/lit/ - Literature

How 2 kill a mockingbird :DD

If you read fiction, you're not going to find anything that /pol/ will regard as serious argumentation.

If you read non-fiction on the topic of race, good luck finding anything that isn't 'ideology in its purest form, I claim, why is this?'

Heart of Darkness

>>3751638
s-so nothing then?

>>3751626
/pol/ here.
I just want to tell you we arent all like that! there are a ton of shitposters on /pol/ the last couple weeks. Most of us arent racist, I swear.

>>3751642
You could check the biology and sociology shelves of your library. Just sayin'.

>>3751644
I post on /pol/ too but i try to steer clear from all the anti semitic/NIGERRS ARE ALL EVIL threads.

I thought it was a news board

>>3751626
ask them to prove that races are any different. most of them dont hate the race, they hate the culture. Like detroit has nothing to do with black people. it is all socioeconomic

>>3751654
I just try to stick in the AnCap threads

>>3751654
Thats what i thought. But it seems like a second stormfront.org.

There was a news board before dunno what happened to it.

>>3751626

So you immediately disagreed even though you admit that you know nothing on the subject?

And now you want help to find literature on the subject that will back up your insistent predetermined world view just for the sake of arguing while you stubbornly resist the point of view of others?

You are wasting everyones time.

>>3751669
Yes, I dont see how thats wrong.

>>3751664
>There was a news board before dunno what happened to it.

It turned into /pol/

>>3751688

Welcome to /pol/, you're going to fit right in.

>>3751664
I thought /pol/ was a ghetto Moot constructed in an attempt to keep all the stormfriends in one place. Mind you, I've never been there- my only contact with them is when they come out of the ghetto to rant about Jews.

>>3751699
Well, im not saying my ideals are insistent i just see racism as nothing more than hasty generalizations.

Although pointing this out doesnt seem to work because reason and sensibility is lost on the racists.

>>3751647
>library

For biological differences between people, /sci/ might possibly be helpful. Not sure how much of a /pol/ problem they have, though, so it might turn into a whole lot of arguing the way this thread probably will.

>>3751714

Youre trolling us right?

You just made hasty generalizations on racists and, from your original post, /pol/ itself.

>>3751626
If you want to argue on /po/, then don't use literature, but use this book: Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. The book is about the reason why Europeans are more advanced than other regions of the worlds because of the geography of Europe versus Africa or other parts of the world. That's a simple look at the book, so it goes into a lot more detail than that obviously. Jared Diamond is an evolutionary biologist and a geographer, so he knows his shit unlike those uneducated twats on /pol/ or /sci/ that try to justify racism with "science" or "facts".

>>3751669
Love me love me love me I'm a liberal

>>3751732
I didnt say all of /pol/ was racist.

And racism is fallacious. What do you want me to say?

Some racists are bigots? Because they are.

>>3751723
who is this sweet-faced horse-tooth'd angel?

>>3751756
I live her teeth, they are so nice. And her lips too.

>>3751759
>live

like

>>3751752
Thank you anon.

>>3751752
>>3751769

If you cite this book on /pol/ they'll immediately greentext you into oblivion because they think Jared Diamond is a liberal jew or whatever so obviously biased or something

>>3751723
WHAT THE FUCK WHO IS THIS I CANT FIND HER.

>>3751752
Does Guns, Germs, and Steel take time to refute racism on biological grounds?

>>3751785
Well /po/ is moronic.
>>3751626
OP it's good that you're educating yourself on the matter, but I think arguing with /po/ is a useless endeavor. I'm sure you know this if you've been 4chan long enough, but /po/ is the politicized version of /b/. It's all uneducated 16-21 year old cave dwellers ranting on others because they're pissed off at the world. Of course that's quite a broad generalization, but you get my point. /pol/ is shit.

>>3751626
Just as alternative way of going about this, you could always check out some sociology essays related to minorities. Each time they present a racist 'fact' you can refute it by explaining how that fact came about.

>>3751811

Leave Papercraft and Origami alone ;_;

>>3751802
I'm pretty positive it does, but if it doesn't you can find other evolution or biology books on the subject. I read DNA by James D. Watson recently and he discussed racism being inaccurate because there hasn't been enough time (biologically speaking) for any ethnic group of humans to have evolved differently than another, and he discussed that because the world is so connected in modern times it is very unlikely that one group of people will evolve differently.

>>3751817
Ah, typo. My bad my friend. I meant /pol/

OP dont go to /pol/ to debate anything especially not racism.

They will just start blithering about how you're JIDF liberal scum or a kike they will hit you with a mountain of psuedo-science and manipulated statistics to try and prove their racism.

>>3751828
Yeah, that's why I was thinking /sci/ might be the place to ask. Stuff that refutes racism on its own terms.

>going to /pol/

>>3751853
It is best to refute racism scientifically. Literature is there to provide a human account, which is also important. So do both. Maya Angelou, James Baldwin, Harper Lee, Toni Morrison, and Ishmael Reed are just a few to name for literature. I

>needing a book to refute racism

lol

>>3751723
PLEASE SOMEONE TELL ME WHO THIS IS

I WANT TO FUCK HER SO BADLY.

>>3751930
>implying knowing who she is will help you accomplish that end

>>3751940
i can jack off to her and my brain will think i had sex with her.

Its the same thing.

>>3751944
>i can jack off to her and my brain will think i had sex with her
Well, shit. I'm not sure whether your powers of imagination are a blessing or a curse.

Fiction: invisible man by ralph ellison, beloved by toni morrison
Autobiography: Assata by assata shakur, Incognegro by Frank Wilderson,
philosophy: Red White & Black by wilderson, Black Skin, White Masks by fanon, Scneces of Subjection by Saidya Hartman

>>3751759
I was kidding, she is a maiden whose beauty remains and has forever before her been unseen in any earthly realm...
I want to wrap her eyelashes around my cock

>>3751754
>And racism is fallacious.

Perhaps, but for much of history it was necessary for survival.

>>3752155
survival for...?

>>3751626
>I just came back from /pol/ and i disagree with their racist ideologies.

>I want to argue against them but i would like to first read up about racism.

>I disagree with them
>but I don't know anything about the subject
>give me stuff that will confirm my prejudices

If you want to go down retard lane, then go read garbage like SJ Gould's Mismeasure of Man.

>>3751752
Oh yes, another book to conform one's prejudices about 'racism'. Jared is such a scholar. Check out his argumentation, and I quote.

"The objection to such racist explanations is not just that they are loathsome, but also that they are wrong. Sound evidence for the existence of
human differences in intelligence that parallel human differences in technology is lacking." (p. 19)

It's not like we have >100 years of data that shows exactly this...

>>3751802
GGS does not engage with the data at all. If you want someone who at least tries to engage the vast data on the subject, go for Richard Nisbett's latest book, where he argues that racial differences in intelligence are 100% environmental. But even he has to concede that there are indeed such differences, only he thinks they are caused by the unknown X-factor.

>>3752166
Out-group hostility, I think he meant. Racism is basically just out-group hostility, and since members of races are easily identifiable, this makes it work very well.

>>3751710
5th largest board on 4chan
/lit/ is 30th

>>3751626

i dont see why its such a mortal sin to note how different ethnicities are, infact, different.


people really need to get over selective ignorance or opposition of scientific observations to fit ideological preconceptions.

>>3751802
GG&S argues that people evolved to be different according to the environment they lived in instead of being inherently different from the start. Further than that Diamond doesn't really make any actual arguments on racism. He superimposes some anti-racism on the work though, but it doesn't follow from his data.

