[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 16 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 16 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 a day ago | parent [-]

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

▲

ninjagoo a day 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 21 hours ago | parent [-]

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

	▲	ninjagoo 21 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.