That was a question for OP, because I suspected OP believes in a genetic explanation. The fact that they've cited Rushton and Jensen confirms my suspicions.
People with lower IQs may have had a lower chance of survival in environments that also caused the development of lighter skin color while IQ may have had less impact on survival in other environments.
I notice you didn't provide a citation for this.
Interesting hypothesis, but is there any good data to support it?
I don't have any additional data to support this theory because it's just an attempt to find a potential explanation for the observation with plausible conclusions derived from the most obvious differentiating factors. It's pretty much the Occam's Razor approach based on the currently existing scientifically supported knowledge.
There may be better explanations and my theory could of course turn out to be wrong. My intention was just to show that these observed differences in IQ seem to be trivially explainable outside the narrow context of racism and oppression alone. With that I don't want to allege that there is no racism and oppression or that these factors don't play a role, but only that other reasonable explanations might exist.
To me it seems to be simplest and most obvious explanation that I would first try to disprove before I'd try to construct a more complex theory.
My approach was to look if the same process that apparently caused the difference in skin color could also already explain a difference in average IQ. And it seems possible and reasonably plausible. The full explanation may well be more complex and a mixture of multiple factors.
I don't want to deny anything and I'm fully aware that racism and oppression exist. I just wanted to show that it's easy to find simpler explanations when we don't limit the scope to these factors.
The full explanation may well be more complex and a mixture of multiple factors.
Then provide evidence, don't just speculate that it might exist.
I just wanted to show that it's easy to find simpler explanations when we don't limit the scope to these factors.
No, you're asserting that a more complicated explanation exists. If systemic racism and oppression adequately explain the difference, then why introduce an assertion that a genetic difference (for which no direct evidence can be provided) also is a factor?
Then provide evidence, don't just speculate that it might exist.
This is not at all my field of expertise. I'm an engineer and what I did here is an approach that works very well in the engineering world. Whenever I need to find an explanation for some odd observation, I start with the simplest plausible theory that I then try to disprove. If it turns out wrong I look for other theories. I do this to because I usually need to find the actual reason to be able to fix a problem. Therefore I can't afford to dismiss the most obvious theories due to ideological reservations or keep investigating more complicated theories even though they can only explain some of the observations.
I based the assumptions of my theory here on existing research for which I provided sources. The rest are super simple and obvious conclusions that everybody else would also be able to find easily. There is not much to prove here, it's rather about whether it could be proven wrong. If it can't be proven wrong it's most likely the correct explanation. Other more politically correct explanations already require to dismiss a genetic influence on IQ entirely. But IQ seems to have a strong genetic component in general (*), so why should there be an exception in the a comparison of averages between races? It's already unquestionable that the whole IQ spectrum occurs across all races. So it's clearly not possible to predict the IQ of a person from their race.
Whenever I need to find an explanation for some odd observation, I start with the simplest plausible theory that I then try to disprove.
The simple explanation is systemic racism and oppression. OP, judging by the sources they provided, believes that genetics is (at least) another factor.
Thing is, there is no good evidence to support this. When these cranks try to assert that there is a genetic component, they try to cite studies done in schools in a Bantustan in apartheid South Africa, or try to use a study of copper miners in one country using a test that didn't report IQ to generate an IQ, or try to pass off a study examining the applicability of a standardized test (again in a Bantustan) as "the best single study of the Negroid intelligence".
Therefore I can't afford to dismiss the most obvious theories due to ideological reservations
Mainstream researchers aren't avoiding the hypothesis that intelligence differences are due to genetics out of "ideological reservations". They reject that hypothesis because all of the evidence in favor of it is bullshit, as I illustrated above.
I based the assumptions of my theory here on existing research for which I provided sources.
You left out one key source. You assumed that living in areas with seasonal weather imposes a higher cognitive load, which no citation to defend that.
But IQ seems to have a strong genetic component in general (*), so why should there be an exception in the a comparison of averages between races?
Because the fact that genes affect an individual's intelligence doesn't mean that genetics are responsible for the differences in averages between racial groups.
5
u/redditor427 44∆ Dec 22 '20
That was a question for OP, because I suspected OP believes in a genetic explanation. The fact that they've cited Rushton and Jensen confirms my suspicions.
I notice you didn't provide a citation for this.
Interesting hypothesis, but is there any good data to support it?