It seems like the root of your statement is with the existence of "race" as a purely biological classification. Wikipedia correctly notes the consensus position that race is a social construct [0] that's difficult to use accurately when discussing IQ. Grok makes the implicit and incorrect assumption that genetic factors = race, among other issues.

[0] https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Race

▲

darkwater 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I wonder how much longer that link will stay up with the current administration...

▲

AuryGlenz 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ok, change it to "what we call race as a proxy for general geographic locations that people's ancestors come from."

Which is what we all mean by race, anyways.

▲

AlotOfReading 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's not what your previous post was talking about. But if you insist, at least make your point clear. "African Americans" and "Africans" are wildly different genetic populations that get subsumed under the same "Black" racial category in the US. Which one were you talking about?

The latter is more genetically diverse than any other human population by an incredible margin. Making generalized statements about them is impossible (including this one). As for African American populations, ancestry estimates of how closely related they are to African populations vary massively for each individual. Many people are much closer to "white" populations than any African population, due to the history of African Americans in North America. If you really mean race as a geographic proxy, the "black" label is simply confusing what you actually mean.

	▲	AuryGlenz 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I understand your point (although I find the babybathwater-ing to be tiring), and I didn't mean to be drawn into a debate about this. But that was entirely the point - that there's a debate. Wikipedia would have you believe that there isn't. For what it's worth, I'm mixed as hell. European, Asian, Jewish, north african, and native american. I look white, though - and I am, in fact, majority European ancestry. Therefore in most studies (of anything race related), I would presumably be lumped in with white people. It's not a perfect "measure," but it's still the easiest proxy for geographic location of our ancestors that we have and on a population level it works just fine for studies.

▲

lobf 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But then what are you arguing? Geographic location determines IQ? (An inherently flawed measurement itself)

▲

AuryGlenz 11 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not arguing anything other than the fact that Wikipedia is biased.

Though I will say it's beyond argument that geographic ancestry has an effect on IQ on a statistical group level (the reasons for this are what's debated), and that IQ is the best measurement of G that we have.

▲

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> I'm not arguing anything other than the fact that Wikipedia is biased.

It "is biased" to document human knowledge as accurately as possible. Is there something wrong with that?

▲

lobf 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Okay but you need to… actually present these arguments. Right now you’re stating your position and then affirming it as fact and expecting everyone to trust you.

	▲	AuryGlenz 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I already gave you two large meta-analyses and more on the first point along with a and as far as the second goes in the field of psychology that's as established as 2+2=4 is in the math world. If you really want to research that yourself go ahead; I don't feel like I should need to waste my time.