Recently I've found it to be highly taboo to talk about IQ score differences between races. Wikipedia states that race is a social construct so such differences cannot exist. But we all see physical differences and test scores clearly demonstrate a difference in IQs.
I have sources for this graph, does anyone have any contradicting sources?
For example if adopted children have the same IQ score as their parents to show that IQ is more of a social construct?
To what extent do you think IQ is social verses genetic?
But isn't education level a measure of intelligence? Wikipedia is clearly biased.
If you have a low IQ you aren't likely to pass your PhD program
Tell you right now, they can pass :P
In saying that, I am indicating that there is more to how someone passes a PhD program.
Back to the point though, lets say in theory this is true (it's not but whatevs), and someone had a low IQ on a particular snapshot, there are multiple factors here such as: When it was made, how someone conducted themselves in that test (how much preparation was involved), their reading ability (let alone comprehension), educational background, discipline, knowledge, health and etc. Best this does, is provide a qualitative feedback.
However, why stop at ethnicity as an indicator for intelligence? We could retrieve similar data where people from rural areas typically have a lower IQ than those in city areas? Does this mean that city people, being ethnically similar to rural people are just superior? Of course not!
Same comparison can be made on wealth lines. A justification that aristocrats have used in the past which we can see is bullshit :)
So,
A snapshot doesn't really show that someone is 'incapable' of obtaining a PhD but that the situation at the time may indicate that they may not be able to obtain it within a particular time frame.
It is very much dependent on the field of academia they are in, but hey... I see researchers publish shit all the time so... y'know.
The PhD situation is likely to have its own challenges involved, not all PhD programs are made equal and not all problems are made equal.
To conclude:
There are far too many factors involved to use IQ as a serious quantitative measurement. To suggests that all IQ tests are conducted in a fair environment and conclude that it is a direct measure of racial intellectual performance is a joke. (I'd agree that the researchers probably have given it their best but realistically it isn't enough. It amounts to getting a report card from school saying that you are either not studying enough or you're doing well, what you do with that information is your choice).
Education level is mostly a measure of wealth.
People who are concerned about racial disparities in IQ are typically trying to prove that "white people are inherently smarter". I'm demonstrating the flaws with that assessment.
How much money your parents had is a better predictor of getting a PhD than anything I would imagine.
But if its true intelligence is hereditary and intelligence makes one more likely to make more money isn't the fact that their parents had money and they passed their classes an indication that their genes are expressing intelligence?
You've said IQ is mostly a measure of education and education a measure of wealth. But unintelligent people will clearly not spend their money wisely and you've given no actual proof that its money and not intelligence to begin with.
Not true. Smart people have dumb kids all the time...
This is not actually true. Subjugating others is the easiest way to make money. Being a psychopath will probably help you out more than intelligence.
Both statements incorrectly assume all people have the same opportunities
Subjecting others seems like it would take a large feat of intelligence seeing how most people don't like being told what to do.
Opportunity is important to be super wealthy but the difference in upper and lower middle class seem like it has more to do with how effective a person is which correlates highly with intelligence and IQ score.
I think the blatant stupidity of kings past serves to debunk that
neither capitalism nor democracy promotes intelligence unfortunately.
kings were often killed by close family members if they proved to be to unstable. Many were very intelligent. Obviously some made the mistake of marrying cousins.
Capitalism often favors intelligence. Just like natural selection. It takes a high degree of intelligence to understand what to invest your money in.
Citation needed
This is what capitalists want you to think, just like how kings passed off the "god chose us" lie. in reality they're mostly psychopaths who inherited everything.
You should make this a separate debate post if you want to continue that debate.