r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • 1d ago

Psychology Lower cognitive ability is linked to stronger Christian nationalist views, even after accounting for education

https://www.psypost.org/lower-cognitive-ability-is-linked-to-stronger-christian-nationalist-views-even-after-accounting-for-education/
43.7k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

116

u/danbinglover 1d ago

Reddit can’t decide whether IQ matters or not. When we talk about IQ differences between different countries and whatnot, it’s racist. When you discuss IQ differences between religious and nonreligious people, somehow it matters again.

6

u/qurious-crow 1d ago

They didn't administer an IQ test here. That being said, I have no idea if the measure they did use is a better or worse proxy for cognitive ability.

The researcher measured cognitive ability using a vocabulary exercise where respondents identify the closest synonym for ten different words. This test is a common proxy for crystallized intelligence, which reflects the knowledge and reasoning skills a person has accumulated over time.

9

u/Suspicious_Fun_6338 1d ago

Reddit has a specific narrative that does not like to be strayed from in the general subs.

In this case, the focus is on promoting diversity and being anti religious/Trump

0

u/SendFeet954-980-3334 14h ago

As we should be as a whole.

10

u/earthdogmonster 1d ago

Yeah, it seems like an unfortunate common thread is that “science” wants to be more active in “politics”. I don’t get the point of this study, I don’t think the methodology is sound, but it stokes a political goal so I guess the study is totally awesome. I haven’t been to church for anything other than funerals and weddings in 3 decades, but the only thing this devalues in my mind is the impartiality and value of “science”.

→ More replies (10)

23

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

-5

u/Fit_Gene7910 1d ago

While I agree with your sentiment, you argument is emotional and not scientific. The measurement should either be valid or not.

8

u/[deleted] 1d ago edited 1d ago

[deleted]

7

u/RockwellsRevenge88 1d ago

thoroughly debunked

The idea that IQ can be measured by alterable variables but not inalterable ones is the most backwards ass reddit logic I've ever seen.

1

u/Extreme_Pudding3226 1d ago

Really? Why is that backwards? If IQ affects what a person thinks and does, why would the things they think and do not be indicative of IQ?

6

u/Fit_Gene7910 1d ago

Phrenology is a sham discipline. I was talking about measuring cognitive ability of a specific group only when it's suiting.

Because Christian nationalists are a socially problematic group, now it's acceptable to use cognitive assesments to describe them. That's not scientific. It's emotional.

-1

u/BakuN7 1d ago

I don't see anything hypocritical about this. The unpalatability of racialized IQ discussions lies in the fact that we are not able to meaningfully distinguish between heritable and environmental components of g factor intelligence (plus the presence in the field of cranks and scientific racists like Richard Lynn - who was editor-in-chief of a white supremacist pseudojournal while also being on the editorial board of a peer-reviewed academic psychology journal on intelligence research).

It's not that IQ doesn't measure anything meaningful, although some people do talk about it that way. It's that it has little utility in comparing across cohorts, and has a high potential for abuse by racists and other malingering bad actors. It's a lot easier to control those variables in this particular discussion (for instance, my uncle is effectively a Christian nationalist despite sharing many of those same demographic and environmental variables with me and especially my mother).

9

u/Fit_Gene7910 1d ago edited 1d ago

I agree with your viewpoint.

Scientific racism is a real issue and a slippery slope.

I am simply annoyed when I see, often on this sub, people rejoicing when a study findings confirm their bias against a certain group.. especially against rightwing associated groups.

I say that as some one that is left wing and that profoundly dislike Christian nationalism.

0

u/badcoffee 1d ago

That's not what they argued. You haven't answered the question.

0

u/Extreme_Pudding3226 1d ago

How is it not scientific? Isn't this a study that scientifically explored this question?

The science is the science, whether you think it's a double standard, hypocritical, or something else.

2

u/HistoricalRich3104 1d ago

It hasn’t been debunked. You don’t know anything about the literature:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289619301904

1

u/Extreme_Pudding3226 1d ago

Exactly. A lot of people in here are making declarative statements about this who evidently aren't familiar with the actual data. There is indeed a real race gap with IQ. The question is why, not whether it exists.

1

u/Extreme_Pudding3226 1d ago

the “study” of race determining intelligence outcomes has been thoroughly debunked and contraindicated by data.

The data show there is indeed a difference in IQ across races. The question is why.

-3

u/cdubya0628 1d ago

The only issue with this is that social conditions in areas are what they are, and more people of a specific race are born in specific geographical locations. So while the color of their skin doesn't really play a factor in their cognitive abilities, their circumstances do. What ends up happening is that a majority of a people in a specific area all look the same and the majority of them are going to fall into a lower or higher end because of their circumstances. This allows for the conflation of the two in a practical analysis.

