Gorbash wrote:
Sure, but that doesn't mean we should start equating "person is in genetic group X" with "person is more likely to be smarter." Not only do we not have a full understanding of the genetics or physical mechanics involved with intelligence, we can prove (via twin studies) that culture and upbringing has an effect on resulting intelligence (somewhere between 20-35% in modern research), and therefore can't prove that any one subgroup of people is always going to be smarter than another *because* of their genetics.
80 - 65% influence of genetics on IQ outcome is huge. At best that means that the majority of the difference is due to genetics and at worst, that almost all the difference is genetic. Why do we need a full understanding of genetics and physical mechanics to know what the IQ distribution of a given genetic group is? We don't need the same for height, for example.
Truth is, we don't even need to know what genes are to understand that heredity is deciding in IQ. Simply charting ancestry and performance would be enough to make that judgement. "Person is more likely to be smarter" is exactly what we should think. Because it's true, even at just 65% influence of genetics. Even at 10%, honestly. The likelyhood would just be smaller.
Gorbash wrote:Because environment and upbringing within Western cultures can end up grouping people of similar genetic subgroups into similar environments and cultural situations, at that can confound the comparison.
So what? A study only done on Finns or Scots would still show IQ to be hereditary.
Gorbash wrote:If we want to prove that one subgroup is more or less intelligent than the others, we have to prove that any variation we see isn't being caused by culture.
Any variation? That's way too strict. Especially when we know that genes are at least 65% responsible. Again, can you imagine making the same case for height distribution?
Gorbash wrote:If that culture tends to be consistent across the population (and many minorities in Western nations of subcultures that impact them regardless of their economic status), it could be the 'cause' of the variation we're observing.
The distributions we're seeing hold up in their native countries, as well as with individuals not raised in such subcultures.
Honestly, your standards seem really dubious. Turn the argument around in your head.
"If we want to prove that one subgroup is not more or less intelligent than the others, we have to prove that any variation we see isn't being caused by genetics."