>>3751626

>arguing with /pol/

>>3752803
This Jared Diamond is seen with extreme skepticism in the field of biology and anthropology. I remember him defending his work in an interview with Science with something along the lines of "This isn't science...", yet he does anything to make it seem like it.

ie. Don't read Jared Diamond if you want to argument racism from an evolutionary or biological perspective.

>>3752879
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5929/872.summary

>>3752803
As I mentioned above, GGS does not engage the data on racial differences at all. If one really wants to read someone who does, at least somewhat, engage with the data but still have standard 'antiracist' views, Richard Nisbett and Robert Sternberg are the ones to read. If one compares them with better scholars (especially Arthur Jensen), one should also get convinced of one's wrong views. :)

>>3751626

Want an amazing book on racism in contemporary america that is both scholarly and engaging? I have just the thing for you OP.

>>3752166

Advancing the interests of one group over another.

>>3752790
>i dont see why its such a mortal sin to note how different ethnicities are, infact, different.

Alright so we finally all agree that black people are on average functionally retarded.

What do you do with that data?

>>3751752
But isn't the definition of 'liberal jew' basically anyone who disagrees with /pol/? Are you perhaps trying to imply that there's no arguing with /pol/?

>>3754079

There isn't any arguing with /pol/.

>>3754079
There really is no arguing with /pol/. They are contrarian morons.

>>3754093
>>3754100
>>3754079


There's no arguing with /pol/ in the same way that there's no arguing with someone who thinks their Napoleon.

>>3754107
>their

>>3754107
>>3754100
>>3754093
That's what I was saying. I just did it through the medium of sarcasm.

>>3754110

They're. I'm tired.

>>3751754
>And racism is fallacious

>>3751626
>argue against /pol/

>I disagree with /pol/
>I want to argue with them
You might as well try to argue with Hitler about his justification for the holocaust. The end result would be the same.

>>3751828

Watson is quoted as saying:
"I am inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa because all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really."

Are you sure you're talking about the same person?

>>3754137
They're armed with infographics, so you don't stand a chance.

>explain to them that despite the fact that their ideas about genetics have been disproven that the russians still did it better.
>i've thought about taking this up to sci, like a nice infographic explaining everything, but i dont really think they want to get involved.
this is a good pbs i saw in an early cultural anthropology class
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm
>also, arguing with /pol/ complete waste of time,

>>3751644
yeah this is true, there's a lot of good comrades on there. it just gets spammed all the time by stormfront, sort of functions as containment. i've known a few revleft who use it for target practice. the whole thing is pretty absurd. that place in a perpetual state of holyfuckitshappening panic 24/7, its the subconscious of fox news

>>3754158
>spammed all the time by stormfront
There's no real evidence of Stormfront activity on /pol/. Maybe on the early days of the board with all the ANTI-RACIST IS CODEWORD FOR ANTI-WHITE ANTI-RACIST IS CODEWORD FOR ANTI-WHITE spamming, but not now.

>>3751723
I think its daenerys targaryen

>>3754165
>go to /pol/ having read that
>on the front page I see those exact words

>>3751644
It is a false perception created by a few people. There is certainly a higher percentage of those faggots than in most places, but it is much lower than you might think. Yesterday, I started an anti/pol/ thread bitchslapping that stuff. It was about 70/30 in my favor. And the 30 percent wasn't as batshit insane as /pol/ normally seems to be. All of a sudden tons of shit was dumped into the thread. A thread was started essentially warning all of the "idealists" to fuck off. Damage control because people were rebelling against the false perception and one of the few popped up to try to fix it. Unfortunately, on an anonymous imageboard, a few very dedicated people can seem like a thousand.

>>3754172
>300 post thread on front page about how there's no problem with racism and that anti-racist is codeword for anti-white
Sure.

>>3754165
yeah but i see crazy shit on there allthetime_
there's a lot of homosexualityisamentalillness
Christian Crusader type-of-stuff
random whitenationalist prop from godknowswhere
they try to be the exact opposite of srs
its a weird dichotomy
and its hella difficult to have an actual conversation about politics on there

>>3754141
Ironically, I think the conversation with Hitler would be less mental, as he'd admit that it happened and try to make out that it had to be done for Germany .

Whereas /pol/ would respond with
>oh hurr durr muh 6 trillion
>Enjoy your blue pill faggot
>2013
>Believing liberal marxist jew propaganda just because they taught you it in "school"

>>3754175
Homosexuals are people too.

Transgenders are people too. people with a mental illness

>>3754172

It's more conservative and libertarian than white nationalist. But there's some overlap between those groups.

>>3754178
My point was that HItler is dead.

>>3754174
>implying that the racist fucks don't need to engage in a circlejerk of hate on a regular basis to reinforce their world view.

>>3754178
if only the jidf were really like this...

>>3751669
This guy here is so right. People like OP disgust me.

>>3754183
Hm. Yeah I suppose that's a good one.

>>3754195
there's nothing wrong with being unwilling to subject yrself to propaganda

>>3751669
>Hello stormy
I actually agree with OP about this one. You don't have to be well informed to fucking look at real world and know that /pol/ very clever system of self-reinforced hate is a lie, instinctually. It goes against everything it means to be a human being. Just because they happen to be more clever than OP, doesn't mean OP is wrong and doesn't have a right to believe they are wrong.

>>3754197
Holy hell that picture gives me vertigo.

>>3751828
Watson ?The man who leaves every lecture with a yogurt thrown by liberals on his face?

>>3754200

>It goes against everything it means to be a human being.

No it doesn't. Who are you to say what it means to be human? It's only in the last 60 years or so we decided it was wrong to discriminate.

>>3754212
It was always wrong to treat another human as an inferior because of their skin pigmentation

>>3751626
>i disagree with their racist ideologies.
Why?

If it's just a matter of your feelings being hurt, it's best to not post on a political board.

>>3754222
That's such a fucking stupid argument.
>lel cry harder xD u mad?

>>3754224
Dude, you're hurting my feelings, stop posting now.

>>3754216
but that is not the only difference between races. There are real intellectual, physical, and psychological differences between each race. All of this has been proven time and time again.

>>3751626
Here might be a decent place to start: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/

Also, there is great deal of literature which deals with issues of race, racism, and so on. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings being an example.

>>3754077
Actually it is close.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_intellectual_functioning

US black mean = 85, the above is from 70-84. Since the population is normally distributed, this means that half of them are in that category, or below (next category is called "mild mental retardation".)

>>3754200
But this is how the brain works, it is a fast way to process data making categories of everything and being discriminating. So I would say it's very ''human'' to be racist, whether that behavior should be continued in our days is a different subject.

>>3754212
Yes, it is. To hate those who have done nothing to you. To fear those for the color of their skin. It truly is nothing more than bullshit ideology in it's finest, purest form, upon which doubt is easily cast by walking down the fucking street and talking to a black person. But I'm sure everyone on /pol/ is so entrenched in the whitest of white suburbs that, that is not possible. It is so easy to see that all people are human. /pol/ is just so blinded by hate and the bullshit numbers they have to justify their opinions which they so desperately try to gather followers to enlarge their circlejerk.

>>3754233
>this is what ugly stormfags actually believe

/lit/ is for REAL INTELLECTUALS, we KNOW RACISM IS WRONG, liberalism and multiculturalism is the way forward you fucking nazi bastard

>>3754233
>citation needed.
/pol/ has always used correlation in their bullshit statistics. Never causation.

>>3754241
>thinks racism is about hate

Not wanting to have your country be overrun with a people that are vastly less intelligent and more violent on average isn't based in hate, it's based on logic.

