re: Intelligence and cultural/societal outcomes

quote:

---

You are missing the point

---

I think here is the point:

quote:

---

Is it safe to say that genetic groups with lower average IQ's...

---

That simply says, some races are better, or at least smarter than others.

That is the actual root of racism. If you believe the quote, you are a racist. Admit it, embrace it, it's not illegal, just don't try to deny it.

That said...

quote:

---

...tend to make poor decisions that affect outcomes?

---

This, combined with the method used to determine 'intelligence', the IQ test, is a negative value judgement that shows cultural bias implying an inability to function 'successfully' in our western style, liberal republican capitalist system is bad.

What is the metric of success in that scenario? Easy, money, value, $. What other metrics of success could other non-western cultures value? I submit that sustainability could be rationally argued to be a valid metric of success for a culture.

quote:

---

why are we enabling or subsidizing groups with these genetic traits to reproduce

---

The single highest correlated factor for reduction of birth rate is the education of women - in any culture. People reproduce, we've evolved the ability to reproduce year-round, and have evolved our endocrine system to support bi-pedal locomotion, super-charging us with hormones as an environmental survival mechanism, we breed - a lot - it's what we do. It's not easy to get people to stop fricking. You have to get women to take control of their reproduction system through educating them in order to keep the fricking from turning into babies.

Then another post compares Hong Kong to Equatorial Guinea vis-a-vis 'IQ'.

Perhaps if one were to apply the sustainability metric to compare these two cultures and who is making the rational decisions, one would come to a different conclusion.

Then a further post cries that these 'underdeveloped' 'nations' wouldn't even be able to survive without our beneficence. This ignores the fact that indigenous peoples were generally in harmony with their environments, with relatively sustainable cultures right up until contact with Western culture. Ignoring the disease factor of early colonization of the New World, just look at the Green Revolution how that has affected cultures of less 'developed' people. On the whole, indigenous people had stable population curves due to birth rate minus infant mortality rate being high, but roughly equal. Introduce miracle medicines at the same time as miracle agricultural crops, and you can easily predict the population boom that would follow in any group of organisms under such conditions. Then add in the the dependency factor that the miracle crops are sterile, and you can't sustain the production growing seed crops, you must purchase your seed with cash every year.

Again, generally, if you just leave people the frick alone, they will develop a culture that will be sustainable. The average IQ they will have should hover around 100 using the sustainability metric. Again people are just organisms, they will adapt to survive their environment - unless the environmental change outpaces the rate of evolution.

So, in my opinion, the whole premise of this thread is based in racial and cultural bias.

...not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm not making the judgement call here.