/lit/ - Literature

>>4298151
>Do you ever feel like reading philosophy and literature are a waste of time in terms of knowledge and intelligence?

No

>After I finish a science or non-fiction book I always have something to talk about, I can share info with people and discuss things from different perspectives, tell them something new and deep about the world.
Oh, ok.

>After I read a philosophy book I'm left with wishy-washy opinions and concepts that are hard to talk about and almost pointless.

Fair enough

I don't even understand how one obtains opinions and not beliefs from reading philosophy books.

And yeah, they're hard to talk about, you need some philosophy-buddies.

yea
no
okay

read ethnographies.

I read Kierkegaard, Evola, Nietzsche.

As I'm reading them it all seems great and profound.

The moment I put the books down and try to repeat what I've learned or discuss their ideas its almost impossible, as if I haven't read them at all....wtf

>>4298151
Those serfs in the image would probably score lower on the IQ tests then their barons. And only the privileged Russians probably made these immense contributions.

It doesn't debunk the comic.

I feel the opposite actually, though i'd include a lot of philosophy in the latter category

your obsession with knowledge as a social tool seems incredibly vain

>>4298226
Nearly all of those past contributions were made by the bourgeois and the serfs were the majority instead of being a minority after serfdom was abolished.

You should really be asking that if the serfs were so smart, why did it take 800 years for them to break out of it?

>>4298226
>Those serfs in the image would probably score lower on the IQ tests then their barons.

Yet the descendants of serfs, modern russians, score normal to high IQ, and high in maths/sciences.

Blacks still don't have normal IQ. Go figure.

>only the privileged Russians probably made these immense contributions.

Serfdom lasted 800 years.
Almost all modern russians are descendant from serfs if you go back far enough, even our modern oligarchs. Yet modern russians have normal IQs and have made massive contributions in the last 100years.

>>4298268
>your obsession with knowledge as a social tool seems incredibly vain

As a personal tool philosophy is also very impotent.

Since you can't really explain to yourself what these ideas mean, and their ramifications are almost zero.

>>4298280
Due to the stratification placed on them by the Bourgeois.

Being education, communication or any of those other big words.

>>4298280

99.9% of modern russians are descendant from serfs. Modern russians have normal IQs and score well in math/sciences. They make contributions to science, engineering and medicine as we speak.

>>4298291
Black oppression is based on race within a society characterized by a white power structure. Serf oppression was based on class within a society characterized by deep class hierarchies.

The latter country went through 70 years of intensive social restructuring so as to dismantle the previous class hierarchy that established serf oppression.

The former country gave blacks the same rights as whites only within the past 40 years and goes through cycles of creating and dismantling institutions that could actually restructure society in such a way that stagnates real progress.

They are not comparable at all. Are you seriously this stupid?

>>4298291
>Yet the descendants of serfs, modern russians, score normal to high IQ, and high in maths/sciences.
This was after 800 years of oppression, possibly more. So it takes time for oppressed individuals to re-educate themselves with their new found freedoms. And not every Russian meets this average IQ within their country.

>Blacks still don't have normal IQ. Go figure.
You mean not every black person, it would be foolish to believe that there aren't people of dark complexion with high IQs.

And this stratification still exists in some parts of Africa, where education isn't wide spread, and the wealth of their own country is taken away by other people. It would be the same with any other race.

we /pol/ now

No.

You're stupid.

>>4298320
>>4298311

Unfortunately the majority of IQ is derived genetically from your parents/ancestors.

>Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5to a high of 0.8. But in adults it is found to be between 0.7 and 0.8.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates_of_the_heritability_of_IQ

i don't know why i still read anything, there's never anyone to discuss it with.

>>4298311

So you're saying a more accurate representation of their skills, talents and IQ would be found in their ancestral home in Africa? Not in a country where they are benefiting from White education, affirmative action and even white genes from intermixing. True. I agree.

Africa is a much more accurate representation of their true nature.

>>4298372
>doesn't understand why Africa is the way it is
>fallacious appeal to nature

oh he is seriously that stupid.

you don't need to bring in all this sociological and political crap into gene studies, pls and thanks

and this thread is gay

>>4298378


What are you talking about? Africa has some of the most resource rich geographies in the world. Some of the best spots to cultivate. It's a gigantic continent with huge potential.

The indigenous population just didn't take advantage of it for thousands of years.

Plus you don't need anything special to have a civilized and intelligent society, the Egyptians were doing math and astronomy while their sub-sahran neighbors still didn't catch up 1500 years later...

>>4298399
>The indigenous population just didn't take advantage of it for thousands of years.
So we did it for them, oh Colonization. If you don't have a flag it isn't yours!

