They do in some of the handful of transracial adoption studies, and don't in others. Rushton and Jensen et al hype the Minnesota study, because it's the one that supports their case, and note data quality problems with the other studies. Nisbett and Flynn do the reverse. But very little work is done in this area (yes, because of PC issues with funding bodies), so the data is still too thin to be very confident either way.

Agreed. More data would be nice.

I am open to a different explanation, it's just that the genetic one seems most compatible with what I do know at this time.

Seeing a prosperous and competent country arising out of Africa would surely be nice. I would prefer living in a universe like that. It's just that I don't see it happening - regardless of the aid - at this time.

Most of your criticisms here appear to be resulting from "morally repugnant", which means that I hold a view wildly different from that which you find acceptable, but you can't quite figure out why. If you test me, you may find that my views are neither ill-defined, nor poorly thought out, nor dumb; nor even morally repugnant.

Your criticism about politeness is valid however. I do not try to be polite unless the other person is already polite, which creates a sort of vicious circle half the time. I'd like to improve that.

Good points. But then why don't African Americans perform much better when adopted and raised by non-African parents? If it's about parent pressure, then an African American kid adopted by Asian parents should perform at about Asian level. Why do they not?

No one is powerless unless they are physically or mentally incapacitated.

To give an example of someone who is physically incapacitated. A pig. He's smart, but he doesn't have thumbs and can't speak. Are you out to help him?

For another example of someone who is mentally incapacitated. A chimpanzee. He has thumbs, but he's not so bright. Are you out to help him?

If you believe that Africans are somehow physically or mentally incapacitated, then you should treat them much the same as you treat chimpanzees.

On the other hand, if you believe that they are not incapacitated, then they aren't powerless. If they aren't powerless, they can organize their community any way they like.

They haven't yet created any highly functional societies over the past few decades, whereas many others have. So apparently, they're either incapacitated (so proper treatment = same as chimps), or they've decided that their current situation is what they want.

Either way, foreign aid is inconsistent. Either we should be helping animals as much as we help Africans, or else, they are people who have the power to better themselves, and do not need aid.

Edited to add: Again, people downvoting, but nary a peep about why this logic is wrong. Focus on the essence, rather than the blasphemy? Anyone?

Sigh...

I think I'm just going to give up on this community. Good luck with your goals, everyone. ;)

I find Flynn and Nisbett's position unconvincing. Asians are obviously different and were heavily discriminated against, yet have integrated in America regardless, and now have comparable or better outcomes. There must be a more substantial reason why Africans haven't done the same, and the most plausible reason so far for me is genetics.

Pretty much the one major argument against genetics is that people just don't want this to be the case, because it's one of the least hopeful explanations. But this is bias. Once you eliminate it, it becomes strikingly evident what the most likely explanation is.

African-American IQ in the 80s, with only 20% European admixture, shows that African IQs are depressed by environment.

I wouldn't say so. I think it shows that genes for higher IQ are inherited dominantly.

This has also been proposed as an explanation for the Flynn effect - whole countries getting "smarter" over time - being due to the gene pool mixing more in cities, and thus with dominant pro-IQ genes gaining ground.

The same mechanism has been proposed for the increasing height.

Animals have short lives so it wouldn't work well, and I care less about them than people with long term plans hopes and fears.

See, that's fine with me. You want to indulge in X because you like it, not because of rationalization Y or Z. Just like I want to indulge in chocolate. That's fine with me.

I just don't like the claim that it is morally superior. Or that it's something everyone should do. Or that it's how resources "should" be spent. If it is an indulgence, though, then indulgences are fine with me.

If the recipients are highly functional and creative thereafter, they should make money. If they make money, even if you don't want it, they can pay you back.

I do approve of charity which gives to things that do go on to create more than was invested. An example would be investing into basic research that isn't going to pay off until decades later. Investing in that is, I think, one of the most commendable charitable acts.

Most charity, however, is not that. It is more so charitable indulgence; it is spending money on something that is emotionally appealing, but never provides a return; neither to the giver, nor to anyone else.

I despise the travesty of such acts being framed as morally valuable charity, rather than as an indulgent throwing of resources away.

I'm sure this is often the case, but please don't overgeneralize.

True; point taken. I find it likely that many (perhaps most here) are not like that.

Your grandparent post is at +2 as I write this.

True. But overall, I'm down about 50 karma today, and still counting. :)

Even the maximalist (and implausible in light of other data) Rushton-Lynn hypothesis

I've been looking for about a decade now, but have not encountered evidence that would discredit Lynn. I have however seen a lot of evidence which corroborates his findings.

If you have evidence that discredits his work, I would appreciate it.

is perfectly consistent with aid (external provision of disease treatment, etc) having massive benefits in reducing disease and increasing wellbeing until biotech or more radical things can bypass any genetic disadvantage.

Why stop at Africa then? Shouldn't we invest billions in animal shelters, so that dogs and cats can live long lives until we find a way to bypass their genetic disadvantage? Wouldn't those be just as "massive benefits"?

And there's no need to be smug.

Perhaps it came across as smugness, but I do find that every piece of news I see, either from South Africa, or from Haiti, or from Nigeria, or from Zimbabwe, or from Turks and Caicos, just adds to the pile of evidence.

Also, I myself live in a place like that. Which is why I suggest (in all seriousness!) that people should consider visiting a country like South Africa for a while.

There's no better cure for academic distance than direct contact with the hard facts on the ground.