>>3754144
Watson is right about that though.

>>3754246
lel

>don't feed the hand that bites

>>3754245
Sub-saharan Africans are the only race without Neanderthal genes, Which I theorize is why they are so much less intelligent and more violent on average than the rest of the worlds humans.

>>3754246
1/10 for making me respond.

>>3754246
I largely feel the same way, but I consider it better to educate and find ways to improve the social conditions which yield racism, and creates racists, than to simply ship them out of the country.

>>3754253
>>3754250
>average /lit/ arguments

And you call /pol/ the containment board?

You guys are pathetic.

The OP wants to read books about racism not against it. Study evolutionary biology and anthropology and you're good to go.

>>3754255
Racist whites are more intelligent on average than blacks.

What's your point?

>>3754233

Lol. I remember actually reading one of the studies that /new/ would shove in people's faces. All the data proved (which was pointed out in the abstract mind you) was kids in higher income families had higher mean IQs regardless of race.

>>3754239

So what do you do with that data, assuming it is now no longer controversial and everyone with policy making power agrees with it?

>>3754261
that's a funny statement to make i'm guessing you probably wont link to a citation though but it doesnt matter

>>3754261
Actually studies show that racists are much less intelligent than those who aren't. Not to mention the type of society you want is disgusting. And if you don't think it is about hate you are a moron.

>>3754269
>Actually studies show that racists are much less intelligent than those who aren't

True, even the unintelligent racists are more intelligent than the average blacks

>>3754246
You are fucking retarded. If you really believe that is the best way to create a society, then institute an IQ test. But you won't. Because you hate black people. Please stop wasting everyone's time.

>>3754264
Start up slavery again!

I'm joking, but you know that's basically what stormfront wants. They want a subservient slave who acknowledges the superiority they've always known they had. They want to feel better about themselves without becoming good at anything. Claiming that a particular kind of person is inherently inferior to the white man is an easy way of doing this.

>>3754255
I don't think it's a good idea to ship 'them' (there are violent, stupid people of all races) out of the country. You one could begin with selective immigration policies.

Cf. Richwine, Jason. IQ and Immigration Policy. Diss. Harvard University, 2009.

>>3754256
See
>>3754107
>>3754100
>>3754093
>>3754079

We just know what we're dealing with and how best to deal with it.

>>3754269
>Not to mention the type of society you want is disgusting

A society of freedom is disgusting?

What's wrong with freedom of association? If a group of white people want to live in an all white town, city, country, why do you want to stop them?

>>3754272
>unintelligent racists
Woops, you've got a redundancy there.

>>3751626
Did you ever stop to consider that the "racists" may very well be correct?

You lot only disagree because nigger-loving was drilled into you all throughout your youth, not very different from religion.

>>3754262
why are some areas of the world more wealthy than others if we're all the same? why do some areas of the world produce more great works of art than others if we're all the same? why is the anglosphere considered the best place on the planet to live and africa and the middle east to this day are still 5th world shit holes?

im sure whatever the reason, the white man is at fault though.

>>3754275

Wow it didn't take you guys long to get a whiff of the Richwine controversy and start employing it. I'm impressed.

>>3754280
Since 99% of all scientists, philosophers and the like throughout history were racists, I don't see how you can call all racists unintelligent.

your post is interesting, op, because you have heard arguments that you dislike for some reason, and so you search for a counter-argument.

have you thought about why you want to prove them wrong so badly? what is it about racism and the idea that some races are inferior to others that bothers you? i think exploring how you feel about this subject will be much more interesting and rewarding than simply trying to counter someone else. counter yourself first.

>2013
>still no good evidence to disprove biological differences in intelligence
>still no good arguments against racism

HURRRR DEM RACISTS SURE IS DUMB JAMAL!

>>3754292

hahaha. History, ladies and gentlemen, through the mind of a racist.

>For nearly a century, twin and adoption studies have yielded substantial estimates of heritability for cognitive abilities, although it has proved difficult for genomewide-association studies to identify the genetic variants that account for this heritability (i.e., the missing-heritability problem). However, a new approach, genomewide complex-trait analysis (GCTA), forgoes the identification of individual variants to estimate the total heritability captured by common DNA markers on genotyping arrays. In the same sample of 3,154 pairs of 12-year-old twins, we directly compared twin-study heritability estimates for cognitive abilities (language, verbal, nonverbal, and general) with GCTA estimates captured by 1.7 million DNA markers. We found that DNA markers tagged by the array accounted for .66 of the estimated heritability, reaffirming that cognitive abilities are heritable. Larger sample sizes alone will be sufficient to identify many of the genetic variants that influence cognitive abilities.

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/02/22/0956797612457952.full

Intelligence is, to a certain extent, heritable. Whether or not race is a factor in this is uncertain, with some research saying yes and others no. It doesn't help that many scientists have been forced out of their profession for reaching the 'wrong' conclusion though.

>>3754292
/pol/ yet again puts Goebbels hypothesis that a lie repeated enough times becomes truth to the test.

>>3751626
You're doing it wrong OP.

You're meant to listen to both sides of an argument, then decide which you think is more convincing.

Not hear one side of an argument, then get butthurt about it, then search for something to argue against it with.

>>3754289
Considering how Africa was when whites ruled it compared to today. I'd doubt it.

>sometimes if you ignore it...
it really does go away

>>3754295

Well, I could start getting together with all the other normal people and start amassing infographics, but I think we're all kind of busy, and really the whole thing is kind of a non-issue to us at this point.

>>3754305

You've never studied African colonization much have you?

Let me give you an example of what they did, imagine throwing 15% Ledditers and 85% 4channers together in some randomly mapped out area, and telling the Ledditers that they're the ones in charge. This leads to a pissed off majority. You can see why shit would go down in that case.

>>3754262
Here. Data for you. As everybody can see, even black children that belong to the SES class with the highest IQ are still way below white children in similar SES. Actually, as can be seen, even the black children in the highest SES score lower than the white average of 100.

>2013
>still pretending race isn't real
>still pretending race doesn't have a major influence on intelligence.

shiggy diggy

>>3754314
>>3754319
RACIST BULLSHIT

reported

>>3754312
and now africa is so much better off with just 4channers in charge.

>>3754267
Very likely to be true, since the white average is 15 IQ higher than the black average. Even if we think white racists are very stupid on average, say, IQ 90, they are still above the black average.

>>3754319
>>3754314
>evidence posted
>all the anti-racists scatter like cockroaches

lel

>>3754291
I never heard of the controversy, I just found the dissertation. It's not very long, 166 p.

>>3754314

Can you cite someone who isn't a highly controversial figure like Jensen?

>>3754289
You have a very tenuous grasp of history. The contemporary dominance of Western society has not been the rule, and in fact, we tend to trace the beginning of civilization to the Middle East. Europe beyond the area surrounding the Mediterranean was considered a home to pale-skinned barbarians through antiquity. Even in medieval times, European society lagged behind much of the East in terms of general development. So I would hesitate to use a myopic view generated by modern socioeconomic realities to justify racism. The barbarians have simply risen.

>>3754330
>/lit/ actually takes the time to read evidence posted
>LEL TOLD XD U R SCATTERING LIKE COCKRACHES
This is why your board is so fucking shit, /pol/

>>3754331

Richwine has gotten in big trouble for that Diss over the past few weeks after he authored a Heritage Foundation Immigration Policy thing. People dug up his Diss and shit hit the fan.

>>3754322
Please tell me you're trolling and not actually retarded.

>>3754314
>>3754319

>Arthur Jensen
>some .com

Come on /pol/ you can do better than that hit me with the real infographics

>>3754332
Controversy follows unpopular research.

so no.