>>4298399
>implying egypt isn't an african country

topkek

>>4298151
>After I read a philosophy book I'm left with wishy-washy opinions and concepts that are hard to talk about and almost pointless.
Lrn2 Humanistics asshole go back to high school

>>4298399
inb4 jared diamond

>>4298151
>Implying a piss-poor Slav who takes krokodil and squats in corners drinking vodka wouldn't have an IQ of 85

>>4298296
>phylosophy
>explain
niggas, niggas everywhere

>>4298151
No. Your inability to articulate philosophical concepts coherently is a sign of a defect in yourself, not a defect in what you read.

Once you learn to reading comprehension, you'll find this juvenile opinion evaporating into nothingness, where it belongs.

>>4298151
>Implying a piss-poor Slav who takes krokodil and squats in corners drinking vodka wouldn't have an IQ of 85

The racial element of the oppression was absent in feudal Russia, that's why this comparison is nonsensical

>>4298416
>egypt

The fact that it is African is the troublesome part. Since the rest of Africa never followed their example or developed beyond their beginnings.

>barin
>in quotes
>as if people didn't know what a baron was

>>4298449
>slavs and crokodil

Even drugged out slavs end up having an average IQ between 95-100.

>The racial element of the oppression was absent in feudal Russia

The material conditions were essentially the same, except they lasted much longer. What would the racial element add to the equation?

>>4298477

>no source

Wow fagtron you sure convinced me with that hot .png.

>>4298477
>What would the racial element add to the equation?

White men have worked hard to lower the black man's genetic quality, because it threatens them. You know America has a history of racial sterilization, right?

>>4298151
>2013
> trying to use IQ as the benchmark for human intelligence

Shiggity wiggity diggity doo.

>>4298477
it's like you guys are so sheltered you've never met a first or second generation African in the us who have the most educational attainment out of all the immigrant groups in the us. even if they are right in front of you.
(pls stop posting shitty charts that look like the information visualization was made up on the spot)

>>4298481
>source

http://www.amazon.com/Global-Inequality-Richard-Lynn-Vanhanen/dp/1593680244

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:National_IQ_Lynn_Vanhanen_2006_IQ_and_Global_Inequality.png

>>4298484

If anything they have benefited from mixing with white genes, since their IQ is higher than their African counterparts by about 10 points.

>>4298485

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/international-team-uncovers-new-231989.aspx

>>4298477
>What would the racial element add to the equation?

If you didn't get it, why did you bother to reply? The average IQ for a member of the social underclass is always lower than that of an average member of the more educated class. If you'd measure the IQ of an illiterate Russian peasant in the 17th century, it would most probably be well under 100. In America, blacks happen to be poor and ill-educated, in part because of racial oppression and in part because class is strongly heritable.

>inb4 muh unsourced claims

>>4298496
>African in the us who have the most educational attainment out of all the immigrant groups in the us

What do you mean? You mean they take advantage of affirmative action more than Asians and Indians?

>>4298513
>In America, blacks happen to be poor and ill-educated

But even when they factor for socio-economic status, blacks score lower by 10-15points.
Even adoption studies where blacks get adopted by Whites or Asians, and live in white upperclass neighborhoods, the blacks score worse.

>>4298511

Lynn's review work on global racial differences in cognitive ability has been cited for misrepresenting the research of other scientists, and has been criticized for unsystematic methodology and distortion.
Many of the data points in Lynn's book IQ and the Wealth of Nations were not based on residents of the named countries. The datum for Suriname was based on tests given to Surinamese who had emigrated to the Netherlands, and the datum for Ethiopia was based on the IQ scores of a highly selected group that had emigrated to Israel, and, for cultural and historical reasons, was hardly representative of the Ethiopian population. The datum for Mexico was based on a weighted averaging of the results of a study of "Native American and Mestizo children in Southern Mexico" with results of a study of residents of Argentina.[63]
The datum that Lynn and Vanhanen used for the lowest IQ estimate, Equatorial Guinea, was the mean IQ of a group of Spanish children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain.[64] Corrections were applied to adjust for differences in IQ cohorts (the "Flynn" effect) on the assumption that the same correction could be applied internationally, without regard to the cultural or economic development level of the country involved. While there appears to be rather little evidence on cohort effect upon IQ across the developing countries, one study in Kenya (Daley, Whaley, Sigman, Espinosa, & Neumann, 2003) shows a substantially larger cohort effect than is reported for developed countries (p.?)[63]

Yay so he's a terrible scientist who allows himself to get only the results he wants to get, by, for example, basing the IQ estimate for Equatorial Guinea off of the IQs of a few kids in a HOME FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DELAYED in Spain. You sure convinced me, bruv.

