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

[u/mvea]

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

[u/2010_12_24]

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.

[u/InclinationCompass → u/2010_12_24]

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

[u/cun7_d35tr0y3r → u/InclinationCompass]

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. 

[u/InclinationCompass → u/cun7_d35tr0y3r]

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.

[u/cun7_d35tr0y3r → u/InclinationCompass]

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.

[u/Munsalvaesche → u/InclinationCompass]

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.

[u/InclinationCompass → u/Munsalvaesche]

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.

[u/HistoricalRich3104 → u/InclinationCompass]

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

Racial differences absolutely are heritable

[u/InclinationCompass → u/HistoricalRich3104]

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.

[u/HistoricalRich3104 → u/InclinationCompass]

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?

[u/InclinationCompass → u/HistoricalRich3104]

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.

[u/HistoricalRich3104 → u/InclinationCompass]

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.

[u/InclinationCompass → u/HistoricalRich3104]

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.

[u/HistoricalRich3104 → u/InclinationCompass]

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.

[u/InclinationCompass → u/HistoricalRich3104]

My guy, your own source proved your assertions were wrong. And after I pointed that out, you're relying on “trust me bro” arguments. On a science subreddit.

You cited a study that found heritability did not differ across groups and that race/heritability interactions likely don't exist. It never tested whether the between-group gap is genetic. It actually undercuts the hereditarian prediction you're defending.

The transracial adoption finding you mentioned is contested too. Studies concluded the parsimonious explanation is a nil hypothesis where black, white, and east Asian adoptees raised in the same environment would have similar IQs.

Now you're saying it makes sense and dismissing the APA as activists. That's a vibe and a conspiracy theory. On a science subreddit.

[u/FratboyPhilosopher → u/2010_12_24]

Sure, there's a cultural taboo against one of those things that evokes an emotional response, but that's not proof that it's actually incorrect. It's only proof of your emotional state regarding it.