The Grim Biology of Being Poor

[Famous Mortimer]

This is literally race science.

This is exactly the type of raw data that Charles Murray and Richard Lynn would feel vindicated by.

The only difference is the policy preferences.

While Murray and Lynn would say "it's genetic so it's not possible to bridge these gaps with government programs, don't try", leftist race scientists are going "it's genetic, so the government programs will have to last forever"

[Famous Mortimer]

This is one of the most chilling things I have ever read.

Someone: "Intelligence is heritable"

The left: "That's racist. You're a horrible person and you should be unable to appear in public without fear of being physically attacked"


....


Someone else: "Intelligence is heritable"

The left: "that's r...."

Someone else: "and that's why Europe needs to let in migrants and why white people need to pay more in taxes to make up for their genetic privilege"

The left: "I accept your belief in the heritability of intelligence automatically based on one article and see no reason to dispute it"

[Famous Mortimer]

This is literally race science.

This is exactly the type of raw data that Charles Murray and Richard Lynn would feel vindicated by.

The only difference is the policy preferences.

While Murray and Lynn would say "it's genetic so it's not possible to bridge these gaps with government programs, don't try", leftist race scientists are going "it's genetic, so the government programs will have to last forever"

Did you even read what this article said? Or are you just looking for an excuse to rant?

This isn’t the same as “race science.” Based upon the research, the genetic imprint left by poverty is due to environmental factors that the child and/or their parent(s) were exposed to. The cause is, ultimately, environmental and it’s the environment affecting genetics. I’m quite curious how you could take that and conclude that it’s the same as claiming that “X race is inherently inferior/superior due to unchangeable genetics.”

If poverty is properly addressed and eliminated, then the genetic imprint of it would inevitably be erased within a generation or two. That’s what the article is saying. And, that’s accomplished through dramatic socioeconomic changes to our society (i.e. public policy).

I've been hearing a lot of "left HBD" arguments lately from Matthew Yglesias and others. I assume this was more of that.

Now you're telling me it's not that, it's actually Lamarckism.