/lit/ - Literature

>>17018409
>What I've read so far is about how conservatives enjoy perpetuating constant suffering so that everyone lives life on the edge to make every second exciting and sublime.
Seems to be giving them too much credit.

>>17018409
>What I've read so far is about how conservatives enjoy perpetuating constant suffering so that everyone lives life on the edge to make every second exciting and sublime. Is that also true?
Yes and that's a very based view, people are hardened in the fire of suffering
>inb4 t. suburbanite who's never been hungry for more than a day in his life
Incorrect

Strauss' essay German Nihilism is better

>What is the motive underlying the protest against modem civilisation, against the spirit of the West*, and in particular of the Anglo-Saxon West?

>The answer must be: it is a moral protest. That protest proceeds from the conviction that the internationalism inherent in modem civilisation, or, more precisely, that the establishment of a perfectly open society which is as it were the goal of modem civilisation, and therefore all aspirations directed toward that goal, are irreconcilable with the basic demands of moral life. That protest proceeds from the conviction that the root of all moral life is essentially and therefore eternally the closed society; from the conviction that the open society is bound to be, if not immoral, at least amoral: the meeting ground of seekers of pleasure, of gain, of irresponsible power, indeed of any kind of irresponsibility and lack of seriousness. Moral life, it is asserted, means serious life. Seriousness, and the ceremonial of seriousness the flag and the oath to the flag, are the distinctive features of the closed society, of the society which by its very nature, is constantly confronted with, and basically oriented toward, the Ernstfall, the serious moment, M-day, war. Only life in such a tense atmosphere, only a life which is based on constant awareness of the sacrifices to which it owes its existence, and of the necessity, the duty of sacrifice of life and all worldly goods, is truly human: the sublime is unknown to the open society." The societies of the West which claim to aspire toward the open society, actually are closed societies in a state of disintegration: their moral value, their respectability, depends entirely on their still being closed societies.

>>17018409
You could just ask someone on here why they believe what they believe. For example I'm racist because that is what the IQ evidence seems to show. I think democracy is stupid because it leads to an unaccountable bureaucracy of power-hungry sociopaths with bad incentives.

There is nothing that complicated about it

>>17018444
https://www.bitchute.com/video/DUdC12S6jt1T/

>>17018459
yes I think he was right about the banks. bit obsessive about jews however.

Instead of reading propaganda why don't you talk to real people? Ask them what motivates their beliefs.
Personally I lean towards the authoritarian right because I value preserving my culture (requiring preserving my own race) and keeping my people free from debt slavery.
Fuck niggers is a funny meme but it's not something people with anything of value to say actually base their beliefs around.
>this is supposed to be a lit thread so has anyone read hillbilly elegy? I'm halfway through but I don't really get where it's going? Does the author intend to talk about trump and brexit like the independent claims on the cover or is that just a way to sell it to midwits?

>conservatives think we can have a plentiful utopia, but decide to kneecap it for the lulz

>>17018444
Why would average difference in IQ make ome racist? Do you hate white people with 80 IQ? Also, why is IQ important?

>>17018471
I don't hate anybody, my temperament prevents me from even being mad at people for more than like 10 minutes. IQ is important because it explains disparities in outcomes between groups that are currently attributed to oppression.

>>17018471
Acknowledging differences between races is racism.

Read Open Letter to Open-Minded Progressives by Moldbug.

>but that's not about Conservatives and "neo fascists" exclusively

Yeah, don't get tunnel vision.

>>17018466
>Instead of reading propaganda why don't you talk to real people? Ask them what motivates their beliefs.
Sam Harris, who I thought is a sane person, said in his podcast a couple months back that he "finally understands the mind of a Trump supporter"... which was pretty fucking late 4 years in, but I decided to listen anyway. His only idea was that Trump insults people but doesn't actually judge lazy and hateful people, so they pull to him.

Some lefties just aren't capable of perceiving facts even when told what they are.

>>17018409
>enjoy perpetuating constant suffering so that everyone lives life on the edge to make every second exciting and sublime
This is like one of those dating coaches that tells you "you gotta maintain eye contact and ask questions man, girls enjoy that!!". Girls don't enjoy eye contact and questions... girls enjoy your sincere interest, which manifests in those things.
Same here. Conservatives don't enjoy being on edge. They cognitively frame the foreign as the dangerous and being on edge conforms to that when the foreign is around. Which it is.
If you want some real insights, I suggest avoiding books that have buzzwords literally in their titles. Unless existing in self-perpetuating echo chambers is what you're after.

>>17018471
>why is IQ important?

>>17018483
At least you admit that everyone who isn't a crank attributes disparities to discrimination, not IQ (LOL)

>>17018409
>What I've read so far is about how conservatives enjoy perpetuating constant suffering so that everyone lives life on the edge to make every second exciting and sublime. Is that also true?
No, this is not my view. But my view is that progressive utopians are naive in their imagining a perfect world without suffering. I don't think suffering can be eliminated, and that the extent of unnecessary suffering which can be mitigated is more limited than utopians would like to believe. For me, it's not about enjoying suffering, but accepting that suffering is a part of life.
If instead I were to believe that suffering is unnecessary and avoidable, then that means my own suffering was unnecessary and avoidable, and that puts me in a position where I would be liable to entertain counterfactuals of how my life would have been better, and then I would fall into self pity and a victim complex.
By accepting suffering as an inherent part of life, I feel better equipped to integrate my experiences and move forward from them.

This is closely related, too, to the progressive idea that everything bad is an unnaturally imposed social construct, an implicit suggestion that human nature is perfect and that nurture corrupts, and can be corrected for socially. But I think this is a dangerous idea, to predicate one's political philosophy on an axiomatic belief in the perfection of human nature. It formalises politics and removes it from lived experience. We are not perfect beings, and in spite of what progressives would wish to believe, we are not all born equal - inequity is not merely a product of social constructs. For the last 3 years of my life, I have lived in secure material conditions, and absolutely nothing would be holding me back from becoming a multimillionaire if I had the aptitude for the tasks I'd need to apply myself to. But by nature, we have different aptitudes and difficulties, strengths and weaknesses. A worldview that expects to see complete demographic parity is misled.

>>17018471
Not the guy but a fellow racist. IQ statistics doesn't make someone racist. It's just evidence of why blacks are the way they are. What makes someone racist is being pushed aside for pocs because you're white. You have to make room for them in society because they can't compete in the civilizations that our white ancestors built. Then you get told that infact our civilization was in fact build by blacks and we stole their achievements which is an obvious lie.
Basically if you're sick of constantly being railed on because you're white and therefore inherently racist, at some point you're just gonna go "fuck it these kikes are pushing too far."
Of course there's plenty of other reasons but that's just an example.
>tldr it's pretty much a defensive reaction to the modern world.

>>17018525
This was so weak I'm starting to think Hillary voter.

>>17018525
There is no evidence for the disparities being due to discrimination. The Chinese performing better than Whites is a very clear example of why that thinking is faulty. IQ predicts for many outcomes in life, and when you control for environment there is still a substantial gap between races.

>>17018471
Claiming to hold the belief that racial groups differ in e.g. IQ makes you racist in the US. According to currently-developing racial doctrine in the US, the races are equal and racial inequality is evidence of racist policy. If IQ tests show an inequality between races, the test must be racist, i.e. not a valid assessment of intelligence, because the races aren't all equal.

>>17018519
Not him but it's a fair question, I am probably similar to you in most beliefs but on a personal level I don't like the biological reductivism of IQ and I'm suspicious that it's at least a partially phony metric. At least I think it only works within certain constraints and then for self-referential reasons. I always feel a gap between myself and some other conservatives who place the "IQ issue" at the absolute front and center of their thinking but obviously respect their right to do so.

>>17018525
>LOL LMAO xDDD

Bad faith demonstrated.

>>17018540
>The Chinese performing better than Whites is a very clear example of why that thinking is faulty.
They cheat on IQ tests but okay
>There is no evidence for the disparities being due to discrimination
This is what happens what someone is 60 years behind on the literature

>>17018483
I'm not convinced. Certainly there are many complex factor determining success. The most concrete predicter seems to be access to wealth.
>>17018495
Is it though? Doesn't racism inherently imply a negative connotation? Saying that biologically you're predisposed to have black skin doesn't seem racist, its shouldn't bee seen as being racist if you only acknowledge solid observable biological difference.
>>17018519
I guess it's case dependent. It hardly seems importabt for day to day life, a burden even. Also, how many people actually take verifiable IQ tests. Why are averages helpful at all? It's not as if when we meet someone we imemdiately ask them what their IQ number is. Shouldn't we just judge them based on the features and traits we observe on an individual level?

>>17018409
Have you ever noticed that these pop-politics/science/art/etc. books always have these
>minimalist cover
>catchy title
>catchy subtitle, usually "Why X is causing Y"
>NYT seal of approval
>some quote from a literally who
How do you call this way of marketing books?

>>17018560
Present evidence showing that discrimination causes the disparity in outcomes rather than differences in aptitude and behavior.

>>17018568
Wealth and IQ both matter, wealth matters more, IQ is important as a measure when looking at populations.

>>17018525
If it's all about discrimination, explain native African IQ. There's no whites there to discriminate against them.

>>17018540
What do you mean by control fpr environment? That seems to be a control that's far too complex to use accurately.

>>17018409
>What I've read so far is about how conservatives enjoy perpetuating constant suffering so that everyone lives life on the edge to make every second exciting and sublime. Is that also true?
For a very based minority.

>potentially interesting thread about this book and the reactionary mind in general derailed into IQ guys being exasperated by a pilpul retard moving goalposts for 300 posts

Fuck. Pick your battles you faggots.

>>17018591
All studies that have attempted to control for environment show a gap persisting. There are no studies that show the gap disappearing. It is reasonable to assume that it is not the environment, though it is impossible to know certainly, as is true of more or less everything in psychology and sociology.

>>17018409
Why wouldn’t you just read actual conservatives? Burke is a fine place to start. Carlyle. Scott and Dickens. Ruskin, Arnold, Chesterton. Burnham and Buckley. The Southern Agrarians. Ross Douthat, even Tucker Carlson. And of course, Moldbug.

And that’s just the moderate Anglo conservative tradition. The fascists and nationalists over on the Continent are great too.

>>17018431
It's good, but it assumes that the moral impulse is uniformly for more severity.
Open society confronts everyone with the realisation that morals taken for granted as absolute within a closed society, aren't so closed after all - and this is as much a shock to the liberal as to the conservative.
Take the treatment of women in the Western world versus the Islamic world, for example. The former is far more liberal, the latter far less so, and yet both appeal to moral precepts for their position - it is not merely a matter of the West being more lax on universally held moral precepts about modesty and promiscuity, nor is it merely a matter of the Islamic world being more lax on universally held moral precepts on gender equality. The two operate from two very different, and irreconcilable, moral foundations.
The feeling within closed societies is that these moral principles are self-evident and universal, yet the confrontation between different cultures in an open society shows this not to be the case, at which point adherents to one moral principle or another frantically struggle to find retroactive justification for their moral beliefs. As is often the case, none can be found. And if a new consensus cannot be reached between parties, the impulse is to expel the offending party and close the ranks of one's society once again.

>>17018574
There must be 100 + books on this.

>>17018555
>>17018568
You could frame it as a phony or unimportant metric, but it's one of the most reliable psychometrics available and together with particular scores in personality, it predicts professional success. Which makes it a big deal, since your existence in the West is largely predicated on your ability to find or create a job. And it's only going to be tougher with automatisation.

>Why are averages helpful at all?
Because that's how we establish accuracy when precision is lacking. Which it very much is in psychology.
>Shouldn't we just judge them based on the features and traits we observe on an individual level?
Nobody prevents anyone from doing that.