>>3754347
>>3754314
>misunderstanding the point of his research
>LOL LOOK I'M RIGHT TO BE RACIST!

"owhere have I "claimed" an "innate deficiency" of intelligence in blacks. My position on this question is clearly spelled out in my most recent book: "The plain fact is that at present there exists no scientifically satisfactory explanation for the differences between the IQ distributions in the black and white populations. The only genuine consensus among well-informed scientists on this topic is that the cause of the difference remains an open question." - Arthur jensen

>>3754299
I don't think it's uncertain about the interracial differences in the US. Some people don't agree, but I'm fairly certain these are a small minority in the research community by now. Even in the 80's ~50% of researchers in the field were hereditarian.

The evidence really is overwhelming for genetic cause of interracial differences.

In the nearish future, Plomin et al will surely find many of the genes for g, and then we can obviously compare the genome data from the races to see the relative percentage of their populations that have the genes for g.

>>3754347

Don't you think it's weird that only Jensen and like 3 other people in current academia write this sort of stuff?

>>3754353
This quote is from 1981 according to Wikipedia. But even by then the hereditarian position was much better confirmed empirically than the environment only position. That was already the case in 1969 when Jensen first published on the subject.

>>3754353

FINALLY SOMEONE FUCKING GETS IT.

These aren't meant to prove any sort of racial superiority, hell most of these studies aren't even geared towards highlighting any racial difference. I know for a fact that the Minnesota study is better proof for socioeconomical status as a positively correlated with IQ.

>>3754339
Well, I'm not surprised, but I didn't find it because of the controversy. A friend of mine sent it to me, and I read most of it so far. Nothing too surprising to someone who knows the field. He might have heard of it because of the controversy, who knows.

>>3754357
That's because the popular opinion as of late, is to destroy, and hate anybody who dares challenge the idea that race is a social construct, and we are all the same.

Not many scientists want to ruin their careers by researching it, lest the liberal academic majority discover it, and then condemn them.

>>3754368

Aha! I was hoping you'd go with "librul conspiracy". That's one of my favorite /pol/ bits

>>3754370
how the hell did you reach that conclusion

>>3751626
Literally ANY sociology textbook written in the past ~20 years

>>3754368

Social Construct doesn't mean made up hippy fairy magic, it means that race doesn't have an exact scientific definition. Trying to define it scientifically either gives you results that does not correlate with what we see as race, and trying to break it up even more will create thousands of subdivisions which defeat the purpose.

>>3754373
>popular opinions = CONSPIRACY

For a /lit/ browser, you sure find it hard to read.

>>3754368

I wonder if there's anyone on /pol/ who actually understands what "race is a social construct" actually means. They all seem to think it means "race doesn't exist".

>>3754373

It's hardly a secret that academia has a left-leaning bias. A lot of research institutions can lose funding from publishing on something as controversial as this.

>>3754380

>liberal academics are stopping the noble white racist scientists from proving white superiority

This is you. Call is what you like. I find it hilarious.

>>3754332
No matter who is going to say these things, they will be controversial. At least for the next few decades.

What do you think is wrong with the data? The statistics? You can check the sources. It's not the only dataset that shows that relationship (all of them do). The book is here: http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Bias-in-Mental-Testing-Arthur-R.-Jensen.pdf

Jensen is a highly regarded scholar in the field. His principle opponent in the race debate James Flynn wrote this in his obituary for Jensen:

"The question now is how to fill the void Jensen's death leaves, particularly for scholars open to scientific inquiry who challenge some of his conclusions. There is no substitute for someone of great intellectual caliber who disagrees with you. With Jensen no longer alive, we will have to invent him. But we cannot really do that, because no one is so constructed as to put the same energy and imagination into a fictitious opponent as we put into polishing our own ideas. No one can pretend to believe what they do not believe, but I hope there is a young scholar out there with the convictions and mind of Arthur Jensen. I am sometimes asked why I spoke so well of him. The answer is that it was easy."

Intelligence 41 (2013) 144–145

>>3754386
see>>3754384

You're clearly rather biased on this subject.

>>3754387

>emilkirkegaard.dk

I really wish you would leave

>>3754384
Protip: science is left-leaning because science is progressive. Progressiveness is the domain of the left.

This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's like some dumb parent complaining because their child with downs syndrome isn't allowed on the chess team.

>>3754389

You too.

>>3754382

I fully grasp what it means, but the implications of it trouble me.

"Given the multitude of dimensions along which people and objects might be perceived as either dis-similar or similar, the question remains why some dimensions become salient and important for categorisations and others do not. For instance, Medin and Wattenmaker (1987) point out that plums and lawnmowers are unlikely to be categorised together, even though they are clearly similar on a number of dimensions (both weigh less than 1000 kg, both cannot hear, both have a distinct smell, both can be dropped). It is not the case that one comparison dimension is objectively more relevant than another one, and that empirical reality would dictate which dimension should be attended to. Rather, the choice of comparison dimensions is informed by socially constructed meaning. However, if the choice of relevant dimensions is subjective rather than objective, judgements of relative similarity between objects are necessarily subjective too. Thus, again, perceived similarity does not straightforwardly stem from objective similarity – there is a disjunction between the two" (Zagefka, 2009).

I don't have the requisite knowledge to articulate my objections to this reasoning, but it appears that according to this logic we can potentially deconstruct anything.

>>3754357
>Don't you think it's weird that only Jensen and like 3 other people in current academia write this sort of stuff?

But that's obviously not true. Jensen is also dead, so, yeah... Lynn is still alive, Gottfredson too, Nyborg, even more mainstream and very afraid to say things controversial are beginning to agree. Cf. recent works by Earl Hunt. And we have also seen Watson already. There are numerous more researchers published about this.

>>3754394

>Protip: science is left-leaning because science is progressive. Progressiveness is the domain of the left.

Science is finding out what is true and what isn't true. If we found out that something was better in the past than it is now and decided to adopt it would that make science reactionary? There's no inherent political slant in science, or indeed, the humanities.

>>3754418

So instead of 3 other people it's 5? My mistake.

>>3754368
From the Jensen obituary mentioned previously:

"Jensen was a great admirer of Mahatma Gandhi. In 1998 in this journal, he said he had tried to practice Gandhi's assertion that hewould say in public exactly what he believed in private. Howmany of us have had the courage to do that? Few in these miserable times, where courses are taught on the Bell Curve that do not assign the Bell Curve, where courses on intelligence are not offered simply because some student might raise the question of racial differences, where someone taking IQ seriously would be ostracized in an education or gender studies department, where the history of the black family is distorted for political purposes, where scholars rise in wrath when a speaker details obvious ethic differences? I have spent much time writing letters to oppose the dismissal of academics that committed thought crimes.

A scholar I respect has told me he could not afford to do research on racial differences: “what if I discovered a genetic component — I would have to leave town”. Jensen suffered violent threats against himself and his family, disruption of speaking engagements, and hate mail. Nothing intimidated him. I dedicated my most recent book: “To Arthur Jensen — whose integrity never faltered”. I hope he saw it before his death."

>>3754423

I don't believe he said that that was an exhaustive list.

>>3754379
But that's true. Do you not know anything about population genetics? Africans, Caucasions, and Asians do show up as clusters when we analyze genetic data from around the world. Even super mainstream people like Francis Collins admits this. It is inevitable with the data.

>>3754382
I have no idea what it means. Usually, it seems to mean exactly that the category of race is an arbitrary one (true), with no real significance (false) or no biological basis (false), and sometimes they even say that races don't exist and at the same time are a social construct (contradiction).

