I already responded to the first part so I won't touch it again. I'll start with the area I have made bold. I read your sources and they differ from many I have found. That doesn't mean I'm claiming that either of ours are definitively wrong, it means I'll have to cross reference. There clearly is a major discrepancy in this science which makes the skeptic or perhaps the conspiracy theorist in me scream that something is fishy in regards to intelligence and it's relation to genetics, because it seems that most scientists tend to agree or use the best available information when it comes to genetics and the role they play in the development of any particular part of the body you wish to study, but the genetics and intelligence relation is very fishy. This could be due to a lack of proper research on it, I'm not going to exclude that possibility. Without proper research it is hard to say whether or not a lack of schooling causes these dramatic IQ differences, as the sources we have both quoted disagree with one another.
http://www.aboutintelligence.co.uk/are-born-intelligent-does-develop-socially.html This source I quoted for example states that intelligence is believed to be around 75% genes, but it also states that the probability that it is related to an 'intelligence gene' is unlikely, that intelligence is probably determined by a variety of genes.(obviously) If this area of science wasn't so controversial, we may be able to study this further and determine which genes are responsible for intelligence and see if there is a difference of the existence or lack thereof in certain groups of people. I'm speaking mostly out of heavily curious ignorance right now but here is an article with a citation for a study that claims to have, "identified genetic variants associated with head size and volume of the hippocampus, a brain structure that is responsible for learning and memory".
https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.2250 Since it is well established that races are different in more than just superficial features, (IE Asians and Aboriginals react more strongly to alcohol, blacks are more likely to have the recessive genetic trait that causes sickle cell anemia which is a benefit in part when living in an area infested by malaria, etc)
https://www.geographynotes.com/human-geography/major-physical-characteristics-of-racial-groups/1012 we can safely assume that these differences obtained through evolution don't stop at the brain. And they don't, according to the findings I have dug up. And like I've stated, I could be wrong, but the science seems to point to obvious differences among races in a lot of different aspects. We are more similar than we are different but we are still different. My opinion may change upon better research or newer scientific research, but at this point the argument I made, in my opinion, still stands; that it is ridiculous for these sorts of arguments to be so taboo.
I'll respond to the underlined portion further, as I've already sort of outlined my perspective on the "exploitation" issue. I provided examples of countries with generally high IQs compared to the third world and that also have a relatively high wealth per capita, IE Japan, Germany, and Russia. The commonality between these countries and the reason I listed them is because they were all pretty much leveled by the events either self inflicted or inflicted upon them by other major world superpowers during WW2, and all of them were able to dig themselves out of the rut they were in and get back to competing with the best of the best on the world stage. They were all able to rebuild their infrastructure, military and economy. Yes, some third world countries have had serious unjust happenings levied against them but they were unable to recover. Some of them just crumbled on their own, like Zimbabwe as a result of terrible ruling that lead to the extermination of competent farmers. (Take that one with a grain of salt as well because that claim was based on memory alone from a documentary called Farmlands by Lauren Southern) I truly sympathize with the countries particularly in the Middle East that have been targeted by US plans of regime change and general destabilization, and I agree with the left that bombing a country & expecting some Jeffersonian democracy to emerge is ludicrous. I'm anti-interventionist. However there are countries in the middle east with a great wealth per capita and still their IQ is low. This should be sky rocketing if wealth and access to schooling is the major deciding factor or one of the major deciding factors, yet all of the data I can find for some of the world's wealthiest countries, IE Qatar, United Arab Emirates, etc is still late 70s to mid-high 80s. That is a significant difference when compared to the northwestern world, and even more so when you throw in Asian countries. According to this wiki page,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Qatar the rich country of Qatar sitting at a low IQ score collectively of 79 if this source is to be trusted,
https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country/qa-qatar has a very high literacy rating (higher than USA if these sources are to be trusted, but yes I understand that I do not know their curriculum and it is likely heavily influenced by their very fundamentalist faith) yet an astonishingly low IQ score even compared to other middle eastern countries. So with a decently educated populous and a rich economy, they aren't able to compete with poorer Asian or White brains. Go figure.
As for the remark about DR Peterson, I disagree. He's an accomplished, published clinical psychologist, well versed and educated, and a tenured professor. He's made a remarkable success of himself recently as well by shutting down those who want compelled speech and has stood up for the (IMO) disenfranchised young man by preaching about responsibility and the purpose you can find in it. He's the right wing's father figure at the moment, but not of the alt right who he denounces at every opportunity. Sure, there are some stupid college and university professors out there but I don't think he's one of them. I'm in the middle of reading his book and I'm quite enjoying it, despite the fact that I'm doing alright in life at the moment and it's a self-help book in general but there's nothing wrong with arming myself with hindsight.
And last but not least, the enlarged portion of your response. I found this part reprehensible, to once again attribute motive to my harmless desire to learn. If your words are to be believed, I must be an Asian supremacist. Take issue with my arguments all you want, take issue with my research, take issue with my conclusions, take issue with me personally if you must, but do not stoop so low as to attribute motive when you can't read my mind. You *believe* it comes from some sort of unconscious bias, or at least that's what I think you're assuming, but that's not the case at all.
Anyway, I hope this response was sufficient and if you want to keep the debate rolling, I guess we can do that, however exhausting it may be, and the likelihood that any of us is going to have a rapid change of mind is slim but since I enjoy debate I'm open to continuation on this topic.
Nothing else you said in your response carries as much weight as this. If you do not care to hear out the other side, move along and let those interested in the topic hash it out.
Click to expand...