>>17018587
>explain native African IQ
These figures have been constantly discredited

>>17018609
Present convincing evidence, studies showing the effect of discrimination compared to the effect of differences in aptitude and behavior.

>>17018555
Exactly, I just feel like it's fairly flimsy justification for anything. So many other factors have been observed to account for IQ difference. How can we expect sub-saharan kids to perform well on a pattern recognition tests if their daily life and early development is so chaotic and lacks many of the observable patterns that people in America may be exposed to. Also, why are averages important when the extremes and outliers are so extreme and seemingly spontaneous. How does it help us navigate life? We can't really assume a stranger to be smart or dumb and why would we necessarily need to avoid dumb people? Brain science is still highlt contested and leaves alot to be explained. Maybe having a lower IQ is preferable in certain ways, we just don't know or have any reason to justify sweeping generalizations based upon flimsy science IMO.

>>17018621
And then replicated in others studies, making your wet discrediting dream a lazy attempt at denial.

>>17018621
Back your words up.

>>17018605
That's the whole point of people who advocate closed societies though. At the end of the day, when you meet someone with irreconcilable views and you can't reach an agreement of some kind over a conflict of interest, you are at war. That's how the world works.

You are right that an open society is just as absolute in its morality, the morality of openness and the idea that any conflicts can ultimately be resolved through dialogue and "learning to live together" (aka reeducation and bringing dissidents into conformity). The difference is, the closed society acknowledges this problem and assumes that once communications have broken down without a solution, the "dissidents" would rather keep their own worldview and fight for it fair and square. The open society presumes that the dissidents need to be captured, broken down, and rebuilt as members of their society, the one true society where nobody ever disagrees strongly enough to fight.

At least a fascist or Islamofascist will just declare war on you. A liberal wants to rewrite your mind to agree with him, and then say "see, we agree? Hooray for freedom and openness!"

>>17018587
Many places in Africa are underdeveloped structurally and lack consisten childhood development and education. They are impoverished inmany cases. Your chart shows that thr wealthier areas have higher IQs, wouldnt it stand to reason then that access to wealth affects IQ?

>>17018605
Not that it was quite relevant at the time of Strauss writing in 1941, but the contemporary "Open Society" is largely a reaction to fascism by people within the liberal Christian/Reform Jewish tradition, it shouldn't be surprising that it's deeply moralistic in its own way.

>>17018409
> conservatives enjoy perpetuating constant suffering so that everyone lives life on the edge to make every second exciting and sublime. Is that also true?

So they want to reject instrumentality from Evangelion?

>>17018595
Detailed because the book is midwit nonsense, as evidenced by the cover and subject matter.
>I thoroughly enjoyed your post though anon

You don't want to understand conservatives. You want to examine them like a separate species, make gross generalizations about who they are, and read propaganda that confirms your biases.

>>17018654
>Sierra Leone
>Mauritius
>Eritrea
Developed.
What fucking planet do you live on, anon?

>>17018636
>>17018637
Here's a good one
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=2541072600271168742&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3D5iSkFxG0QyMJ

>>17018654
>wealthier areas have higher IQs, wouldnt it stand to reason then that access to wealth affects IQ?
There is also the reverse effect, higher IQ leads to prosperity. The two are both factors.

Why does every fucking political thread turn into an IQ circle jerk? There are smart blacks and there are dumb whites. You can educate yourself far past the limits of some fairy tale number. Not only that there are endless variables that could explain IQ differences. Wealth seems to affect IQ as well. There is no solid answer in Nueroscience that doesnt have flaws and counterarguments. If yoyhate black people just say you do. You don't have to lean on contested science to justify being a friendless prick. Just own it.

>>17018624
Hundreds of volumes filled with data and new studies nearly everyday

>>17018680
Mauritians are among the wealthiest people in Africa lmao

>>17018697
>IQ scores simply reflect middle class membership
Middle class membership simply reflects IQ scores.
Flawed presumption.

>>17018728
Try reading the paper, you fucking moron.

>>17018709
Post a study showing what you're claiming

>>17018444
Thanks a lot for derailing the thread you fucking prick.

>>17018409
And as for you OP, you had the fucking choice to either engage with people who were seriously addressing your post, or to engage with IQ anon. You made the wrong choice. Fuck you for wasting my fucking time.

>>17018409
>Is it a good book to understand conservatives and neo fascists as well as the /pol/ among the everymen?
No. Cucky Robbin' (The Hood) is wrong about everything.

>>17018697
That doesn't explain why Eritrea and Sierra Leone are close to the top of the African IQ list when more developed African nations rank lower.

>>17018409
So basically they're saying conservatives believe
>Suffering gives meaning to life

Doesn't everyone to some extent believe this? I can't imagine anyone who would want to live in Hell for eternity, but I also don't expect anyone who would want to be the antithesis of that either as a Last Man with only comfort in life.
Also, since I'm not interested in how it relates to politics, what are some good books on philosophy or religion that cover the problem of suffering? (besides Buddhism)

>>17018728
Just as flawed as the presumption that IQ is mostly racial and not socioeconomical. Both sides of the argument are correct. Race is immutable though, so if you want smarter people on average, ensure they have better economic opportunities.

>>17018731
I just quoted the paper and frankly, you have a little too much confidence for someone who posted sth that begins with a flawed premise that's never actually measured as to the direction of causality and ends with "yikes, wouldn't wanna trust our opponents lol, dubious cases".

>>17018735
The anti-IQ guy is a leftypol tourist or redditor or all of the above who is just looking to have a Destiny-tier "debate" with a right winger by being contrarian until someone gives up, because that's how political warfare works in his 18 year old brain. The other guy(s) arguing with him should realize this and stop.

why wont you just talk to them? or that you that much of a pussy?

>>17018752
>Just as flawed as the presumption that IQ is mostly racial and not socioeconomical.
Not sure what it means that IQ would be "mostly racial", but there's a consistent gap between intelligence of various races. Correlating it to socioeconomics is just one extra step, because there's a racial gap there as well, so you've debunked the connection by about as much as you solidifed it.

>>17018735
The claim of the book is so dumb that it deserves to be derailed in favor of explaining the actual reasons people have right wing beliefs.

>>17018409
I am not really conservative, but in my opinion, all non-reactionary systems are essentially living on borrowed time, given the impending climate crisis. Good luck trying to implement global capitalism or communism in a world that is wracked by natural disaster and sea level rise. A "neo-monarchy" is the only thing that can survive in such a world.

>>17018776
Theres also a consistent gap in socioeconomic status. There's a consistent gap in many other areas. I honestly could care less if someones racist, why prop it up with flimsy science though? Why not just own it?

>>17018766
I don't give a flying fuck if you're "pro-IQ" or "anti-IQ", it just pisses me off that that has become the focus of the thread.
If OP is seriously expecting to understand the conservative mindset by arguing about IQ, they're off their fuckin rocker.

>>17018784
Racial differences in IQ are not the only reason for "right wing" beliefs, and beliefs that principally hinge on racial differences in IQ are not the only "right wing" beliefs. Go fuck yourself.

>>17018742
Because the IQs were never even "measured" properly in the first place. But still, Lynn et al still notice a "correlation" between how developed a country is and IQ, even if there are exceptions.
>>17018764
He gives reasons in the paper. You'd know this if you didn't have the knee jerk reaction and had the attention span to read two pages.

>>17018766
I'm honestly quite happy wasting my time lol. Debate never changes anyone's mind but I'm able to formulate my thoughts better when I'm throwing them against resistance. The thread will be lost to the void of the Internet so ultimately it doesn't matter what is actually posted.

>>17018798
I also said why I don't like democracy. IQ and race is a very important subject dividing the right and left so it is relevant to the topic.

>>17018766
Crying? Cringe.

>>17018732
Just tell me how you'd respond if I did

>>17018791
>Theres also a consistent gap in socioeconomic status.
Hence I said...
>>there's a racial gap there as well

> I honestly could care less if someones racist
Could or couldn't?

>why prop it up with flimsy science though
We've just agreed on both gaps existing lmao you can't eat your cake and have it too, sugar.

>>17018800
>IQs were never even "measured" properly in the first place
Damn, maybe they're are even dumber than we expected...

>>17018798
Same, I wasn't saying "pro" IQ views are good either, I also just think both critics and proponents of right wing thought are deluded if they think it's representative of the entire right. Or even most of it. Oh well, usually reactionary threads go better here.

>>17018409
Conservatism, like progressivism, makes certain epistemological and value judgements. Conservatism views the past and tradition as a blueprint rather than as a comedy of errors that must be overcome. It has an essentially pessimistic view of human nature and social experimentation, thinking that too much deviation from tradition is to invite chaos. Progressives in contrast seem to want change for changes sake, removing or amending traditions without actually thinking things through and just assuming everything will work out for the better.

By the same, far right sentiments are an overreaction to drastic change and cultural disorder. Progressive politics scrambles everything and blurs boundaries and this leads to unintended consequences. Far right ideology seeks to veer in the opposite direction to restore an idealized tradition where the world was more ordered and stable.
This isn't a perfect or complete description but it does point out some essential distinctions.

>>17018821
>Damn, maybe they're are even dumber than we expected...
The test administers? Yes, I know.

>>17018811
I would read the study and see if it made sense. All studies I've read about the topic show a large gap between racial groups in ability, which explains a good deal of the disparity of outcomes.

>>17018815
Lmao, so what you're conceding is that yes, socioeconomics plays a role, but you would rather focus on race because it suits your internal bias?

>>17018833
>All studies I've read about the topic show a large gap between racial groups in ability
They must be from the Mankind Quarterly.

IQ is such a dumb fantasy to base your worldview around.

>>17018836
They play a role but apart from early childhood nutrition genes play a larger role. Attempts to raise IQ through environmental measures have failed to close the gap between races.

>>17018836
>so what you're conceding is that yes, socioeconomics plays a role
Have you... not read my previous replies? The ones where I say this is an extra step in the equation? Meaning that it IS in the equation?
Speak of internal bias, you can't even understand me saying "that's an extra step, really". If you need some implications spelled out like this in the future, let me know.

>>17018846
Then post a study showing what you're claiming

>>17018677
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAq9xoJb-oQ

>>17018858
Nah. Post one of yours.

>>17018851
>Attempts to raise IQ through environmental measures have failed to close the gap between races.
Grand claims require grand sources

>>17018800
There's no way to know how the tests were "measured" but since an IQ test is pretty much pattern recognition, how does class even come into it? Sure if you never went to school, you'll probably be worse at that however we all know American blacks go to school and perform worse on IQ tests (even when you compare middle class blacks to middle class whites). At this point you have to ask, do blacks only go to bad schools and therefore perform worse on standardized testing including IQ, or do they just make schools worse?
Ask white people that went to majority black schools what they think.
To bring this more back on topic, you can understand why right wing people think they way they do by just observing the world and noticing patterns in how racial groups behave.

>>17018866
http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

>>17018878
>Rushton
Immediately discarded. His studies have been retracted, refuted, discredited etc etc

>>17018574
>>17018587
Conservatves misunderstand leftists. The technical system was never about IQ but about controlling large masses of human beings and making them docile and obedient fleecing them for all its worth. So called communists and anarchists are de facto indistinguishable from the advertising and HR departments of major corporations, SJW discourse is adopted precisely because it doesnt make sense, you point to IQ, they point to their own fintech metrics, 'identity politics' its all about retention, engagement, controlling the population theough segmentation . In the world leftists are trying to create there will be no room for white christian patriots but neither for pious muslims devout latin catholics or black nationalists, everything is to be ground down into an indistinct queer pink haired sludge.

