt to normalize against socio cultural features recognize that it’s basically impossible to do. That’s why the best available premise is that since we broadly observe huge gains in population intelligence based on economic development within racial groups; it is most likely that economic and cultural differences occupy the lions share of any observable difference between racial groups currently as they’re all in different places.

▲

ninetyninenine a day ago | parent [-]

Don’t call me dumb just because I disagree with your point. Keep the conversation civil and stop acting like an immature child or find another place to voice your opinion without insulting other people.

Common sense says many things about genetics. In fact it’s the basis behind my entire premise which you didn’t even address. Genetics plays a role in the physicality and even temperament of a race (testosterone is measurably different across races). What black magic makes intelligence the only factor that is independent of race? Common sense says it’s a factor.

Common sense also says environment is the greater factor. If a person lacks practice or education vs. a person who practices math puzzles everyday. Obviously that is the bigger causal factor by common sense.

Both are factors by common sense. Environment is the bigger factor also by common sense but by that same reasoning genetics is not insignificant. The best way to put it is that environment influences IQ but genetics influences potential.

Why appeal to common sense? Because there’s lack of solid causal evidence. Evidence exists, but the replication crisis and the lack of causal experimentation makes all the tests not as solid as the correlative tests.

The stupidest thing here is that we are not in disagreement on what the evidence points too. It’s just I’m able to rely on induction and logic to predict conclusions where scientific evidence is lacking while you’re entire model of the world is essentially “if the science doesn’t exist then it must not be true“

If the science doesn’t exist, it means it’s unknown. I hope this was educational for you.

I’ll point to some resources when I have time. Im currently not able to cite them atm.

▲

jncfhnb a day ago | parent [-]

No, that’s entirely incorrect reasoning.

Does genetics influence intelligence? Yes. Does genetics influence race? Yes.

Does that mean that race is a _material_ driver of differences in intelligence? No. That just doesn’t follow at all. Every difference between groups is statistically significant at some obscene sample size but the claim in question here is about whether it is _material_ and important. That is not at all clear. Nor is intelligence the only thing that this applies to. There’s a basically infinite list of human traits, competencies, and capabilities for which race-affiliated genetic advantages alone is pointlessly small in terms of effect.

▲

ninetyninenine a day ago | parent [-]

The claim was originally made by me. Qualifiers like “important”, “material” were added by you so you’re the one who’s moving the goal posts with vague words like “important”.

The word I used is “significant”which I will specify here as a different mean value.

It applies because among top countries of different races with extremely high wealth, gdp and education standards there are clear differences in IQ. You can still attribute this to environment but it starts to lean towards genetics once you match wealthy countries.

None of this is solid but neither is your conclusion that genetics doesn’t influence racial intelligence in any significant way. If your conclusion is “we don’t know” then my counter is common sense and evidence suggests otherwise.

▲

jncfhnb 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> The claim was originally made by me. Qualifiers like “important”, “material” were added by you so you’re the one who’s moving the goal posts with vague words like “important”.

> The word I used is “significant”which I will specify here as a different mean value.

There are statistically significant differences between any two populations where randomness is included provided your sample size is big enough. Your thinking here is novice and misinformed. If an effect size is immaterial and unimportant then it definitionally does not matter. You win no points for saying HA! Technically there is an immaterial advantage for Asians! If it’s immaterial, it doesn’t matter.

> It applies because among top countries of different races with extremely high wealth, gdp and education standards there are clear differences in IQ. You can still attribute this to environment but it starts to lean towards genetics once you match wealthy countries.

Wealth is one of many things that matters. It’s not the only thing. As I have said before, culture is a huge one.

> None of this is solid but neither is your conclusion that genetics doesn’t influence racial intelligence in any significant way. If your conclusion is “we don’t know” then my counter is common sense and evidence suggests otherwise.

You need to learn how to interpret statistical effect sizes. The basic 101 conclusion of failure to reject null hypotheses is that you cannot conclude that population A is different from population B. But “different” doesn’t mean much. The important takeaway is much rather that there’s no evidence of a strong effect size showing that one race is materially intrinsically smarter than another. If there were a big gap, it would be visible in available statistics. It’s not, so we can largely conclude that there’s no material difference.

