I don't think you understand the point. It's a form of genetic determinism which you can't take seriously as it ignores or tries to shove aside literally everything we've learned and discovered about context and idea formation. Beyond focusing just on the ever going nature vs nurture debate, there is no way someone could read about Foucauldian epistemes for example and still accept the absolute nonsense of IQ testing as scientifically sound. For the gene-IQ or race-IQ connection to be made one has to first off ignore literally all developments in philosophy/the humanities since the 1950s.
To bring it back down to earth a little, a hunter of the San peoples for example lives in such a different world from you the whole notion of making him sit down and solve math equations, look at cubic abstractions or try to devise some other standardised intelligence test is so stupid it's hilarious. In Europe/the West we are acquainted and conditioned to work with these types of problem solving skills and then not only apply it to completely different cultures and peoples but also use it as some sort of measuring stick for our own 'genetic ability'. As if genetic evolution was intended to help man solve algebraic formulas lol. And here I'm also ignoring the fact that all the horseshit written on IQ/intelligence doesn't try to correlate its findings with race (the slate article you posted even points this out)...your entire conclusion is wrong to begin with.
uziq wrote:
how did you get a history degree when you're so against materialist analysis? or were you one of those LARPer students who spent 4 years remembering the name-days of medieval kings so that he could turn his Civilization IV hobby into a paper degree?
He doesn't have a degree, it's part of the facade. Teacher, history, the cop thing - all of it sounds like BS to me.
Last edited by Larssen (2020-03-10 10:27:31)