>>17018874
Can you post a study showing the gap disappearing? I can post studies showing the gap persisting

>>17018851
>>17018857
How can we look at charts showing such a huge variation in IQ across Africa and America and come to the conclusions that racial averages are something intrinsic and important. If anything they seem widely variable to the point of being utterly meaningless to utilize in understanding the world

>>17018836
>White trash trailer park
>Like 4 murders

>Black ghetto
>Same poverty level
>More shootings than in Vietnam

>>>Surely it's about that one factor they share. That, plus TV representation, get us a black James Bond!!

>>17018891
>I can post studies showing the gap persisting
Don't gish gallop. Post your favourite.

>>17018888
What is your problem with the study specifically? I know people don't like him, but I have not seen a good argument about the actual research. Do you have your own study that shows that discrimination matters more than innate differences in ability?

>>17018874
Whats funny is his chart showed areas that have had longer more universal infrastructure have had a dramatic increase in IQ compared to less developed areas. Its insane to even argue with these ideologues. I could care less, my uncles a raging racist, but he doesnt whinge and moan and try to use contested impossibly complex variables ro scientifically justify his hatred, he just feels that way. IQ shit is a cope and I haven't been proven wrong.

>>17018893
They are a factor that consistently predicts for outcomes, there are of course other factors.
>>17018899
here>>17018878

>>17018889
Perfectly correct but I don't appreciate being called a conservative. I wish to conserve nothing. The European people need to reforge themselves, not conserve old and failed ways.

>>17018875
>how does class even come into it?
Read Richardson's paper. They reflect middle class values and those in the middle class have the resources to train for standardized tests.
>At this point you have to ask, do blacks only go to bad schools and therefore perform worse on standardized testing including IQ, or do they just make schools worse?
Neither.

>>17018915
The increase in IQ in developed areas does not close the gap between populations, and is due mostly to early childhood nutrition. Beyond that environment matters little and races have different average IQs.

>>17018893
You're the same kind of person to bitch about 4 cents pay gap, only to then pretend like "what's the point of different averages OMG"? Lmao
Differences among populations matter. There's simply no weaseling out of that even if you decided to not read sentences to their end again. And they especially matter when they differ in one of the most important psychometric in the West - intelligence.

>>17018889
Your worldview is utterly retarded. No leftists are supporting multinational corporations. Corporations are throwing bones to the only ones that pose a threat to their hegemony. Go back.

>>17018923
How to write lots of words and say nothing at all.

do you guys think hypothetically different races could have different levels of athletic ability? do you think hypothetically they could have different cognitive ability? Or is this impossible?

>>17018933
Socialists have been defanged by race politics, they are no longer relevant.

>>17018900
>Do you have your own study that shows that discrimination matters more than innate differences in ability?
This innateness thesis has been fringe for about 60 years now.
>What is your problem with the study specifically
Rushton is very discredited. That's my problem.

>>17018897
Major differences in a kentucky trailer park in a town of 3000 vs a Compton Apartment Complex with 10x as many occupants and still blacks only commit ab 8000 murders a year

>>17018933
the majority of multinational corporations are run by leftists. go and see the corporate sponsors of your next pride rally. raytheon gay pride float, lol

>>17018950
That's not a specific argument, he has been discredited because academia don't want to admit that there are likely innate average differences. Make a specific argument about why you don't like the research.

>>17018948
>conservatives
>>17018960
Neolibs arent leftists. They're on your side bobby

>>17018955
>Blacks don't commit THAT many murders
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>17018948
Capitalists are the ones obsessed with race. Look how the pioneer fund funded shoddy race science for decades.

>>17018955
per capita they commit something like 8 times as many murders as whites, a group which in the US also includes many mestizos that inflate the rate.

>>17018875
Schools in America are funded by property tax and due to redlining black schools are in impoverished areas. Generational wealth and education undoubtedly plays a role too. It's far too complex for an intelligent man to take a totalizing approach to race relations.

>>17018976
Why do you think the research was shoddy?

>>17018971
It's true, also true, whites are overrepresented in child molestation and drunk driving(which kills more people annualy than black people)

>>17018965
C'mon. Even if we grant genetic differences in IQ it's at most a couple points.

>Neolibs arent leftists. They're on your side bobby
Out of interest, how do you refer to yourself politically? I wouldn't regard neolibs or neocons as right wing, more center left.
Maybe we have to go beyond left and right as concepts as everyone seems to have differing views on what it actually means.

>>17018850
I like the term 'cultural marxism' because it pisses all the right people off. Talking about IQ is the right trying to talk the leftist language of science and rationality not realizing its not supposed to make sense, but bring up cultural marxism and you will see the marxoids the lgbtsjwtfnpc crowd, shitlibs, recoil like worms, their beady stupid cow like eyes light up in panic, help i have been found out! The fundamental delusion underlying liberalism is that politics is about impersonal scientific rationality when it is really about the existential drawing of friend enemy distinctions. By this point it is clear these people want us broke dead our children raped and brainwashed and they think its pretty funny. Our job is to provoke them into open confrontation, whenever they try to hide cowardly behind political correctness and victimhood.

>>17018999
The difference between white and black americans is about 15 points, or one standard deviation. There are specific smaller groups which score higher, such as Ashkenazi Jews and Episcopalians around 112-115, Chinese around 105, etc.

>>17018990
Because it was (probably still is) funded by desperate eugenicists who were frantically trying to justify their worldview in the face of new science that went against their them.

>>17019010
What're you trying to say here?

>>17018985
And? That still constitutes a fraction of a fraction of the whole of Black Americans. Whites are overrepresented in crimes against children and drunk driving which kills more people.

>>17018994
Incorrect, as with most other crimes, blacks commit more per capita child abuse than other races.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/418475/number-of-perpetrators-in-child-abuse-cases-in-the-us-by-race-ethnicity/

>>17019005
You see only what you want to see, I can say with confidence that you've succesfully dissociated from reality.

>>17019011
What specifically do you think is bad about the research
>>17019018
Those are the differences, rather than being one or two points
>>17019019
Whites are not overrepresented in crimes against children
https://www.statista.com/statistics/418475/number-of-perpetrators-in-child-abuse-cases-in-the-us-by-race-ethnicity/

>>17018986
I don't even know how big a role funding plays. I think a good portion can be attributed to the way in which minorities are treated in schools (getting more detentions which cause them to miss class and grades to drop; tracking putting them in worse classes, lowering their grades)

>>17018986
I already addressed this when I referred to middle class blacks and whites and IQ. You're stretching to fit reality around your argument instead of fitting your argument to plain observable reality.
Read the descent of man. "I fucking love science!" zealots like you are still seem to respect Darwin.

>>17018994
>>Blacks don't commit THAT many murders
>It's true
>Let me also try to disctract
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
You're trying so hard without even understanding what people around you are saying

A second ago you were all about "well maybe it's just money" and when that failed you went "the murders aren't that bad anyway, right"?
That's ultimate cope, my dude. Absolute cope.

>>17019026
I said molestation you slimy man.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7892399/

>>17019033
>What specifically do you think is bad about the research
That it's been discredited by people much smarter than me
>Those are the differences, rather than being one or two points
Nonono. I was speaking about how much of the gap CAN perhaps be attributed to genetics, if we were to grant heriditarianism.

>>17019033
Crimes against children you fuckwit. They are. FBI stats in pic related

>>17018583
>>17018568
>wealth
IQ causes wealth, (more so than the other way around), google "national IQ and wealth" or "economic mobility by AFQT score".
>>17018568
>Shouldn't we just judge them based on the features and traits we observe on an individual level?
Individualism is quite cringe, I assure you. Let me say this: your starting attitude towards anonymous people on the street should correspond to their prospective value. You don't go around attempting to befriend literal retards, do you? Sure, you might end up having a disabled friend at some point in your life, but ...

>>17019050
that is a study of 200 men in one prison, not representative of the entire country. I posted a link showing that whites are not overrepresented in child abuse in general

>>17019061
>IQ causes wealth
Wealth causes IQ

>>17019039
I fucking hate science and regularly piss on Darwins grave. Dumbass didn't even observe mutual aid in the animal kingdom. What a sham

>>17019065
>can't read past the first sentence
You must be both poor and low IQ.
"As far as IQ and the wealth of nations are concerned, causality thus appears to run mostly from the former to the latter."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275432084_IQ_and_the_wealth_of_nations_How_much_reverse_causality

>>17019071
This explains a lot lmfao

>>17019071
>i learned about kropotkin on discord, now i will argue in youtube comments sections until i'm 25 and forget about my leftist phase and settle into a job

you are the white noise of what could be a good movement

>>17019050
Ohhh even child abuse is failing your weak attempt at... what exactly?
What do you think you'll achieve with these vague notions:
> Intelligence isn't that big of a deal
> Murders aren't that big of a deal
> Money is a big deal, except when it comes to murders
You think this will make people somehow... happy about the racial coexistance failure?

>>17019055
Can you name a specific thing wrong with the research that these smarter people have said
>>17019059
That shows whites have 43k offenses and blacks have 18k offenses, a ratio of 2.4, whereas there are 197m whites to 45m blacks, a ratio of 4.3, showing that black commit more offenses per capita. THere is likely also obfuscation involving the white category due to mestizos.

>>17019011
Whats wrong with eugenics seriously? I wasnt on board with eugenics until it became obvious that the disgenic worldview of leftism effectively requires the imposition of egalitarianism as a totalitarian ideology encompassing all aspects of life and culture. Sure i used to be a socialist because of belief in universal values the same values leftsts kept telling me were actually just white straight male values, i mean im just not completely on board with all the cultural marxism and transhomo social engineering being shoved down our childrens throats by politically correct leftists. I mean if you people insist on posing a threat to our way of life it would be better if you could come forward as enemies instead of hiding behind moral blackmail.

>>17019083
Hold up. That study is using the garbage national IQ data and is talking about the wealth of nations, not individuals.

>>17018409
Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion" is better in that it looks into actual personality factors of people today rather than psychoanalizing over a hundred years of dead men.

>>17019062
I can find you a better one. Here you go. 1% of registered sex offenders are black men while over 2/3ds are white
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-social-inquiry/article/abs/punishing-sex-sex-offenders-and-the-missing-punitive-turn-in-sexuality-studies/3C478E370DF4E9CA763AF2626A64B246

>>17019089
>>17019096
Here
>>17019133

>>17019133
I can't read that quote the section that shows what you claim

It seems to be saying the opposite of your point though in the abstract
>indings reveal that sex offender registries grew dramatically between 2005 and 2013; that this growth is out of step with concurrent trends in corrections; and that black communities are disproportionately impacted

>>17019117
The wealth of nations is one part of it, as mentioned in my first post. I mean, do you deny that there's a causal link between IQ and wealth accrual?

>>17018409
>conservatives enjoy perpetuating constant suffering so that everyone lives life on the edge to make every second exciting and sublime.
What a retarded thesis, only a hardcore Marxoid could think up such propaganda.

No, conservatives don't like suffering, conservatives just recognize that the world has finite resources & those finite resources can only be defended from looters, bandits, pirates and other scum with heavy weaponry. Because Stalin was right and the only authority that matters comes out of the barrel of a gun. It's not that we enjoy oppressing people, it's that we are functioning members of society, with money, property, and with (in many cases) females to defend, and ultimately because conservatives often have the resources in society, we don't take kindly to being stolen from, and won't accept any moral pretext for it.

As for what Marxists call morals, laws, social justice, human rights, or whatever shit they believe. They will have to try saying those words while face down in a landfill if they think they have a moral justification for theft.

>>17019133
it says i have to pay 25 dollars to access it why not point to data people can look at like these other guys

>>17019177
>do you deny that there's a causal link between IQ and wealth accrual?
Well yeah

>>17018431
Orwell on Hitler:
> One feels, as with Napoleon, that he is fighting against destiny, that he can’t win, and yet that he somehow deserves to. The attraction of such a pose is of course enormous; half the films that one sees turn upon some such theme.