>>3754423
he has a point about people being afraid to publish evidence supporting racist ideas. Just because there aren't a lot of people saying it doesn't mean its not true.

>>3754432

They're too broad to make any sweeping generalization about them, which is the whole point that /pol/ is trying to make.

>>3754447
But it's not true. We can make broad generalizations about that, and they show up always. There is no dataset where the black average is higher than the white average for any general population sample.

Here's the distribution of scores for US whites+blacks.

>>3754462

And this is why whites are inherently superior to blacks and they deserve my hate.

See the issue here?

>>3754462
>Implying IQ scores mean anything
Obviously the poor and uneducated aren't going to do well or even put much effort into an IQ test. It isn't a pure measurement of your abilities at all.

>>3754475

It correlates with success in later life. It's certainly not perfect, but it's odd that despite all the criticism no one has yet come up with an alternative.

>>3754462

>same biased hack author
>same non-peer reviewed book

These studies use self-identification for race, by the way. Not genetic testing.

>>3754475
It correlates with predisposition to violence, drugs, and unemployment/unproductiveness.

seems like a good measurement to me

>>3754484
>It correlates with success in later life.

So does being rich.

>>3754484

It's only really used now days for vanity (Mensa, etc) and for school districts to get funding for special needs children.

>>3754488
>It correlates with predisposition to violence, drugs, and unemployment/unproductiveness.

So does being poor.

/pol/ack here

Why do blacks commit more crime on average than other races?

Why do blacks murder and rape after natural disasters rather than rebuild and band together like other races?

Why have blacks not advanced as far technologically as european or even asian people?

Why do blacks have lower IQ's on average than other races?

Why are predominantly black countries poorer and have lower HDI's than predominantly white countries?

Is /lit/ going to stay a pretentious liberal shithole for all time?

pic related, a society where everybody is equal

>>3754497

How 'bout you answer the questions I think it will be more fun that way

>>3754495
Clearly not as much as race since poor whites were shown to be more intelligent and less criminal on average than poor blacks

>>3754491

Yes, your point?

>>3754501
Because races are different.

I believe that most conflict throughout history has been due to differences in culture and ethnicity, and that races should all have a right to their own piece of land and the chance to live with people of their culture and religion, rather than having all our national identity and culture destroyed in a melting pot of multiculturalism.

>>3754518
thats disgusting, i hope your daughter sucks african-american cock

>>3754518

No I meant you go through the questions one by one and answer them with peer reviewed research to back up every answer.

I know you're just itching to open that folder of infographics.

>>3754531
It will take a while.

>>3754531

Surely an infographic is one of the best ways to prove your point?

It's damned if you do, damned if you don't with /lit/.

Don't back up your arguments: "[citation needed]"
Do back up your arguments: "Lol, I bet you've got a whole folder of them."

>>3754531
If you don't care about evidence, why are you still here?

It's obvious you disagree, but instead of reasoning, you just keep insulting and patronizing him.

It's pretty sad.

>>3754535
What a woefully stupid way to open up your "blacks are inferior" argument.

>>3754538
>>3754535

This isn't about arguments. I just like to see how many hoops I can make you fucks jump through.

>>3754531
Haitian reaction to the earthquake:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oaKMyoIoLQ

African American reaction to Katrina:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RVHDlPqZWE


On the other hand...

Japanese Reaction to fukushima:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZLLEm1XXrs

>>3754540

Because I'd rather you feel like this is a place where all you get for your bullshit is insults.

>>3754555
Hardly bullshit if you can't refute it.

I'm not even a racist, But this is just casting the anti-racist position in a negative light.

>>3754502
Comparable social status that doesn't show up in measures of wealth or income could easily account for the difference, as well as other cultural factors, and would be difficult to control for. We can imagine a hypothetical society where there were certain cultural expectations for redheads to be poor and to engage in criminal behavior, and imagine it would influence their behavior. So, in a way, this sort of stuff often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

>>3754531

Lel.

Let me give you and everyone here a heads up. Even with "peer reviewed" research in a social science it doesn't tell you why, at best it tells you "it is." At best you can find correlations but a lot of things are correlated, it doesn't answer why. At best we can argue how correlated or whether the correlation can be explained caused by outside factors.

Only with a hard science you can find the answer to why" given enough time and research.

This thread has taught me that /lit/ will put it's hands over it's ears and shout LALALALA, resort to insults and ignore evidence when they are afraid of hearing something that doesn't agree with their world view but makes sense.

>>3754559

If you're not a racist then you have a go at refuting the mountain of infographics that will come your way.

If you can't do it, will you become a racist?

>>3754607
I am not racist, I just believe that races are different, and that the multiculturalism that is being pushed is an agenda the zinoists are pushing to destroy white nationalism and identity which are their biggest threat.

I'd love to see every African nation thriving like Rhodesia in cooperation with western powers.

>>3754633

>I'm not racist, I'm just racist

Oh okay.

There is a difference between blind racism (skinheads) and racial realism (/pol/).

Privilege status: checked.

>>3754700

One is maybe more sophisticated in their methods, but in the end they're the same.

I don't hate black people. I hate nigger culture.

>>3754700
/pol/ is not racial realism. Most of them are incredibly racist and justify that with cherry picked, exaggerated facts.

>>3754702
Let me rephrase that then.

There is a difference between hating all Negroes (skinheads) and hating niggers (/pol/).

>>3754710

Where is the IQ study that differentiates between negroes and niggers? I've never seen that one cited by /pol/.

>>3751644
/pol/ is highly racist you dolt. If you go to /pol/, chances are you are either a racist or racial realist, which is still considered racist by the general population.

Also, good luck OP on finding substantial arguments against differences in human races. We would love to spend the time tearing down your arguments; it is the only thing that /pol/ can really agree on.

>>3754719
What have IQ studies got to do with hating blacks?

>>3754728

Everything.

>why do you hate blacks /pol/
>50 infographics about IQ and crime IQ and rape IQ and violence IQ and fucking how yummy their goddamn chocolate chip cookie recipe is

>>3754728
Because the retarded kids on /pol/ think IQ is an objective measure of intelligence.

>>3754761
I just pulled this off Google Images. I shouldn't have to do your homework for you.

>>3754770
>B-b-b-b-b-but IQ doesn't matter anyway

>>3754778

Oh boy a may may. You sure showed me how /pol/ isn't racist somehow

>>3751752
Contrary to what strawman-makers want you to believe, Guns, Germs, and Steel has been debated to death on /pol/, and done so in a serious manner. A number of Jared Diamond's claims are simply false. He offered that domesticating animals is a big step in civilization, in order for easier transportation and movement. He then claimed that Africa has no domesticated animals because Africa's animals are too difficult to domesticate. It is true Africans have never domesticated them, but Europeans have successfully domesticated the Zebra, among other animals. There are a lot of pictures available online to back up this claim.
Africa is also rich in minerals, more so than Europe; this abundance of materials was the reason for colonization in the first place. Africans never took serious advantage of these resources. Additionally, certain philosophical customs and ideas adopted by Europeans, such as individualism and private property rights, which propelled their civilization forward were similarly never thought up or adopted in a widespread sense in Africa. To put it simply and as closely to the truth as I see it, Africans were content not developing much. There was not a thirst for advancement like that in Europe.

>>3754314
>not considering any socioeconomic factors
ishygddt

>>3754790
>strawmanning because you have nothing else to say

>>3754475
That hypothesis has already been tested and ruled out. Decades ago. :)

>>3754797
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

>>3754485
Don't need genetic testing, since self-identification correlates >0.9 with tested race.

