IQ does have a strong genetic component, which in general terms means it represents a trait that we all can/must have (in this case must) to a varying degree. But there are considerable environmental effects. For example biological siblings raised together have IQ's have a correlation coefficient of .50, that's pretty good, but if they're raised in separate environments the correlation drops to about .25. So we know for sure there are biological and epigenetic effects. We know that things like low SES and high density population with low access to resources and such have a negative correlation with IQ. I dont know of any rational educated thinker who believes that these differences in IQ are because an individual is a minority. I know several though who believe these differences can be accounted for by dispositional factors stereotypical of minorities (e.g., they're just lazy), that is symbolic racism and it breeds cultural paranoia. To say that the differences observed in IQ are correlational we can say they are causal, no research is causal. Actually most research is considered statistically significant by showing your results weren't due to chance or error. Despite this, and with no real dissent, many are now considering those environmental factors to ve the cause of the differences, which is pretty clear. So I agree with your sentiments. I would be interested in hearing more about the connections you're referencing between EEG of eye movements and perception of social threats if you have some sources! Regards, Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D. On Wed, Dec 1, 2021, 6:53 PM Jamie D <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is > safe. > ------------------------------ > > Let's say, I as a white man with small, sweaty hands, wanted to be a top > basketball player, or a rap artist. > > It could be done. > > The challenge isn't getting good at basketball itself, but breaking out of > my normal identity, into one that would test me inside and out. > > Free of such tests, it would be a smooth process. > > Math isn't difficult. > It's boring without sufficient incentive. > > I contend that when a minority sits down to practice math or science, they > hear a discouraging voice from both sides - one about tribal loyalty, and > another a threat not to enter the game of the top tiers. > > How to test it? > > Put a camera to watch the eyes of (and EEG device onto their heads) > various people to practice things outside their conventional identity. > > Eye movements indicative of processing social threat can be measured with > eeg measurements, and we can prove IQ is sociocultural, not biological. > > We needn't lie about the data, but clarify it. > > > > > > > > > > > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the > following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > ############################ To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1