>Also he has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly all western thought since the last war, certainly all ‘progressive’ thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security and avoidance of pain. In such a view of life there is no room, for instance, for patriotism and the military virtues. The Socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to think of a substitute for the tin soldiers; tin pacifists somehow won’t do. Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that human beings don’tonly want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags and loyalty-parades. However they may be as economic theories, Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life. The same is probably true of Stalin’s militarised version of Socialism. All three of the great dictators have enhanced their power by imposing intolerable burdens on their peoples. Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people ‘I offer you a good time,’ Hitler has said to them ‘I offer you struggle, danger and death,’ and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet. Perhaps later on they will get sick of it and change their minds, as at the end of the last war. After a few years of slaughter and starvation ‘Greatest happiness of the greatest number’ is a good slogan, but at this moment ‘Better an end with horror than a horror without end’ is a winner. Now that we are fighting against the man who coined it, we ought not to underrate its emotional appeal.”

>>17019146
Ahaha doesn't even answer questions now...
> Intelligence isn't that big of a deal
> Murders aren't that big of a deal
> Money is a big deal, except when it comes to murders
You think this will make people somehow... happy about the racial coexistance failure?

What exactly do you think "well there's bad stuff white people do too" is going to achieve?
Genuinely can't tell lmao.

>>17019202
Marxism is dead as a political movement, it depended on industrial age era structures like unions and communist parties, todays leftists may call themselves marxists out of nostalgia but their views allign with major capitalist corporations, and against self reliant middle class people, who are a threat in and off themselves for being self reliant and refusing to submit to the mandates of politically correct right think.

>>17019231
Ok, well let's think this through then.
Most people who are wealthy (not millionaires and such, but the standard wealthy) are highly paid professionals.
To become a highly paid professional, you need to go through a lot of schooling.
To go through a lot of schooling, you need a high IQ.
Hence there's a causal link between high IQ and wealth accrual.

Picrel shows you how kids of similar (poor) backgrounds are more likely to stop being poor if they are smart.

On a sidenote, not to poison the well, but I genuinely don't know how you can hold a position this retarded. Being smarter (i.e. higher IQ) is going to influence your ability to become wealthy, I just don't know how you can deny this. You might suggest that there's also reverse causality, but thats another matter, your statement is that there is no causality at all.

>>17019254
Ultimately correct, but my point was that leftists in general mumble this incoherent shit about morals, and expect that people will just let them walk in the front door to rape and steal because of their fancy ideology.

I've always been partial to the amygdala theory, conservatives have a larger right amygdala and a more developed fear response as a result. People on the far left tend to be the opposite, having underdeveloped right amygdala.

Liberals can't fathom why conservatives fear things like mass immigration, or races / cultures that are statistically far more violent, because they don't have that fear response triggering.

So a liberal white woman happily walks through the ghetto in just her underwear at night to make a statement about feminism, whilst the conservatives heart palpitates at the thought, recalling stats about black violence, rape etc and thus suggesting women should perhaps wear more or not hang around blacks.

That's why you get sayings like "Around blacks don't relax." Or "There are two types of people, those who haven't met blacks and conservatives."

>>17019157
>>17019206
https://www.albany.edu/news/69837.php

This is an article. All I could find that wasnt paywalled. Listen though, I don't really care,
my point is that it's silly to base perspectives of an entire race off of the actions of a minority. What I'm attempting to illustrate is the hypocrisy of such as white people commit crime too. We're talking about two groups with very different material reality.

>>17019253
>racial coexistance failure?
Sent from my iphone in the worlds most prosperous nation that just so happens to be multicultural and multiracial.

>>17019308
Agreed, conservatism is the politics of unwarranted fear

>>17019313
That is saying 1% of black men are registered as sex offenders, not that 1% of sex offenders are black. In fact it goes on to say
>Embedded in those increased registration rates, researchers find that in every state but Michigan, a higher sex offender registration rate was found for blacks than for whites.

And yes white people commit crime, and most blacks don't, it's a matter of averages.

>>17019313
Oh wow so now white people didn't base America on slavery and exploitation, now the success is multiculturalism LMAOOOOO
You're sad

>>17018444
The thing is, this "IQ evidence" doesn't show shit. Conservatives first arrive at a conclusion and then look for supporting evidence, taking what superficially seems to support their pre-conceived worldview and discarding everything else. So, I believe the true question is, why did they arrive to such conclusions in the first place?

>>17019342
Its saying that 2/3ds of White men are registered sex offenders. Interpret that how you will.

>>17019335
> BLM murdering 8 people in a single night
> Unwarranted fear

>>17019360
It doesn't say that anywhere in the article, it says that the rate of registration is about 2 times higher for black men. Where are you even getting that?

>>17019360
>Nationwide, the sex offender registration rate for black Americans ... was more than twice that of whites.
At least you tried.

>>17019358
What is your problem with the IQ evidence? Do you have some other better evidence that supports the opposite conclusion?

>>17019372
White gunman murdering 60 people at a concert.

>>17019308
I have to wonder how much my political beliefs are to do with my upbringing. My family is full of bleeding heart liberals, with the odd cousin with a progressive bent. I'm about the most socially conservative. I also happen to be the only one who frequently got beat on by a physically abusive dad for years, I was definitely the one to be the most relentlessly bullied in school, often being ganged up on and pinned to the floor, and in secondary school I practically made a habit out of being the upstart who started fights with older boys, and later on, the one who would put down younger upstarts with a couple of punches to the face. I'm possibly one of the only family members to have been physically assaulted while walking home after midnight after a night out drinking.
I haven't been met with physical confrontation in over 6 years and yet I feel permanently wired to anticipate the threat of physical violence. It's as if I'm living in a different world to the one I grew up in, I'm looking for a threat that I'm no longer immediately presented with. Nobody starts shit with me anymore. Nobody grabs me or punches me anymore. I am no longer able to get the cathartic release of punching people back anymore.
Does that mean I have a more attuned or hyperactive threat perception when it comes to politics?
I don't know. Progressives perceive threat in curated statistics which they can only relate back to lived experience of microaggressions, so I don't think my threat perception is hyperactive compared to theirs. I grew up anticipating getting beat up. They grew up anticipating manspreading.

Which is more of a threat?

>>17018483
>>17018495
>>17018554
The number of people who believe that black people are genetically less intelligent but that nevertheless we shouldn't consider them inferior beings, is motherfucking zero. Stop kidding yourselves. Everyone who "oh just believes that there are differences in the races haha" will curse those
>damn fucking niggers and their inferior race
in private.

>>17019308
>>17019386
*step-dad
not dad, thankfully.

>>17019335

I'd argue its the politics of warranted fear, in most cases. Immigration is the fear of losing your tribe, losing your community, and losing your identity. Those things have already happened in parts of Western Europe.

London and Paris used to be >99% white 60 years ago, now they are well below 50% white and falling fast. In the UK we have an endless cycle of Pakistani grooming scandals where the police clearly knew about it and did nothing for fear of being seen as racist.

These are the things conservatives fear, and liberals don't. The most intelligent liberal can have the stats of black crime explained to them, but they rationalize it away somehow. They don't get worried by it.

>>17019342
>That is saying 1% of black men are registered as sex offenders, not that 1% of sex offenders are black. In fact it goes on to say
lololol the absolute state of lefties

>>17019284
>To go through a lot of schooling, you need a high IQ.
Those who come from affluent backgrounds typically get a better education and with that comes higher marks. IQ tests are literally made to correlate with school marks.
>Being smarter (i.e. higher IQ)
The concept of intelligence is hopelessly unreal and the idea that IQ can measure it is even more laughable.
>is going to influence your ability to become wealthy
Believe it or not, we don't live in a meritocracy.

>>17019358
>The thing is, this "IQ evidence" doesn't show shit.
kek.
Keep believing what you like but there are monkeys with higher recorded iqs than some countries.
Unless you want to suggest that the iq test on monkeys isn't reliable.

>>17019394
You have no reason to think that is true, it's just rhetorically convenient for you.

>>17019133
>>17019157
>>17019206
I accesed it with my institutional account. Pic related is a table from it. Needless to say OP was bullshitting.

>>17019407
Why do you think that people who score highly on IQ tests also do well in school on average, if not that IQ measures something which is necessary for doing well in school?

Look: >>17019385
He doesn't even reply anymore. He's just spamming thing that come to mind in hope of ... who knows what.

>>17019431
>Why do you think that people who score highly on IQ tests also do well in school on average
BECAUSE THEY'RE MADE TO CORRELATE. do you not get IQ or psychometrics? The test is created then it's correlated with other tests that supposedly measure intelligence and this somehow proves that IQ measures intelligence

>>17019423
so a ratio of 2.7, again lower than the population ratio of 4.3
this has been a bizarre strategy by that guy

>>17019385
Blacks robbing a store for the contents of a cash register, binding up the shopkeeper and burning him alive just for the sake of it.

Or forcing hostages to drink drano and stamping pencils into their brains via their ears.

Or a gang of blacks kidnapping a random white couple and raping both in all available holes (oral, anal, and vaginal for the woman) in a derelict house before forcing them to drink bleach and then tossing the bodies in a dumpster.

Its anecdote vs anecdote. Ultimately the stats show blacks commit far more crimes despite making up a fraction of the population. Most liberal's dont even disagree with this now, they just justify it due to historical racism, economic deprivation etc.

To a conservative, it doesn't matter, you don't want to have your family around blacks.

>>17019407
>Those who come from affluent backgrounds typically get a better education and with that comes higher marks. IQ tests are literally made to correlate with school marks.
>Believe it or not, we don't live in a meritocracy.
Yes but, belive it or not, this by no means implies that your IQ is going to have NO effect on your ability to accrue wealth. That would be stupid.

>The concept of intelligence is hopelessly unreal and the idea that IQ can measure it is even more laughable.
Laugh harder. "g" is a valid concept, more than proven. You are about as close to the ballpark as "the concept of a warming is hopelessly unreal". What, are the kids with down syndrome just as intelligent as the other kids then? What do words mean?

>>17019447
If doing well on IQ tests correlates with doing well on other things that require intelligence, then the reasonable conclusion is that IQ is measuring intelligence, if imperfectly.

>>17019447
>The test is created then it's correlated with other tests that supposedly measure intelligence and this somehow proves that IQ measures intelligence
Not to be a joykill or something... but if you behave like things that measure intelligence behave... chances are pretty solid you measure intelligence lmao

>>17019416
Ok then. Let's say I accept your premise. Black people are, on average, less intelligent because of primarily genetic reasons. What should the practical consequences of this be? Do you want things to be done differently having this fact in mind? If so, what things?

>>17019239
he was overcomplicating it because telling the truth would have had him expunged from publication. Germany was reacting to a violent assault on their culture from Russian-jewish-bolshevik imported crime, sex trafficking, propaganda and violence.
>door hitler just mobilized the innate human urge to leave their hearths and wives to gas jews for no reason in a doomed fight to the death
no one would have done that shit if they didn't feel that their back was up against the wall. the Russians would have been openly slaughtering the germans in their own back yards as in Poland if they didn't do something.

>>17019475
I think a bit of affirmative action is an ok idea to give them a hand, but academia and the media should not promote all this talk of whites oppressing them.

>>17019455
>this by no means implies that your IQ is going to have NO effect on your ability to accrue wealth
No because those with higher IQ (read: higher school marks from affluent parents) get more education and education is probably the best proxy for SES.
>"g" is a valid concept
Nope it's even contested by IQists themselves.
>You are about as close to the ballpark as "the concept of a warming is hopelessly unreal"
Temperature is a physical phenomena, unlike "intelligence", and has been verified independently of correlations to other tests

>>17019457
>school marks measure intelligence
please don't even start saying this when the school system is as unjust as it is

>>17019475
>What should the practical consequences of this be?

