Guess she watched too many of those happy interracial couple commercials
(media.patriots.win)
Comments (280)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
Good info and reasoning. Given the tendency for these topics to get derailed I've not seen some of these points before. I tend to think you're right, in general, but I do find it important to note exceptions on this topic.
This conversation reminds me of hearing that Norway and some other countries had declining IQ, which is obviously a motivational reason to pay attention to this field - to address my own question from before.
Just a comment on the genetic clustering pic linked, I am unsure the clusters shown are of a sufficient resolution to conclude anything. To clarify my earlier point, I wasn't doubting the conclusions of stronger similarity in racial groups for genetic markers, or something. I think within those groups there are subgroups that can vary within each other, probably a lot. Prior maps I've seen show big differences among European groups, yet here Europeans are almost almost identical. And nearly visually the same as Middle Eastern groups, such as with Palestinians. I did a quick search and the IQ there is 85 (couldn't get the peer reviewed(?) study by Lynn that came up on the search, so I'm assuming Quora and other sources are right atm). Regardless, the link is the type of chart I'd expect from any broad genetics clustering attempt. That is, something that follows continental migrations, commonly known history, and racial groups. But it cannot exclude that there were different subclusters in these subclusters which has substantial variation. Something supporting this here.
To make an extreme example, let's say one of the subgroups from your link had a population isolated in an island that was founded with a high IQ lineage, and happened to continue in that direction (or we could say a dumb group -- may be easier to imagine). Such groups could not be visible in the type of link you showed, they'd be identical to whatever the nearest population is, unless you had a higher resolution examination. So I believe we can't exclude that intragroup variation interferes with racial generalizations, still.
Oh, you are absolutely right that racial groups are very crude and shouldn't be used when a better metric is available. But they are already used when assessing policing, education, hiring, housing.
I'm not advocating for writing race back into public policies. As you point out, it would be very unfair to some people. But naturally occurring group differences should be taken into consideration, and not as an evidence of unfairness. For example, racial profiling by police isn't bad overall. And schools would end up (mostly) racially segregated if you fairly segregate by ability. Some welfare policies lower selection pressure (all the way into the negative) and exacerbate the problems. A lot of corporate wokeness was initially driven by the legal threats.
Of course. But the clustering refutes the leftist narrative that "races are social constructs". It shows that the stereotypical groups align with the best fit genetical grouping and geography. And they align much better than expected.
https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.intell.2014.08.004 direct link
There are better clusters, where Middle East has distinct composition even at K=2. K2-7 and subsets, K7. But the IQ difference with Europe could be partially environmental.
Notice, that 1 SD difference in IQ (85 vs 100) is within the US. Sub-Saharan Africans score below 70. And 2nd generation immigrants to developed countries gain IQ.