Whatever role genetics play in IQ are most certainly not manifested in the concentration of melanin in one's skin or the coarseness of one's hair or the color of one's eyes or the size of one's nose or any of the other crude heuristics we use to group people up as "races".
Still, even with a racial component to genetic IQ, we know that "tech" is not some enlightened trade where only high IQ employees are considered, outside of the elite firms like Google, Apple etc you're going to find a glut of pretty average programmers and plenty of idiots to boot.
You are making the case that intraracial facial structures all resemble each other, but internally how people are connected (brain structure) does not follow the same pattern. Some how over thousands of years of almost complete seperation, people managed to genetically grow different facial strucutres but stayed completely the same on the inside? The whole tenant of evolution is that great effective genes are passed on and reflected in offspring. By arguing that there is no genetic difference you are arguing that IQ cannot be passed on and that different environments did not select for and need different levels of IQ. If you are arguing that, then you are denying evolution as a theory.
No, my point is precisely the opposite. I'm making the case that facial structures are a crude approximation for genetic classification because it's not true that all "black" people have a dark skin complexion, not all "black" people have thick kinky hair, there is genetic diversity within the "black" community because the definition of "black" is fluid and based on an amalgamation of regional, political, cultural and apparent (as in apparent to the naked eye) genetic factors.
This kind of trainwreck flamewar is the worst thing on this site.
Do you think white peoples under representation in US pro sports is more due to genetics or environmental influence?
Having worked in Sillycon Valley for a long time I think it's funny/sad how the whole scene pretends to be PC about race and diversity issues when pretty much all the tech employees there are white or Indian males.
What's even funnier is that white people are only a small percentage of world population but have the audacity to refer to all other races as 'minorities'.
I don't know any good solution to systemic race/diversity issues other than making mushrooms legal and mandatory.
I am fairly certain that is because they are often referring to other races in their own countries. If you live in the US, most of your news is about North America and Europe, both continents that are predominantly filled with white people.
I would bet a large percentage of Americans couldn't identify their home state on a map of the world.
In Europe, say, Africans play a lot of football. But there's also just as many whites who do- so are African Americans only endowed with the kind of genetics that help them play good basketball? Or are Africans in general endowed with good _basketball_ genetics, but not good _football_ genetics?
And what about European basketball? Why are basketball teams in Europe not predominantly African American?
[Where "football" read "soccer" if you're on the other side of the pond, please]
Well, since I'm German, let's take the eurocentric approach. When we were walking around in furs scalping Romans, Africa was going pretty strong, wasn't it. China was going strong. The middle east was a major power. At that point, you could feasibly say that the Germanic savages were unanimously across the world, across all human time (eg. the last 200 years), doing worse than other groups of people. We just did kinda well, hit or miss, over the last 1000 years, which across the timescales humanity has been existing, isn't that much.
Other areas haven't been as lucky. Native Americans (last 200 years), Africa (last 300 years), China (last 200 years), the Ottoman empire (last 100 years), Russia (last 100 years) but hell, Austria isn't as hot as it was 100 years ago. But China is bouncing back, Africa is bouncing back, India is bouncing back.
Here's a precis:
In the area of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (Iraq/Syria today), several species of grains grow natively - oats, barley, rye, etc. And several species of domesticatable large animals - sheep, horses, cattle - are also native. Very few animals can actually be domesticated.
Grains can be stored for a long time (years), but are hard to digest for humans. The accidental discovery of fermentation led to bread and beer. This gave the people living there a much more stable and high-quality food source than hunter-gathers. Improving the storage led to ceramics. Ceramics led to firing. Firing led to plaster, so they could also build much more durable structures. Experience with high heat fires led to smelting, alloying, and forging metal. The wealth these practices produced led to towns and then cities, and economic specialization - especially trained and well-equipped soldiers. Specialization led to writing, which created more wealth. Herding sheep and cattle, and riding horses, became practical and effective. The wealthy early kingdoms of the Middle East started conquering their neighbors and spreading their technologies.
Fast forward to the example of the Spanish conquistador Francisco Pizarro and the Incas. Pizarro had 160 or so men, with horses, swords, and guns. He completely destroyed a 5000 man Inca army. How? Technology. The Incas weren't stupid or weak, as you're suggesting. They were unprepared. The Incas didn't have horses or sophisticated metalworking - their environment didn't lead to those discoveries. The Spanish sword was the deadliest weapon in the world, the product of a couple thousand years of refinement. Their horses and mounted warfare techniques were the product of thousands of additional years of refinement. Europeans, of course, knew how to fight men on horseback. You build long spears and polearms, and train soldiers to stand their ground against the terrifying charge. The Incas didn't know that. They panicked, scattered, and were easily slaughtered.
They weren't stupid. They weren't weak. They were outgunned.
The Spaniards, of course, were smart as we are, by your concepts. Imagine what would happen if 160 fully armed armed modern soldiers, with the latest weapons, traveling in modern armored vehicles, encountered a 5000 man army of Spaniards with horses and swords?
It's all luck. It's all an accident of history. You're not either intellectually or morally superior to any other race.