I've recently become interested in where science and politics meet, and this is one subject I've been researching. Dr. Richard Haier is not named on the Wikipedia page on "Race and intelligence"[0] which claims "Currently, there is no non-circumstantial evidence that these differences in test scores have a genetic component, although some researchers believe that the existing circumstantial evidence makes it plausible that hard evidence for a genetic component will eventually appear." in the first paragraph.
It might just be that I have to do more research, but my impression from the research that I've encountered (especially the twin studies) is that G (general intelligence, which IQ is designed to be strongly correlated with) is strongly correlated with genetics, and even influenced by genetics to a greater degree than by the environment; the Wikipedia (but Wikipedia in general as well) article[0] appears highly politically motivated to me. It at least greatly conflicts with the contents of this interview.
One argument on this subject that I feel is persuasive is this: "Why have African societies been much less developed technologically and intellectually (e.g. in writing, language) than Western societies for over 3000 years? Can you blame 3000 years on oppression? Furthermore, if you say the cause was oppression, why did those races let themselves be oppressed if they were equally capable?"
---
The video description for your pleasure:
There is almost nothing more important to understand about people than intelligence. It can be measured more accurately than anything else in the social sciences. It differs tremendously and importantly between individuals. It is the single most important determinant of life success. It's very existence, however, remains subject to substantive debate, most of it highly politicized.
Dr. Richard Haier[1,2] has recently written a major book on the topic, The Neuroscience of Intelligence[3], summarized in the following manner: "This book introduces new and provocative neuroscience research that advances our understanding of intelligence and the brain. Compelling evidence shows that genetics plays a more important role than environment as intelligence develops from childhood, and that intelligence test scores correspond strongly to specific features of the brain assessed with neuroimaging. In understandable language, Richard J. Haier explains cutting-edge techniques based on genetics, DNA, and imaging of brain connectivity and function. He dispels common misconceptions, such as the belief that IQ tests are biased or meaningless, and debunks simple interventions alleged to increase intelligence. "
Seriously though, bring me evidence, please. I hear this circulated a lot but I don't know if there's something there or if it's pravda.
I'm not joining the Church of Anti-Zionism but I'm more than willing to believe actual evidence. I lost the mainstream belief that Jews are such oppressed pure little angels when I read about the history of Israel.
I'm hoping to some day keep my own animals, to find out how the sausage gets made. I want to face the reality behind the sterile, bloodless chicken fillet I eat, and my apathy to animals.
Perhaps that will convince me to stop eating meat. Meanwhile I have bigger worries.
It's a dangerous job, it doesn't earn much, most people have better options and then there's the decline in societal appreciation of manliness, so I understand no one wants this job. No perks at all, not even bragging rights.
Perhaps it even is safer to join the military nowadays?
I think it's as much or less of a jump to say "a group with low IQ has that because of their genes, as IQ is genetic" than to say "a group has low IQ because of socioeconomic factors", but then again I'm a certified member of the Church of STEM.
I guess my easy acceptance of that as a potential factor is founded on my belief that IQ is largely genetic. My divorced-parents upbringing certainly was less than optimal but my IQ is still pretty high like my parents', and then there's also the fact that IQ is 75% hereditary[0].
I didn't say it's certain to be 100% genetic, just that it's a serious possibility that a "significant" part of the difference can be explained that way. I'm aware of the concept of the Flynn effect, but it's not going to make me discard biology altogether. IQ is known to be largely hereditary, around 75%[0] when tested in adults.
Average IQ's in Africa are between 67 and 82[1], which to me is interesting to note as it suggests that the IQ of African-Americans has increased by 3-18 points on average since they were moved to America, assuming the average African IQ has not increased since the introduction of slaves to America (otherwise the effect would be larger, but perhaps this increase happens uniformly to all groups of humans). Interracial reproduction could be one factor in this rise in IQ, as the average percentage of white DNA in African Americans is 17-18%. There are also socioeconomic factors, cultural factors, the particular African demographics of slaves imported to America, selection processes after their arrival (e.g. smart slaves reproducing more often) and selection processes after the end of slavery, to name a few possibilities.
There's also the possible factor that socioeconomic factors can be embedded in your DNA, as research suggests that things that happen to you in life can affect gene expression in your offspring.
I'm not disputing that nurture is a factor, but nature exists too. Biology is real, and race is not just a social construct.
I suppose one would have stronger evidence that African American's genes are not a factor in their disadvantages, if one studied the correlation between IQ and percentage of white DNA in African Americans, but I'm not sure what universities would approve such a study for fear of it reaching an undesirable conclusion.
Then again, this won't be relevant once we find what genes are responsible for IQ and genetic enhancement goes mainstream.
I'm only talking about the African-American portion (is that word still used?) for now, stats on Hispanics are harder to find.
Perhaps a significant part of it is because those groups have lower IQ's on average? I think it's kinda strange that the article doesn't even entertain the notion that intelligence is genetic.
According to Wikipedia[0] it's 15 to 18 points lower on average for African-Americans than for white Americans, which would imply that only 11-18% of African-Americans have an IQ above 100.
I get that it's taboo to talk about groups having "worse genes" in some respect than white people, I guess I can thank the fucking Nazi's for that. I definitely don't think any individual should be judged based off their group identities, but I do think it's hypocritical to only accept the discussion of racial differences when it's to the benefit of minorities (e.g. "Jews/Asians are smart", "certain Africans run best", "white people/especially Asians have tiny penises").
Perhaps "Affirmative Action" even hurts a portion of black students, by lowering the bar and funneling them into colleges that are too competitive for their abilities; that would be a possible explanation if there would still be an achievement gap after corrections for IQ.
Affirmative Action is partly about admission standards, so I interpret it as assuming someone was measured to perform worse, because of some kind of systemic disadvantage that will leave them once they're at university. However, I don't really understand how you'd tell the difference between someone being plain under-qualified and someone being under-qualified due to unjust circumstances that will "magically" correct once they're at university. I'm on shaky ground here though, I don't know that much about AA.
Meta: is my post at all "trollish" to anyone? I tried to be as neutral as possible but perhaps I overreached somewhere, I'm fairly new to this topic and it's hard to always distinguish between information that can reasonably be assumed to be factual and baseless or exaggerated claims.
This area of knowledge is mostly discussed by white supremacists, I suppose partly for lack of liberals even wanting to consider the notion that IQ is genetic. I must admit I'm slightly grateful to them for spamming comment sections because they inspired me to start studying media, history and politics.
If you say "Hitler did nothing wrong" I think you're dead wrong and you should learn to troll better or go home, but history sure is more nuanced than I previously thought, and the people that complain about steel beams actually seem to have more solid evidence than those who support the official story.
I also think it should be more acceptable to discuss these non-mainstream perspectives, because even though they're wrong they highlight different parts of history, and if they're taboo you also can't find sources that will refute them. It makes it harder to curate a well-balanced perspective.
I can prove I had today's papers today, but once I've seen it I can prove it any day. So you can say "this information existed at day X or earlier".
There's also the issue of proving the content you hashed actually came from the place you say it came from. To me it seems that would require proofs of authenticity, by the source itself; not something that's easy to come by.