>intelligence isn't racial

And how do we know that? Any very controversial stuff like this will have people on both sides doing all in their power to convince everyone to their point of view. The truth gets lost.

To discuss this objectively we have to first agree on some basics. First I think the concept of race is a bit outdated. People have phenotypes and these phenotypes have various features (one may be skin color).

Also where did the idea there exists one feature responsible for "intelligence" came from? It seems to be accepted apriori, but I think the truth is closer to humans (and animals and AI) having various types of intelligence. Social, emotional, linguistical, math like, spatial (ability to imagine shapes etc) and probably few more.

And those intelligence types may very well have a genetic component and be present in one phenotype in a different mix than another.

But saying it is likely vs having actual proof are two different things so my view is that we simply don't know.

▲

tptacek 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

This is a message board trope. In reality there are multiple fields of study, all of which feature active and frequent publication in major journals, that address this question. Also: intelligence is not racial.

▲

ordu a day ago | parent [-]

I question all these findings, because there is no chance for them to publish results that point the other way. There is a selection bias at work: you can publish research article saying "intelligence is not racial", and you cant publish an article saying otherwise.

	▲	tptacek a day ago \| parent [-]
		Results in both directions are published all the time.

▲

ninjagoo a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

red75prime a day ago | parent | next [-]

There are four components to this. In no particular order: intelligence measurement, validity of racial division, genetic components of intelligence, genetic variation between groups. Your articles address the second point.

▲

ninjagoo a day ago | parent [-]

[2] above already shows there is no scientific basis to genetics explaining intelligence variations in human groups. Other studies [3] back this up, and there are studies clearly tying intelligence variations between human groups to environmental factors [4] [5].

Based on the easily googled wide availability of this information and given the environmental causes of IQ differences, I wonder if an easy scientific corollary is that racists must have environmental factors behind their inability to comprehend the established science in this matter. LoL

[3] https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2322874121

[4] https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026699

[5] https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029772

▲

red75prime 15 hours ago | parent [-]

Regarding [1], [2], [3]. GWAS uses additive linear no-interaction model, while we know that there are many regulatory sequences. This limits its power. Environmental variability clearly can't describe 100% of intelligence variability. Twin studies show that.

And, please, be mindful of the difference between arguing discriminatory policies (racism) and finding the facts about the world we live in (science). And it would be interesting to know what contributes more to groupthink, genetics or environment.

	▲	ninjagoo 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> GWAS uses additive linear no-interaction model, while we know that there are many regulatory sequences. Are you suggesting the listed papers are incorrect? Do you have any published science to support your argument? > Environmental variability clearly can't describe 100% of intelligence variability. Twin studies show that. Sauce? > And, please, be mindful of the difference between arguing discriminatory policies (racism) and finding the facts about the world we live in (science). The papers I listed are about the science not supporting the racism, literally.

▲

OroPla a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> scientific consensus

“Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.” - Michael Chrichton

▲

ninjagoo a day ago | parent [-]

> If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.” - Michael Chrichton*

*not a scientist

▲

OroPla 21 hours ago | parent [-]

If the message is a truth you don't like, attacking the messenger changes nothing.

▲

ninjagoo 20 hours ago | parent [-]

> If the message is a truth

Do you have any evidence to support this so-called "truth"?

There is strong evidence that IQ differences between human groups are environmental and not genetic [1][2][3].

[1] https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2322874121

[2] https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026699

[3] https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029772

▲

OroPla 20 hours ago | parent [-]

I am talking about the truth that consensus and science are different.

	▲	ninjagoo 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I am talking about the truth that consensus and science are different. Yes, same. Do you have any evidence for this so-called "truth" that scientific consensus is not science? It's like claiming that the scientific consensus that 1+1 equals 2 is not science. Or that the scientific consensus that the Earth goes around the Sun is not science. Oh wait, that latter bit is probably triggering for a bunch of people... but probably not for real scientists, though.