this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
44 points (89.3% liked)
Asklemmy
43810 readers
1 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Intelligence has a genetic component. Every single test we have that attempts to measure intelligence that we've checked for heritability shows that intelligence likely has a generic component. Furthermore, we know that some species are more intelligent than others. Given the demonstrable existence of Darwinian evolution, this implies that some populations of a species are more or less intelligent than another because that's a requirement for a speciation event that results in a species that's more intelligent than its cousin species.
Anyone who says otherwise is likely allowing their ideology to cloud their judgement.
This exactly. Intelligence being heritable does not imply that any one particular population is more intelligent on average than another.
This is also accurate, but I'm glossing over that because it's late and that fact is only tangentially relevant to the question.