This is what happens when debate on a sensitive topic gets shut down. The most compelling argument against hereditarianism is made by someone who supports it, proving JS Mill's point when he said "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that."
On a side note, I did initially think this was an article about environmental policy.
Showing that environmental factors affect cognitive abilities does nothing to undermine the rightful position that a large proportion of the difference in intelligence can be attributed to genetic components. "Hereditarians" have never claimed that IQ is 100% genetically determined, yet these exponents of environmentalism just love beating a straw man.
Salt iodisation has increased IQ in the US by up to 15 points. Higher protein intake has boosted IQ in East Asia by up to 7.7 points per decade. A deficiency in either is guaranteed to produce a nation of idiots. As things are, pregnant women are frequently deficient in iodine, needlessly impairing their children’s intelligence. The effect is only exacerbated by an insufficient breastfeeding period. If nutrition is improved, the whole world can be smarter, taller, and better-looking, regardless of genetics or education.
I don't know what the refutations of these studies have been, but to my eyes there is not a lot of allowance for prenatal environment in at least a few
Regarding the white vs. black mom distinction, is there a reason for that? One biological factor I can conceive of is that mitochondria descend from the mother, but I'm not entirely sure why that would have a systematic effect on intelligence. Could it have to do with the characteristics of the men who are attracted to black vs. white women?
Here and now there appears to be no disputation at all that black Americans have IQs one standard deviation below whites and that East Asians have significantly higher IQs than whites. Here and now therefore the numbers of black Americans should be low relative to others in cognitively demanding universities and occupations. Demanding equal outcomes here and now is therefore dishonest race grifting.
Nor seemingly is there any mainstream resistance to, ignoring race, that IQ is highly heritable. Is this an example of black exceptionalism?
Whether or not here and now is explained by heredity, whether or not blacks are particularly affected, in a society of accelerating cognitive demands, steps need to be taken to adapt the facilities of daily life for individuals of lower IQ, just as is done for the physically disabled. Blackness is a socially maladaptive distraction.
This is what happens when debate on a sensitive topic gets shut down. The most compelling argument against hereditarianism is made by someone who supports it, proving JS Mill's point when he said "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that."
On a side note, I did initially think this was an article about environmental policy.
Most of these objections to hereditarianism have been debunked already
Right, for these people anti-hereditarianism is a religious rather than a scientific claim.
First, The Guardian is a shit rag. So, who cares what they write? It's like giving a damn what the NYT writes here in the U.S.
Blacks had a deficient intelligence long before whites 'corrupted' them. They have accomplished nothing that shows decent cognitive ability.
Showing that environmental factors affect cognitive abilities does nothing to undermine the rightful position that a large proportion of the difference in intelligence can be attributed to genetic components. "Hereditarians" have never claimed that IQ is 100% genetically determined, yet these exponents of environmentalism just love beating a straw man.
Salt iodisation has increased IQ in the US by up to 15 points. Higher protein intake has boosted IQ in East Asia by up to 7.7 points per decade. A deficiency in either is guaranteed to produce a nation of idiots. As things are, pregnant women are frequently deficient in iodine, needlessly impairing their children’s intelligence. The effect is only exacerbated by an insufficient breastfeeding period. If nutrition is improved, the whole world can be smarter, taller, and better-looking, regardless of genetics or education.
I don't know what the refutations of these studies have been, but to my eyes there is not a lot of allowance for prenatal environment in at least a few
Regarding the white vs. black mom distinction, is there a reason for that? One biological factor I can conceive of is that mitochondria descend from the mother, but I'm not entirely sure why that would have a systematic effect on intelligence. Could it have to do with the characteristics of the men who are attracted to black vs. white women?
Really smart writing.
Here and now there appears to be no disputation at all that black Americans have IQs one standard deviation below whites and that East Asians have significantly higher IQs than whites. Here and now therefore the numbers of black Americans should be low relative to others in cognitively demanding universities and occupations. Demanding equal outcomes here and now is therefore dishonest race grifting.
Nor seemingly is there any mainstream resistance to, ignoring race, that IQ is highly heritable. Is this an example of black exceptionalism?
Whether or not here and now is explained by heredity, whether or not blacks are particularly affected, in a society of accelerating cognitive demands, steps need to be taken to adapt the facilities of daily life for individuals of lower IQ, just as is done for the physically disabled. Blackness is a socially maladaptive distraction.