>>3754797

Shhh, only the points that help prove their hypothesis are valid.

>>3754469
Asians and Jews are even more superior. Hate them as well? What about Neil DeGrasse Tyson? Hate him or not? He is obviously smart, and also black.

>>3754491
IQ is a much better predictor than parental SES of education etc. Remember that parental SES is partly the result of the parents IQ, and parents IQ also cause the children's IQ.

le bait thread

>>3754492
>It's only really used now days for vanity (Mensa, etc) and for school districts to get funding for special needs children.

But that is not true (how many times must I repeat this exact phrase). IQ tests are used for e.g. military training. It is illegal to admit conscripts below 80 IQ. They are too expensive to train.

>>3754079
No, being a liberal jew is the definition of being a liberal jew on /pol/. It is actually the high amount of counter-/pol/ related articles and ideas written by Jews that has inspired the >JEWSSSS
catchphrase. Seriously, it is uncanny how accurate /pol/ can be when calling out their catchphrase.

>>3754158
>it just gets spammed all the time by stormfront, sort of functions as containment
/pol/ is now the fifth most visited board on 4chan, and growing. It has over a million daily visits by different IPs. Unless there are enough stormfags to take over the country, not everyone on /pol/ is a stormfront member.

>>3754806
Why can't you get it through your thick skull that /pol/ only hates niggers? You know, the blacks that wear their pants around their knees and mug people in dark alleys?

>>3754591
Whatever the reason, not a single piece of evidence has been offered by anyone who thinks the races are equally smart so far.

All their comments are off the style:
>lel
>believing in IQ 2013, lolol
>but this is obviously because factor X (offers no evidence this is the case)
>dats racist.jpg
>well respected scholars called "hacks", even if they are well respected among their peers that don't agree with them about the cause of race differences in IQ

As Flynn put it, when people 'argue' like this, the result is:

"[Jensen] does not believe that [heritability] estimates alone can de- cide the issue of genetic versus environmental hypotheses. However, he argues that the probability of a genetic hypothesis will be much enhanced if, in addition to evidencing high [heritability], we find we can falsify literally every plausible environmental hypothesis one by one. He challenges social scientists who believe in an environmental explanation of the IQ gap between the races to bring their hypotheses forward. Given his competence and the present state of the social sciences, the result is something of a massacre.... Far too many of Jensen's critics have not taken up the challenge to refute him in any serious way, rather they have elected for various forms of escape, the most popular of which has been to seize on an argument put forward by the distinguished Harvard geneticist Richard C. Lewontin." (Flynn 1980, 40, 54)

>>3754822
>Unless there are enough stormfags to take over the country

Which country?

>>3754810

Are the rich because they have a high IQ or do they have high IQ because they're rich?

>>3754394
>Progressiveness is the domain of the left.
Progressivism doesn't means shit, as can be seen in the massive shift in the 1870s to the 1940s when being a liberal meant being an individualist to being a collectivist. Progressive just means changing the norm, which has no bearing on whether or not the change is a good one.

>>3754830

>2013
>strawman arguments

Why not just throw some more graphs in there, no one can argue a graph!

>>3754849
There you go again.

What's your beef with graphs or infographics? Does it annoy you that there's too much information there for you to strawman all at once?

>>3754770
>Because the retarded kids on /pol/ think IQ is an objective measure of intelligence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence

"9. IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes ... Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#APA_task_force_report

And so on. There is no way to deny that. IQs (and g even more so) are much better predictors of pretty much everything socially valued than are the usual environmental factors.

Saying IQs do not predict stuff is straight denialism. Might as well be a flat earther.

>>3754854

My argument is that they just say what they say and any arguments made for or against is beyond the scope of the data.

tl;dr u all tards

>>3754797
You apparently didn't look at the picture which directly controls for parental SES as measured by Duncan index.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_inequality#Measuring_Occupational_Inequality

>>3754857
Stop. Don't you know that /lit/ hates facts and hard evidence? You might make someone cry.

OP should feel bad.

I guess /pol/ would have raided /lit/ today anyway, but still.

>>3754832
Any of them. A multi-million member group could take over the US easily through democratic or revolutionary means, easier still for a smaller country.

>>3754837
>Are the rich because they have a high IQ or do they have high IQ because they're rich?

Rich because of high IQ. Richness does not cause IQ. The shared environmental effect on IQ is 0 by adulthood.

>>3754849
He's not using strawman arguments. These are real arguments you guys are using.

It wasn't hard to find these.
>>3754475
>believing in IQ 2013, lolol
>but this is obviously because factor X (offers no evidence this is the case)
>>3751714
>dats racist.jpg
>>3754245
>well respected scholars called "hacks", even if they are well respected among their peers that don't agree with them about the cause of race differences in IQ

>>3754870

But it has an effect during childhood, unless you're implying that every rich person is a self made billionaire during adulthood.

Guys, you're not going to beat /pol/ in an argument. Stop trying. If you give them the impression that you take them seriously, they will never leave.

>>3754876

Lol. Look I can trivialize your arguments too but the fact of the matter is that this race argument is caused by several factors including genetics, wealth, upbringing, etc etc. You can't single out one and find a satisfactory conclusion. This isn't a physics equation.

>>3754890
I think they will never leave whatever we do.

>>3754895
see
>>3754800

Go Tell it on the Mountain

>dat racism
>dat homosex
>dat domestic violence

it has everything. Except the white devil.

>>3754890
>you're not going to beat /pol/ in an argument
You can't beat fact.

>>3754900

>They noted however that the study indicated that cross-racial adoption had a positive effect on black adopted children. In support of this interpretation, they drew special attention to the finding that the average IQ of "socially classified" black children was greater than that of the U.S. white mean. The follow-up data were collected in 1986 and Weinberg et al. published their findings in 1992; they interpreted their results as still supporting the original conclusions.

That just proves my point retard.

>>3754912
Why don't you read on and finish the section?

"Guns, germs and steel" is a good start.
Explains why the Eurasian civilizations are the dominant through history.

Things like where you could find natural grain, how easy it is to tame different animals and the impact this have had on western diseases.

>>3754909
See
>>3754107

Steven Pinker disproves almost all the arguments for "scientific" racism in a TANGENT in The Blank Slate. Not exactly literary, but effective.

>>3754921
Guns, Germs and Steel is a horrible book. Aside from the author's obvious bias towards his indigenous friends, he rules out any information that disagrees with his hypothesis. He skirts around data that is inconvenient for him. I don't even have a hat in this fight but ignore this book if you want to be taken seriously.

>>3754926
And there's no arguing with /lit/ because everyone here is so goddamn close minded that they can't - and won't - accept any point of view that isn't their own. I'll just link >>3754830 this guy's post because it's true. Say what you like about /pol/ but at least /pol/ backs up its arguments.

inb4 'Backs up with wat? Muh infographics? Lololololo' strawman

>>3754921
I guess that explains how colonial powers were able to achieve a better standard of living in their colonies in a decade than the natives ever had in 2000 years

>>3754921
please see
>>3754796

>>3751644
Thank you. THANK YOU.
- another sane /pol/ack

(although it's hardly "the last couple weeks")

>>3754930

See the lovely thing with this is that you just need to cite a study and that's it. The study doesn't even have to be related at all to your central point so long as it has nice graphs that can be finagled to prove your point, even if you editoralize the data to make a charged statement.

>>3754937
It actually does. You don't think the colonists brought anything with them?

>>3754940

Pressed submit too early.

You just need to have true statements and if anyone argues any points, which would most likely be the editorialized statements, all you need to say is "This is what my sources say therefore I'm right and you're wrong."