Lower IQ is correlated with increased likelihood of criminality and violence. If you don't want those things to be in your life, you want to avoid people that are low IQ as much as possible.

>>17019511
There is also motivation to take into account but you do have to be somewhat smart to do well in math and physics and stuff, at least at most schools.

Thread so far:
> IQ doesn't measure intelligence, despite literally correlating with intelligence tests
> 2/3rds of white men are sex offenders, black men even double of that, so 4/3rds
> Fear of murders is unwarranted, you only die once
> America is wealthy because or multiracialism, not slavery
> I don't like this, so discredited
> Black crime is due to poverty until it's not
> Why do we even measure averages and shiet?
> I don't like this AT ALL so LONG discredited

>>17019423
Oh well, close enough lmfao ahy do whites do it bros

>>17019541
>despite literally correlating with intelligence tests
Do you not see how circular this is?

>>17019541
Thanks for the tldr based anon.

>>17019499
>No because those with higher IQ (read: higher school marks from affluent parents) get more education and education is probably the best proxy for SES.
Ok so you're literally retarded. If IQ causes education and education causes SES, then pray tell how the hell that means IQ has no effect on SES. No one says it's an unmediated effect. I don't even have to address
>(read: higher school marks from affluent parents)
this little nugget of stupidity. You agree with me.

>Nope it's even contested by IQists themselves.
Source?

>independently of correlations to other tests
Well, don't we generally verify temperature by looking at how it correlates with the number on the thermometer? Oh, you say that's a "measure" of temperature. But you know, the actually energy of the molecules (temperature) isn't measured 100% prescisely by the thermometer right? I mean, is temperature even a then?
Look, at the end of the day, we all know what intelligence means. Sure, it's abstract, that's why you define it as g and measure it acordingly. The speed of your brain is ultimately about as physical as anything else.

>>17019432
>>17019423
>>17019381
>>17019376
FBI statistics show white men commit far more crimes against juveniles though.

https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/library/publications/characteristics-crimes-against-juveniles

Pic related.

>>17019545
Inside every man is a coomer, some people are just better at controlling it

>>17019541
I realized finally what that guy was saying, he read somewhere that 2/3 of offenders are white, which is probably true, though it might be a bit less, given the demographics of the country, and he also read that 1% of blacks are registered, and his mind converted that into '2/3 of offenders are white and 1% are black'. I'd accuse him of being dishonest but I think he is just dumb.

>reactionary

Why is wanting the state to mind its own business (securing the borders and protecting peoples rights) reactionary?

>>17019545
>>17019541
The numbers in the table are the ratio of sex offenders that are white, black, etc., not the ratio of whites, blacks, etc. that are sex offenders. This means blacks are overrepresented in the statistics, a larger part of blacks are sex offenders than what their ratio of the population would suggest.

>>17019587
thats showing the race of the victim, not the race of the offender

>>17019587
your chart and paper are about the victims, not perpetrators

>>17019593
Yeah, to be perfectly honest I was trying to make a point and took an article at face value. The stated rate out of 750000 registered offenders is 22% Black and 67% White.

>>17019587
The pic shows race of victim, not offender. I assume you're trolling by now haha

>>17019556
>>despite literally correlating with intelligence tests
>Do you not see how circular this is?
It would be if I were legitimizing intelligence tests with IQ. But it's not a circle. It's from intelligence tests to IQ specifically.
>>17019587
Already accounted for in >>17019541
>>17019593
>>17019605
Very much so

>>17018409
>Reactionary
We live under a reactionary theocracy right now. We've been Reacting to Fascism for almost 80 years now. One could just as easily write a book titled "The Reactionary Mind" about postwar leftists' rejection of facts, logic, and evidence out of fear of falling into a near occasion of Nazism.

most politics is this thread: certain disingenuous people perverting the truth and peddling it as science, and then dumb goys taking what they say at face value.
and then when you argue it you're racist

>>17018409
>all these people justifying suffering and calling any improvement in life an "utopia"

i know the term is overused but the slave morality of nu-/lit/ is unreal.
there is difference between apathy and wisdom for christs sake!!

>>17019579
>If IQ causes education and education causes SES, then pray tell how the hell that means IQ has no effect on SES.
I'm saying that IQ doesn't cause anything
>Source?
Not my job to update you on the literature Sweaty
>don't we generally verify temperature by looking at how it correlates with the number on the thermometer?
Nope we used a thermoscope and human sensation. In other words, temperature can be verified independently of a thermometer (it's measuring device)

>>17019672
Based, first time in a long while. Have an anime girl

>>17019672
Do you honestly believe someone who gets an 80 on an IQ test is as smart as someone who gets 120?

>>17019605
>>17019626
>>17019627
>>17019639
It's a very close though bros. As a concerned Conservative, I think I'll only let my family around Asians and Native Americans. Whites and Blacks are too dangerous.

>>17019699
IQ can be improved with studying even dramatically

>>17019702
>Native Americans
t. someone who doesn't have a clue what reservations are like

You're right about East Asians though, it goes along with their higher IQ I guess.

>>17019711
not 40 points it can't. That 80IQ guy is not ever becoming a physics prof

>>17018466
IIRC Hillbilly Elegy just comes around to
>These dumb hicks have no virtue, that's why things are awful
>We should cut taxes and spur innovation, LMAO thanks for the check heritage

>>17019748
But black people today have the same average IQ as whites did in the 40s when America was its greatest. Black rennasaince when?

>>17019699
Baited.

>>17018621
yeah, the most reliable large scale testing actially puts the scores lower

Reactionary is such a stupid term. It's loaded right that implication that old = bad. Progressive is equally loaded, at if to imply that all of their policies are "progressing" towards something good. Absolute human idiocy.
Christians, Fascists, and Neoreactionaries are fucking retards. But IQ is real. I voted for Bernie Sanders but I know for a fact that Jews have a higher average IQ than Aboriginals, and are thus capable of more complex abstract thought. That's just fucking reality. Im "Reactionarying" to your gigantic propaganda apparatus. Reality is Real. Fucking KILL YOURSELVES

>>17019748
Apparently they can change quite dramatically with better schooling and various other things.

See, this is my issue IQ is just way too variable. Undeniably variable and constantly changing. Your totalizing approach shows a lack of critical thinking.

https://www.livescience.com/36143-iq-change-time.html

>>17019791
That's obviously inaccurate for whatever reason, IQ tests weren't as good back then for one thing. That being said black america was clearly doing better in the 1950s than it is now, so it's not an IQ thing necessarily.

>>17019828
My approach is just that it's a relevant factor, hardly totalizing. Changes from childhood to adulthood are seen(I think childhood iq is kind of a meme), but not 40 points, and once you're an adult you are definitely not going to see that sort of change.

>>17019556
IQ is the best tool to estimate of the Spearman's general factor of cognitive ability we currently have

>>17019832
Wait...IQ doesnt relate to success?

>>17019828
Yeah until you stop getting educated and IQ scores slowly regress back to what they were. This is established, IQ heritability increases with age. It's not variable enough for this to be an issue, especially when for all intents and purposes you either want the average or instantaneous IQ score.

If you're deciding whether to talk to someone, instantaneous IQ is what matters. When you legislate, average IQ does.

>>17019796
I've been baited the entire thread probably, I just like laying out the arguments from time to time and seeing if there are any new counter-arguments coming from the equality people.
>>17019843
It does relate, it predicts for many outcomes. There are of course many other factors, and certain political conditions can really destroy communities.

>>17019855
>I've been baited the entire thread probably
Me too, me too. I got to discover this gem while at it though, so it was worthwhile.

>>17019828
>issue IQ is just way too variable
you do not know what you are talking about

>>17019843
IQ is the metric with the best correlation to lifetime success we currently have.
far higher than the social and economic status of the your parents
however it is not perfect

>>17019853
>>17019832
>>17019877
Psychology disagrees

https://www.pnas.org/content/105/19/6829

>>17019499
>y’all a bunch of racists lmao g isn’t even a valid concept they’s no quantifiable difference between pic related and Nikola Tesla it’s just because Tesla wuz wealthier like what’s the difference between a 75 IQ and 160 IQ LMAOOOO

Ladies and gentleman, this is the power of milquetoast liberalism.

>>17019404
>where the police clearly knew about it and did nothing for fear of being seen as racist
that's only what they claim, the reality is pedo elites and corruption

There is immense pleasure from both the left and right to debt the existence and accuracy of IQ testing. For the liberal left, their entire worldview depends on it. For the right, global communities will never agree to mass immigration is they understood their taxes would be going to support progressively less productive immigrants for the benefit of global corporate overlords.
meanwhile, in reality, the entire world knows which races are stupid, and acts accordingly. only white libs and those on the bottom of the totem pole will actually believe the lie that ethnicity does not exist and intelligence cannot be measured.

> IQ isn't real
okay, tell me what kind of proof you would require that a test measured intelligence

> everyone has the same potential intelligence
what if we developed an intelligence test that met your requirements and it showed there was a difference between ethnic groups?

> ethnic groups aren't real
then why are there average differences in IQ?

> ethnicity cannot be measured
etc etc etc

all word games by people with extreme incentives to cloud the conversation and prevent information from getting to the general population

Now that OP's been disproven so many times on so many issues - can I ask what he set out to do here?
Like... in the realest sense ... what is going on here? What's being achieved? Do you feel like you're making a difference in people's opinion of races by incorrectly citing articles? Do you feel like the intention behind this makes you a moral person at least?

What's going on?

>>17019884
Psychology is not a person and there are no studies showing a 40 point gain in an adult

>>17019877
Then why do the least gifted children of succesful parents graduate at higher rates than more gifted poor children?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/money-academic-success-us-college-intelligence-born-rich-genomics-new-york-university-a8585821.html

>>17019884
>Psychology disagrees
The field of psychology is barely considered a legitimate science at this point
the only areas I'm willing to accept as accademically rigourous to produce real findings is psychometrics because of the shear breadth and repeatability of the studies
and in the field of psychometrics nothing has as good statistical data as IQ research

>>17018708
You're a midwit. Averages are more important than outliers. Intelligence is largely genetic.

>>17019920
you ability to stuff your head with facts and cram for tests is not much of an indicator of IQ
also due to the high heritability of IQ intelligenbt successful parents will tend to have successful offspring

>>17019921
His paper is psychometrics, it's about increase in fluid intelligence, it looks like good research to me. It does not of course show the equivalent of a 40 point gain in IQ though.

>>17019937
It's 50% heritable

>>17019943
What if the IQ of the parents was only because their parents had the money to give them a truly nurturing childhood?

>>17019947
I didn't look at the paper, I only posted my thoughts on the fallibility of the current field of psychology
I have read this paper before and it is an interesting study, but it also emonstrated that there is a trainable limit to working memory correlating with G

>>17019949
General intelligence is 60% heritable and it increases in civilized areas as physiological barriers play a smaller role.

Intelligence seems to be far more complicated than IQ gives it credit for.
I have on paper a 130 IQ 138 verbal 128 Memory and in the 120s on spatial blah blah blah yet I really really fucking suck at math

>>17019962
the easiest way I've seen to explain the heritability of IQ is to consider the much more viible trait of height since it is another feature that a huge number of independent genes contribute to
but in summary adequate nutrition and healthcare merely allow you to express the full genetic potential.
tall genes but malnourished and you'll grow up to be as short as someone with short genes who had good nutrition

>>17019984
Nuh uh

>>17019994
Yes it's a very complicated field,
The Cattel Horn Carrel theory of intelligence is currently the best accepted model
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Buckley/publication/333105770/figure/fig4/AS:758779134111755@1557918451348/The-Cattell-Horn-Carroll-theory-of-intelligence.jpg

>>17018986
We've already implemented programs to 'fix' the funding problem, ex the Abbot schools in New Jersey, and guess what? After 20 years of the poorest people getting the best-funded schools the still have worse outcomes, because school funding doesn't make any difference in outcomes, the innate ability of the students in the deciding factor.