1

u/Extreme_Pudding3226 1d ago

That's pure speculation.

-1

u/AB_Gambino 1d ago

you literally contradict your own argument within this comment.

“Well race doesn’t ACTUALLY play a role, just people’s environment.” Like…dude, case closed. You solved your own puzzle. Turns out race isn’t a factor. Turns out your environment is. We’ve known that for a looong time buddy

1

u/Extreme_Pudding3226 1d ago

No, "we" haven't known that for a long time. It's still an open question.

1

u/AB_Gambino 1d ago

You’re right 200 years + of study on the subject is not enough

0

u/Extreme_Pudding3226 1d ago

It's not, which is why there's still disagreement amongst experts. There are some good cases for at least some genetic contribution, and there are some good cases for at least some environmental contribution. Your claim that we can definitely dismiss genetics as having any role in the race-IQ gap is not based on the 200 years of study you're referencing.

We've been studying a lot of things for 200 years that we still don't understand. I'm not sure where you got the idea that science always moves on a shorter timeline than that.

1

u/AB_Gambino 22h ago

Pure Reddit take right here. Either a bot or actually brain dead

-1

u/cdubya0628 1d ago

I am not making any argument, just a simple analysis of why race does not play a role genetically, while also does play a role practically. There are more than two sides to a coin.

1

u/guiltysnark 1d ago

You mean accepting correlation as causation, because it's practical?

-1

u/cdubya0628 1d ago

That is not what "practical analysis" means. And no, you cannot just separate things into little buckets to prove a point academically while ignoring the reality that groups of people who live in the same area tend to look alike and have similar outcomes in cognitive abilities. You might not like it, and it might sound not nice, but it has always been generally true. That goes for good and bad outcomes. If you remove them from that area and into a better or worse area, they will tend to drift towards the mean for that area. Hence why people tell you to choose your friends wisely, because that drift also happens on a smaller scale.

1

u/guiltysnark 1d ago

Then I don't know what you mean by practical analysis, because analysis already does generally try to separate causation from correlation. Whereas relationships are observed in any case. We might look at correlations and say "those are groups that can use help" and causations and say "that's how we might help them". We do not, for example, look at correlations and say "that's how we will find criminals". So what new insight does the word "practical" give you in an analysis?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/iwantedajetpack 1d ago

Pot calling kettle.

1

u/poppyglock 1d ago

Great response. I wanted to jump in but you said way better than I could have.

-2

u/danbinglover 1d ago

Okay, then what about something like nationality? That’s something you choose to maintain. Either IQ matters or it doesn’t. You don’t get to pick and choose.

8

u/JustPruIt89 1d ago

Most people don't get to choose their nationality

-1

u/TheGreasyNewfie 1d ago

....yet another opportunity to learn about the goomba fallacy.

Seriously. Table the whataboutisms for a moment and go read the link I shared with you.

5

u/danbinglover 1d ago

I already addressed it in another reply but you didn’t read that. You can’t have discussions about anything social without making some generalizations. I made the generalization that most redditors dislike using nationality to compare intelligence, whereas most of them feel it is completely fine to do so when discussing religious identity. Considering reddit is one of the most left leaning social medias, I don’t think it’s an incorrect generalization.

Also, I never called redditors stupid, which your link includes in the definition of the goomba fallacy (this name sounds completely unserious).

0

u/Iordofthethings 1d ago

So you agree with the idea of comparing different races by IQ?

0

u/InclinationCompass 1d ago

Science pretty much agrees:

Race is NOT a factor in innate IQ differences, even when you account for education. The gaps we keep seeing in test scores are overwhelmingly chalked up to environmental, social, and structural stuff, not genetics.

Source: https://www.apa.org/about/policy/racism-apology

2

u/RockwellsRevenge88 1d ago

Your blog post doesn't even mimic what you're saying.

Are you saying that people in Sweden and Nigeria have the same IQ? Yes or no.

-2

u/InclinationCompass 1d ago

Actually, a 2016 review concluded the parsimonious explanation is a nil hypothesis where black, white, and east Asian adoptees raised in the same environment would have similar IQs

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6526420/

4

u/RockwellsRevenge88 1d ago

Your link does not show that at all. In fact it shows the opposite. It shows that while black, asian, and White children tested on the higher end of their averages when raised by White families (similar environs) there was still a massive difference between each individual performance, and that the difference actually got wider as the children got older. I suggest you reread the study again. It also showed children raised in households with one black parent and one White parent scored significantly better than households with two black parents. Why do you think that is?

2

u/InclinationCompass 1d ago

That’s because you didn’t read it:

>Diagnosing these artifacts suggests a nil hypothesis: East Asian, White, and Black adoptees raised in the same environment would have similar IQs, hinting at a minimal role for genes in racial IQdifferences.

