This exactly. Intelligence being heritable does not imply that any one particular population is more intelligent on average than another.
“intelligence” is a pretty nebulous term to begin with
This is also accurate, but I'm glossing over that because it's late and that fact is only tangentially relevant to the question.
I realized this on the 6th. It's the first thing that crossed my mind when I knew what was happening. I'm not a legal scholar; I'm a mathematician, so I'm wondering how it took so long for this to happen.
Why is irrelevant. Imagine if people argued over if a murderer killed someone because they felt like it or because they looked at them funny. See how pointless the question is? Do you understand how no sane person would argue about that?
Thank you very much!
Never argue with someone from Hexbear. They're all at least comfortable with being in a community overrun by tankie trolls.
No. I have gotten 2 offers to work for the NSA and turned them down hard. If I could stomach it, I could have a job working as an actuarial scientist for an insurance company.
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.