>>4298511
Tim Wise introduced me to a study that shows white Americans are actually only a few points higher than black Americans when it comes to IQ. You know that's statistically noise, right?

Not to mention, black men are physically superior to white men, which is indisputable.

>>4298513

You said racial slavery is worse than serf slavery for some reason. But you didn't provide any reasons.

>>4298535

>lynss review and conclusions are disagreeable blbalbla

the image/graphic is correct since it is in accord with basically every IQ study done.

http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=2812

Find me one that contradicts it? One that shows Africa with normal IQ? Or europe with Low IQ?

>>4298151

>Do you ever feel like reading philosophy and literature are a waste of time in terms of knowledge and intelligence?

You should probably have worded the OP differently because you are quite clearly talking about facts that you can tell other people and that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with attaining of knowledge and intelligence rather the perceived representation of it from the eyes and ears of an external party.

If I read you correctly then (which I think I do) then I would say absolutely in response to your question but both literature and philosophy are edifying to the self, and if you do find somebody who takes a firm interest in them as well you can converse with them on the matters at hand. Unfortunately it's all or nothing as people won't have a clue what you're talking about most of the time otherwise. To narrow it down, most people lack critical-thinking skills, don't think in abstract terms constantly or just plain don't care for wishy-washy things like philosophy and literature because unless you've grown attached to them, they stay distanced (the latter seems to be the default position in our society right now - speaking broadly). Things that seem empirical are in and things that ain't are out but it's not as if the latter isn't positive, only that you have to do some work to understand it and people don't want to. That's why pop-sci is so popular. Actual knowledge of the stuff is way more intense and requires some actual work to understand.

History is another subject you can talk to people about aimlessly because it's all taken as fact. I had this revelation last night when two friends were talking about history. I then realised everything I know requires somebody else to have an understanding of it too.

>>4298541
No, fuckwit. How poor is your reading comprehension? My post implied quite the opposite.

>>4298552
>muh IQ

go back to /pol/ - your racist friends are waiting for you

I bet you have a low IQ

>>4298477

It doesn't take a fucking genius to see that the results are directly linked with the wealth of the country and therefore it's educational system, not race.

retard

>>4298558

You said in this post: >>4298449
>"The racial element of the oppression was absent in feudal Russia, that's why this comparison is nonsensical"

What significance would "racial oppression" add to the serfs slavery that they already weren't experiencing? I'm curious.

>>4298561

When you factor for economic status you get the same results.

Even when with adoption studies where black babies were adopted by rich whites with IQ over 120, it made no difference.

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

IQ is 0.7 to 0.8 heritable genetically.

>>4298566
Read this post >>4298513 and don't reply until you've understood it. I've no stomach for simpletons at the moment.

>>4298561

The wealth of a country is also linked to the IQ of the population. Notice the lowest IQ nations are also the poorest and undeveloped.

Yet those are also some of the oldest populations who had the most time to develop. While Europe and America are significantly younger.

>>4298580

I understand that comparing modern educated people to serfs or 200 years ago will give a different IQ reading.

But you said comparing descendants of black slaves to descendants of russian serfs is a nonsensical comparison because one group was "racially" oppressed.

I'm still waiting for you to explain your original post and give a reason.

>>4298584
> Yet those are also some of the oldest populations who had the most time to develop.

except all those nations were colonized by europeans as soon as they learned how to sail to other continents

>>4298584
>The wealth of a country is also linked to the IQ of the population.

I'm going to need a few recurring citations for this one.

>>4298513
>In America, blacks happen to be poor

Average African american is richer than average russians.

>and ill-educated,

IQ is strongly heritable.

>>4298151
what a silly image. the creator didn't even show the IQ of the serfs. i bet it would be way lower.

>>4298584

circular reasoning

>>4298603
>except all those nations were colonized by europeans as soon as they learned how to sail to other continents

Amazing what they can do in a few hundred years.

Yet, Europe is far younger than Africa.
Africans had thousands of years to be more advanced, develop civilization, create schools, educate themselves, explore.

Seems like they didn't bother, except for the Egyptians for a small segment of history

>>4298552

It isn't surprising to me that they don't contradict one another, considering they use similar flawed methodologies. And it has nothing to do with the conclusions being DISAGREEABLE, and everything to do with them being FLAWED due to a FLAWED methodology.

IQ doesn't really matter to me, the natural development of a people can be seen by their history, civilzation and achievements.

>>4298641

yet every IQ study, that every country does, has similar numbers.

are you saying statistics techniques and mathematical models are biased?

>>4298645

thats racist ^

>>4298641

Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx


>A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic.

