Darussalam wrote:As I have said before, I never said that IQ is one hundred percent heritable. Yes, prenatal environment is an important factor. But here's the thing: one, it implies that IQ is constant during adulthood. Per the Wilson's effect, IQ stabilizes during adulthood and shared environment effect becomes less relevant. Imagine if leftists endorse increasing black IQ through specifically-targeted improvement of prenatal environment instead of affirmative action!
The second is that I'm not fully convinced that this is the case in developed countries like the US.
(Image)
(Image)
Poor whites outperform wealthy blacks in SAT, and blacks with well-educated parents perform worse than whites with poorly-educated parents. If prenatal environment plays a role here, then SES would have stronger influence than genes.
And this, kids, is why we learn how and when to use statistics (and how and when not to use them).
These charts do not support your argument in the slightest since there are many factors to higher SAT scores than mere ethnicity or household background. And that's even without tackling the issue of seeing SAT scores as universal indicator of intelligence.
Austrasien wrote:Institutionalized prejudice is a theory which presupposes by necessity that there are no significant heritable differences between groups of people.
Excuse me?
institutionalized prejudice is literally the institutionalization of prejudice. Such prejudice stems from somewhere (whether it is actually real or not is secondary - it has epistemological value as social fact when institutionalized). And history has shown that most often, such prejudice is racial in nature.