You’re talking a big talk about people being biased by trying to be equitable but ultimately you’re just saying “well I can’t provide it but my common sense biases say my race must be superior, even if it’s by a meaninglessly small margin”. Yeah, ok buddy. Take a lap.

	▲	ninetyninenine 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[flagged]

▲

ninetyninenine 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

not true. Evidence of rigorous differences exist. The "explanations" are not supported by rigorous evidence. They are just "explanations" for a correlation. One explanation is environment, another is genetics.

Realistically Both are factors.

>The current observed gap is much smaller than gains than have been observed within racial communities over time as a result of environmental changes.

Yes environment is a factor but given a prime environment to foster intelligence, you can see that among races there are still differences in intelligence.

Additionally the logic is inescapable. If genetics is what causes something like down syndrome then of course it can cause the opposite of down syndrome.

>So… no. You don’t have a lot of credible evidence for what you claim is a delusion to doubt. And even the observed effect size disregarding confounding effects is less than individual variation.

Either way can you stick to the main topic. Tired of this off tangent bs. The intelligence thing was just an example.

▲

jncfhnb 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Yes environment is a factor but given a prime environment to foster intelligence, you can see that among races there are still differences in intelligence.

You cannot. And the smoking gun is, again, that we have seen massive rises in intelligence scores within racial subgroups over time correlating with environmental changes that are much larger than current spreads and still unevenly distributed.

▲

ninetyninenine 2 days ago | parent [-]

Right and again, when you maximize environmental factors there ARE STILL differences in intelligence. While Environment plays a massive role, genetics does as well. It's not as if environment is a smoking gun that makes the other factor disappear even when environment accounts for a much greater rise.

Obviously a starving, stressed out person is going to have a much lower IQ score then someone who is happy and well fed. You think because that obvious fact is true it completely eliminates genetics? No.

This is what I'm talking about. The mass delusion. The positive cognitive bias. You grasp for evidence that supports the conclusion you want.

▲

jncfhnb a day ago | parent [-]

> You think because that obvious fact is true it completely eliminates genetics? No.

The claim is not that genetics has nothing to do with intelligence. The claim is that race is a material, important driver of intelligence. There is no rigorous evidence of this.

▲

ninetyninenine a day ago | parent [-]

The phrase you are responding to is 100 percent saying environmental factors does not eliminate genetic factors as a driver of intelligence. The English in context does not imply anything else.

Please read what I wrote and respond to what I wrote and don’t make random assumptions.

▲

jncfhnb a day ago | parent [-]

Sorry I assumed you understood the context of the conversation you were inserting yourself into

▲

ninetyninenine a day ago | parent [-]

You inserted yourself into my context. I brought the topic up and you responded. Don’t apologize to me if it’s fake. Additionally Please try to follow what’s actually going on instead of making stuff up.

▲

jncfhnb 7 hours ago | parent [-]

My dude you’re pivoting to try and argue that there are differences, even if the differences are immaterial and even if there’s no statistical evidence to support your claim.

I don’t give a shit if you believe yourself to be part of the (immaterially) superior race.

	▲	ninetyninenine 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There's no statistical evidence to support your claim either. It's not about race, it's about facts. Like I said in another comment, Jewish people have the highest measurable average IQ, and they are "White". I think you should walk away. You brought racism into the conversation while I'm just arguing facts. I never made a claim asians were "superior" and I'm NOT from an asian country with the highest IQ either.

▲

cyberax 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

There are studies on separated Black twins that ended up in different socioeconomic situations. They limit the genetic difference in variation of IQ between races to just a few points.

And to be clear, IQ itself is very much inheritable. But the _variation_ in IQ in a population is not explained by genetics.

▲

ninetyninenine 2 days ago | parent [-]

The variation of IQ among any population follows a bell curve. The center of that bell curve it what is different among races.

https://www.scribbr.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Normal-dis...

So yes you can very much find black people who are smarter than Asians and vice versa but the generality (aka the mean, aka the center of the bell curve) will be different for races.

>But the _variation_ in IQ in a population is not explained by genetics.

This is not proven to be true. The most likely explanation is that variation in a population can be explained by both environment and genetics.

	▲	2 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]