I asked ChatGPT on whether or not it was the "scientific consensus."

"Anonymous surveys of intelligence experts reveal division: a 2016 survey found that about 49% attributed 50% or more of the Black-White gap to genetics, while over 80% attributed at least 20%; an earlier 1980s survey showed similar splits. These views are more common in private or anonymous contexts, contrasting with public statements from bodies like the APA that find no support for genetic explanations."

Hm, sure seems like Wikipedia should probably have a more balanced, nuanced discussion considering the experts are split at least 50/50.

I'm sorry, but that sort of thinking just doesn't pass the smell test.

We can easily identify the geographic locations of people's ancestors by looking at them. That means that we evolved quite a few exterior physical traits that are easily grouped and identifiable. Do you really think our brain, which is our most important survival trait, was immune to evolution? That people that moved to specific regions didn't have had selective pressures of some kind on the way we think?

Where this can go awry are the people that learn about this and then think that it's reason to discriminate against individuals or groups - of course it isn't. As you said, genetic diversity within groups is large. And even something like IQ certainly doesn't sum up the worth of someone, or even their brain.

The whole point of what I posted though was just to point out the fact that Wikipedia is, in fact, biased in what's put on there. It wasn't that long ago that it was perfectly OK as an academic to study the racial differences in IQ. Now? Good luck. Wikipedia reflects that.

There have been many, many studies that show that "race" is related to IQ. A true, unbiased article would show that as well as any well-founded criticisms of it.

Ok, change it to "what we call race as a proxy for general geographic locations that people's ancestors come from."

Which is what we all mean by race, anyways.

[flagged]