> The word I used is “significant”which I will specify here as a different mean value.
There are statistically significant differences between any two populations where randomness is included provided your sample size is big enough. Your thinking here is novice and misinformed. If an effect size is immaterial and unimportant then it definitionally does not matter. You win no points for saying HA! Technically there is an immaterial advantage for Asians! If it’s immaterial, it doesn’t matter.
> It applies because among top countries of different races with extremely high wealth, gdp and education standards there are clear differences in IQ. You can still attribute this to environment but it starts to lean towards genetics once you match wealthy countries.
Wealth is one of many things that matters. It’s not the only thing. As I have said before, culture is a huge one.
> None of this is solid but neither is your conclusion that genetics doesn’t influence racial intelligence in any significant way. If your conclusion is “we don’t know” then my counter is common sense and evidence suggests otherwise.
You need to learn how to interpret statistical effect sizes. The basic 101 conclusion of failure to reject null hypotheses is that you cannot conclude that population A is different from population B. But “different” doesn’t mean much. The important takeaway is much rather that there’s no evidence of a strong effect size showing that one race is materially intrinsically smarter than another. If there were a big gap, it would be visible in available statistics. It’s not, so we can largely conclude that there’s no material difference.
You’re talking a big talk about people being biased by trying to be equitable but ultimately you’re just saying “well I can’t provide it but my common sense biases say my race must be superior, even if it’s by a meaninglessly small margin”. Yeah, ok buddy. Take a lap.
Immaterial and unimportant are words with nebulous definitions. Something you think is important may not be important to me or anyone else. Also this isn't about winning points. Nobody cares about "points" here.
What you're likely referring to is something called confidence intervals and if confidence intervals overlap that could be one criterion someone personally chooses to be important. But you have to know confidence intervals exist on a gradient. Are you 100% confident? If that's the case the interval extends to infinite and all measurements are not "important" or "material".
What we do know is that there are gaps between groups where the IQ points exceed confidence intervals of 95%. But that's an arbitrary number. It's just a number for when someone wants to be "really" confident and it's normalized to be around 10 points.
For the US and China, the gap is about 7 points and that's an 83% confidence interval. Now you can call that "immaterial" if you want that's your call.
>Wealth is one of many things that matters. It’s not the only thing. As I have said before, culture is a huge one.
I never said wealth is the only thing that matters. Wealth, education, culture and even pollution levels matter. In fact they are all correlated and influence one another.
More wealth creates cultures that increase IQ and vice versa.
>You need to learn how to interpret statistical effect sizes. The basic 101 conclusion of failure to reject null hypotheses is that you cannot conclude that population A is different from population B. But “different” doesn’t mean much. The important takeaway is much rather that there’s no evidence of a strong effect size showing that one race is materially intrinsically smarter than another. If there were a big gap, it would be visible in available statistics. It’s not, so we can largely conclude that there’s no material difference.
Bro. I know statistics. There are MEASURABLE average differences between IQ for different groups and individuals AND races. Statistics doesn't actually come to any 100% conclusion. It just leaves you with fuzzy probabilities and you choose the amount of rigor you want. If you want 100% confidence then the confidence intervals extend to infinite which basically is another way of saying: "In reality, statistics and science CANNOT prove anything or conclude anything to be true"
For black people and non-black people living in the US there is a gap and that gap exceeds the 95% confidence interval of 10 points. It is 15 points which is the STD. There is a "statistically significant" difference here according to the arbitrary 95% percent rigor that's common. The question here is causality. What causes the gap. Causality is a whole different ball game and it is EVEN HARDER to verify causality with any level of confidence. In fact in the medical world the only way we can establish causality is by putting peoples lives and health at risk. We have to in actuality give people chemical medicines that put peoples health at risk. We even have to do placebo control trials where we LIE to people about giving them medicine.
There is NOTHING definitive about your stance or my stance, but given anecdotal evidence and common sense my stance is much more likely. We know genetics influences intelligence AND we know genetics influences differences between race and we see differences in intelligence between races... the conclusion is therefore quite likely to be that there are differences in intelligence among races.
>You’re talking a big talk about people being biased by trying to be equitable but ultimately you’re just saying “well I can’t provide it but my common sense biases say my race must be superior, even if it’s by a meaninglessly small margin”. Yeah, ok buddy. Take a lap.
My race must be superior? My race didn't enslave black people. Fuck you. Do you want to know what race actually has the highest measurable IQ? It's a sub group among white people. Jewish people.
You know what? Your last comment was utter fucking bullshit. I don't want to talk to your racist white supremacist ass.
The word I used is “significant”which I will specify here as a different mean value.
It applies because among top countries of different races with extremely high wealth, gdp and education standards there are clear differences in IQ. You can still attribute this to environment but it starts to lean towards genetics once you match wealthy countries.
None of this is solid but neither is your conclusion that genetics doesn’t influence racial intelligence in any significant way. If your conclusion is “we don’t know” then my counter is common sense and evidence suggests otherwise.