>the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

>>4298362
>grandiose claim
>citation: wikipedia

>>4298658
>http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx
> correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster.

then why do women have higher IQs but smaller brains?

I wish for once that you clowns would get a decent source.

why has every country in Africa been undeveloped, lacking history and civilization, until they were colonized?

Africa is rich in resources and each country is varied, the only common trait they share seems to be the people. No?

>>4298665

>women have higher IQ

That's not true. Most studies find that males have slightly higher IQ but the differences are very small and hard to measure.

Also its a 0.4 relationship, not 1 to 1.

>>4298666
Well that isnt the case at all. The African civilizations in Mali, ghana, and the swahili coast were all reasonably advanced. But you dont count them because they were muslim.

sage

>>4298658
I take it this study corrects for education levels?

Increased schooling is known to affect IQ, and East Asians are known for having an exhausting education system, whereas Blacks and Africans have lesser and poorer quality access to education.

>>4298666

lack of association with european and asian civilization is more likely to blame

the rise of stable civilization is something that happened twice worldwide

>>4298658
The author doesn't sound biased in the least.
>In 2009 Rushton spoke at the Preserving Western Civilization conference in Baltimore. It was organized by Michael H. Hart for the stated purpose of "addressing the need" to defend "America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and European identity" from immigrants, Muslims, and African Americans. In his speech, Rushton said that Islam was not just a cultural, but also a genetic problem. He thought the religion and issues associated with it were not just a condition of the belief system. His theory is that Muslims have an aggressive personality with relatively closed, simple minds, and were less amenable to reason. The Anti-Defamation League described the conference attendees as "racist academics, conservative pundits and anti-immigrant activists".

It baffles me that people like OP and /pol/tards think Africans OUGHT to perform equally in our educational systems and our IQ tests, as if they aren't culturally biased structures in themselves.

Not every race or culture can conform to your preconceived idea of intelligence or education or "civilization".

It might be the case that a truly advanced society doesn't even use technology, and they just meditate like zen monks all day.

>>4298658
>Using IQ to measure intelligence
>2013
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219133334.htm

>>4298691
Ex-fucking-sactly.

The very idea of IQ is a human construct. Intelligence and creativity goes beyond understanding Math and Science, which can be learned. And these subjects are taught more or less frequently in different countries.

I.E. Africa and Europe

>>4298712

>no results given
>no conclusions

IQ tests already test various cognitive functions, what's the difference between their 12 tests and a normal IQ test? Seems vague and pointless.

>>4298691

You are, essentially, saying that growing up surrounded by black culture is harmful to skills like "pattern recognition", "spatial orientation" and other shit that is absolutely essential in the modern world.

And I'm not saying you're wrong, mind you. But it seems to me like that implies a black person has to make a choice between "black culture" and being an intelligent, productive member of society.

Isn't this whole thing not really worth debating? It cannot have a tangible impact on one's behavior - one evaluates each individual's capability based on experience with the individual - not on scientific evaluations on general populations that may be flawed in their method. Why must we get so heated over mere fact collection? This whole race vs. IQ thing constitutes nothing more than a "fun fact", because we can base no further, actually practically applicable, studies on it. So my question is: can't we all just get along? This thing matters very little.

>>4298631
>a small segment of history
I don't think you know how much ancient egypt people lasted.

>>4298631

>a small segment of history

What the fuck did you just say? Who the literal FUCK do you think you are? Literally come to my house and fight me, faggot. I have over 300 confirmed history degrees.

>>4298291
IQ is so fucking American. Only Americans are stupid enough to think there is such a thing as an absolute intelligence that can be measured. I have worked in practically all the STEM fields in top level universities and I have never, ever, ever heard of anyone (students, professors, lecturers, scientists, lab researchers) taking anything like an IQ test or speaking about IQ, ever. I have also interacted with students, lecturers and researchers from all over Europe, Asia and Latin America and I have never, ever, ever heard it mentioned in a conversation, casual or serious. No one cares about that shit, no one.

Except some brain-dead Americans.
America's education system is truly the most fucked up on this earth, and the sick American "winner/loser" mentality that automatically assumes some people are better than others will be the USA's demise.

>>4298824
>the sick American "winner/loser" mentality that automatically assumes some people are better than others will be the USA's demise.
You mean not the sick Jewish "winner winner" ["loser/loser"] mentality that automatically assumes all people are as good as all others? Because I'm pretty sure the shifting American demographics are more relevant to the USA's demise than some abstract conception you created just to prove your point.

>>4298631
I'm clueless as to whether IQ-race tards suck more at history, genetics or psychology. It's terrific to know what opinions combined ignorance in so many fields at once can breed.

