False Dichotomy Fallacy! It is incorrect of you to demand a "total inability" on the part of lower-I.Q. populations. The Gaussian Distribution of I.Q. is still in effect in such populations (their curve just peaks at approx. one Standard Deviation below that of the European ethnic population), so there is still a "tail-end" at the upper edge of the curve consisting of people capable of "navigating the world."
By the same token, people who are only four-and-a-half feet tall can still "navigate the world" - despite living in a world designed chiefly for adults who are, on average, at least a foot taller. They don't "fail utterly."
"We don't see that." We do see minority groups committing many forms of violent crime at multiples of what their proportion of the general population would lead us to expect.
I also suspect that your definition of "properly integrated" would be used as an all-purpose "backdoor excuse" to explain away any of their failures. Sort of a "No True Scotsman" Fallacy! (If, in A.D. 2433, Somalis in America were still a "problem group," you would simply explain that away with "lack of proper integration.")
But my main counterargument is: Why do we (the U.S.) even need to invite these sub-Saharan populations into our country? You admit (tacitly) that "proper integration" is a (politically but also practically) difficult task. But why not simply spare ourselves that task all together by not allowing them in in the first place?
Regards,
“false dichtomoy”
- Statistically you are incorrect because, unlike height, cognitive function is not a static ‘output’ independent of input. You are using the Bell Curve to argue that we should judge groups by their population averages rather than as individuals, which is fundamentally at odds with the Western tradition of judging people on their own merits, their behavior, and their contributions.
I wrote “and succeeding” not “surviving”
THEN, “We do see minority groups committing many forms of violent crime at multiples of what their proportion of the general population would lead us to expect.”
Crime is not a function of genetics; it is a function of the ‘opportunity cost’ of breaking the law and the strength of the social contract. When a society experiences high crime rates among certain demographics, it is almost always a sign that the local institutional framework has failed—that the state is not effectively enforcing the law, that social institutions (like the family and the school) have broken down, and that the ‘rules of the game’ are no longer clearly or equitably applied to everyone
If we have a crime problem, the solution is to increase the effectiveness of the law, restore the importance of the family unit, and demand adherence to civilizational standards—not to conclude that our entire social and legal system is powerless to manage anyone outside a specific genetic circle.
“I also suspect that your definition of “properly integrated” would be used as an all-purpose “backdoor excuse” to explain away any of their failures.”
your suspicions are both wrong and completely CONTRADICTORY to what I have ALREADY written above —
- Post 164: “they SHOULD BE MADE to accept the societal mores and culture of the culture they move to.”
- Post 147: “There must be strict education in American culture and values.”
- Post 141: “Education must be harsher - a very detailed study of history, civics and “ways to behave in this society” coupled with detailed language studies - not just reading 10+ books a year in English but also learning Latin, possibly Greek and at least one other language (can be Czech, can be Cantonese, can be Xhosa) along with more complex maths and science and kids to be FAILED in a year.”
That is an utterly different question from what you started off with:
post 77 "What would be the expected I.Q. of the offspring in this instance (one parent with an I.Q. of 80, the other with an I.Q. of 100)?"
Post 123 "But if we took two individuals from entirely separate gene pools (as far as that is possible in the human species), the "regression to the mean" would have less effect, richtig?"
So, first let's close that --> before we pivot to the political question of immigration policy, you need to address the premise you started with. You asked about IQ and separate 'gene pools' to argue that these groups are biologically fixed at a lower level of intelligence.
I’ve pointed out that intelligence heritability is not a static ceiling and that technological and social development is a product of environmental and institutional variables, not racial genetics. Your response was to shift the goalposts to the political question of 'why take the risk?'
If you want an honest debate, you have to acknowledge the errors in your first line of reasoning:
Address the science you brought up first; we can discuss immigration policy once you’ve accounted for the inaccuracies in your biological claims