I'll only grant you 50/50 for the most basic behaviors for genes and environment, but as I've said, the further you complicate an observed action by a human, the more environment takes over genes

Over the past 150,000 years, yes. But in the past 6000 years, we've been converging. Especially the past 500.

Cousin degree refers to genetic distance, it has absolutely nothing to do with adoption.

I know you mongoloid

And personally I thing broader mixing of genes is a good thing.

I'm saying that environment will compete against genes in that situation

I would though say race very much is a real thing. Just that the some claimed differences simply are not there whilst some are.
Skincolor does not come from nowhere, right? Perhaps you have a different view on this? @DrYuriMom
There is a reason as to why there almost always is a black sprinter winning the Olympics

The most basic point that I made today completely flew over your head

@DrWittMDPhD Dev really doesn’t understand genetics. He pretty much just assumes genetics influences everything. He then says ‘well environment too’ when proven wrong

Race is simply natural selection acting when slow transport kept populations isolated

I explained earlier about how melanin protects against cancer but worsens rickets

That's why equatorial peoples selected for dark skin and polar peoples for light skin. That's all there is to it.

and doesn't continous education and expansion of knowledge and logic expand and better overall IQ..?

Biological evolution involves natural selection and genetic drift.

Yes

@Rickard yes. Plus, it’s difficult to say how much IQ itself affects behavior.

Right, don't address my basic point that you tripped over.

But we've been converging for 6000 years as transportation has improved

Horses. Boats. Lots of migration.

Transportation alone isn't mixing the entire global population all that much.

@Salacious Swanky Cat yeah, i'm not even trying to argue on that point, just widen the overall discussion.

My angle is that there still is nothing speaking for genetics infuencing political belief

Hitler was a smart lad on many aspects, still a socialist.

@Rickard I know. I’m just putting it out there.

Being communist, socialist, kapitalist etc. is most likely not realted to IQ nor race.
@Salacious Swanky Cat 👍

having a high IQ doesnt make you immune to stupidity as a lot of ppl seem to think these days

@Rickard I agree.

Class or economic success is related to IQ. That's one big reason why psychologists care about it.

theyre good indicators

@Rickard the core of the argument between me and dev is that he seriously believes that racal genetic differences makes racial integration impossible/undesirable.

but you can still be successful in something and be a total dumbass on everything else

It's a good predictor of social outcomes.

a "smart" person realizes this

a dumb "smart" person does not

The lower your IQ the less likely you are to be economically successful.

in the west yes

@tritrium very true. Philosophy can dazzle or enligthen many.
Yet @devpav the socialist ideology and politics are developed by advanced thinker at universities and only until very recently has overall quality dropped.

This further ads to race and genetics having nothing to do with this.
@Salacious Swanky Cat yeah, i'm just trying to add some perspective and extras to perhaps shred some light on the topic for.. you know.. some people

@tritrium are you saying that IQ does not determine average success rate in the east and majority africa?

I am saying that in the west unskilled labour is, to be hyperbolic, no longer wanted or needed.

But it depends on what you define success as

If you define it as being able to provide for u kids and family

How come then that unskilled labour still results in better overall life quality in the west than in the east and the majority of african countries?