SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the maybe-they-only-surveyed-the-nimnobs dept.
Why can we talk about PISA results, comparing the performance of students in school, but we are not allowed to talk about differences in IQ? Bring this subject up, and you are immediately accused of racism. And yet. And yet, if there are substantial differences in intellectual capability, might this not explain some of the world's problems?
An update of a massive "study of studies" is underway; this article summarizes the work to date, and provides links to the work in progress. A quick summary of the answers to the questions no one dares ask:
- Eastern Asia (Japan, China): IQ around 105
- Europe/North America: IQ around 98
- Middle East: IQ around 85
- Africa: IQ around 70
In the first instance, it doesn't even matter why there are differences. They may be genetic, or disease related, or nutrition related, or something else. If these differences are real (and the evidence is pretty strong that they are), then we need to deal with them. Imagine if the low IQs in Africa turn out to be fixable - what would the impact be, if we could raise the IQ of an entire continent by 30 points?!
Sticking our collective heads in the sand, because the topic is not PC, is not going to solve any problems.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @01:34PM
No, the OP spoke of genetics. The field of genetics does not have a gene or set of genes that characterise races into monophyletic groups.
Now, there are often hidden questions involved in these discussions that people don't often focus on for some reason or another (motivated reasoning, societal pressure, assumptions, ignorance of science, etc.):
1. Does science understand the genetics of intelligence?
2. Does science understand the environmental determinants of intelligence?
3. Does science have a specific genetic definition of race that represents the "I know it when I see it" social definition of race?
The answers:
1. No.
2. Somewhat, but we know genetic factors seem to dominate in non-extreme cases.
3. No.
These answers are unsatisfying, but people like to assume the answers for themselves and continue debating. The two sides that yell the loudest about this incorrectly assume that the answers are all scientifically know or scientifically unknowable, respectively.