>>4298829
>You mean not the sick Jewish "winner winner" ["loser/loser"] mentality that automatically assumes all people are as good as all others?
What the fuck do you mean by "good"? Holy shit are you mentally retarded not to get it at this point?

>>4298829
... racism. Never ceases to surprise me how retarded you guys are.

>>4298829
>these values are jewish because i say so
no they're fucking not. what the fuck is wrong with you people. have you ever MET a jewish family? the jewish mentality on teaching is like an even more extreme version than the asian one.

>>4298829
>Antisemitism

you're actually retarded, please stop

and if you interpret this comment as a defense of jewish people, feel free to not reply or post ever again

>>4298843
>What the fuck do you mean by "good"? Holy shit are you mentally retarded not to get it at this point?
I mean the same thing as was meant by "better". Feel free to replace "as good as" it by "no better than".

>>4298844
Why didn't a very similar post critical of Americans compel you to shout racism?

>>4298846
>>4298850
I don't think you know what this is about.
>have you ever MET a jewish family?
I mean, how much more far off could you POSSIBLY be?
>>4295843
>>4295845

>>4298879
American isn't a race, idiot.

Pretty much proved how stupid you are, not even worth replying to your next post.

>>4298918
Judaism is not a race either. Judaism may not even be an ethnicity. Racism is not strictly defined by races ie. SUBSPECIES to begin with. I hope you feel good about yourself for bailing out after two consecutive ad hominems.

>>4298691

Wow the nigger defense forces are out tonight.

If intelligence tests measuring racist things like verbal ability and spatial reasoning are racist against blacks, then we need to bring back eugenics, obviously.


Or we could just give them a separate and more culturally relevant IQ test measuring "basketball reasoning" and "crime ability" which I'm sure they'd outscore whites on.

>>4298934
>Judaism is not a race either. Judaism may not even be an ethnicity.

These are both lies.

Ashkenazim, which make up ~90% of worldwide Jewry, is definitely a race/ethnic group.

Wikipedia says that the Jews in Europe only share around 10-15% of their DNA with gentile europeans. And this is Jewpedia we're talking about.

>>4298484

have any sources on the sterilization thing? im very interested and i agree with what youre saying for the most part

>>4298991
>Wikipedia says that the Jews in Europe only share around 10-15% of their DNA with gentile europeans.

This is factually wrong.

40-60% Have matrilineal genetic ancestry to Europe. This happened when middle-eastern jews married European women.

http://www.jta.org/2013/10/10/news-opinion/world/study-maternal-ancestry-of-ashkenazi-jews-mainly-from-europe

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html

>>4299047

>40-60%

But that article says >"More than 80 percent of the 3,500 DNA samples studies were traced to Europe. The 80 percent is made up of four maternal lines."

Well there goes their claim to Israel.

>>4299010
refer to
>If anything they have benefited from mixing with white genes, since their IQ is higher than their African counterparts by about 10 points.
note that this is only a potential partial explanation and by no means absolute fact

any statement that declares blacks to be disadvantaged because of some perceived eugenics program is patently wrong. on the subject of sterilization, just check the Wikipedia entry. it's not that hard.

>>4299010


>Jews "welcome" refugee Ethiopian Jews to Israel
>proceed to sterilize them secretly using long-term contraception injections.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israel-admits-ethiopian-women-were-given-birth-control-shots.premium-1.496519

>>4299088

Jesus christ...

>"The women’s testimony could help explain the almost 50-percent decline over the past 10 years in the birth rate of Israel’s Ethiopian community."

>>4299088
>The full text is available for subscribers & registered users.
>Click here to subscribe ($1 for the first 4 weeks)
register (free access for 10 stories a month) or login
I'm trying really hard not to make a jew joke right now.

it's like nested stupidity in here. the mild stupidity of believing that IQ is an absolute guide to intelligence with the humongous stupidity of believing that the average IQ of black people is actually lower and that this isn't just something stormfront made up.

>>4298879
What the fuck do you mean by "better"?

>>4298934
>races = subspecies
are you mentally challenged?

>>4299172
Actually, it is an undisputed fact that Sub-Saharan Africans have a lower average IQ than Europeans and Asians. The validity of IQ is disputed by some, and the causes of these differences are widely debated as well. But the lower average IQ of Sub-Saharan Africans is an undisputed fact.

>>4299191
source please. And not some skinhead website

>>4299184
>>4299187
What do you mean by "what the fuck"?

>>4299187
3
a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group

A polytypic species has two or more subspecies, races or more generally speaking, populations that need a separate description

a taxonomic group that is a subdivision of a species: usually occurs because of isolation within a species

a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.


