Stefan MolyneuxVerified account

Yes! So what is the ultimate point -- the practical application at the level of the individual -- of pursuing the racial IQ argument?

Understanding that seeing less of a group with lower IQ in a high intellect field is likely not a sign of racism in the field, or that trying to push particular groups en masse into environments most won't do well in will not get positive results.

That would indeed be a helpful application, if there were equality of opportunity. But there isn't. So, at best, racial IQ serves as a partial explanation at the group level, and remains useless at the individual level.

Currently the available evidence suggests that programs like affirmative action have a net negative impact on black graduation rates. Trying to artificially balance the playing field through state intervention never works.

Then why are you suggesting that we determine policy based on group averages? “I don’t judge based on group averages, because individualism, but it’s totally okay for the government to treat individuals differently based on group averages, because facts”

Incorrect. Babies adopted from different nations are more likely to perform according to their group of origin rather than the host group, in terms of IQ potential. E.g. Chinese babies, on AVERAGE, will outperform Sudanese babies, if both are raised in similar US homes.

Adopted babies demonstrate IQ heritability, nature vs. nurture stuff. IQ is for the most part genetic, with a small environmental factor.

This has some good links. Recent studies suggest 80%+ of IQ potential past the age of 18 is genetic. Parenting has little influence. Poor nutrition can stunt it, though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ …

Exactly, we need to judge individuals on individual merit, not by group averages. And what is a more efficient way to judge individuals than to group them into averages and then to judge the averages? -Albert Fairfax II