Innate was too strong a word. I meant to say that it was pre-existing. Any discrimination in a job application is not the discrimination that causes low IQ, if any. That occurs in early childhood.
Uh, can't it? Stuff like lead exposure is higher in disfavored groups, and lead exposure is very bad for IQ. All sorts of environmental pollution is bad for child development, developing brains are pretty susceptible to this stuff, and guess which people end up having to live in more polluted areas?
That’s completely hypothetical and easily refutable by rural/urban breakdown, county-level breakdowns, outperformance by poor Asians, historical LA smog, etcetera.
no, subcounty level breakdowns actually support the thesis that higher pollution is at least correlated with lower educational attainment. Don't post misinformation. "historical LA smog" isn't a statement that refutes anything. The international consensus is that pollution is bad for educational attainment as well as other iq-like metrics, this is true in India, China, Brazil, and the UK, as well as impacts of prenatal exposure being bad in NYC and internationally.
Even if we accept that (and I gave plenty of reasons above why IQ is deeply, deeply, flawed as a metric, and the link to race—both at all and in terms of amount—is deeply questionable, and just because there is some difference in early childhood doesn't mean all of what you claim is, so plenty of it could be later racism), you are still just arbitrarily saying that accounts for the disparity, when there is evidence that isn't the case, because tests have been done with matching candidates, or presenting the same applications with different photos, etc...
