This is not meant to be an all-inclusive summary of the genetic basis for the differences between the races. Instead, it is simply another log on the bonfire of common sense.

“Progressives”- for want of a better term- argue for equality and equity and correcting past-wrongs by committing new wrongs and insist that all races are equal, if they acknowledge race at all, or that the very concept of race is a “social construct” and has no basis in science. According to the American Anthropological Association, race is not genetic. These are the same people who believe that by spending more money on minority programs that exclude White applicants, engaging in DEI hiring, affirmative action college admissions, not prosecuting criminals of certain ethnicities so long as they only hurt White people, and generally excusing the obvious, somehow, magically, the playing field of life will be leveled and enable all races to live together in harmony, holding hands and singing kumbaya.

Ironically, it is the same people trying to engineer a rap version of kumbaya that told us to “follow the science” during the Covid Scamdemic, when it has become increasingly clear that science had nothing to do with the response to the Wuhan Flu; that the most extreme climate models are to be taken as gospel, which a new study (and common sense) proves is not the case; and that there is no difference between men and women (see previous reference to common sense). In short, they “follow the science” when it suits their social-justice-warrior agenda. The rest of the time? Not so much.

As Nicholas Wade says in his book A Troublesome Inheritance:

“It has long been convenient for social scientists to assume that human evolution ground to a halt in the distant past, perhaps when people first learned to put a roof over their heads and to protect themselves from the hostile forces of nature. Evolutionary psychologists teach that the human mind is adapted to the conditions that prevailed at the end of the last age, some 10,000 years ago. Historians, economists, anthropologists and sociologists assume there has been no change in innate human behavior during the historical period.
This belief in the recent suspension of evolution, at least for people, is shared by the major associations of social scientists, which assert that race does not even exist, at least in a biological sense…The social scientists’ official view of race is designed to support the political view that genetics cannot possibly be the reason why human societies differ.”

And yet science, quietly and consistently, proves these people wrong.

A recent article on The Debrief webzine by Tim McMillan is a case in point. Titled Twin Study Suggests Genetics May Strongly Influence IQ and Future Success, it highlights a recent paper published in Scientific Reports by Dr. Petri J. Kajonius, a research psychologist at Lund University in Sweden, which found that genetic factors explained most of the long-term relationship between IQ and later educational and occupational outcomes among young adults.

On the surface, this appears to have nothing to do with race. However, reading between the lines, one can see that simple logic points to a racial conclusion: if we accept the premise that race is genetic (which it obviously is: when was the last time two pure-bred Whites gave birth to a black baby?), and that IQ is also genetic and therefore varies by race, which has been established, then one would expect there to be a difference between races and socio-economic success. It also follows from this conclusion that no amount of social engineering is going to change the outcome (for reference, see the failure of LBJ’s Great Society), because such engineering does not change a person’s genetic makeup.

As the article says:

Today’s societies often operate under the assumption that education, hard work, and opportunity are the main drivers of upward mobility. Intelligence has traditionally been viewed as part of that formula as well, with decades of research showing that people who score highly on cognitive tests frequently go on to attain higher levels of education and more prestigious careers.

But a new study suggests the relationship between genetics and success may be more complex and more politically sensitive than many social scientists and decision-makers are comfortable acknowledging.

[The] research published in Scientific Reports, Dr. Petri J. Kajonius, … using data from the large-scale German TwinLife project, … examined how cognitive ability measured at around age 23 related to socioeconomic outcomes four years later, including educational attainment, occupational prestige, and occupational socioeconomic status.

By comparing identical twins, who share nearly all of their DNA, with fraternal twins, who share roughly half, Dr. Kajonius was able to estimate how much of the relationship between intelligence and socioeconomic outcomes could be tied to genetics rather than environmental aspects.

According to the findings, genetic influences explained between 69% and 98% of the observed relationship between IQ and later socioeconomic status…

The findings step directly into one of the most controversial debates in modern science: how much of a person’s life trajectory is controlled by environment versus inherited biology.

Dr. Kajonius is careful not to frame genetics as destiny. Rather, the research argues that inherited traits may play a substantially larger role in educational and occupational outcomes than many public discussions typically acknowledge.

It is this note of “public discussions” that particularly rang true for me. In the state where I live, more tax-payer money is often funneled in our education system to schools and programs with high black or minority enrollment as compared to schools with higher White enrollment. Not equal amounts. I mean literally that more is spent on black and minority students and the special programs that cater to them than is spent on White students. When that doesn’t work to raise test scores or improve graduation rates, the standards by which students are graded are lowered, dumbing down the whole system for everyone. The underlying assumption is that by doing so, blacks will become smarter and more successful in society.

And yet, year after year, testing shows that regardless of the amount of money spent or how pathetically low expectations are reduced, Whites score higher. And while there are certainly environmental factors to consider, if one accepts the genetic component as suggested in the article, no amount of “engineering” or money spent is going to substantively change the outcomes. You can’t teach a pig to fly.

The article goes on to say:

…the most intriguing findings emerged when those correlations were separated into genetic and environmental components.The study estimated the heritability of IQ at roughly 75%, while educational and occupational outcomes also demonstrated substantial heritable influences. Depending on the metric being analyzed, genetics accounted for the overwhelming majority of the observed connection between intelligence and socioeconomic success.
Environmental aspects still mattered, specifically in education, but their contribution to the IQ-to-SES relationship was significantly smaller than the genetic overlap identified in the analysis.

Dr. Kajonius provided several possible explanations for this overlap. One possibility is what he describes as “direct or biological pleiotropy,” in which the same genes affect both brain development and traits associated with success, such as motivation or behavioral tendencies.[see the October 8, 2025 blog post: Faulty Wiring and the Propensity for Violence for more information on this.]

Another possibility is a more indirect pathway: inherited traits that lead to higher cognitive ability, which in turn provide access to better educational and occupational opportunities. The findings dispute simplified explanations of inequality that focus exclusively on social structures or environmental disadvantage.

Over the last decade, advances in behavioral genetics and large-scale genetic analysis have increasingly suggested that traits such as educational attainment, personality characteristics, and intelligence are all influenced, at least in part, by heredity.

And that is the heart of the matter. Of course, the article ends with the obligatory nod to caution about how “studies linking genetics, intelligence, and socioeconomic outcomes often draw accusations of promoting hereditarian thinking or echoing past eugenic arguments,” and blah blah blah.

I prefer the conclusion of Dr. Kajonius’ actual paper published in Scientific Reports:

“Society tends to treat the population as one uniform mean value, particularly in political discourse and decision-making. The present results may also to a degree explain why societal distributions programs such as schooling facilities and support for the not so gifted or free higher education hasn’t reversed inequality in the job market noticeably. This may encourage new ways of thinking on how to counteract unwanted disparities in our future society; People are different – Genetic predispositions (i.e., individual differences) seem to play a role in individuals’ socioeconomic outcomes. Failure to account for these well-replicated genetic influences in research may present the wrong conclusions for both the public and academia.”

Like I said, this is just another log on the fire, some of it so obvious that I was tempted to title this post simply, “Well, Duh!”. So, if a social-justice-warrior gets in your face and demands to know why you believe what you do, you can tell them the truth: you are just following the science.

Amerika Erwache!

SUBSCRIBE TO THIS BLOG
(It’s free, and mostly painless)