>>17020020
Yeah, I've read that there are something like 130 accepted forms of intelligence. So why the huge circle jerk?

>>17019884
There’s a metanalysis made by the author of this study. It shows 3-4 point gains, that haven’t been proven to be anything more than temporary.
https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/au-et-al2014_nback-training-gf-meta-analysis.pdf

>>17020005
Robert Plomin - Blueprint
Cite yours

>>17019920
>graduation rate
did they control for less gifted children taking easier majors?

>>17020064
That's not entirely true about NJ funding. Most schools saw an actual decrease in funding even though the policies were supposed to increased it. The new funding only went into place in 2019 and we have zero data for the benefit.

>>17020082
>Plomin
Oh nononon

>>17020082
Latriece Jackson- Black Excellence

>>17020072
all of these smaller specific categories correalte with large subgroupss and they all correlate with G

>>17019920
Because school doesn’t cause IQ, so you’re point is irrelevant. You’re just doing Parental SES of the Gaps here. Let me tell you this:
Kids with richer parents graduate more often because they have a higher IQ and because richer parents promote education more.
Richer parents promote education more because they have a higher IQ themselves, in fact they are rich because of said higher IQ.
You see how playing this game is stupid, and not a good idea for you.

>>17020103
>>Plomin
>Oh nononon
I thought people were supposed to be smarter than this on /sci/?

>>17020089
Now that's the kind of intellectual rigour I'd like to see applied to all bullshit statistics.

>>17020064
>the innate ability of the students in the deciding factor.
Nope. There's still what happens within the schools which account for around 50% of the racial achievement gap. There's also SES and there's parental education.

>>17020121
Read the massive study that utterly refutes that. It also said that over 1000 genes have been found to correspond with academic success. Your pedigree is worthless pseud

>Economist Elise Gould has calculated that a loss of one IQ point corresponds to a loss of $17,815 in lifetime earnings. Based on that figure, she estimates that for the population that was six years old or younger in 2006, lead exposure will result in a total income loss of between $165 and $233 billion. The combined current levels of pesticides, mercury, and lead cause IQ losses amounting to around $120 billion annually—or about 3% of the annual budget of the U.S. government.

>>17020106
>One study gives heritability figures of under 20 percent in infancy, about 30 percent in childhood, 50 percent in adolescence, and a bit higher in adult life. Studies of older twins in Sweden report an 80 percent heritability figure for adults by age 50 as compared to a 50 percent heritability for children.
>https://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/Heritability.html
Were you arguing kids only?

>>17020121
I remember something about how after communism came to poland or some other commie block and all the kids got shunted into the same schools, all the children of the former rich were still wiping the floor with everyone else aademically even though so much wealth had been seized

>>17020144
>Your pedigree is worthless
smart parents have smart kids
dumb parents tend to lose their positions of power and wealth if they start with them

>>17020144
> It also said that over 1000 genes have been found to correspond with academic success
Because IQ causes academic success buddy. The special kids aren’t special because they’ve been taught badly, they’re in the special classroom because of those chromosomes.

Link the study. Rephrase my point and describe how the study refutes that. Seriously, I don’t believe you even read what I said.

>Most disputed is the validity of the low mean IQ scores reported for subSaharan Africans. Lynn’s (1991) review of 11 studies found a mean IQ of 70. A subsequent review of over two dozen studies by Lynn and Vanhanen (2002) found an average IQ of 70 for West, Central, East, and Southern Africa. A study at South Africa’s University of the North found the highest scoring African sample to that date—147 first-year mathematics and science students who scored an IQ of 100. This higher score may reflect the fact that they were mathematics and science students, specially selected for admission to the university from a pool of 700 applicants on the basis of a math-science selection test. Many critics claim that Western-developed IQ tests are not valid for groups as culturally different as sub-Saharan Africans. However, a review showed that test scores for Africans have about equal predictive validity as those for non-Africans (e.g., 0.20 to 0.50 for students’ school grades and for employees’ job performance).

>Race differences in average brain size are observable at birth. Asian American children averaged larger cranial volumes than did the White children, who averaged larger cranial volumes than did the Black children. Within each race, cranial capacity correlated with IQ scores. These average race differences in brain-size/IQ relations were not due to body size. Matching Blacks and Whites for IQ eliminates the average difference in head size, but matching the groups on head size does not equalize their IQs. This is what one would expect if brain size is only one of a number of brain factors involved in IQ.

>>17020171
>Because IQ causes academic sut
How in the world? An IQ test is no different than any other achievement test.

Why should we assume that a belief in the heritability of many human differences is dangerous and a belief in man’s infinite malleability is not? Critics have yet to explain. Why is the former belief always yoked to Hitler, but the latter never to Stalin, who outlawed both intelligence tests and genetic thinking? Stalin killed at least as many as did Hitler in his effort to reshape the Soviet citizenry. Why does it accord humans less dignity to acknowledge and accommodate their biological differences than to deny them or try to stamp them out? Most important, why should we wager our collective future on assuming it safer to deny than to face the implacable empirical realities affecting our lives? Moral panics preclude such reflection.

Even the most objective, most carefully vetted procedures for identifying talent are instantly pronounced guilty of bias or ‘exclusion’ when they yield disparate impact in hiring, college admissions, placement in gifted education, and the like. Indeed, the very notions of objectivity and merit are now under attack by influential intellectual elites.

When faithful and fair application of the law yields disparate impact in arrest or incarceration rates, American jurisprudence must be considered inherently racist. When earnest, socially liberal teachers fail to narrow the stubborn achievement gaps between races and classes, they must be unconsciously discriminatory and require diversity training.

Because American institutions still routinely and almost everywhere fail to yield the desired racial balance, the Americans who created and supposedly control those institutions—majority Americans—must be judged deeply, unconsciously, inveterately racist and to have created a society where appearances to the contrary are just a smokescreen to hide their built-in privileges.

Much social policy has long been based on the false presumption that there exist no stubborn or consequential differences in mental capability. Worse than merely fruitless, such policy has produced one predictable failure and side effect after another, breeding widespread cynicism and recrimination.

Educators routinely overpromise and schools, accordingly, consistently disappoint. Welfare reformers do not take seriously the possibility that today’s labor market cannot or will not utilize all low-IQ individuals, no matter how motivated they may be. Civil rights advocates resolutely ignore the possibility that a distressingly high proportion of poor Black youth may be more disadvantaged today by low IQ than by racial discrimination, and thus that they will realize few if any benefits (unlike their more able brethren) from ever-more aggressive affirmative action.

>>17020171
I stopped at school doesnt cause IQ. Childhood education definitely plays a large role.

https://neurosciencenews.com/inherited-iq-kids-8356/amp/

>>17020184
The ability to perform well on a properly conducted IQ test is less influenced by cramming for exams.

>>17020184
Well... being intelligent... is kinda necessary for academic success.
>>17020191
>Childhood education definitely plays a large role.
In childhood, to some degree. With increasing age, it is increasingly about genes
https://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/Heritability.html

>>17020184
You know what I mean. The g it measures does.

The solace I can take from threads like these is that progressivism is accelerating so fast that many of the people who promote it now will live long enough to see the infernal dystopia they create.

>>17020206
How can you prove g or "intelligence" exists independently of correlations with other tests?

>>17020202
>In childhood, to some degree.
That's all that needs to be said. Even if it's a smaller degree it's the one that isn't immutable and things can be done to ensure that we give children the best chance at intelligence

>>17020209
They're just frightened pawns, they're not the people putting any of this in motion. I can't drum up much hate for people who are afraid of contradicting the state religion, it's psychologically normal behavior.

>>17020191
If you don’t have the attention span to read past the first sentence, I’m not gonna argue with you. Have a very special week, good bye! (That means no more talkies)

>>17020189
It's almost as if science refuted heriditarianism 7 decades ago. Also topkek @ you still clinging to concepts such as merit or objectivity.

Why do people who circle jerk IQ seem to be the dumbest most narrow minded thinkers?

>>17020232
Kek what you typed wasn't worth the pixels spared to represent it

>>17020233
>It's almost as if science refuted heriditarianism 7 decades ago
that would be difficult

>>17020233
It's telling the way you guys view science as an agent, an authoritative person. Some people wrote some papers, is what you mean. And you are not even right, hereditarianism has never been refuted, and the people who hate it most are not even those that study it, they're midwits in other humanities departments.

>>17020256
Just as difficult as it is to be a heriditarian in today's day and age when there is substantial evidence disproving heriditarianism :)

>>17020256
Yes. Men with an extra y chromosome are more likely to be violent

>>17020238
The anti-IQ people have made a comically bad show in this thread, while we have just said 'it is probably a relevant' factor. Tell me what is narrow-minded, considering the possibility of something with a lot of evidence, or outright denying it and strawmanning the position of the other side.

>>17020238
>>17020219
The anti-IQ crowd, as seen in this thread, really does make me realize that there is no hope. I mean, I genuinely can’t tell whether some of this is bait. I don’t care what you will reply, I say this because it has made me realize how deep in the hole we really are. That adage about telling parody apart really struck home for me today.

>>17020260
>hereditarianism has never been refuted
Source?

>>17020265
You will of course be unable to present this apparent evidence.

>>17020260
Yet this thread has been nothing but "you guys" viewing science as an authority and posting endless refuted neuroscience articles. Oh, here come the humanities. Are you people capable of thinking outside of your acquired board culture buzzwords and parotted semantics in a can?

>>17018409
>conservatives enjoy perpetuating constant suffering
sounds very objective and unbiased

>>17020265
>substantial evidence disproving heriditarianism
Are you doing that lefitst media thing where they claim the opposite of the truth? like peaceful protest to describe the riots of the summer?

>>17020294
We posted studies that show lots of evidence, and asked for studies that contradict them, which nobody was able to supply.

>>17020275
>>17020276
Oh, I was still at the top where people were saying they're racist because IQ studies or some shit. All you worms are insignificant to me, I'm a god who's just having a laugh.

>>17020286
Any book written on this topic in the past 40 years

>>17020310
Narcissistic delusions are a common coping method for people who are unhappy with their lives

>>17020322
We already did this whole song and dance, you can't actually show any studies that provide good evidence for what you're claiming. Certainly nothing that 'refutes' the hereditarian thesis wholesale.

>>17020305
What does that have to do with the context of the argument you were replying to? He claimed "you guys (assuming the other poster was some twitter liberal I guess)treat science as an authoritative figure" I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy in doing so in this thread where "his guys" have done nothing but jerk off the dusty old dick of Darwin. What's hilarious is that this thread was about a specific book and pretty quickly some fuck boy came in and made kt about IQ, it's utterly laughable how unaware of yourselves you all are. I'm just a fly on the wall who could give a shit less about your ideological warfare and incessant shit flinging. IQ means absolutely jack shit to the average person and that's a fucking good thing apparent by the state of this entire thread.

>>17020332
There is a difference between saying 'science declares x' and actually posting studies and discussing whether they have merit.

>>17020322
yet all of our findings on the correlation between behaviour patterns and genes would seem to disprove that

>>17020324
Said the mortal maggot fuming.

>>17020328
I mean wholesale. Psychological traits aren't even heritable kek

What I find frustrating about IQ denial is that it stymies actual progress and instead just helps the case of race hustlers trying to blame inequalities on discrimination

>>17020353
Well you are just quite wrong then, IQ is something like 50-80% heritable

>>17020339
Oh as if. I've been here plenty long enough to know that you dishonest worms only trust your sources and ignore all of the flaws inherent within them, yet let someone post a counter study and suddenly you decide to activate your brain cells and strawman the argument.