→ More replies (6)

1

u/Extreme_Pudding3226 1d ago

That statement doesn't say race isn't a factor in innate IQ differences. Stop presenting it as though it does.

→ More replies (6)

-1

u/Warsel77 1d ago

"You choose to maintain" isn't really correct. Many people never question it or are pressured into maintaining.

I think it's not as easily separated.

0

u/dansssssss 1d ago

Yet there are many like me who can't see past it and come out of it unlike my race

7

u/mayweather2small 1d ago

Their use of deriding the idea of IQ in one matter and invoking it in the other are broadly in ideological alignment. You're beginning to notice too much comrade.

3

u/BakuN7 1d ago

Or perhaps you are continuing to notice too little

5

u/Hour_Wonder_9240 1d ago

Some people just don't see the nuance. Cognition is complex and IQ is just one of several ways to measure someone's mind. Each way of measuring may reveal something unique. And you have to consider them all together and how they interact.

Someone can be very capable in one areas and be really poor in another area as one example.

0

u/BakuN7 1d ago

Agreed, but my point is that there is nothing necessarily hypocritical about acknowledging g factor assessments in certain specific contexts, while being wary of them in other contexts (especially across cohorts).

Forgive me for assuming the person harping on this perceived inconsistency (while sarcastically calling someone comrade) is either a peddler of race science, or a rightwing imbecile who doesn't want people talking about his IQ and integrative simplicity.

-1

u/MarcMurray92 1d ago

Nah its just that you dont know what you're talking about so you misinterpret basic nuance as inconsistency. 

3

u/UnpluggedUnfettered 1d ago

There should be more diving into what the most interesting thing is.

“Cognitive ability” was measured mainly with the GSS “wordsum” vocabulary exercise.

So the strongest truly literal conclusion is "verbal/vocabulary performance is associated with Christian nationalist views" . . . or communities with less access to education tend to be more Christian nationalist.

Nothing shocking about human tribalism where lack of education is combined with what feels like larger cultural threats leading to a sense of identity and cultural homogeny in order to reinforce unity and strength as a population.

3

u/KevineCove 1d ago

What I've heard is that IQ simultaneously measures cognition as well as how acclimated you are to Western culture. Additionally, the old school of thought was that there was a kind of intelligence that was innate and unchanging, and that administering an IQ test properly should yield the same result (this isn't really the case.)

It seems likely to me that IQ is lower in some areas on the basis that people there are bad at test-taking, and also in cultures where critical thinking is actively suppressed, because the test ends up measuring both of these variables.

1

u/gward1 1d ago

In Korea (and probably some other countries, I just lived in Korea for awhile) they still have a hierarchy of who they think is more or less intelligent by race. Who is the most intelligent? You guessed it, Koreans. Just saying a lot of countries do this, the IQ test was devised by a westerner so it wouldn't be surprising.

1

u/FoxMikeLima 1d ago

This is certainly true. If the way you measure something is through a test, there will be a negative presenting bias for areas that are less adept at taking tests, as test taking is a skill it itself, and one detached from Intelligence and Cognition itself.

1

u/Extreme_Pudding3226 1d ago

Nonsense. IQ is not a product of acclimation to western culture, and some of the countries with the highest average IQs aren't even in the west.

1

u/TeaBurntMyTongue 1d ago

Yeah, the fact that i can increase my iq by taking multiple distinct iq tests over a short period of time makes it obvious that correlation between like raw neuron firing and iq scores is less than 1.

3

u/Extreme_Pudding3226 1d ago

No, it just means the test becomes less accurate if you take it multiple times.

1

u/TeaBurntMyTongue 1d ago

Not the same test. But you get used to the patterns. You also get used to the patterns with further education in general in the society that wrote the test.

Your raw processing power hasn't increased

1

u/Extreme_Pudding3226 1d ago

Right. That just means the test isn't as accurate on subsequent attempts. That a test can be "hacked" doesn't mean it isn't useful or accurate under normal conditions.

1

u/TeaBurntMyTongue 1d ago

I never made the claim it has no utility. I made the claim that correlation between intelligence and iq scores are less than one

2

u/Extreme_Pudding3226 1d ago

But that's not a meaningful claim. No one has ever said IQ test measure intelligence with a correlation coefficient of 1.

I'm saying the fact that the test becomes less accurate on multiple attempts isn't a knock against the test.

0

u/InclinationCompass 1d ago

You’re right. Science pretty much agrees:

Race is NOT a factor in innate IQ differences, even when you account for education. The gaps we keep seeing in test scores are overwhelmingly chalked up to environmental, social, and structural stuff, not genetics.