Is this really the sort of thing you would dispute? How deeply do you lack in knowledge?

>>4299191
That's neither undisputed, nor a fact. It is, however, an undisputed fact that racists have a lower average IQ than non-racists, have higher rates of teen pregnancy, lower levels of education, and a higher probability of being convicted of violent crime.

>>4299205
>partially isolated reproductively
Hahaha never happened ever. Ever seen Bangbros?

>using population studies to speak in absolutes

>>4299198
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
Here's your basic introduction. There aren't any studies that contradict the general pattern.

>>4299206
>>4299212
I don't really know why you're so butthurt. You should go back to /pol/.

>>4299219
>This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (October 2012)
>The neutrality of this article is disputed. (October 2012)
>This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. (October 2012)
lel

>>4299198
>source please. And not some skinhead website

National Averages IQ:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_ave_iq-education-average-iq

New Genes Found for Intelligence/Brain Size/Density: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/international-team-uncovers-new-231989.aspx

IQ is strongly heritable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#cite_note-TJ-8

http://moemesto.ru/rorschach_club/file/6314265/182%2520bouchard%25202003.pdf
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx

>>4299233

translation
>this article does not support current Political Ideological Beliefs.

refer >>4299250

>>4299253
>IQ
>reliable measurement of intelligence

>>4299198
>source please. And not some skinhead website

National Averages IQ:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_ave_iq-education-average-iq

New Genes Found for Intelligence/Brain Size/Density: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/international-team-uncovers-new-231989.aspx

IQ is strongly heritable (0.8 genetic factor):

http://moemesto.ru/rorschach_club/file/6314265/182%2520bouchard%25202003.pdf

>>4299253
Yeah the jews control wikipedia too
Has it ever crossed your mind that maybe the article might be actually biaised against your views? Then you'd probably say "durr the jews are pushing for it"
fucking moron

>The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
lel, IQ and race are two American concepts, in that they're completely moronic

>>4299257
>IQ
>reliable measurement of intelligence
up for dispute

>IQ
>hereditary to any degree
up for dispute

>IQ
>differing by race/gender/age/population
not up for dispute

>>4299257

>2013
>believing IQ is not a reliable measurement of intelligence

lol.

>>4299270
>While there is a general consensus within Western science about how to define intelligence, the concept of intelligence as something that can be unequivocally measured by a single figure is not universally accepted.

>>4299250
>Race in studies of human intelligence is almost always determined using self-reports, rather than based on analyses of the genetic characteristics of the tested individuals.
extra lel
so much rigour
so little confirmation bias

>>4299262
>http://moemesto.ru/rorschach_club/file/6314265/182%2520bouchard%25202003.pdf

Why do you guys always cite psychologists' interpretations of genetics and never geneticists?

>>4299281
Because race is not a genetic concept. It is marked by "cultural, behavioral, sociological, psychological, and epidemiological variables".

>>4299265
>lel, IQ and race are two American concepts, in that they're completely moronic


But it's obvious that black people are dumb and it's genetic. Worldwide, you can go anywhere, in any society, where blacks are majority OR a minority, suffered from colonialism or not, and they are always (on average) really dumb compared to other races.

This is just a fact. Sure IQ isn't a perfect measure and it isn't possible to fully encapsulate the totality of human intelligence, but it does measure some things quite well, such as verbal ability and spatial reasoning, and it is quite obvious that blacks perform poorly on it compared to other "races".

Even if you think IQ is too biased, there are other things like the PISA, SAT, MCAT, etc. etc. basically everything shows that blacks have lower intelligence. You could also look at things correlated with lower intelligence like violent crime, poor sexual hygiene (STD's from not using condoms and accidental pregnancy), etc. that are symptoms of low intellectual functioning. Look at Africa and the total dearth of modern civilizations, etc.

Saying that the races are born equal is just not true, and to really believe that is some weird kind of doublethink because we are all equal and have no differences, and yet people who tend to think like that still want to treat people differently when logically we should be colorblind.

To deny the reality of hereditary racial differences is merely a political belief. To be a modern day enlightened, kind, progressive, intelligent, caring, reasonable human being you have to go along with the group and deny reality in order to belong, or risk being ostracized.

It's kind of like religion in a way.

*tips fedora*

>>4299301
But race is not genetically well defined
moron

>>4299304

I do agree that race and species are buzzwords in a way, and are very fuzzy.

But it is reasonable to say that there are distinct groups based on morphological features in the overall human species, and you could delineate between whites and blacks and asians, at the least.

It doesn't really invalidate anything I said.

