rayiner wrote:vanwinkle wrote:That's far more useful and on-point. The problem is that it's still vague enough that it can be construed either way; you can point to it and show that genetics does have a strong correlation to IQ, while I can likewise point to it to show that there is variation in IQ between genetically similar individuals that is attributable to other, environmental factors.
The implication of the statistics is that if there is a 0.7 correlation between genetics and IQ, then even if you perfectly match environmental factors you will still see a disparity in the population as a while if there is a disparity in the genetic factors. Ie: it is possible that complete equality in upbringing might reduce an achievement gap from 1 SD to 0.4 SD, but could not eliminate it.
That's true in itself, but when viewed in combination with other evidence (blacks and other minorities able to achieve on par with whites when given the same environmental factors both in and out of school) it suggests that the problems that minorities face in an "IQ gap" is more the result of environmental than genetic factors. For it to actually be the result of genetic factors you would see 1) consistently lower intelligence levels even among well-educated and affluent minorities, and 2) an inability for a change in environmental factors to close the gap entirely.
This sets an interesting trap for those who try to use the genetic argument to discriminate against minorities. Does President Obama represent symbolically the fact that minorities who grow up in the proper environment can achieve just as much as whites? Or do you attribute that performance to the "white" part of his background/genetics, and if so, doesn't that actually encourage the idea of interracial relationships in order to give them the "more intelligent" genes they're supposedly lacking?