No one at all is claiming that there are no biological components to IQ. What we're claiming is that those effects are overstated, and that they aren't correlated with skin color, and that Black outcomes in the US can not be dismissed by saying they're a biological outcome.

(Some of) the reasons we're claiming that IQ is insufficient to explain racial disparities in the US are:

A) people have spent over 100 years trying to form this bullcrap correlation going back to the early days of slavery, and they've been disproved over and over again and we've started to notice a pattern here with how race scientists work.

B) the race/IQ link doesn't line up with our modern understanding of genetics.

C) the disparities we're studying show up in contexts that can't be explained by IQ.

D) the disparities we're seeing are larger than we would expect to see given IQ gaps.

E) the IQ gap itself has decreased over time in ways that are inconsistent with a view that is purely biological.

You say you understand that both nature and nurture are a part of IQ. Then surely, there are policies we can pass that will affect the nurture side of things. You're not denying that nurture exists, so even if you genuinely believed that 50% of these outcomes were from biology, I'd still expect you to at least support housing and education policies that can help with the other 50%. I expect that you'd still be on-board with scientifically-backed improvements that have been proven to affect IQ.

And yet you're on here claiming that measures to reduce poverty in Black communities can't possibly help. That's not a claim that's consistent with an acknowledgement that IQ has a behavioral component, the only way you'd assume that factors like poverty aren't at least part of the problem is if you believed the gap was 100% purely genetic. So do you?

> Why is the idea that the effect of genes on life outcomes is correlated with race ridiculous but the idea that effect of genes on life outcomes cannot be correlated with race is not?

First, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's not intuitive or expected that a biological adaptation to sun level would affect the brain to the degree you're claiming. Linking skin pigmentation to the brain is an extraordinary (and silly) claim, and you need to show some evidence for that kind of claim.

Secondly, it's a ridiculous claim because it's not being made in a vacuum. It's being made as the next step in a long chain of claiming that Black people on average couldn't possibly be educated, and then that they could never read well, and then that they could never own their own businesses, and then that they could never self-govern or take care of their own communities. And after a while of watching the same claim get disproved over and over again, you start to realize these people don't know what they're talking about and they're just making stuff up out of thin air. In this comment section, we follow Bayes.

So in that context, when somebody comes up to me and says, "okay, I know the last 20 arguments people made about biological inferiority in Blacks were wrong, and fundamentally I'm about to make the same argument again, but this time is special and you have to take it seriously..." Just, no, you're wasting my time at that point unless you're bringing some kind of real compelling evidence to the table.

And I don't see any compelling evidence you're bringing to the table.

> Why does the number of genes need to be 1 or a common genetic makeup for every member of a race need to exist? You should explain that to link those facts to your conclusion.

If there is a shared set of genes linked to intelligence that show up the same in every Black person regardless of their country of origin, or regardless of their percentage African/European ancestry, then I would expect people to be able to point to those genes. But they can't.

You're claiming that there's a shared racial genetic outcome. So what are the shared genes for people with that race? Where are they?

You don't know what these genes are, or how they affect intelligence, and how they're linked to skin color, or even what percentage of the Black community shares them, but you're super-convinced that there's a strong link between our brains and our ability to get a sun tan. And yeah, that's kind of silly and ridiculous. A comparatively small number of genes control skin color, and it's not really consistent with our current understanding of genetics to think that intelligence is based off of something so specific.