>>17967888
>1.) Environmental conditions are trumped by genetics even between wildly different conditions like we have in the real world
I'm not sure you're understanding what it is I'm saying
the point is that the polygenic testing—even in its nascent state—is functioning to predict intelligence, with ever-increasing accuracy, and that because this a testing of the presence of specific genomic sequences, those predictions are wholly independent of environmental conditions
for the point of the argument, it doesn't matter which trumps which—there being a genetic contribution along population clusters AT ALL negates the rather naïve assertion that genetic differences occur amongst population clusters in everything save intellect
>True, but why would intelligence be affected by one of them?
you're asking why intelligence is affected by one specific genomic sequence? put simply, many genes work in tandem, each contributing small effects on brain development and function, and their cumulative action governs and places limits on cognitive ability
the contribution from one sequence would be small, but the reasoning is identical
>you are saying "The intelligence gap between racial/ethnic groups is primarily driven by their racial/ethnic genetics, not by environment."
where did I say that?
you're putting words in my mouth
>Not true. The limit may be vastly different in groups that are near identical.
then they're not near identical as it pertains to the genes governing maximum attainable intellect, are they?
>Genetic differences =/= difference in intelligence.
but difference in genomic sequences governing intelligence == difference in intelligence