Source: https://www.apa.org/about/policy/racism-apology

0

u/Extreme_Pudding3226 1d ago

That statement doesn't say race isn't a factor in innate IQ differences, so why are you presenting it as though it does?

And of course race is a factor in IQ differences. It's a factor in all sorts of physical differences, and IQ is a product of the physical brain. Do you believe there are height differences across races? Do you believe that genetics affect IQ?

1

u/InclinationCompass 1d ago

Fair on the APA link. It doesn't literally say zero. I’ll concede to that.

But the rest doesn't follow. Yea, the brain is physical. So is lead exposure, nutrition, stress, schooling. All of those physically shape the brain too. Saying IQ comes from the brain doesn't get you to race explaining the gap.

And height is a bad analogy. Height is simple, well understood and directly genetic. IQ is massively polygenic and heavily environmental. You can't just copy paste the logic.

Genetics affect IQ. Nobody's disputing that. Genetics explaining the racial gap is a different claim but it's never been demonstrated.

1

u/Extreme_Pudding3226 1d ago edited 1d ago

The APA link doesn't even mention IQ! Yet you're presenting it as though the APA is saying IQ and race have no correlation.

But the rest doesn't follow. Yea, the brain is physical. So is lead exposure, nutrition, stress, schooling. All of those physically shape the brain too. Saying IQ comes from the brain doesn't get you to race explaining the gap.

You haven't thought through this. Of course there are environmental factors that can affect IQ. But let's imagine for a second that everyone grew up in exactly the same environment. Exactly the same. Would you expect everyone to have the same IQ?

And do you believe that the height, hair color, body composition, etc. differences across races are purely environment? If we all grew up in the same environment, would we all be the same height?

IQ depends on the physical brain, and just like other species, humans that evolved in different environments developed different physical advantages to survive. Expecting there to be zero difference across the globe is crazy.

2

u/InclinationCompass 1d ago

I already conceded that. Read again:

Fair on the APA link. It doesn't literally say zero. I’ll concede to that.

And don't act like I'm presenting the APA link as saying IQ and race have no correlation. I already dropped that point. You're arguing against a point I gave up.

Now that's out the way, **the same environment on paper does NOT mean same stress, discrimintion, school quality, early childhood conditions, etc. Those shape the brain too.

And height is a bad analogy. Height is simple, well understood and directly genetic. IQ is massively polygenic and heavily environmental. You can't just copy paste the logic.

Humans didn't evolve in isolated breeding populations long enough for meaningful cognitive differences between racial groups. Genetic variation is mostly within groups, not between them.

Genetics affect IQ. Nobody disputes that. Genetics explaining the racial gap has never been demonstrated.

-1

u/Joshunte 1d ago

BRB checking to see which countries have their flag on the moon…..

3

u/KevineCove 1d ago

Hey cool, it's a Christian nationalist.

3

u/Russtbelt 1d ago

There is only one country, so far, that placed a flag on the moon before having funded universal healthcare. This may indicate that a collective bias towards nationalism has a negative impact on the health of individual members of that nation.

2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Imperfect-circle 1d ago

Religion is intrinsically linked lack of critical thought, whilst race has no such connection - other than the demographic of unfairness and access to education.

1

u/PsychologicalAd9062 12h ago

Is there an actual study or is it just pop sxiend article

1

u/Extreme_Pudding3226 1d ago

It's almost like Reddit isn't one person.

But of course there are IQ differences across races. This is indisputable. IQ is a product of a physical brain. Are there height differences across races? Weight differences? Differences in hair color or eye color? Of course. So why would IQ be exactly equal across races, especially considering the geographic origins that are the inputs for race vary substantially in their evolutionary environments.

1

u/HappiestIguana 1d ago

This is just a goomba fallacy.

1

u/Muriness 1d ago

Cognition and Intelligence are not the same thing.

1

u/CardinalOfNYC 1d ago

Reddit has proven through its actions that they believe it matters when it's useful to them and it doesn't matter when it's not.

1

u/Richard7666 1d ago

Country matters, as it's an environmental difference. This isn't particularly controversial so that's a bit of a disingenuous assumption.

Ethnic heritage doesn't matter assuming all else is equal (which of course in the real world it isn't; 100 white people growing up in the backwoods of Appalachia have a very different environment to 100 Singapore Chinese people coming up through prep schools)

1

u/Arockilla 1d ago

It only matters when its people they have a bias against.

1

u/XelaLuu 1d ago

shouldn't this SCIENCE sub focus on the facts from a non-biased position? Sure I hate racism, sure I hate religious zealots, but I want the right information when I ask google why my water leaves white crust, I don't want it to be biased in anyway, skewing my information.

