Hacker News Reader

Comment by rosmax_1337 | Hacker News Reader

IQ remains one of the most highly predictive traits you even can measure from someones psychology, predicting crime rates, happiness, divorces. Just about everything actually is predicted by IQ in someones like, to an extent to which philosophical questions about determinism even can be brought up in discussion.

Race is genetically determined. Are you suggesting that for example breeds of dogs can swap from Labrador to Golden Retriever based on vibes during their upbringing. The term "black" as a racial group is of course an extremely crude and large genetic grouping, much like saying that perhaps "retrievers" are a race of dogs. Nonetheless, groups remain genetically determined.

View on HN

Dogs have far less genetic diversity than humans since they have been selectively bread for thousands of years, leading in many cases to extreme hereditary issues: often there are breeds which have these problems as a part of their breeding. [0]

IQ also correlates strongly with economic and social class, which also correlates strongly with crime and happiness and probably also divorce. If you think, then, that race, as a determinate measure of IQ, is determinate of economic and social class, then you are actually a racist, plain and simple. But, you might not think that, I'm just trying to point this out to you.

[0]https://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/blog/inbreeding-of-...

>then you are actually a racist, plain and simple.

This is not an argument and is just an inflammatory remark.

I'm not saying you are, I'm saying that if you say what you are saying without qualifying that its only because of social factors that people of particular races tend to have lower IQs, then you are a racist, which is the generally agreed upon definition. Instead of evading the label, why not embrace it? For instance, I am a misogynist through and through, and if someone calls me one I affirm it. Why not accept that you are a racist instead of trying to pretend what you're saying has anything to do with objectivity and empirical science?

Site guidelines prevent me from elaborating further. Have a good day. :-)

> if you say what you are saying without qualifying that its only because of social factors that people of particular races tend to have lower IQs, then you are a racist, which is the generally agreed upon definition

Generally agreed upon by whom? Just you? The dictionary definition, which is most indicative of what is generally agreed upon, of "racist" denotes a requirement of prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism. An assertion of different races exhibiting different IQs due to heredity factors may be incorrect, but being incorrect does not imply prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism.

Its not that the assertion is incorrect, but that if it is made without knowledge that IQ is primarily influenced by social-economic factors, then it can be construed as racist because it is saying that a positive quality (high IQ) is given by nature to certain groups of people who already happen to hold certain economic and social privileges, instead of the other way around. Unless you're claiming that having a low IQ can be seen as something positive.

IQ is neither positive or negative. It is merely a factual representation[1] of what is. What has lead you to establish this emotional connection to it?

[1] To the extent of our best known ability to represent it. Any flaws in that representation accepted.

There are no IQ tests that measure IQ through genetics though. They are all measuring it by asking knowledge questions that the subject answers. There aren't many people that claim IQ isn't measuring anything. Just that it is not a measurement of genetics, as some people do insist that it is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com