Upvoted because you have stumbled upon the issue with all of these seemingly-abstract discussions of race and IQ.
You don’t have to deny that IQ is something measurable or that it has correlates with other things (both personal traits, and life outcomes) to be unwilling to take at face value that what IQ is measuring can best be described as “general intelligence.” Context is of massive importance here.
The focus on genetics is especially problematic, but I suspect that reflects a prevailing subconscious attitude that IQ is pretty much just that: a measure of your general intelligence. Most of the people on this site are probably not poor, not women (though that ratio seems to be changing, I daresay it’s still nothing like even) not members of a racial minority in their country (I’m guessing the vast majority here are either “white” colonials in North America or Australia, or else Western Europeans), probably not disabled in a highly-visible way...
In short, these issues are just abstract to them, so they will tend to have very few “buttons” around it except around being seen as bigoted towards people who are.
As to the question itself, you’ve nailed the issue when you say:
Given that the question is so complex and ill-posed you have to ask why the question is being asked.
What exactly would be irrational about not wanting to glibly admit (socially) if one group has a higher IQ than another group, if it was possible to know it? Is it irrational to not want to entertain a racist agenda?
Is it irrational to find it quite troubling that someone you’re talking to would want to discuss the issue of
whether one race is inferior to another race, for any reason? I understand that we can’t avoid ‘truth’ just
because it is troubling, but what kind of ‘truth’ are we pursuing here?
Upvoted because you have stumbled upon the issue with all of these seemingly-abstract discussions of race and IQ.
You don’t have to deny that IQ is something measurable or that it has correlates with other things (both personal traits, and life outcomes) to be unwilling to take at face value that what IQ is measuring can best be described as “general intelligence.” Context is of massive importance here.
The focus on genetics is especially problematic, but I suspect that reflects a prevailing subconscious attitude that IQ is pretty much just that: a measure of your general intelligence. Most of the people on this site are probably not poor, not women (though that ratio seems to be changing, I daresay it’s still nothing like even) not members of a racial minority in their country (I’m guessing the vast majority here are either “white” colonials in North America or Australia, or else Western Europeans), probably not disabled in a highly-visible way...
In short, these issues are just abstract to them, so they will tend to have very few “buttons” around it except around being seen as bigoted towards people who are.
As to the question itself, you’ve nailed the issue when you say: