/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9018625
You can make a probable guess that there is a difference in IQ distributions between populations defined as "black" and populations defined as "white." The problem with that assertion and with asserting the causal element or elements, or even more precisely to what extent genetics is what's producing the large differences in IQ distributions seen among and between populations. Part of this is that intelligence is a very resource intensive trait: if there is a scarcity of resources either because of low calorie diet or because the body is busy devoting its energy to not dying of a disease, if the brain is not presented with cognitively demanding information that does increase intelligence, or if one of the not-yet-identified specific steps in the transition from encoded gene to trait are not met or are met in one or another way, the trait is altered. The closest attempt at equalizing these conditions as you would in a laboratory setting is twin studies, and even those are fraught with biases and low statistical power. This doesn't make covering your ears and saying "all equal!" logical, but it makes an extreme level of caution when claiming to have concrete conclusions on these factors or, what's more, making public policy choices on these actions, a very sensible position. Consider, cognitive ability is our most complex trait and one without equal anywhere else in the animal kingdom. To describe it in a simplified gene→protein→trait framework misses a lot of what's actually going on, lots of which we don't have a clue on.