>>17020365
I asked multiple people what their specific problems were with the studies posted, what flaws they saw, and they did not say anything.

>>17020353
>Psychological traits aren't even heritable kek
Twins separated at birth exist are a living refutation of this statement

>>17020348
Honestly imagine being this person kek. Probably unironically a transsexual.

>>17020364
according to twin studies?

>>17020375
he reminded me of the infamous Moviebob when he called himself a god

>>17020374
here we go
>muh twin studies

>>17020384
If you are really going to try to completely dismiss twin studies or cloned animal studies then I think you need to reevaluate your life

>>17020189
It's a religious belief. Asking why we should assume that a belief in human heritability is dangerous is like asking a Muslim why one should adhere to Islam. For the American intelligentsia, WW2 and the various events of the black struggle, interpreted as calls to equality, are the most sacrally significant events in history as they see it.

>>17020403
Why though? The Nazis rejected IQ research

>>17020375
Shrieked the effeminate failure
>>17020381
Stated the vacuuous moron

>>17020416
That's only because the Fuhrer was embarassed by his low one, evidenced in his dropping out of Art school

>>17020397
they make a whole host of invalid assumptions, a notable one being EEA

>>17020397
Well twins are hardly indicative of the human population as a whole. On average they are a fraction of a minority and have always been the subject of strange tests with even stranger results like ESP and shared pain.

>>17020416
It's not even about IQ in and of itself, it's about their self-identity as the protectors of "victims", widely understood. Since in their interpretation Hitler used claims of biological superiority to justify Nazism, such claims in the form of race/IQ science is dangerous and can lead us down the path to genocide at worst, or in the American case, a lack of concern for black Americans and failure to protect them from the majority. Any ascriptive group that isn't (white+male+heterosexual) must be considered the potential target of everyone's inner Nazi and must be fervently protected.

Reminder, this book BTFO both genetic determinism and genetic reductionism. Though, it's way over the heads of Plomin or Bell Curve readers.

>>17020472
this is some sort of epigenetics cope isn't it

>>17020466
>a lack of concern for black Americans and failure to protect them from the majority
but then who protects the people from the actions of the protected group?
It's like they're so arrogant they think they're dealing with children?

Heritability itself isn't genetic. Nurture over nature. Anything else is cope

>>17020472
Epigenetics only has limited applications, yes there are effects but they tend not to be sustained across generations, and the crux of the limitation of your argument is that epigenetic adaptation is itself a product of genetic selection so in fact in proves heredtarianism?

>>17020518
>Heritability itself isn't genetic
I actually lol'd good job. Yeah genes don't even exist, natural selection is a myth.

>>17020472
Based. What's it say? Unfortunately it's not on libgen.

>>17020503
>It's like they're so arrogant they think they're dealing with children?
Now you get it. Why do you think Educators are so revered in the US? They view themselves as Teacher and everyone else as naughty children who need to be nice to Jamal.

>but then who protects the people from the actions of the protected group?
You don't, that's why many major US cities burned last summer.

>>17018509
>Sam Harris, who I thought is a sane person

Kek

>>17020545
>You don't, that's why many major US cities burned last summer.
Oh... this is retardly paternalistic, how do you even counter this mindset? if you try to present evidense they'd simply dismiss your opinions because they see you as another big bad guy aiming for the pseudo child

>>17020472
Your image has BTFO’d me.

This bait thread has so much potential

>>17020569
>Oh... this is retardly paternalistic, how do you even counter this mindset?
Gain power, throw them out of power, suppress false religion.

>>17020545
I feel it's a bit unfair to blame that on blacks, they mostly just wanted to loot shoes and clothing or whatever. It was white antifa who were really burning shit down.

>>17020689
Blacks mostly just looted things sure, but it's still encouraged by stupid whites who view them as children just trying to show us that they're hurting.

>>17020481
No.
>>17020531
It's not focused on epigenetics.
>>17020536
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309210089_Making_Sense_of_Genes

I think you ca get the full PDF there. In a nut-shell he comes to the conclusion after reviewing 100 years of genetic science spending ample time on current trends, and states that we should "be aware of current abilities and make sure not to distort them …[To date,]we can sequence genomes and we can find associations between DNA variants and characters or disease. Nothing more”(p. 249). And "Genes are not our essences, they do not determinewho we are, and they are not the explanation of who we are and what we do …we are not prisoners of any genetic fate”(p. 260). Therefore, it is “time to reconsider our conception of how we come to be as we are, and to think of developmental processes as the important factors in development instead of genes alone …Genes do nothing on their own”(pp. 252–260).

I agree. The associations found in genetic studys are almkst always flimsy. The associations can't be used to predict outcomes with anything approaching certainty. Only vague averages that grossly overestimate the predictive power of our genes.

>>17020689
while a lot did, there were plenty of blacks looting, smashing stuff and burning down businesses

>>17020472
This nigga is skateboarding on a DNA string

>>17020744
Yeah I agree, which is why I see people claiming genetic engineering as a panacea are utter retards.
we need some form of wide scale eugenics that encourages certain positive broad traits

>>17020744
>"Genes are not our essences, they do not determinewho we are, and they are not the explanation of who we are and what we do …we are not prisoners of any genetic fate”
What does he think causes behavior if not genes?

>>17020444
EEA doesn't matter for twin separation studies.

>>17018409
>conservatives enjoy perpetuating constant suffering so that everyone lives life on the edge to make every second exciting and sublime
find a paper to support this then
>>17018471
midwit response, if you cant extrapolate any natural conclusions from the fact that different races have different average IQs then why should it be spoon fed to you?
"why is IQ important"
retard
>>17018495
who gives a shit if buzzword 1 applies to you
>>17018568
>IQ hardly seems important for day to day life
you really couldn't make up the shit midwits say on /lit/ sometimes
>>17018555
>it's a fair question
if you're a midwit or woefully uneducated on the topic maybe
>>17018525
>if you believe in IQ differences you're a crank
you really couldn't make up the shit midwits say on /lit/ sometimes

>>17018648
You make a mistake in presuming that you are at a war for holding irreconcilable views. The solution is obvious, stick to your own kind. War is only a cause of trying to force one view on the other. The left triest to force their view on their own communities most notably rather than the other and its no surprise that their regimes have been notorious for killing their own citizens rather than entering foreign wars. The left's strategy has always been to accept everyone and everything into its "open society" and then massacre figuratively or literally the ones who are dissident. Their critical mistake is that they have lost the balance of doing so, in order to destroy a closed society of conservatives they are willing to lie with even more millitantly closed groups such as Islam, unfortunately once such a group will reach a critical mass, both the former closed group as well as the open society one will simply perish. Either by Islam itself or by global financiers who cannot afford discord and will hence have to rather brutally kill any dissent against the global state. The question is whether they will manage to portray such a brutal action as somehow peaceful enough that the Left will continue to overlook the increasingly outwardly fascist behavior of this global state. I'm inclined to think they will as long as there are pointless careers set up for them. As "charitable" the modern leftist is, the reality is things still start and end at funding. As long as funding is there, I think the left could feign ignorance about any totalitarianism regardless of how absurdly obvious it is, as long as it's directed against those who have been designated as "privileged" (regardless whether that's the case in reality).

>>17020744
>Only vague averages that grossly overestimate the predictive power of our genes.
As opposed to vague averages that grossly overestimate the predictive power of developmental processes of course.

>>17018560
Replace Chinese with Japanese then, the point he was making is the same
>The most concrete predicter seems to be access to wealth.
your income tends to correlate with your IQ
>Why are averages helpful at all?
are you a brainlet?
>it's not as if when we meet someone we imemdiately ask them what their IQ number is
you really are a retard aren't you? the human brain has evolved to recognize patterns, that's essentially what an IQ test is testing. Averages reflect a pattern, so why would you ignore an average hoping to find some outliers when the risk to yourself can be high?
>Shouldn't we just judge them based on the features and traits we observe on an individual level?
when you do this frequently enough you're able to correctly make predictions about people in the future based on your previous observations, that's what an average is you dumb cunt

>>17018621
>just saying x is discredited makes it true
sure bro

>>17020786
I would prefer widescale standards for early childhood development but you do you.
>>17020797
A multitude of things. Parenting style, drug use,reaction to stimulus. All of this of course is environmental. Instinct is seperate from behavior. Do you truly believe that genes shape our every behavior? How could you possibly consider that there are no learned behaviors?

>>17018591
this obsession with environmental factors is a way of obfuscating the fact that biological factors are the most important, since you can never truly falsify an environmental factor which are already weak to begin with
IQ is 80% heritable, which do you think is more important hmmm?

>>17020829
Well except the vague averages you're referring to can be changed lmao. Like if a child is behaving poorly so his parents decide to be more Authoritative and his behavior improves.

Any rejecting eugenics is rejecting the heritability of traits, and therefore evolution itself, including animal husbandry. You are prima facie wrong.

>>17020891
how does that improve the genetics long term?

>>17020902
Environment is 100% heritable

>>17020919
no it's 141%

>>17020905
That's still very rough data, it's not any better than the genetic data.

>>17020918
Genes like all of nature tend to be continuously evolving perfectly naturally.
Of course, people tend to want mates with "good" genes. Of course, there are around 30,000 genes in the human genome so selecting only good ones is probably impossible. You're bound to get some dysgenic shit in there, and if animals are any indication selective breeding usually leads to major health complications.

>>17018811
hilarious cope response to observe, just admit out of these "hundreds of books and studies" you can't find a single one
>>17018654
>wouldnt it stand to reason then that
no it wouldn't, IQ leads to the creation of wealth, not the other way around, what a retarded argument
there was initially 0 wealth in the world whatsoever, if wealth is a prerequisite for IQ then IQ would have never advanced and the entire human race would still be hunter-gatherers
you're a brainlet
>>17018717
Mauritius is a tiny island and is effectively one big holiday resort, not only that but whites and Indians live there too
Sierra Leone and Eritrea are not developed, what drugs are you taking?
>>17018846
nice fallacy there
>>17018888
why am I not surprised you refuse to consider evidence and just slander the source of any papers fallaciously rather than refuse the evidence itself
midwit

>>17020959
Of course. Different traits are different some relyong more on nature others on nurture. It's been known to be this way for years and years, yet nature is mostly fixed and nurture is mostly not, therefore people focus on the things that are easiest to change. Naturally

>>17020970
>selective breeding usually leads to major health complications.

No it doesn't. Selective breeding can lead to unforeseen negative consequences, but you breed those out as well. You either believe in evolution, or you do not. There is no special exception made for humans.

>>17020970
What are the costs from our infant mortality falling from ~40% to <1%?

>>17018752
>if you want smarter people on average, ensure they have better economic opportunities
not how it works, it's absurd to think that wealth precludes intelligence
intelligent people create wealth for themselves that's then passed onto their children, obviously
IQ is about 80% heritable, so intelligent people's children are also intelligent, hence why they retain wealth
if by chance intelligent people don't have intelligent children, within a couple of generations that family's wealth will be lost and they will reach some sort of equilibrium based on the average income for someone of their IQ, what do you think downwards social mobility is?

>>17020988
> if wealth is a prerequisite for IQ then IQ would have never advanced and the entire human race would still be hunter-gatherers
Haha what a dumb thing to suggest. You're a dumb man, possibly a child. Haha oh lord.
Greater wealth leads to greater health and education. Yes. We've become increasingly intelligent in response to mankind emerging fron the cave you pure idiot. IQs have been rising steadily in countries experiencing the most rapid economic development during the past few decades. IQ isn't fixed throughout all of history not reacting to the influence of a nations wealth and stability. You need book learning. Put the computer away and reach for the book.

>>17021022
>if you don't believe in selective breeding, you don't believe in science.
Ok reddit. I believe selective breeding exists and I know that its lead to undesirable traits that would take generations to "breed out" of the gene pool of a specific breed.

