So that implies that the US systemically depressed the IQ of african americans by denying them wealth and education and segregating them from the rest of scoeity and the ability to reproduce with other groups for the past 200 years?
-
-
Replying to @thecandykeynes @joelwatsonfish
because if high iq people reproducing with high iq people creates a new, higher "genetic mean" than obviously the inverse must also be true -- separating lower iq people from the general population would necessarily create a new, lower "genetic mean" among that population.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @thecandykeynes
Segregating the B/W populations in the U.S. would certainly affect the means to which traits regressed -- if the genetic means are different. I think in the U.S., selecting mates based on IQ is only a recent phenomenon (1 or 2 generations), outside very wealthy families.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @joelwatsonfish
These strike me as contradictory: (1) High % of AAs have Igbo ancestry and went through slavery, have avg(iq) ~85 (2) Self-selecting immigrants have high IQ and create a high-mean subgroup, having kids with IQ (3) IQ is strongly heritable and minimally impacted by environment
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @thecandykeynes @joelwatsonfish
The mechanism you describe -- high IQ people reproducing with high IQ people to create a new subpopulation with a higher mean -- would take numerous generations to actually work. the first generation at least would be expected to regress towards the population mean.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @thecandykeynes
Regarding (1), you have to look at genetic relatedness. Statistics like "have at least one ancestor from population X" aren't really useful here; especially if the one ancestor is like five or more generations back.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joelwatsonfish
And of course it should be obvious that modern self-selection of immigration on one hand, and the forced selection via slavery on the other hand are hardly comparable. And it's not that IQ is minimally impacted by environment; it's shared environment that has minimal affect.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joelwatsonfish
Would it be fair to conclude that, regarding the B/W IQ gap, that if it was constructed by successive generations of forced selection, that we really can't expect that the one/two generations that have come into existence since Jim Crowe would see drastic improvements?
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @thecandykeynes
There is too much to unpack here and too much that I don't know to agree to anything. Social outcomes are affected by all sorts of things, especially public/social policy. But that necessarily mean they completely responsible for differences in group outcomes.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joelwatsonfish
If you want a better understanding of the hereditarian perspective then following people like
@JayMan471@KirkegaardEmil@hbdchick and maybe@charlesmurray or@gcochran99 would be a good place to start. Im not sold on that perspective but Im not comfortable dismissing it either.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
That guy ain't trying to understand anything. Mute and move on.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.