>>4299316
>you could delineate between whites and blacks and asians, at the least.
no you can't
more variability within africa groups than between africa and europe
there are black indians and white indians and they all belong to the same group because india has several climates in one population cluster
etc.
i could go on but you're already convinced of the contrary

>>4299301
>Even if you think IQ is too biased, there are other things like the PISA, SAT, MCAT, etc. etc. basically everything shows that blacks have lower intelligence

They only score lower because the tests are biased since they try to measure a western conception of education/intelligence which focuses on some sort of Aristotelian logic, Math, Geometric reasoning (Euclid? White Greek!) Biased Pattern recognition pictures, etc.

Find an unbiased test and then I'll listen.

>>4299316
Also species is not a buzzword. Race is, see >>4299289 it has little to do with genetics

>>4299316
>you could delineate between whites and blacks and asians, at the least.

Nah, it'd end up being thousands of different groups. The idea that "blacks" or "whites" could be so cleanly grouped is hilarious and archaic.

>>4299336
>The idea that "blacks" or "whites" are distinguishable or exist is hilarious

why?

>>4299343
We're talking about genetic groups of classification, not grouping by appearance.

>>4299331

There will never be an unbiased test because the results will always show that blacks are inferior intellectually.

It's just bullshit to say that math and geometric reasoning are biased. Math is racist against black people? Lol...that's crazy talk.

I mean... there are lots of black people in the NFL so obviously they are good at some things, and black people still EXIST as a people, so evolutionarily intelligence isn't that important, obviously.

I just think that a lot of people get offended when you try to differentiate between people based on intelligence because it's basically the biggest insult you can throw, to say someone is dumb. It very quickly becomes an emotional argument and logic is thrown out the window. All of reality points to black people having a lower average intelligence, no matter what kind of backwards logic you use to try to deny it, it will always be true.

>>4299331
So the white concept of intelligence (mathematics and logic are white?) favours East Asians?

>>4299336
>archaic
How long ago was Cavalli-Sforza's research?

>>4299343

It's not even worth it to argue. They are the same sort of people that will have you believe that you can choose to be a female despite having a penis and that your gender is a social construct, etc. etc.

It is truly ridiculous, and quite amazing that people exist with no ability at all to generalize.

>>4299359
what do you mean by inferior
what do you mean by intellectually
what do you mean by intelligence
what do you mean by blacks
stop using words that aren't well defined
people don't agree on what intelligence is, people don't agree on what races are (and they're certainly not a genetic concept) and yet you want to say some races are more intelligent? what kind of laughable statement is that?

>>4299368
yeah
everything can be generalized
everything can be essentialized
everything can be averaged
everything is linear
correlation always equals causation

this is why no one takes psychologists seriously

>>4299373
Try using the dictionary you insufferable anal-clogged pedant.

>>4299396
>people don't agree on what intelligence is, people don't agree on what races are (and they're certainly not a genetic concept) and yet you want to say some races are more intelligent? what kind of laughable statement is that?
can't you read

>>4299379
>>4299373

It doesn't matter if people agree or not. The truth is the truth. 2+2=4 and no amount of brainwashing and propaganda makes it 5.

All the semantic arguments that you try to throw out like "What is the exact definition of intelligence?" aren't even worth responding to because obviously it's a rhetorical question, it can't be completely defined because it is an abstract concept. Things like achievement, results on ability tests, etc. are used to give us a rough idea of things that reflect a persons overall mental abilities, what we refer to as "g", and could refer to as "intelligence".

If you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater because what I'm saying doesn't fit with your worldview, that is your right, but please just try to keep an open mind.

>>4299373
>what do you mean by x
Why is this a thing again?

>>4299404
>It doesn't matter if people agree or not. The truth is the truth. 2+2=4 and no amount of brainwashing and propaganda makes it 5.
>the truth is what I think and what others think is propaganda
k

>Things like achievement, results on ability tests, etc. are used to give us a rough idea of things that reflect a persons overall mental abilities, what we refer to as "g", and could refer to as "intelligence".
So much rigour and quantification
yeah defining things is for faggot who the hell does that anyway not actual scientists I bet

>>4299410
Because people have to agree on what they're talking about before they have any kind of meaningful discussion. If you have trouble with clarifying your semantics it means you have poor grasp on the concepts you're manipulating and you should stop asserting bold claims.

I don't get how the brain could 'evolve' like that after only a couple hundred years; the comic's implications are dubious. If they blacks were subjected to proper education as of now they should score they same.

>>4299415

except saying black people are dumb is not really a bold claim at all. you're just saying it's bold because you're retarded.