>>3754940

And until engage with the evidence on their terms, you're dodging the question and they're right.

I feel like you could write a sizable paper on /pol/'s rhetoric. It's a pretty effective technique for internet debate.

Hey OP, I just want to chime in and say that >>3754931 is right about GG&S. It's really pop sci of the worst kind. If you want to be taken seriously in academic circles you should avoid it, and of course there are much better people to read if you want to support an anti-racist position.

>>3754954

I feel like it's all been done and examined before. I'm pretty sure those style of arguments have been done again and again over the course of human history.

>>3754796
You can tame a zebra, but not domesticate it. Or if you could, it would take far to long. You need a permanent settlement to do that, and with little in the way of plant species to full scale farm, you will never get the foundation for a permanent settlement.
To exploit minerals, you need "technology", witch is hard as hell to develop when you are constantly on the move.
For those philosophical customs to develop, you need the previously mentioned things.

>>3754961

Probably, but I feel like the there's something in the technological angle. Maybe not.

And once again, /pol/ is the only one left standing. Damn /lit/, you lost on your own board. Look at that lack of non-fallacious criticism.
>>3754870
>>3754535
>>3754462
>>3754319
>>3754314

>>3754825

Stop saying that. You don't speak for /pol/

>>3754796
>There was not a thirst for advancement like that in Europe.
That's because niggaz weren't shivering. Word is born, I'm white as the greenland snow but as soon as I get near that equator taking a nap sounds better than plowing. It's hot.

>>3754970
You do realize that not every single sub-Saharan African tribe was nomadic right? I never said domesticating animals or creating technology was easy, but Europeans did it and Africans could have done it.

>>3754976
>And once again, /pol/ is the only one left standing

The art of discussion, brought to you by /pol/

>>3754984
You obviously did not get pounced on by a number of dangerous African creatures while taking that nap. There is always room for improvement, and being lazy is not an excuse for not attempting to improve.

>>3754976
I believe my post about non-economic social status not being controlled for went completely ignored, and in fact was followed by several comments to the effect that nobody had a response to such things. It's easy to claim victory by pretending like arguments you have no canned response to were never made.

>>3754971

I want to say it's similar to the Chewabaca defense, but not in a satirical light obviously.

You find data points and editorialize, when people attack your arguments point back at the data and claim they're wrong.

>>3754994
>that nobody had a response to such things

By which I mean the points I was addressing, if that's unclear.

Do not bother arguing against /pol/. If you fancy yourself an intellectual, you are fit to be here with us. We discus politics and philosophy in a much more civil manner than /pol/ ever dreamed of doing.

>>3754989
>attacking my own musings and not the argument
You really showed me, thanks Voltaire imposter!

>>3755001
No, people from /pol/ just come here and use slightly nicer language to feel superior. Most everyone is this thread is from /pol/, because people who actually want to talk about literature are doing so in other threads.

>>3754994
Your rebuttal right here
>>3754865
There were several other replies with different sources, but I just grabbed this one.

>>3755001
>If you fancy yourself an intellectual, you are fit to be here with us
Good lord

>>3755014
I dont care about the object of the discussion. You don't know how to discuss like a rational being.

But hey, drop again your 200 jpeg, that will show me !

>>3755022
Socioeconomic status is not a measure of non-economic social status. From Wikipedia: "Socioeconomic status (SES) is an economic and sociological combined total measure of a person's work experience and of an individual's or family’s economic and social position in relation to others, based on income, education, and occupation."

>>3755018
Good point. Still, this is a much more intelligent board than /pol/ ever hoped to be when we aren't being invaded by /pol/.

>>3755033
Very specifically, my point concerns how general impressions of a person possessing certain traits (as represented in a culture) effects their behavior, and thus potentially their propensity for criminality, and performance on standardized tests. I have to imagine that's a pretty big factor here.

>>3755033
>>3755058
I misread your post. Yes you are right. To my knowledge, no one has controlled the data for those factors. I imagine it would be hard to do so. I personally do not see how other peoples' perception of you would affect your actions to the level of disparity we see in the data. Then again, I have never really cared much for the vast majority of people's opinions.

>>3755039
>Still, this is a much more intelligent board than /pol/ ever hoped to be when we aren't being invaded by /pol/.
i dont know. /pol/ is much better at both trolling and quarantining troll threads. for example this is an obvious SRS thread that would have been immediately labelled toxic on /pol/ and relegated to the garbage heap. here people jump on it because its not been discussed to death. i dont know how much smarter that is, its just different.

>>3755087
/pol/ pls go

>>3755058
i can point you to some anecdotal evidence provided by a former teacher's experience with a predominantly black classroom.

http://iluvsa.blo[thinks its spam]gspot.com/2009/07/what-is-it-like-to-teach-black-students.html

just remove the brackets

Easiest way to invalidate the race bullshit in /pol/ is to provide logical analysis since it shuts them up.

While race is easier to talk about its a bit more tedious to explain. The veil of anonymity makes it especially hard because you have to constantly assume a level of "good" sportsmanship from the person or persons you argue with, which sometimes doesn't happen. So if you provide a point they can't counter because they know they're wrong or can't answer to because they lack understanding in an area they will resort to troll tactics as a last resort.

With citing sources, reading research papers, understanding statistics, explaining genetics it's like working a second job. I have sometimes provided up to 10 sources in a single post to prove someone wrong. I also have provided on multiple occasions meta-analysis on infographics that get constantly posted up.

The constant of use of IQ is annoying because some if not most have not read up on it's history. It's scary how a method about a child's age and maturity level has become some attempt to define the totality of intelligence. From people claiming high IQ's from key people in history who have never even took the test to those who claiming superiority or inferiority in socioeconomic success because of double or triple digits. It's sad that this method has been perverted to perpetual snake oil.

Oh, but you wanted a book on this topic right?

Don't know where the link for the beginning of the is but if you scroll all the way up on the link below you should be able to read it all.

http://books.google.com/books?id=CY8esHT1F_0C&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=khoisan+iq&source=bl&ots=ofz7gHIzsX&sig=GwSPOxgrYujZxXglHbGG01y_5rI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MM9tUYDIAcf1ygGwuYG4CQ&ved=0CEgQ6AEwDg#v=onepage&q=khoisan%20iq&f=false

Also, theres a few books related to topic below if scroll down a little in the link given.

http://books.google.com/books/about/MENTAL_GROWTH_OF_HUMANKIND_IN_HISTORY.html?id=CY8esHT1F_0C

>>3754178
That's EXACTLY what they would respond with...

>>3751723
What's wrong with the library, Dany?

Same anon from >>3755174

If you or anyone else is interested brain structure check these links.

human
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

paper wasp
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111201142756.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091014144738.htm

>>3754895
>Lol. Look I can trivialize your arguments too but the fact of the matter is that this race argument is caused by several factors including genetics, wealth, upbringing, etc etc. You can't single out one and find a satisfactory conclusion. This isn't a physics equation.

It is not due to upbringing which is a form of shared environment. It is not due to parental SES, already checked for that. No one thinks it is due to just one thing, but it is certainly not environment only.

Since environment only accounts for some 20% of the variance in IQ, this means that any purported environment only about racial differences has to be very, very strong. No such environmental factor exists. Indeed, this is Jensen's point in Jensen (1998, chp. 12).

If the within group heritability is 0.7 (70%, probably is more like 0.8), then to achieve a 1sd difference between groups that is due to environment only, one would need an environment factor with a 2sd difference between the groups.