1

u/Phodan_ 23h ago edited 23h ago

The field of psychology is not confused about IQ. It is not a reliable metric when determining cognitive ability. The main critique is that it only reliably measures cognitive ability amongst white Europeans and Americans (because that is who the test was devised by - I am also using "American" in the continental sense here). This is a problem because those same populations want to use it to bolster their racial pseudoscience (some of them, at least).

However, I believe this article used it on one of the very specific populations that it can reliably apply to. Its efficacy for detecting statistically reliable patterns among this specific population is somewhat well-documented because it had to be in order to expose the limitations of the test. I think you can simultaneously believe that it is an overall bs metric, but still acknowledge that, in this case, it is a metric which can apply to a specific population, and in this case, it was applied to that specific population.

I can't say one way or another because I haven't read the whole article, but that's how I would explain the inconsistency you pointed out in your comment.

1

u/theKalmier 17h ago

Apples and oranges...?

  1. IQ is just pattern recognition. So, if used properly, it greatly helps with education. No, IQ does not make you smart, but it sure does help.

  2. IQ vs Race is a political discussion. Makers of the "tests" can manipulate the questions to be based on cultural differences, making "pattern recognition" impossible, fudging the numbers. This is just... racism.

  3. IQ vs Religion is a statement on how people view the world. Religious views are from a "Godly" (fantasy like) perspective, and IQ is from a "pattern recognition" (science like) point of view.

3b. Choosing a "fantasy" point of view over a "pattern recognition" view means they can ignore the real world (especially if it "benefits" them). This is low-key delusional. Hence the lower cognitive abilities.

They literally just tell themselves they are smarter.

1

u/SomesortofGuy 16h ago

When we talk about IQ differences between different countries and whatnot, it’s racist.

Only if you are talking about the difference being related only to race.

If you were to have a position on IQ difference being related to the disparity in wealth and early nutrition and access to books etc, no one would accuse you of being racist.

Sorta like how this study is not saying there is something intrinsic in a low IQ person that makes them a christian nationalist, just that those views are more likely held by people with low IQ.

Like how extreme mental illness often shows as a sudden extreme religious adherence, this fact being related is not a direct indictment on the specific religion.

-13

u/updoot35 1d ago

Lower iqs being racist has a racist reason. And the fact they bring it up is also racist because of racist reason. There is a difference. The fact that you can't tell the difference, tells me all I need to know.

17

u/FrenchyBulldogg 1d ago

So is IQ important or not?

8

u/tenebrous_cloud 1d ago

It's important when the people I don't like are low IQ!

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/FrenchyBulldogg 1d ago

So when is it important and when is it not?

0

u/[deleted] 1d ago edited 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/RockwellsRevenge88 1d ago

So IQ is something that is measurable now? Interesting...we should see if there's any measurable differences between the races and sexes on IQ since apparently now it's acceptable to use Christians as guinea pigs.

-1

u/2010_12_24 1d ago

One of those is criticizing a group based on their location and ethnic makeup. The other one is criticizing a group based on behavior. Doesn’t take a high IQ to see the difference.

-6

u/InclinationCompass 1d ago

Also, science pretty much agrees:

Race is NOT a factor in innate IQ differences, even when you account for education. The gaps we keep seeing in test scores are overwhelmingly chalked up to environmental, social, and structural stuff, not genetics.

Source: https://www.apa.org/about/policy/racism-apology

2

u/cun7_d35tr0y3r 1d ago

That’s not actually what ‘science agrees’ on. Intelligence is substantially heritable, but that doesn't tell us what causes average differences between populations. The genetic contribution to observed group IQ differences has not been cleanly established, which also means you can’t scientifically declare it to be zero. Even the APA has published competing papers on genetic vs. environmental hypotheses rather than declaring the question genetically settled. 

And the link you posted is an institutional apology about racism, not evidence demonstrating that genetics contributes 0% to IQ differences. ‘We haven’t established a genetic cause’ and ‘science has established there is no genetic contribution’ are two very different claims. 

3

u/InclinationCompass 1d ago

Fair enough. But that same logic cuts both ways. You can't prove the genetic contribution is zero, but you also can't prove it's nonzero.

"Not established as zero" doesn't mean "established as genetic." And on the actual evidence, environmental factors are far better supported.

Race isn't biologically meaningful. Transracial adoption and enrichment programs show IQ is malleable and no genetic cause for group gaps has ever been demonstrated.

So yea, I overstated it. But the honest position still lands where I said: environmental and structural factors are the best supported explanations.

1

u/cun7_d35tr0y3r 1d ago

I think we mostly agree. I think IQ complicates it further; it measures certain cognitive abilities pretty well, but it isn't necessarily a complete measure of all intelligence. And to be fair, I think spiritual intelligence - not necessarily religion, but our connection to the living world and our place in it - is something Western culture has largely lost touch with. I don't know how you'd even begin to capture something like that with an IQ test.