>>17018791
>flimsy science
the validity of IQ has been demonstrated repeatedly, calling it flimsy is absurd and a midwit tier cope
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/the-validity-of-iq/
>>17018830
so do you think the IQ tests administered in Africa were all administered incorrectly and their IQ is actually much higher? if so, the perception of the outside world that their IQ is lower wouldn't matter and they'd just be able to develop. you know this, but you still refuse to accept it anyway
>>17018836
IQ (among other personality factors) quite obviously determines your position in the socioeconomic realm, not the other way round like you're trying to claim, and even if the biases exist it's irrelevant because the existence of a bias doesn't change this fact
>>17018850
what's something more intelligent then
>>17018874
post a study showing the gap disappearing and post another showing that education spending in schools of say, blacks, actually increases the average IQ of the students

>>17021041
With dairy cattle breeding you raise them as equally as possiblle and then observe who performs best, culling out the failures or crossbreeding them with a beef breed to sell off the calves, every year you need around 20% replacement for the herd.
milk yield, milk contituents, udder infection rate, ability to walk, whether they had a mean streak
the rest was left up to nature to some extent, and her ability to find her place within the herd hierarchy

>>17021089
If you're talking about dogs, those were deliberately bred.

>>17021041
This is a horrible reduction of many factors relating to wealth and success. Things happen many outside of our control. Geniuses can choose to do nothing. Idiots can choose to become engineers. Every nation that experiences rapid economic growth experiences a rise in IQ,this has been studied in great detail. Why else would IQ rise along with economic growth. Do you think suddenly the magical IQ fairies came in and decided lets give these adults 10 more IQ points so their children can inherit them? No lmao you say ok, these kids have better access to nutrition and education which has been observed to influence IQ greatly.

>>17021134
What do you think the difference between selectively bred and deliberately bred is megamind?

>>17018889
>Conservatves misunderstand leftists
we don't, you're just all spiteful mutants who hate themselves and their own people and could never be placated
>>17018955
at the same income levels, blacks commit more crime than whites
blacks with an income level over $100k still commit more crime than whites with an income level below $15k
at the same IQ levels, blacks are significantly more violent than whites with the same IQ
poverty weakly correlates with crime at around 0.3, whereas race predicts and correlates with crime at about 0.8
weak goalpost changing argument
>>17018950
>it's been fringe
so what, fallaciously appealing to authority (which dictates what is fringe and isnt) isnt an argument
>Rushton is very discredited
by the same overly politicized academic authority that determines the agenda of research, wow such a discredit
what next, agriculture is invalid and fringe because it was debunked by Lysenkoists in the USSR? midwit
>>17018915
>Whats funny is his chart showed areas that have had longer more universal infrastructure have had a dramatic increase in IQ compared to less developed areas
wealthier people move to areas with better infrastructure and push out the poorer people living there, it's called gentrification
compare Africa and India which had infrastructure built by Europeans to China, Korea and Japan which didn't and you can see the immediate difference and level of cope you're on

>>17021147
They were deliberately bred to have those traits, because they were "cute". The negative effects on the dogs' health was considered irrelevant.

>>17021116
>https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/the-validity-of-iq/
Correlations don't prove the validity of IQ. LOL

>>17021124
All calves are born into the same circumstances more or less, then fed the same feeds, some grow faster than others some get a disease or react badly to the food, others simply don't fall pregnant
but this is a very different environment to a beef herd where the cow births her calf then raises it until weaning, her ability to fight her way through the hierarchy and feed
the dairy cow has diminished maternal attachment traits and the calves imprint on their human carers
livestock are selected to fit certain human imposed roles the dairy cow will happily pump out 8,000-10,000L of milk per year but only under very artificial conditions, confronted with a wolf she would be ata complete loss, the very instincts that would have protected her have been bred out...

>>17018946
idk if youre baiting but both are true
>>17018999
such a weak and pathetic concession and it's completely untrue
so pathetic and desperate, why are you desperately trying to cling to the idea that IQ is irrelevant and accounts for not much?
>>17018986
what about schools in Germany, Sweden, the UK, Canada, Australia, etc
these countries all have nonwhites too and yet the same general differences of NE Asians performing slightly better than whites, Muslims worse and blacks worse still have still prevailed
in fact, in Europe it's already been demonstrated that greater funding of inner city schools primarily constituting nonwhites doesn't make them grade better than or even as well as predominantly white schools with a fraction of the income
but sure, pretend it's the level of funding that's the issue
>>17018994
nice red herring to detract from the fact blacks definitely have a lower IQ
>b-b-bro please bro you gotta believe me bro it's not actually that many murders bro
>>17019050
>moving goalposts this hard and still being incorrect
>calls someone else slimy
so niggers are more likely to abuse children too lmao, thanks for bringing that to our attention

>>17020811
>complains about buzzwords
>repeatedly uses midwit

>>17021240
>such a weak and pathetic concession and it's completely untrue
Imagine not knowing what even if means.

>>17021179
>by the same overly politicized academic authority that determines the agenda of research, wow such a discredit

>heriditarianism isn't a political project
Look up the pioneer fund

>>17019055
IQ is 80% heritable, so you could just argue that 80% of the gap in IQ is genetic and not environmental, or is this a difficult concept for you?
>>17019036
it doesn't play a big role at all, in Europe we've already seen that greater funding doesn't equal greater academic achievement
>I think a good portion can be attributed to the way in which minorities are treated in schools
yes frequent detention makes your IQ drop by 20 points, you're right
>getting more detentions which cause them to miss class and grades to drop
do detentions in the usa take place while other lessons do instead of after school? wow
>tracking putting them in worse classes, lowering their grades
you're right let's keep the whooping hollering nigger who just raps and tries to start fights in the class with all the white kids doing their work
ofc the only reason his grade dropped was because he was put in a class with the other niggers who are too disruptive
is this really your argument? holy shit you're retarded

>>17021256
The SPLC seems to hate them as far as I'm concerned that might be a badge of honour

>>17021116
Well life in develooed nations offers alot more structure for children, alot more "patterns" for them to observe. They're taught things by their parents that relate to learning and the very same intelligence that IQ tests tend to assign a number to. African children in very many cases have nk such structure, not so many patterns to observe in their natural life, they have poor nutrition due forces outside of their and their parents control. They've been made to farm cofee and chocolate so their village can make more "money" instead of farming yams and healthy food for their children. Many are exposed to harmful chemicals from tin and cobalt mines, some as young as six work and die in those very mines. Why would you assume them to be as proficient in IQ tests? You would not. Also, second generation immigrants immediately just after one generation begin to see a marked increase in IQ scores. There's a study from Holland that looks specifically at second gen immigrants vs the Lynn average from their source countries.

>>17018409
Somehow this thread has more posts and activity than the sticky

>>17021187
You assume they were aware of the negative effects. They were not, just as we are often not aware of our genetic traits.

>>17019071
>I fucking hate science
it shows, that's why you're here shilling for niggers
>>17019046
he won't respond to this
>>17019059
>>17019146
>>17019313
>>17019587
>>17019702
>offences against children
>whites 43.3k
>blacks 18.5k
>whites are 56% of the population vs blacks at 13%
>not realizing this means blacks are 2.3x more likely to commit crimes against children
real nigger level IQ hours, no wonder you stopped responding

>>17021302
Post face. I'm dying to know how fat and ugly you are. All genetic determists are fat so they can cope with not having the will power to diet and excercise.

>>17021319
o_O? genetics sets the potential, environment the constraints

>>17019065
>wealth causes IQ
>humans were originally hunter-gatherers with no wealth to speak of
>therefore it was impossible for IQ to ever raise
>therefore humans are still hunter-gatherers
nice logic there brainlet, no wonder you didn't read past the first sentence
>>17019100
nothing is wrong with eugenics, they won't respond
>>17019117
HOL UP *smacks lips* DIS BEEN REFUTED N SHIET
>>17019133
it's stating that 1% of black men are registered sex offenders KEK
>>17019177
of course he does, don't waste your time with him because he'll never agree with you regardless, he doesn't want it to be true
>>17019407
IQ is 80% heritable so obviously the children of high IQ (wealthy) people are higher IQ themselves, hence perpetuating their position in the middle class
>IQ tests are literally made to correlate with school marks
are you actually retarded? where did you get this idea from?
>The concept of intelligence is hopelessly unreal
obviously wrong
>the idea that IQ can measure it is even more laughable
obviously wrong

>>17019383
of course he doesn't, he just doesn't want it to be true for personal reasons
>>17019416
we have every reason to think that
>>17019447
>they're made to correlate with school tests
the fuck are you talking about? most IQ tests are older than modern school tests you brainlet, school tests change constantly
>>17019499
so by your logic downies are just as intelligent as Plato because intelligence doesn't exist?
>>17019487
>knowing people are inferior and still trying to force everyone else to integrate them into the society for no net gain anyway
spiteful
>>17019628
>to be perfectly honest I was trying to make a point and took an article at face value
because you're a leftist retard desperate for blacks to not be inferior for some absurd reason, still clinging to whatever personal stake you have in forcing egalitarianism with niggers on white people

>>17021326
Genetics is 80% of it bud.

>>17019711
no it can't
>>17019791
no they don't
>>17019828
>Apparently they can change quite dramatically with better schooling and various other things
no they can't
>>17019853
>IQ scores slowly regress back to what they were
IQ doesn't "regress", what the fuck are you talking about?
>>17020226
it's to a much smaller degree than 80%, which is the heritability of IQ

>>17021428
>IQ doesn't "regress"
I beg to differ, mine took a nose dive when you began posting

>>17021403
I don't want to run the risk of taking this the wrong way, but abuse, toxins, malnutrition or disease can really put a damper on your IQ and general health

>>17021566
I'm sorry buddy, I just can't believe environment or will has anything to do with human intelligence or behavior. Sorry bud, look at chart, all of the poorest most abusive least developed economies have the lowest IQ. Its HARD science and we here at 4chin.org loooooove science(when it can be molded intk a narrative that supports our claims and not when it utterly refutes them.)

>>17021648
You have to make this strawman because the actual position people have put forward, that it is one factor that matters among others, is obviously reasonable

>>17021648
I think you're misrepresenting the stance here anon.
your response to your imposed environment is within your genetic constraints.
some can live off years abuse and see little effect others are a complete mess

>>17021682
What if I told you humans have the ability to alter their personality and their intelligence with sheer will?

>>17018409
Another obvious bait thread hits the bump limit. Hang yourselves, the lot of you.

>>17021676
I believe both nature and nurture are supremely relevant and that if one wins out on the other it's a fluke.

>>17021695
they can do so within certain boundaries

>>17021808
Why focus on the boundaries when humanity is so varied and complex. The mental machinations of each individual are built upon by factors that have been occuring since even before their birth. Why narrow it down to some disgusting souless average and put humanity on a chart to support totalizong dogmatic ideology?

>>17021821
>word salad with no point
I bet you are bullet proof up to a certain point, do you want to find out what speed of bullet you can survive?

>>17021858
I've actually been shot before by a .220 Swift so maybe you should choose a better variable than speed.

>>17021821
because it predicts for outcomes

>>17021902
(Poorly) I mean YES! EUREKA! IQ is connected to a whopping $400 increase in per capita GDP

>>17021902
Dude it's like 21% predictive of later income. What's the big deal?

>>17021953
>>17021923
it's information, it tells you something

>>17021923
if the country were 1 IQ point on average higher
>$400 * 300M
>$120bn

>>17021988
That's not how it works my guy. Its saying the top 1% of IQ have a 21% chance of making $400 more.

Not that each IQ point makes a 400 ducky difference.

>>17022010
I don't believe this, people with 120iq definitely make much more on average than those with 80

>>17022010
see>>17020146