Whatever cause of the differences between races environments have to proclaim, it has to be a very, very strong one. No such factor exists.

>>3754917
Actually, I didn't know about this paper.

Scarr, Sandra. "On Arthur Jensen's integrity." Intelligence 26.3 (1998): 227-232.

Sounds interesting, especially given the Scarr quote.

>>3755253
Abstract

"Few psychologists have engendered the controversy or endured the abuse that Arthur Jensen has in the past three decades. His adamant adherence to a hard-edged science and an uncompromising personal integrity have led to notoriety. Although these virtues might be rewarded, if applied to less controversial topics, Art Jensen has been vilified because he applied his standards to the most important and painful social issues of our day. In this article. 1 admire his ethics but trace the neg- ative reactions he evoked. His legacy to psychological science goes beyond important studies on choice reaction times and intelligence, environmental effects on intelligence, and race differences in mental development; Art ]ensen set a standard for an honest psychological science."

>>3754930
I'm not even from /pol/...

Never was a regular poster there. I studied these things on my own.

>>3754929
Pinker usually doesn't engage with the issue, but I've read Steve Sailor that he has gotten closer to the truth with time.

Think of his somewhat recent talk about Jewish intelligence. He considers it plausible. Obviously, if one accepts IQ testing, races, and that some races may be smarter than others, there is not far to a normal hereditarian position.

Welcome to the club, Pinker. :)

(The alternative guess is that Pinker already is a hereditarian, just too much of a pussy to say it.)

>>3751626
It's pointless to argue with someone convinced of an idea, especial on the internet. There are 2 reason for this:

1. Dogmatism Paradox. Once someone becomes set into believing something to be true, they start produce them self as a dogmatist. And if there young and tenacious about being apart of something, they become youthful spirited dogmatist. This sets them up for a strange paradox that make them immovable on whatever position they're vying.
"If I know that h is true, I know that any evidence against h is evidence against something that is true; I know that such evidence is misleading. But I should disregard evidence that I know is misleading. So, once I know that h is true, I am in a position to disregard any future evidence that seems to tell against h."
~From http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemic-paradoxes/

2. Saving Face. The internet is a public forum. Even in the case of anonymity, the presentation of ourselves is still thought out as to how we think others might perceive us. Nobody likes to be made out to look a fool, especially the young who rather make others out to look the part. With the young minded, admitting one is wrong is shows weakness and is punishable by humiliation. And showing folly of another is a declaration of superiority. Ideas have power and are attached to the pride and ego of those who belch them. And so criticizing or defending a position has with it the vested interest of managing face. Sometimes it's more about reputation than truly being justifiable about something.

>>3754994
Duncan index includes non-incomic SES. What exact kind do you have in mind?

But it doesn't matter too much, because parental SES is known not to affect adult IQ's of the children. It is only affect them while they are young.

You need to find some non-shared environment factor that has a 2sd difference between US blacks and whites. And it needs to be consistent also with international data. Blacks in Africa also test much lower than whites, and your model needs to account for that as well. Obviously, this makes ad hoc factors like racism (and how would that work anyway?), history of slavery, colonialism etc. nonstarters.

>>3755001
Of the ones with the worst manners in this thread, they are from /lit/. This is not too surprising, since people tend to get emotional when their ideologies or religious beliefs are questioned or attacked.

>>3755033
What are these non-E SS? Are you hinting at things like stereotype threat or?

Stereotype threat apparently turned out to be based on publication bias. lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat#Criticism

>>3755174
>The constant of use of IQ is annoying because some if not most have not read up on it's history. It's scary how a method about a child's age and maturity level has become some attempt to define the totality of intelligence. From people claiming high IQ's from key people in history who have never even took the test to those who claiming superiority or inferiority in socioeconomic success because of double or triple digits. It's sad that this method has been perverted to perpetual snake oil.

Apparently, you are the one who has not read much of the history about IQ testing. Yes, IQ's were originally measured by Binet's test, which does use MA/CA formula. However, this isn't used anymore.

Besides, the origins of something is not important to its present day value or worth. (That is the genetic fallacy). IQ testing is based on the empirical discovery in early 1900's that all mental tests correlate positively. This lead Charles Spearman to put forth the idea that perhaps there is some general factor that account for much of the variation. He then developed factor analysis, a mathematical tool, to see if this was the case. It was. Much research has centered on this common factor, called "g" for "general intelligence".

And so on, read chapter 1 in Jensen 1998.

>>3755174
Not quite sure what you're trying to show with the book links. If it's the Flynn effect, just link to Wikipedia?

In any case, the Flynn effect is not on g, meaning that the increases in IQ are not increases in intelligence.

Cf.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.intell.2009.12.002

>>3755193
Okay, but what does these have to do with intelligence, g, IQ, race etc.?

It is well known that IQ/g correlates with brain size, either measured by cranium capacity or MRI.

Cf. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F00207450802325843

"We review the literature on the relation between whole brain size and general mental ability (GMA) both within and between species. Among humans, in 28 samples using brain imaging techniques, the mean brain size/GMA correlation is 0.40 (N = 1,389; p < 10−10); in 59 samples using external head size measures it is 0.20 (N = 63,405; p < 10−10). In 6 samples using the method of correlated vectors to distill g, the general factor of mental ability, the mean r is 0.63. We also describe the brain size/GMA correlations with age, socioeconomic position, sex, and ancestral population groups, which also provide information about brain–behavior relationships. Finally, we examine brain size and mental ability from an evolutionary and behavior genetic perspective."

>>3755315
It can be fun to argue. :) Even if nobody changes his mind in a significant way.

>>3755340

>Besides, the origins of something is not important to its present day value or worth. (That is the genetic fallacy).

It is if the if the interpretation of the method and knowledge given is use on subjects that was not originally intended on. I'm not saying those who practice the use of IQ now have some scripted agenda but it should be noted that history accounts that this method of measuring ones mental state was taken out of context several times for military and racial usage. Because Alfred Binet who pioneered the subject was not reportedly aware of this, the actions in questioned spawned research with questionable results because it was based on finding a possible (idealized) variables instead of simply searching for whatever variables that could actually be there instead. Thus the lack of questioning these events caused them to go somewhat unscrutinized. I believe it's fair to scrutinize it because now it's starting to assess general success for both individuals and countries when factors such as social interaction and arable land have just as much importance when it comes to success.

>IQ testing is based on the empirical discovery in early 1900's that all mental tests correlate positively.
>Much research has centered on this common factor, called "g" for "general intelligence".

Correct but others have argue that the focus on "g" is perhaps too broad or simple for the complexity of intelligence. That's why people like Raymond Cattell have offered more in depth examination on how intelligence works, for him it was fluid and crystalized intelligence.

Situations where autism, heavy application of rote learning and events of synesthesia tend to also support the complexity of this issue and why the broad stroke of "g" can be somewhat lacking.

>>3755348

Op was asking for some books to read I provided a link for a book and other related books simple as that.

>>3755352

>Okay, but what does these have to do with intelligence, g, IQ, race etc.?

Brain structure, which can effect IQ, "g" and applications of intelligence. It's general info yes, but it also serves as a reminder that the issue is more complex than brain size or shape since the wiring inside the brain itself could be the source of intelligence or actions that show intelligence. Thus why something like a paperwasp can exhibit abilities arguably similar to our own without needing a brain the size of our own to do it.

>It is well known that IQ/g correlates with brain size, either measured by cranium capacity or MRI.

Yeah and it's also known that brain size does not necessary mean high IQ it could also mean an increase in areas for vision allows the brain to be bigger.

http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/brain-size-vision-humans-eyeball-polar-110726.htm