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 8 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.