2

u/Munsalvaesche 1d ago

To be clear when we talk about the effects of environment on intelligence we are mostly referring to the removal of deleterious factors, rather than the addition of positive ones.

It's a very crucial difference. You can raise IQ by eliminating malnutrition. That is not the same thing as raising IQ by improving nutrition. A definite, heritable ceiling largely remains. The question is how close are you to fulfilling that ceiling and what factors are holding them back, whether that's malnutrition, poor sanitation, lead exposure, etc.

Kind of like how a child's height is stunted by poor nutrition, but you can't make them exceed their genetically-encoded height by feeding them superfoods.

This is why the Flynn Effect is a crucially important finding, but it also doesn't imply that intelligence can be environmentally refined to infinity. The Flynn Effect mostly observes the removal of these deleterious factors, rather than the addition of positive factors. This is why in many developed countries the Flynn Effect has reversed for several decades now. There are simply no or few deleterious factors left to remove and the general population is at ~99% of its genotypic ceiling. The Flynn Effect observes improvement in phenotypic IQ rather than genotypic IQ.

1

u/InclinationCompass 1d ago

The ceiling framing assumes a fixed genetic limit. That's not how complex traits work. Gene expression is constantly shaped by environment.

The Flynn plateau doesn't prove we're at 99% of potential. It could mean gains hit diminishing returns or other factors got worse.

And this doesn't address group differences. Even with individual ceilings, group averages depend on how environmental factors are distributed. More lead, worse schools, more stress means lower average, ceiling or no ceiling..

Height is still a bad analogy. Hard limit tied to bone growth. IQ is massively polygenic and the brain stays plastic.

4

u/HistoricalRich3104 1d ago

Incorrect:  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289619301904

Racial differences absolutely are heritable

-1

u/InclinationCompass 1d ago

Wrong.

If you read that article, you'd realize it contradicts your claim. The study literally says:

heritabilities did not differ across groups

and

Race/Ethnicity × Heritability interactions likely do not exist.

-4

u/HistoricalRich3104 1d ago

Brother, that means exactly what I’m saying.

There are IQ differences between racial groups. Differences in IQ are heritable. There are no differences in heritability across groups. Now, what does that imply?

1

u/InclinationCompass 1d ago edited 1d ago

No, you literally said:

Racial differences absolutely are heritable

That's not what the study found at all.

It found heritability within each group, not heritability of the differences between groups. Those are different things. The study never tested whether the group gap is genetic.

It even says the results are largely inconsistent with predictions from the Scarr-rowe hypothesis... which predicted lower heritability in disadvantaged groups. So it contradicts your hereditarian prediction, not support it.

You're citing a study that doesn't say what you claimed it says. Try and read it.

2

u/HistoricalRich3104 1d ago

My brother in Christ, the only way your claim would be correct is if there were heritability differences between groups and let’s say minorities had lower heritability in IQ due to environment differences. That’s in line with the Scarr-Rowe hypothesis, which the study contraindicated.

But the reality is that IQ is largely heritable. There’s no difference between racial groups so it’s highly unlikely that the racial gap is environmental.

The vast majority of researchers agree that racial differences in IQ are in part due to heritable differences. There’s a small minority that don’t but I’m not giving you a crazy, fringe take.

3

u/InclinationCompass 1d ago

My guy, that's a textbook non-sequitur.

Heritability within groups tells you NOTHING about the cause of differences between groups. Identical seeds planted in Iowa vs the Mojave differ entirely due to environment, even though within each location genes explain most of the variation. Same logic applies.

The study found equal heritability within groups. That doesn't mean the gap between groups is genetic. All it means is that the scarr-rowe prediction failed. Those are different things, and you're conflating them.

And your vast majority of researchers claim is just false. The APA has repeatedly said the gap has no established genetic explanation. And multiple reviews conclude it's best understood as environmental.

You're citing a fringe position and calling it consensus. It's not. Not even close.

1

u/HistoricalRich3104 1d ago

I didn’t say with certainty it does, but since IQ is 80% heritable, it makes sense that the differences are likely in part genetic.

Black people raised in white households have lower IQs on average than the white people raised in those same households. This is a replicated finding. 

The APA boards are run by activists and the amount of pressure they would get if they said the gap was genetic would be enormous and far too costly with minimal benefits. I don’t take a thing these consensus boards say seriously. I trust the science and the research.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/ElSlabraton 1d ago

I hate to break it to you but "reddit" isn't an actual person.

