Race has nothing to do with intelligence. The perceived differences are related to the separated societal evolution of different groups of people. People who were in densely populated areas benefited from cultural and information exchange, and culling of each other due to war. Groups of people whose societies evolved further from these central areas of cultural exchange and conflict, didn’t get the benefit of selective pressures which force societal evolution. In 2025, that doesn’t matter as much, unless you’re in an unstable or developing region of the world.
Related to that, developing and nurturing intelligence is multifaceted. You need the right nutritional resources during embryonic and early childhood development, and the right nurturing mechanisms during almost all stages of development till early adulthood. So I think it’s wrong to say that just because two families have the same socioeconomic status that the children being measured had equal chances of development.
If someone has found a correlation between race and IQ, it’s more likely related to nurture than nature. What stressors are occurring in such instances which result in these differences? I think that’s important to answer because I am unconvinced that claims about systemic racism would apply to any type of family that has attained an upper middle class socioeconomic status. Is something missing during gestation? Is it environmental? Is it some other epigenetic factor? We can’t just make assumptions about such things.
Note that two high IQ parents don’t necessarily produce a high IQ baby, and the same can be said of two low IQ parents. In 2025, people who grow up the same way, from womb to early adulthood, are more or less the same, minus their own individual behaviors. People who relate race to intelligence are intellectually incurious and shallow in their understanding.
Lines like this spread fast because people react to the phrasing instead of the full context. It usually helps to focus on the actual argument, not the headline version that circulates. Once you look at the reasoning itself, the discussion becomes clearer and avoids the usual internet noise.
Race has nothing to do with intelligence. The perceived differences are related to the separated societal evolution of different groups of people. People who were in densely populated areas benefited from cultural and information exchange, and culling of each other due to war. Groups of people whose societies evolved further from these central areas of cultural exchange and conflict, didn’t get the benefit of selective pressures which force societal evolution. In 2025, that doesn’t matter as much, unless you’re in an unstable or developing region of the world.
Related to that, developing and nurturing intelligence is multifaceted. You need the right nutritional resources during embryonic and early childhood development, and the right nurturing mechanisms during almost all stages of development till early adulthood. So I think it’s wrong to say that just because two families have the same socioeconomic status that the children being measured had equal chances of development.
If someone has found a correlation between race and IQ, it’s more likely related to nurture than nature. What stressors are occurring in such instances which result in these differences? I think that’s important to answer because I am unconvinced that claims about systemic racism would apply to any type of family that has attained an upper middle class socioeconomic status. Is something missing during gestation? Is it environmental? Is it some other epigenetic factor? We can’t just make assumptions about such things.
Note that two high IQ parents don’t necessarily produce a high IQ baby, and the same can be said of two low IQ parents. In 2025, people who grow up the same way, from womb to early adulthood, are more or less the same, minus their own individual behaviors. People who relate race to intelligence are intellectually incurious and shallow in their understanding.
Lines like this spread fast because people react to the phrasing instead of the full context. It usually helps to focus on the actual argument, not the headline version that circulates. Once you look at the reasoning itself, the discussion becomes clearer and avoids the usual internet noise.