to take sickle cell, there's several haemoglobin gene variations that are spread across many different areas
from cameroon to saudi arabia to calcutta, across people with the widestly different genomes on earth. the geography corresponds to the historic distribution of malaria, as the genes were selected for malarial survival. Their race or ethnicity, which is another way of saying race, has no bearing, as I said, as race isn't a thing. If you are using genes for skin melanin expression to signify race it's just as meaningful to call all these people 'the sickle cell race', as similarly they all share genes that have a common effect like skin colour. So sure, you can track certain genes through population and geography distribution, but the concept of race doesnt really add anything. What you're really tracking is who's fucked and had kids and passed those specific genes on, not race. And though it's more common to fuck someone nearby, if history has taught us anything it's that people will fuck anyone, even neanderthals, and each time they fuck you get the genetic milkshake, add two sets of pairs, mix them up in a cum egg soup, and take only one for each kid. So china has about 30% of its people with the gene variant affecting alcohol metabolism, but so do about 5% of mexicans. I can only speculate as to why. perhaps the mutation arose there first. perhaps not holding your piss doesn't impede you as socially as other countries as in asia, so there's not the selection pressure on the gene there.
So tell me, what are the genes for something as complicated as intelligence, how are they geographically distributed, and which populations have these genes you've identified that negatively effect smarts. Because "a white couple adopted a black baby and it was still thick" sounds like embarassing debunked old hokum from a bygone era whose main attraction was that it made whites feel like they were at the top of the tree
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 7 Apr 2026, 11:14,
Reply)
Your hyperbolic "a white couple adopted a black baby and it was still thick" suggests that you're getting far too emotionally triggered by this discussion to continue it meaningfully or in good faith.
We know you aren't racist. It's okay.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
(, Tue 7 Apr 2026, 11:44, Reply)
Interesting link
'The 1992 follow-up study found that "social environment maintains a dominant role in determining the average IQ level of black and interracial children"'
And while "Levin[5] and Lynn[6] argued that these findings supported the view that genetics is a determinant of average differences in IQ test performance between races", "other researchers, including Weinberg, Scarr and Waldman, argued that the findings aligned with environmental explanations, noting that the IQ scores of the black children were slightly higher than the national average"
also : "Subsequent developments in genetics research have led to a scholarly consensus that the hypothesis of Levin and Lynn is false."
and
"Scarr and Weinberg (1976) interpreted the results from age 7 suggesting that racial group differences in IQ are inconclusive because of confounding in the study. They noted, however, that the study indicated that cross-racial adoption had a positive effect on black-adopted children. In support of this interpretation, they drew special attention to the finding that the average IQ of "socially classified" black children was greater than that of the U.S. white mean. Follow-up data were collected in 1986, and Weinberg et al. published their findings in 1992, arguing that this follow-up data supported Scarr and Weinberg's original conclusions.
Both Levin[5] and Lynn[6] argued that the data support a hereditarian alternative - that the mean IQ scores and school achievement of each group reflected their degree of Sub-Saharan African ancestry. For all measures, the children with two black parents scored lower than the children with one black and white parent, who in turn scored lower than the adopted children with two white parents. Both omitted discussion of Asian adoptees.
Waldman, Weinberg, and Scarr responded to Levin and Lynn.[16] They noted that the data taken of adoption placement effects can explain the observed differences but that they cannot make that claim firmly because the pre-adoption factors confounded racial ancestry, preventing an unambiguous interpretation of the results. They also note that Asian data fit that hypothesis while being omitted by both Levin and Lynn. They argued that, "contrary to Levin's and Lynn's assertions, results from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study provide little or no conclusive evidence for genetic influences underlying racial differences in intelligence and achievement, " and noted that, "We think that it is exceedingly implausible that these differences are either entirely genetically based or entirely environmentally based. The true causes of racial-group differences in IQ, or in any other characteristic, are likely to be too complex to be captured by locating them on a single hereditarianism-environmentalism dimension."[16] "
Yet even Scarr said in 1998 "The results of the transracial adoption study can be used to support either a genetic difference hypothesis or an environmental difference one (because the children have visible African ancestry). We should have been agnostic on the conclusions"
I think you may need to read your cited material a little more objectively. On the whole, your link isn't so black and white on the subject as you suggested and generally does not support either position completely.
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Tue 7 Apr 2026, 12:19,
Reply)
No, I'm aware that the results of that particular study were somewhat ambiguous/inconclusive.
And nurture undoubtedly plays a part in the results, how could it not? But I think the results of this study, plus other studies on the subject indicate that there's a very real plausibility for the hypothesis that there is some genealogical disparity between ethnic groups in regards to intellectual ability, the same way as there are ethnic disparities in regards to things like metabolism or certain health conditions. The brain is still just an organ at the end of the day.
I posted the link mainly to reassure Cummy that discussion on the subject isn't inherently racist unless you treat it as such. The studies themselves are well beyond my remit, I just think it's an interesting topic, and it's nice to be able to have an adult discussion about it without too many people throwing up the racism flag.
(, Tue 7 Apr 2026, 12:39, Reply)
you said "there have been a few studies where black children who were brought up in adoptive white families scored lower on the tests than the biological offspring of those families, despite being raised/tutored/etc in identical environments. "
i think I summed it up quite concisely, rather than hyperbolically or emotionally triggered. But there never is any discussion, good faith or otherwise, as I don't think Ive ever seen you change your mind when confronted with contradictory information (another important aspect of intelligence not measured in IQ testing). you'll go on believing about race and this study and whatever other chestnuts align.
