/lit/ - Literature

>>15415101
Just read this, realise it was published a few years after affirmative action was implemented, and realise it has been proven 100% correct.
https://arthurjensen.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/How-Much-Can-We-Boost-IQ-and-Scholastic-Achievement-OCR.pdf

>>15415101
James bond burger your sister?

>>15415101
>IQ
I seriously hope you IYIs don't believe this

>>15415101
I'm more interested in why Asians are smarter than whites.

>>15415143
None of the points he ever made is new. He's just a collection of debunked arguments.

>>15415156
If I'm remembering correctly it has something to do with outliers.Whites are about the same as asians on average but are more likely to produce abject retards, which brings the average down. Conversely, whites are more likely to produce geniuses, but considering how rare geniuses are, it hardly matters statistically.

>>15415131
yes

>>15415171
There is no actual data to support this. It’s pure speculation

>>15415143
>My favorite smart person says you're wrong!
When will /lit/ realise this isn't an argument?

>>15415156
Most common explanations are:
-East Asians being exposed to siberian climate conditions during the last ice age
-Agriculture/sedentary life style and subsequent selection for high IQ
-The idea that Chinese states/kingdoms were meritocracies rather than aristocracies so high IQ people could feed more children.

However, hardly any studies have been done to explain the reasons why East Asians tend to score higher than most Europeans. Mostly because the difference is very small compared to the Black-White gap. Also the gap doesn't even show up in many IQ tests. Japan often scores around 100 rather than 105, despite Japan being the most advanced Asian country.
>>15415171
This is a hypothesis introduced to explain why East Asians despite them scoring high on IQ tests are utterly non-innovative. It claims that European exceptionality is explained by a small residual of geniuses that were responsible for genius events. Lower variance would explain why there were no such geniuses in East Asia. However, nearly all IQ tests show no difference in IQ variance between East Asians and Europeans, so the hypothesis should be considered refuted.

>>15415230
There's a theory that the data isn't as accurate from Asian countries (Particularly China) as they only test in the cities and along the coast rather than a more representative sample which would reveal their average to be lower.

>>15415171
I agree with >>15415198
East Asians seem to have similar if not greater stardard deviations for intelligence. What's clear is the skew towards spatial intelligence (as opposed to verbal intelligence like Jews, not many super east asian lawyers, Indians are more likely to excel in that field), but they're also more collectivist rather than individualist, which might be important for doing whacky crazy things like inventing something new. Whether collectivism vs individualism is heritable or not is up for debate.

>>15415256
saying "its just a theory" to everything is not an argument

>>15415256
Could be true for China but sounds like bullshit if you’re talking about Korea, Japan, etc.

>>15415256
It's a personal anecdote but from my own experiences, there's no way the average Chinese actually scores 105 on those IQ tests. Their mental inertia and often horrid behavior indicates a considerably lower IQ.

>>15415263
I'm not arguing anything, just repeating something i've seen back when the IQ debate was raging a few years ago.
>>15415268
It was specifically about China IIRC.

>>15415101
You bond burgered my sister?

>>15415284
damm straight

Secretly pounded

>>15415296
I feel like snake in a box would've been better.

I'm pretty curious how society is going to look if we ever stop ignoring the obvious difference and start studying them in depth

>>15415131
it's 6th James Bond and 9th McDonald's burger on the menu

>>15415101
Pierced the beef of?

>>15415318
things like iq gaps between races are kept on the down low because of the obvious problems it would cause

>>15415352
Lowbrow and cumbrained.

>>15415368
Eh most people know about it among the zoomer generation.

>>15415352

>>15415387
>Zoomers are based.
They're not. Let's recall some of the nice facts:
-Generation Z is the most transsexually friendly generation
-It's the generation with the most bi- and homosexuals. 30 % of all zoomers identify themselves as non-heterosexual.
-It's the most diverse generation with less than 50 % of zoomers being white.
-Don't forget about Snapchat, TikTok and OnlyFans.

>>15415428
based gen z

>>15415428
desu none of that contradicts what he said

>>15415509
That is true but I sought to deny what he implied with the comment. Also it's copypaste.