Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
No. There is probably something to be said for people who live in colder less forgiving environments being more ingenuitive-- that has nothing to do be genetics or "group qualities" and everything to do the exigencies of environmental conditions.

--But basic evolutionary theory would predict that such traits would be selected for over time, and would become genetic "group qualities." Also, FWIW I am not endorsing this theory, I am just pointing out the logical extension of it that would come to a different conclusion than you do.

Dude, you are critiquing to posts I've quoted by quoting me. I'm not the proponent of these ideas lol, the authors of the respective quotes are.

I know. That was meant for Luckbox if/when he reads it.

The "you can't judge groups" thing we literally talked about in the mod thread with you ending up claiming according to your interpretation of forum rules I can't discuss a purported inferiority of any group.

It wouldn't be ethnical in the generic sense but it would be ethnical anyway at least in part, because a non-random sample of an ethnic group can have selected for inheritable characteristics that depend on the selection process.

Same as indians in America aren't representative of the average talents of indians in India.

I am not sure where you read this, afaik the oldest proof of alcohol consumption comes from Egypt.

Maybe what you had in mind is lactose digestion in adults

I think you're onto something here!!! It's because skin color has nothing to do with intelligence. It's nurture, not nature -- just like all science demonstrates.

You pointed it out yourself. Now stop bending over backwards to justify being racist.

I think the suggestion is self selection, not nurture. Those who emigrate and their children are more likely to be successful people than those who don't.

It's selection among nature variability.

If you take the fastest horses of a very very very large group of horses, the average speed of the original horses won't matter much, the selected horses will still be very fast, purely for genetic reasons, you just took the best specimen (for that trait).

And it's inheritable so their offsprings will be faster on average than the offsprings of the other horses, although there is mean reversion so on average the offspring will be slower than the originally selected super -quick horses.

If you understand why it works for speed in horses, then you can understand it works for any inheritable trait of any living species when you select non random samples of a group.

And all behavioural traits are at least partially inheritable in all mammals.

Notice how this works even if you start with two identical groups (wrt genetical makeup), you end up with different genetical groups after selection sorting over time.

Tldr: the brain drain does create a different, unique, new population with different median traits and different genetical pool than the original population.

And the same is true for immigration predicated on different selection methods

And if you are not self selected, rather deported according to different characteristics? Could it work in the reverse?

Sure. That's possible. Might have something to do with it, but it's nonsense. Skin color has zero to do with intelligence. It's your upbringing, not your race.

@Luciom - I suspect you didn't see my post before you made yours, but now that they are juxtaposed, perhaps you could use this opportunity to contemplate the art of brevity.

Intelligence, as any other trait, can be inherited. Smarter parents tend to have smarter kids. Are you suggesting that intelligence is 100% nurture and 0% nature?

What are you asking? Yes, trivially, if you deport all short (below some cutoff) people, you will have only tall (above that cutoff) people left. If you deport all dumb people, you will have only smart people left. What's your point? If you're trying to build some sort of society of "supermen", I think you'll find that's been tried already and didn't end too well for a multitude of reasons.

no because otherwise they don't understand the mechanism and it's corollaries.

And the fact that we know , provenly beyond any reasonable doubt, that it works for mammals we farm, for any trait (including all behavioral traits), should suggest it works identically for the specific primate we care about more than others, us.

If you deport people who have to survive months of horrific condition travel and incredibly heavy farming labour will they be a random sample of the original population, or will they have as a group very specific genetical distributions linked to the traits they are selected for? are you getting it yet?

If you deport people they have to be caught before, is it random who gets caught? or is it a selection mechanism as well? do you get it?

I didn't say that at all. I said it has nothing to do with skin color or race of any group in general. All the science I've seen indicates intelligence has nothing to do with race, the racist guy kinda said that, I thought it was ironic.

yes they all deny the inheritability of desirable traits otherwise they can't deny the possibility different groups with different ancenstors might have different desirable traits distributions.

Do you realize their whole ideology is predicated on the idea that different groups have identical genetical trait distributions right?

I said indians in the USA are not the same indians that are left in india. Because they aren't a random sample of indians.

Even if indians and (say) "whites" originally had the same identical median intelligence as a group, AFTER YOU START SORTING that isn't true any more. And it isn't about race per se, it's about sorting among variability in a group. Except it then becomes about race when you measure it in the different countries.

Do you realize it for tallness like d2 gave you as an example? if the tallest people go away from a country (which doesn't reward tallness enough), the remaining people will be shorter on average, and their children will be as well, while the tall people will be taller than average in their destination country, and their children will be as well.

No, I have no idea what you're talking about now. Where are we deporting them from, India? As in, the people that are left are dumber? Is that what we're driving at here? If so, I have no idea what the numbers are, and whether the emigration makes a material difference. It's possible, I suppose.

You have a habit of trying to explain stuff to me like I'm 5, and it keeps being stuff I either didn't disagree with in the first place, or I'm not getting because you're not explaining it properly.

Yup. And I said you can leave the "because" part of your sentence off and stop being a hateful person.

there is no hate involved in any of this.

DM for this because from here on i think i am breaking forum rules if i keep going (waiting for rococo to confirm/deny)

I get what you're saying from the point of view of statistical distributions etc. I'm not going to comment beyond that because I don't know that quantifying the characteristics of large groups of people is necessarily as simplistic or reductionist as you make it out to be, given all sorts of confounding variables, nor do I agree with the implied suggestion that individual members of a group should be pre-judged based on such group characteristics.

no here we aren't at that stage , we are in the education in the USA thread, we are trying to assess why educational outcomes are worse in some areas even with the same policies, same (or higher) financing, same party governing everything related to education.

Do you realize given what we said about indians, that the children of very smart immigrant indians will perform very well in school even if schools are very mediocre?

Maybe you consider it love? It seems like you dislike people who are from certain places or have certain skin colors and are bending yourself into a pretzel to justify it.

The Indians who succeed in America do so because of selection in part, sure. But mostly because they grew up with access to decent education and has loving parents. You could substitute any human and the results would be identical.

When you try yo bring hair color or whatever into discussion of intelligence -- it just shows your bias. You literally make everything more complicated to justify racism.