> you assume not that until all races are equal you will assume that genetics is the difference.  i will assume that genetics are some of the difference. i'd also assume that nutrition, education, hearing lots of human speech as a baby etc. are also contributing. i assume this because i've seen sufficient evidence of intelligence-related genes being different between different human groups. like i keep saying, there is evidence that genetic differences in intelligence exist between groups. genes like the 2-repeat allele of the maoa gene have been proven to affect behavior and cognition, and been proven to show up in different quantities between different human groups.  at this point the fallacy is blindly assuming that genes couldn't possibly be different between human subgroups. > due to the gaps in intelligence tests narrowing over time its reasonable to assume that genetics are not the reason for whatver gap remains. you're assuming that the gap is going to keep closing forever. you would hypothetically have a point on the day in the far future where all iq scores are equal across the board. until we actually reach that point, your point isn't valid. as long as there are different iq scores for different groups, it's reasonable to assume that some of the gap is nature and some of the gap is nurture. i gotta say, it feels like i'm being the more open minded one here. i admit to environmental factors like education having an effect. i'm open to more possible reasons and explanations for this phenomenon than you are.  it's great you're asking questions and expanding your horizons dude. keep questioning the authorities and the status quo.
United States