It's a deeply flawed 50 year old study that relies on several assumptions to establish a genetic basis for the differences.
a) that the prenatal environment has no effect on neurodevelopment. we now understand how important maternal health is to development during pregnancy. This study made no attempt to even measure confounding differences between the black mothers terms and those of white mothers
b) that white parents raising a black child, particularly in 1970s america, would give it identical educational opportunities that white kid raised by white parent would. That the child would live on some utopian island like schwarernegger from Twins, where racism didn't exist and their schooling experience until 17 was identical to the white kid
you could read the various criticism and flaws on the wiki you posted, even one of the orignal study authors pointed out his glaring errors 20 years later. But the telling thing is the citation count - hardly anyone cites it any more because it's not a credible study. But I imagine you saw it on some meme or video in the odd places on the internet you frequent (B3ta aside), I don't know how else you would have come across it, and it's something you immediately jammed into the "true" slot in your head as you like the conclusion, not being black and all.
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 7 Apr 2026, 12:36,
Reply)
'not being black and all'
What relevance would my own skin colour have in regards to this discussion? Sounds a bit racist to be bringing that into it. Are you projecting again?
(, Tue 7 Apr 2026, 12:41, Reply)
not projecting
I was just speculating why you found this particular 50 year old study persuasive enough to cite
like some of tosh studies I've seen antivaxers and global heating deniers share around, this look exactly the kind of thing that racists would share around uncritically.
But perhaps I'm being unkind. These days you don't have to hang around on stormfront, you can probably see things like this if you spend enough time on twitter or listen to joe rogan
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 7 Apr 2026, 13:34,
Reply)
Cummy getting disproportionately outraged over an otherwise measured and reasonable discussion.
Shocker.
(, Tue 7 Apr 2026, 12:47, Reply)
it would be a reasonable discussion if you had something to say other than these dull attempts at trolling
perhaps you've got nothing to add but want to feel involved. I hope this engagement is enough, I wouldnt want you to feel inadequate
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 7 Apr 2026, 13:45,
Reply)
I completely agree that race is a construct
and if you walk from any place on the planet to another, you will see a smooth variation in the characteristics of people. But I am also of the opinion that humans are built from genes that affect us just as much as any other creature that has genes (we are animals, not god's chosen ones) and no part of being human is excluded from that. We are, as you say, the results of a messy cum egg soup, for good and bad. As an extreme example of the effect of genes, if you got a fertilised human egg and selectively switched genes in it so that the creature grown was a starfish, then by any way of measuring, the creature grown would not be as smart (or able to hold a knife and fork) as a human. Simply by changing genes, whatever the social situation, you removed all ability to complete an IQ test, or get any score on emotional intelligence, talk, or pretty much anything that humans can do. Changing genes changes abilities.
That said, the society you are raised in matters a great deal for actual humans, as opposed to theoretical thought constructs. Gardeners know that however well you care for a low quality seed it will have limits on yield and quality, and you can get a good seed and get the same results by putting it in a low quality environment. It is far more complex than the situations proposed by most people who talk on the topic. Personal agendas on both sides tend to mean people push purely social or purely genetic reasons for observed data a lot of the time. To say that IQ has no hereditary component is just idiotic, likewise to say it has no social component is just as idiotic. This is complicated further by environment having a significant effect on gene expression. Anyone who stands firmly on one side or the other is very likely to be wrong IMO
To close, I am fully of the opinion that never talking about a topic just gives fuel to the bad actors who want to occupy the space where that conversation would be had and use it to promote shit ideas, like race, or to validate their racism.
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Tue 7 Apr 2026, 12:01,
Reply)
our brains, like everything else in our body, are built by our genes
picture a dog running across a lawn. How does your brain experience this image, how is it stored, how is it reproduced, which neurons are involved and how do they do it, how does it decide what the dog looks like and the perspective, how much is memory and how much is invention, how is it selected?
The answer is we don't fucking know.
And this is just one aspect out of hundreds we still just don't know when it comes to the brain. Out of everything we've encountered so far, the brain is the most complicated thing in the universe. Suns and planets are simple by comparison. It's had billions of years to evolve complication. And the genes that build it rely on a double or triple abstraction layers, where the dna encodes proteins which can then encode other proteins, which create cells and tell them what to be and exactly where to go, with the code not only transcribed by amino acid ordinal position but by the 3d shape of it's folding, that has different effects at different stages all through life and is responsive to environmental triggers. It's mind-boggling complex. It most likely involves the interplay of great clusters of different genes all performing various roles, rather than a few genes. And intelligence is a highly complex emergent property. So intelligence is heritable, we just have no idea how, what genes are involved apart from a tiny fraction that cause things to go really wrong, how those genes are distributed, what they do, and we dont know how the brain is networked, what memory is, what conciousness is, or even a general agreement about what intelligence is or what aspect of it are the most valuable. So I think there's still an awful lot of work to do before we start getting all eugenic about it. We're better but far from perfect at quantifying the enviromental effects, i.e. education, on intelligence
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 7 Apr 2026, 13:17,
Reply)