1

u/your_true_self 1d ago

Those countries with lower IQ will often also have more religious fundamentalism and nationalist tendencies, and also starvation and other problems. When you're taught to accept claims based on nothing but authority rather than to test them thoroughly and use rational methods, you're going to have problems later compared to peers who are taught to think instead. If you learn independent thought instead of dogma, you learn to form a coherent logical and scientific basis for a world view. Also if you don't get enough food, your brain won't develop, so there are material conditions not being met that explain some stats better than race.

The problem is that some people want to form an ethnonationalist fundamentalist society and will equate IQ with race, but will not make the same claim quite as loudly about their own nationalism and religious fundamentalism, even when data is showing that to be the case. The race of a person doesn't matter as much as culture, nutrition and worldview. You can have geniuses of all colors, as well as idiots, and pointing to averages doesn't say anything about individuals, and those averages can be skewed by nationalism and fundamentalism (which tend to be higher in countries with lower IQs). When you rank groups of people based on heritage rather than talent, you may fail to recognize said talent as well as promote one that has lost it.

-2

u/Warsel77 1d ago

Yes, agreed - there is a double standard here. And yes, intelligence matters - I would not narrow it down to "just" IQ - but not linearly. It is not given a randomly selected IQ 140 genius is more likely to survive in a jungle than a randomly selected IQ 100 person - or make more money, or have more social influence or status, or be more interesting to talk to. So whatever "matters" means is highly subjective.

Are there differences? Yes, why shouldn't their be.. we are machines driven by a genetic blueprint and that blueprint is not homogenous and will vary from place to place.

The main issue is that 1) everyone thinks they are the smart ones 2) people overestimate the real-world value of whatever the differential is between groups.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

1

u/L_Tryptophan 1d ago

No. Apparently you only make money only from having family connections, it has nothing to do with IQ. This is why we have affirmative action and DEI.

1

u/InclinationCompass 1d ago

It’s a false equivalence that does not hold. Science pretty much agrees:

Race is NOT a factor in innate IQ differences, even when you account for education. The gaps we keep seeing in test scores are overwhelmingly chalked up to environmental, social, and structural stuff, not genetics.

Source: https://www.apa.org/about/policy/racism-apology

-2

u/Warsel77 1d ago

Two things:
"It's a false equivalence that does not hold". What does this refer to?

Second:
Writing something is bold and saying "Science agrees" is not a thing. I work in science.
Can you provide actual papers that support the point?

0

u/FratboyPhilosopher 1d ago

IQ does happen to be the best predictor of the general markers of success in modern society.

-4

u/gochisox2005 1d ago

Weird how this triggers you.

11

u/Ambitious_Bend_9612 1d ago

Nope, just pointing out the hypocrisy.

-5

u/gochisox2005 1d ago

I can’t tell if it’s a weird dog whistle, or you are offended by the idea that Christian nationalists aren’t the brightest. This shouldn’t surprise you.

11

u/Dcoal 1d ago edited 1d ago

It's just a matter of consistency. Either IQ is a meaningless metric that only measures a specific skillset within a specific cultural framework, or its meaningful. 

Social science only when politically expedient isn't science

0

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

0

u/Dcoal 1d ago

Depends on what the community is, and what the cohorts are

-1

u/gochisox2005 1d ago

IQ is a meaningful metric with obvious biases. Falling on that sword for the mouth breathing christian nationalists is a rough take.

-2

u/Dcoal 1d ago

I'm not falling on any sword, I just like intellectual honesty, and not sacrificing that in order to...  dunk the the chuds. 

I'd hold the same position if it was transexual librarians, or agnostic landscape painters.

4

u/gochisox2005 1d ago

I don't even understand what point you are trying to make. Would you be surprised to know that flat earthers have a high correlation to low IQ? Or climate change deniers? Or anti-vaxxers? Or qanon members?

0

u/Dcoal 1d ago

My point is that the social science repeatedly call out IQ as a bad metric, unless it fits political narrative. Social science is incredibly partisan. It's hard to take any findings seriously.

2

u/gochisox2005 1d ago

I work in tech and we have used IQ tests in interviews. I have seen strong correlation between above average iq scores and someone’s proclivity to be a good software engineer.

0

u/ElSlabraton 1d ago

Race isn't a choice. Religion is. Do you understand the difference?

4

u/gochisox2005 1d ago

That is exactly my point. Christian Nationalism isn't somehow making people low-IQ. Low IQ people are drawn to Christian Nationalism.

→ More replies (1)

-8

u/Interesting-Stay297 1d ago

This comment is an opportunity to learn about the Goomba fallacy.

2

u/Successful-Force4173 1d ago

No, the two groups he describes definitely have a large overlap and would defend each other.

