I’m Canadian and I say this because I think you’re under the mistaken impression that I’m American.
Thanks for the information.
It’s all in the extrapolation.
Saying the average IQ of population A is lower or higher than the average of IQ of population B and saying population A is inferior or superior to population B are two very different things.
Those with an agenda, will use this veneer of science to give their own biases credibility and convince those who are already inclined of the validity of their own bias.
It’s more than the jump to “inferior/superior.” In fact, I will add one more step in-between ‘IQ of population A is lower than B’s’ and ‘A is inferior to B’ to explain it further.
According to the scientists’ I’ve read, you can’t even jump to “Population A is innately/genetically less intelligent than B” based off of simple IQ score comparisons either. For myriad reasons, to do with the nature of IQ itself, intelligence, and how we define/assign ‘groups.’ So the people making that extrapolation, even if they don’t throw in the words ‘inferior/superior’ are NOT doing so based off of science but rather their own private ‘hunches’ and speculations that a certain population is innately more/less intelligent than another.
A lot of the debate in the last portion of this discussion is based on a presumption by some that that intellectual exercise (I.e. going from ‘Population A scores worse than B in IQ’ to ‘Population A is innately/genetically less intelligent than B’) is somehow proven, easy to prove, or likely to be proven in ongoing studies; so they insist on calling it ‘science’ as long as no one throws in a value judgment: In fact, it’s merely something some people believe that they hope some science will one day back, despite the vanishingly small chance it ever will. That’s it.
All the IQs score tell you is that, at present, a group B is better in the qualities IQ measures than A: It can’t tell you: (1) Why that difference exists (I.e Is it better nutrition? Impactful cultural practices? How they educate their children? How they care for expectant mothers? Or just that they ‘naturally’ have greater intelligence?) (2) How it came about or, (3) How long that difference (in IQ measurements btw the two groups) will remain true: I.e. In a world where all children have enough nutrition early enough, enough access to good healthcare, enough access to a similar quality of ‘Western/modern’ education, etc, will you still see the same gaps/differences?
People like Molyneux don’t just “sin” by spreading the attitude that certain peoples are inferior, but by pretending that these questions^ are questions science is anywhere close to answering. It’s this latter that gives ‘wind’ to the ‘inferior/superior’ attitudes such pretensions naturally lead to in very many people.