Still working on that project on Scientific Racism. All in all, I have come to a conclusion: (Please state your thoughts) The IQ gap between races is, in a sense, both genetic and environmental; however, the differences we perceive as genetic, according to evolutionary theory, may have arisen due to environmental circumstances. Through scientific examination, it has been concluded that the 15-point IQ gap between blacks and whites is partially environmental. Test bias, nutrition, and SES factors undeniably account for some of this gap. That is to say, in an equal environment amongst races, the IQ gap would be smaller. Most supporters of the primarily genetic hypothesis do not deny this truth. Moving on, we can remove part of the 15 point gap. Still, a large percentage remains. Oppression towards blacks has occured throughout history, and, due to environmental circumstances, it is likely that heredity would influence the IQ of the population, which, in this case, happened to be black. In conclusion, years of environmental circumstances have negatively influenced the IQ of certain black populations around the world. This could account for the vast IQ differences amongst certain black populations. While negative affects occured for black populations, Ashkenazi Jews encountered positive environmental affects, and they have boosted that populations IQ over time. The idea that the gene(s) associated with black skin color negatively correlate with IQ is a ludicrous insinuation. Scientists attempt to use the higher IQs amongst mulatto populations to justify this. However, oppression is highly linked the the darkness of ones skin color. Therefore, the idea that populations, over time, would lose intelligence in correlation with skin color/oppression is a reasonable conclusion. When these truths are accepted, we can work towards creating an equal society. Affirmative action and other social programs, while having flaws, are necessary to counteract racism in today's society. The Flynn Effect shows that recently the white IQ is remaining steady in comparison to the black IQ, which is constantly moving closer to the white mean. In fact, the idea that individuals move towards an IQ mean is quite widely accepted; therefore, the idea that all populations, over a greater period of time, move toward and above a mean due to environemntal circumstances is, in reality, a conclusion that should be accepted. The idea of "genetics" is subjective to most individuals. However, when arguing a genetic hypothesis, scientists should realize that these supposably genetic characters have arisen due to environmental factors which are steadily equating over time. Sure, IQ tests are subjective and have flaws, but attacking the science of IQ is only one method of eliminating racism. When an environmentalist criticizes an aspect of a test, that aspect can be fixed. In some cases, the IQ gap lowers, and the environmentalist is pleased. However, if we were, in theory, to achieve a test as objective as possible, and the IQ gap remained, where would the environmentalist be left? If we are to discuss this issue rationally, we must approach it scientifically, as done above, and introduce new and different ideas. Instead of arguing environmental or genetic, we should argue what a genetic difference is - a difference caused by the environment. By accepting that equality will not be achieved in a day, but in generations, we can better work towards achieving the society that we all want. **** Unfortunately, I am not sure what to do. Will people would view my conclusion as racist while? My audience consists of high school seniors. My conclusion is environmental. It just argues that the environment has caused generational affects which will take time to remove. In short, it might take more than a generation to fix things. In my seminar, I would also mention that some blacks may be ancestors of a population not negatively affected by the environment. Question: What does the scientific community, overall, feel about this issue? To scientists praise IQ tests, dismiss them, or are they skeptical?