Let s have a simple and rough science popularization. About the old scholar circle uuuuuuuuuuu
michelle last edited by
Tired, it took so long to explain that "science does not support the interpretation of genetic differences in IQ". There are always people who "you just dare not admit that there are differences, you are the white left, you are the Virgin Mother"... I really turned my eyes to Tang Jiatuo and talked to you about the difficulties in IQ gene research, the differences caused by social influence, and finally the frontier development of molecular anthropology, you know that the repeater is "politically correct" and right for you.
ForwardPlum and Plum SMSA simple and crude science popularization.
Teachers from all walks of life have explained the problem from various perspectives about Watson's discriminatory statements in academic circles, which are caused by the low IQ of blacks. The Nobel Prize winner is actually a recidivist of race, sex, origin and other kinds of discrimination. His speeches have nothing to do with science at all: http://t.cn/Eqlg6Ek; @ We systematically explain the innate and acquired differences http://t.cn/Eqlg6nh, and the key points and difficulties in studying these differences. In short, the so-called "scientific" approach to racial differences. Seeing does not hold water.
Of course, race-related social problems don't start here.
But there is a very important aspect of the problem - even if we "honestly face" the gene itself, the conclusion that "IQ has racial differences" is very clever and even unscientific.
First, let's talk about IQ and genes.
Is there a genetic difference in IQ? Yes, but absolutely not one or more genes are in control. There are many genes associated with cognitive ability, and how many of them can determine whether a person is "smart" is not clear now - you have to define smart first. Now some studies have explained that there are some congenital factors in spatial cognitive ability, memory, or abstract ability, but there is still no conclusion about the deep brain operation and so on (the human brain is too complex). Even if there are differences, a lack of ability, a person will use other capabilities to complement, coupled with acquired training, the overall display of wisdom and wisdom, etc. is a very complex system of action.
Even if you take a group A and a group B and insist that A is better than B in spatial reasoning ability, what can you say? From spatial reasoning ability to spatial imagination ability is a complex dimension, from spatial imagination ability to three-dimensional geometric calculus, and then to mathematical achievement or road recognition ability. This genetic difference can not explain too much, it is not enough for you to cross your waist and say, "A person is smarter than B person".
(Similar to evolutionary psychology, it also tries to explain some differences in thinking patterns that are mainly concentrated in the field of gender, but evolutionary psychology is quite metaphysical, so I will not start (fog).
Second, let's talk about race and genes.
It is precisely because of the development of genetic science that our understanding of race is outdated. Of course, differences among people exist objectively, but not in the "race" way in your mind.
Black? Where are the blacks? How dark is it? To what extent is black? We all came out of Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago. The statement that we divided human beings into three races in our childhood textbooks has long been the old emperor's calendar of the early last century. Even if you want to narrow down to "Afro-descendants", you have to first understand that Africa is the region with the highest diversity of human DNA (after all, the birthplace). The difference between an East African Marseille and a South African Cossa is even greater than that between an East African Marseille and a French Marseille, except that they all look dark (stalls). When you talk about black athletic talent, you may intentionally or unintentionally overlook that the talents used by an NBA player and an Ethiopian long-distance runner are essentially two kinds of gifts (not to mention that the so-called gifts are largely the result of nurturing and screening). It would be unscientific to put so many different people in a box.
Now, we can map the genetic migration of the whole human race (e.g., from dense to sparse distribution of people carrying a gene, which is done in molecular anthropology) and study the differences between populations based on this. But the biggest problem is that this is a very continuous pedigree, far more complex than dividing humans into several races.
For example, if we want to define "relatives", then is it related to three generations or nine families? Elizabeth Warren has identified Native American genes. Native Americans don't buy them at all. What do you mean? Not to mention the integration of different ethnic groups for a long time.
So if you insist on putting race, genetics and IQ together, you're going to have more to do.
When you want to say "we Chinese are high IQ", the first step is "who are the Han people" which is enough for you to drink a pot. Even if you define that "Han people carry the X gene, they do have high IQ," what is the relationship between these genes and cognitive ability? Similarly, do genes that "determine" skin color and genes that "determine" IQ really interact or coexist? You can't explain. There's no real hammer evidence to break a hypothesis.
(Hypothesis is also different in level, even if many people scold Diamond, I also think that the gun steel bacteria is a relatively reliable hypothesis to explain the gap between civilizations, at least more reliable than IQ theory...)
Watson is basically an old fool. It is estimated that his understanding of human genetic research today is also out of date. Naturally, my knowledge is limited, and I just use vernacular language to carry the existing research results (and add sociological criticism), but even if you have a little knowledge of this research, you will not feel complacent there that your discrimination is particularly scientific.
But then again, discrimination as a social phenomenon is basically ignorant + narrow-minded - ignorant people will continue to go into oil and salt, you can hardly convince narrow-minded people to open their eyes, with toes to think that someone will continue to shout "black / woman / X people is not good". There is no way to promote social equity by popular science. As for what to rely on, I will not start [Bye-bye]
(Note: Mapping is not the result of scientific research)