[flagged]
Based on the easily googled wide availability of this information and given the environmental causes of IQ differences, I wonder if an easy scientific corollary is that racists must have environmental factors behind their inability to comprehend the established science in this matter. LoL
[3] https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2322874121
And, please, be mindful of the difference between arguing discriminatory policies (racism) and finding the facts about the world we live in (science). And it would be interesting to know what contributes more to groupthink, genetics or environment.
Are you suggesting the listed papers are incorrect? Do you have any published science to support your argument?
> Environmental variability clearly can't describe 100% of intelligence variability. Twin studies show that.
Sauce?
> And, please, be mindful of the difference between arguing discriminatory policies (racism) and finding the facts about the world we live in (science).
The papers I listed are about the science not supporting the racism, literally.
“Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.” - Michael Chrichton
*not a scientist
Do you have any evidence to support this so-called "truth"?
There is strong evidence that IQ differences between human groups are environmental and not genetic [1][2][3].
Based on the easily googled wide availability of this information and given the environmental causes of IQ differences, I wonder if an easy scientific corollary is that racists must have environmental factors behind their inability to comprehend the established science in this matter. LoL
[1] https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2322874121
What about running? Down to race? Some races better at (bipedal) racing than others? Or down to environmental factors (availability of open land or whatnot)?
Note I don't care about so-called "IQ" (the very concept seems moronic to me); running performance, on the other hand, can be measured accurately.
> running performance, on the other hand, can be measured accurately.
So do you have any science to back up your hypothesis? That certain human groups are better than others at running? And that the better performance isn't tied to geography or other environmental factors?
Yes, same. Do you have any evidence for this so-called "truth" that scientific consensus is not science?
It's like claiming that the scientific consensus that 1+1 equals 2 is not science. Or that the scientific consensus that the Earth goes around the Sun is not science. Oh wait, that latter bit is probably triggering for a bunch of people... but probably not for real scientists, though.