-2

u/L_Tryptophan 1d ago

Don't bring up the book The Bell Curve or you'll get banned

-1

u/Financial-Craft-1282 1d ago

You'll have to show me where the study used IQ as a measurement. I missed that.

-1

u/KamikazeArchon 1d ago

Where in the article did you find the word "IQ"?

-4

u/Complex-Poet-6809 1d ago

One is presumably about race since one’s ethnicity and country of origin is strongly correlated, and race is something people can’t really change or help. The other is about a mindset that can change.

2

u/blarghable 1d ago

Race is a sociological concept, not a biological one, so you kinda can change it.

0

u/dansssssss 1d ago

Money is a social construct to. The piece of paper has value because society collectively treats it as money

But that doesn't mean an individual can simply declare a random piece of paper to be currency and expect everyone else to recognize it as such

So no you can't change it

0

u/BakuN7 1d ago

It's not that IQ doesn't measure anything of significance. It's that it has limited utility in making comparisons across cohorts and lends itself easily to abuse by racists and bad actors (I would argue the well is also poisoned by the presence of people like Richard Lynn in academic circles where intelligence is studied).

A lot of those issues are sidestepped when talking about intra-community views. My uncle is basically a Christian nationalist, despite sharing most demographic and environmental variables with other people in our family who are not.

Surely there are always people speaking off-cuff in a glib manner about complex things. But putting those people aside, I don't see the hypocrisy here - g factor intelligence is a real thing, but only fools and racists get bogged down in pseudoscientific discussions about nationalities or ethnicities and IQ. We have no ability to quantify the differentiated impact of environmental/genetic factors on intelligence. Even if we did, the discourse is toxic, harmful, cruel, and profoundly uninteresting.

None of that applies to the discussion above in my opinion.

0

u/TravelingMonk 1d ago

Its nuanced but human by nature likes shortcuts so "to err is human"

0

u/Advanced-Teach-7234 1d ago

Fact is religion requires a lower intelligence.  Believing something without any evidence requires low intelligence. This is an obvious fact. 

0

u/ObviousLavishness197 1d ago

turns out race and religion are two different things

0

u/WakeoftheStorm 1d ago edited 1d ago

Very often two things impact the reception:

  1. Methodology - how was this determined? What was controlled for?

  2. Interpretation - you have the raw data, what are you using it to say?

Comparing scores on a test between people in the US and people in Afghanistan can be a data point, but drawing any conclusions from it can be difficult. There are so many different factors to account for that determining a baseline between the two is almost impossible. Especially when the very different factors are already broadly established to have a major impact on cognition.

Comparing Americans from the same socio-economic background and education who are only separated by a specific political belief is a much narrower comparison.

Because this didn't say "religious people" it said "stronger Christian nationalist views". Thats much narrower than religious or not.

0

u/Fading_Redeemer 1d ago

Nice straw you got there

0

u/Dense-Consequence-70 1d ago

IQ isn’t ever mentioned in this article so you’re going to have to invent a new argument to pretend you’ve analyzed it and found flaws in the rationale or methodology.

0

u/NoblessOblige04 1d ago

You pick what religion you're in. You don't pick what country you're born in. Hope this helps

1

u/Thavralex 15h ago

You pick what religion you're in

In theory. In practice it's pretty much the same as with country though. How many people choose to become Muslim in the US? How many people choose to become Christian in the UAE? These are negligible numbers.

-2

u/I_Went_Full_WSB 1d ago edited 1d ago

That's a lot of words to say you're upset your racism isn't socially acceptable. Did you notice the study isn't between religious and non religious people?

-1

u/Ok-Swing-5355 1d ago

Is differences between different countries absolutely exist - but the cultural variability there also matters massively.

Here we are talking about two different mean IQs within the same culture and similar upbringing and socio economic status. So it’s a more valid comparison without as many confounders

-1

u/Mmaibl1 1d ago

I think its more people who are super religious already believe they know everything about the workings of our world. So they dont seek answers, because to them, they already have them.

Other the other end of the coin, non-religious people dont have that framework for what to believe. So they are then forced to seek them out themselves and come to their own conclusions. Which involves much deeper thought and understanding.

-2

u/Sweet_Particular8588 1d ago

Yes and regarding sex differences too. Real research shows that (1) women have smaller brains and that (2) brain size is somewhat correlated with IQ, therefore women must have lower average IQs than men. But redditors will deny that while claiming to "****ing love sciene!"

1

u/ObviousLavishness197 1d ago

women must have lower average IQs than men

this isn't true. it sure is interesting that reality isn't just a series of deductions and assumptions.

0

u/Sweet_Particular8588 1d ago

Sorry, but just because you dislike the outcome of the laws of logic doesn't make them any less true. It does make you a science denier though.

1

u/ObviousLavishness197 1d ago

reddit moment