There are, however, opinions on this matter which go in a very different direction than the pieces you have cited. For example, the various studies referenced in this thread of threads.
For instance, the author mentions researchers saying there is no evidence for the narrowing of the substantial 15-point IQ gap for people born after the 1960s, and that there was no gap-narrowing for other education-related tests (SAT, ACT, GRE) for the last three decades. (He also mantions similar finding about consistently higher IQ scores for northeast Asians compared to whites.) Or that in a survey more than 60% of intelligence researchers estimated that genetic differences account for half or more of the gap. He also cites evidence on twin and adoption studies supporting the large heritability of IQ. Adoption studies also support black-white-East Asian score-gaps. Additionally, admixture studies found that black-white mixed-race populations have, on average, IQs between the averages of white and black populations. There is also various other data supporting the heritability of the gap. Moreover, he references various studies and experts who point out that the Flynn effect is not evidence against IQ gaps being largely heritable, even if the Flynn effect itself is mainly caused by non-heritable factors. The reason is that the Flynn effect was not accompanied by a narrowing of those gaps.
To go back to the original topic: From the above and your referenced posts it is apparent that there are substantial disagreements between intelligence researchers in these matters. Non-experts should not be chastised for regarding this as an open empirical question. Nor is it acceptable that only defending one side of the debate is allowed, at pain of risking severe social repercussions.
I am merely stating some facts, and my own opinion on the matter, which remains unchanged.
That twitter thread you linked (from a self described “hereditarian”), is very obviously a biased gish-gallop of cherrypicked data. I’m not going to waste my time debunking it all, but to pick one example, he picks exactly one survey which supports his position, while other surveys exist that put the majority against his position. This is why I don’t derive my scientific positions from random twitter threads.
As an addendum, I’m frankly sick of people pretending that there is no reason for people to biased in favour of believing in genetic IQ gaps. Any defender of the status quo will be biased towards this position, because it allows them to argue that the status quo can’t be changed.
There are, however, opinions on this matter which go in a very different direction than the pieces you have cited. For example, the various studies referenced in this thread of threads.
For instance, the author mentions researchers saying there is no evidence for the narrowing of the substantial 15-point IQ gap for people born after the 1960s, and that there was no gap-narrowing for other education-related tests (SAT, ACT, GRE) for the last three decades. (He also mantions similar finding about consistently higher IQ scores for northeast Asians compared to whites.) Or that in a survey more than 60% of intelligence researchers estimated that genetic differences account for half or more of the gap. He also cites evidence on twin and adoption studies supporting the large heritability of IQ. Adoption studies also support black-white-East Asian score-gaps. Additionally, admixture studies found that black-white mixed-race populations have, on average, IQs between the averages of white and black populations. There is also various other data supporting the heritability of the gap. Moreover, he references various studies and experts who point out that the Flynn effect is not evidence against IQ gaps being largely heritable, even if the Flynn effect itself is mainly caused by non-heritable factors. The reason is that the Flynn effect was not accompanied by a narrowing of those gaps.
To go back to the original topic: From the above and your referenced posts it is apparent that there are substantial disagreements between intelligence researchers in these matters. Non-experts should not be chastised for regarding this as an open empirical question. Nor is it acceptable that only defending one side of the debate is allowed, at pain of risking severe social repercussions.
I am merely stating some facts, and my own opinion on the matter, which remains unchanged.
That twitter thread you linked (from a self described “hereditarian”), is very obviously a biased gish-gallop of cherrypicked data. I’m not going to waste my time debunking it all, but to pick one example, he picks exactly one survey which supports his position, while other surveys exist that put the majority against his position. This is why I don’t derive my scientific positions from random twitter threads.
As an addendum, I’m frankly sick of people pretending that there is no reason for people to biased in favour of believing in genetic IQ gaps. Any defender of the status quo will be biased towards this position, because it allows them to argue that the status quo can’t be changed.