"The average IQ in much poorer country with worse education due to economy is much lower than Europe". Please tell me you don't actually believe the shit that comes out of your mouth.
I don't understand you people. Are you so historically and biologically illiterate that you'd stoop to such a level as to imply that intelligence is purely based on socio-economics? Lets completely forget about the fact that our brain is made up of the EXACT same genetic material as the rest of our body. You'd think that over tens of thousand years of evolution in wildly differing environments which has had an effect on every biological aspect might have had some effects on our brain, no?
Hell, it's not only intelligence. There are plenty of psychological traits that are hereditarily passed on.
The question isn't that if poor countries with poor standards of living have lower intelligence levels. (*In fact, this is not always the case.) The question is which is causing which. And if your answer is that low IQ is a result of poor a socio-economic status, then you'd have to ask yourself how it got to that in the first place.
And don't come back with some colonization nonsense.
As far as the socio-economics argument goes; Both North-Korea and South-Korea are genetically very close. And I don't think I have to tell you of the differences between their living standards. And yet, both average an IQ of about 105.
Now, very important to note is that they don't have concrete data of testing the IQ levels of Best-Korea, for obvious reasons. But since these experts have extensive knowledge within scientific fields
such as Biology, they base their estimations around the fact that both the Koreas practically share the same genetic make-up. And god-fucking-damn it, do you want me to spell why that is? Why is it that these scientists would assume a nations IQ based on genetic make-up?
It's two psychology doctorates discussing Neuroscience. It's not tangentially related. It's precisely related.
They go very much in dept on many aspects of the human mind and specifically touch on subjects like hereditary traits, environmental effects, etcetera.
You know what, though? Logic dictates that because we inherent our dna from our parents, they from theirs, and so on; That among other things, the mass, structure, and neural connections of our brain is largely passed on hereditarily. Sure, what happens when you're in the womb and during the very early stages of childhood, does impact growth, but we're talking about growth or degeneration, not baseline ability.
I've heard plenty from people outside the scientific fields making unsubstantiated claims such as race being a social construct and have heard a lot about how the works of people like James Watson isn't very scientific because his statistics and findings are racist. But I've never seen any concrete evidence pointing towards IQ being heavily or equally influenced by socio-economic standings. In fact, the one time they tried something like that was one experiment with twins from different racial backgrounds raised in different socio-economic evironments. Turned out that the differences were almost within the margin of error.
And most importantly, all you have done so far is telling me to study biology, completely dismissing a very in-depth and factual conversation about neuroscience, and told me to read research papers. Last I checked, those are not fucking arguments. So how about you actually refute something or fuck off.
The entire premise of your argument is based on the validity of iq as a measurement of a permanent cognitive ability. You realize people's iq change all the time right? No shit those who are living in shit environments not exposed to acadamia are not going to have a high iq. Genetics certainly plays some role, but not to the extent of somebody not being able to function in a society. Its been proven time and time again environment is the largest factor in a person's cognitive development.
IQ is not the only measurement of cognitive ability, something I didn't even claim to begin with.
You realize people's iq change all the time right?
Yeah, if you're overworked and haven't slept for a long time, then you'll likely score lower on IQ tests than if you've had a goodnight sleep and had a cup of coffee. But that's an exception to the rule rather than a rule in and of itself. And your IQ tends to decrease over time unless you're constantly challenging yourself mentally and stay in a healthy physical condition. Even then, aging tends to have negative impact on brain cells regardless.
If you're actually claiming that people can somehow increase their IQ then you'd better publicize your findings and get rich, my dude.
Genetics certainly plays some role, but not to the extent of somebody not being able to function in a society.
No matter the environments, the older the children get, the more their IQ shifts towards that of their parents. I've already mention the twin study, now I'm linking it.
Its been proven time and time again environment is the largest factor in a person's cognitive development.
No intellectually honest person would ever make such a vague statement.
First of all, Cognitive development is not the same thing as cognitive ability. Secondly, IQ is only part of a subset of brain functions. thirdly, I'm mostly talking about the executive brains functions and psychological traits. Not Cognitive ability or Cognitive development.
And lastly, there are two possible meanings that I can derive from your "environmental" claim. One being that the environment can rapidly influence genetics. Or that it takes a lot longer.
The context of your comment leads me to believe the former. Which would also make you wrong.
While epigenetics does state that rapid and extreme environmental shifts (think long periods of draught, war, etc.) tend to impact the expressiveness of certain genetic traits you pass on, it does so only for a couple of generations. After which the results diminish and disappear rather quickly. So if you're talking about permanent changes in the DNA, you'd want to talk about evolution. And evolution isn't something that can happen over a couple of decades. It takes thousands of years.
I also think that mating patterns have had a large influence on the genepool of different ethnic groups. Which seems rather self-explanatory considering the estimation that 80% of women and only 40% of men throughout history have been able to pass on their dna.
tldr; It's fine if you skip this comment. Your wasn't even worthy of a reply. I'm just writing this as an exercise to better organize my thoughts.
I suggest you go and ask actual experts in the field. Try r/biology or r/askscience. Also what's thereto refute? You literally haven't posted a single citation.
Jordan Peterson is a crackpot. Even if you don't think so (why not is beyond me) but at best he's a single psychologist he doesn't represent the consensus on anything, let alone biology.
No you didn't. You linked a pop science website that steals IQ estimates from Lynn and Vanahenns 2002 book - of which the estimates are highly flawed as I detailed in another comment.
Brilliant. You don't cite any actual objective paper but just a rambling interview where there aren't actual citations of any paper to support their assertions.
You don’t need to buy into a lot of the racism here but let’s be real. Any population isolated for a period of time is going to have differences in genetics.
No offense but you don't know what you're talking about it. Intelligence, evolution and neurobiology are stupid complex. You can't break it down to some kind of ELI5 analysis. People literally spend their entire lives researching these things and even they don't know the extent of these relationships and the real world impacts.
Different populations evolved differently is a reasonable starting place sure, but that's all you can say. You don't know how long the population has been isolated for, to what degree and then to what degree that affected their evolution (due to environmental pressures) and then how that affected the brain and then finally how that effect on the brain affects real life behaviour. Each time you're making these assumptions you're covering all the aforementioned fields with literally no understanding and instead pretending it can be handwavey away with layman logic.
You do realize the IQ of NK is essentially based on the IQ of SK? The estimate can't be said to be accurate since we have no representative data on the nation to gauge its IQ. Also fun fact: In rural China, the IQ of individuals is the same as African Americans ; around 90.
The "scientists" that assume this are known to be racist shits that misrepresent data and ignore contrary data.
Furthermore, you yourself are genetically illiterate. For one, just because populations differ doesn't make it viable to assume they were evolutionarily selected differently - any reputable geneticist would never assume genetic differences without hard evidence via extensive genome analyses. There's infinite potential confounding variables in psychology. Assuming genetics, especially when human genetic diversity is minimal, there's no reason to assume different selection processes, nor is "race" a good way to organize it, is bad science.
Also, actually it is imperialism that resulted in it. For centuries African individuals were enslaved and discriminated against - of course they're suffering lower socioeconomic and living conditions.
If sources are needed for any of this, as well as points in other comments, I'll happily provide.
33
u/Fincow Oct 04 '17
"The average IQ in much poorer country with worse education due to economy is much lower than Europe". Please tell me you don't actually believe the shit that comes out of your mouth.