>>4299415
>you have trouble with clarifying your semantics it means you have poor grasp on the concepts you're manipulating and you should stop asserting bold claims.
No, you're obfuscating. Asking someone to define intelligence when we're this deep into a discussion where intelligence has already been clearly defined is just ridiculous. Even if it hadn't been defined already, it follows from the posts that his definition for intelligence is one you already know if you know what g is. Most of these words are defined by their respective contexts. Asking what he means by blacks may seem sensible at first but the problem is that even just skin colour correlates with intelligence and all the byproducts such as higher crime rates, lower educational attainment, lower life income, and so on. The funniest finding in Rushton's Race, Evolution and Behaviour is that a darker skin colour correlates positively with AIDS.

>>4299458
6 posts in and you failed to provide a clear definition.

>>4299458
>The funniest finding in Rushton's Race, Evolution and Behaviour is that a darker skin colour correlates positively with AIDS.

LOL

>>4299404
not the guy you're replying to, but the questions he was asking you were not merely 'semantic,' they'e critical to your claims and beliefs. for example, the greatest amount of genetic variation in the world is in africa (google for supporting evidence). that means you will have greater genetic distance between any given two 'black people' than there is between a given black and white person in america.

so what this means is, if it is indeed the case that race is a function of genetics, then you cannot make groupings based on phenotype (what we see). this means that studies premised on visual identification of a 'black' person are fundamentally flawed.

second, 'g' or 'iq' as we understand it is an abstraction. it is not located in a concretely observable or experimental way. as in, we cannot say, 'intelligence is located in neurons x, y, and z, and if we remove neuron x or shorten its length, or find a person with two neurons x, g or iq change accordingly.' g and the human property of intelligence exist in the abstract philosophical plane humans have designated as 'the mind.' there are properties we think of in relation to 'the mind,' such as 'a positive attitude.' but this is not located in some sort of observable piece of the brain. the linguistic nature of the iq or g test only affirms that it is woven into a human language game. tests of this nature are not experiments comparable to say, testing the speed of gravity. there is no coincidence with the 'natural world.'

>>4299458
>maaaan it's not about the definition, it's all about context
ok

also the fact that darker skin color correlates positively with AIDS proves that you can't essentialize characteristics that correlate with race since AIDS is not innate to black people

>this means that studies premised on visual identification of a 'black' person are fundamentally flawed.
It's even worse than that, most race classifications are based on self-identification.

These race/intelligence experiments are a joke, the mere fact that they're ridden with confirmation bias proves that they're extremely dubious. I mean, people who conduct these experiments want to show that blacks are dumber, so it's really an ideological motive and not a scientific one, their methodology is sometimes cringe-worthy (everything is linear, etc.)

>>4299475
>that means you will have greater genetic distance between any given two 'black people' than there is between a given black and white person in america.
Lewontin's fallacy has already been posted in the thread m8 ;)

>>4299492
>self-identification
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

>people who conduct these experiments want to show that blacks are dumber
Think about this critically for a couple of minutes, please.

>>4299503
Are you implying that Richard Lynn isn't motivated by racialist ideologies, for instance?

>>4299503
see >>4299277
straight from wiki

>>4298324
LOL, I swear to God I was scrolling through this thread on the verge of posting this very thing and when I saw this I laughed much harder than I should have.

>>4299504
I said a couple of minutes, not 20 seconds. Consider the reverse: people who want to show that blacks are not dumber can also conduct experiments. Are there no people who want to show this? Clearly there are, or men like Lynn wouldn't be controversial. Can they not conduct the experiments? Surely they can, because there are plenty of legitimate scientists arguing against the heredity and immutability of IQ and so on.

>>4299509
Can you at least read the abstract?

>>4299503
>Lewontin's fallacy has alreayd been posted

i don't see it. nor do i see where you have addressed this glaring problem in the body of 'research' that constitutes race and intelligence 'knowledge'

>>4299479
>also the fact that darker skin color correlates positively with AIDS proves that you can't essentialize characteristics that correlate with race since AIDS is not innate to black people

it depends what variables you can test for and remove.

the correlation gives you direction though, something is happening to the black population that increases aids, then you have to look at causes. (contraception, promiscuity, rape, etc)

IQ tests give you a direction to look into, and there are various causes. We know that IQ is genetically heritable by a factor of 0.8.

So we know genes (obviously) play a huge role but aren't the entire story

>>4299604
>0.8
holy shit such rigour

>>4299607
I was ironic you dumb fucking cunt

>>4299606

yep refer to >>4299262

for citations.

>>4299612

I know that's why I gave you some links to educate yourself

refer to >>4299262

>>4299615
Thanks, I'm reading it right now.

>>4299475
>People of African descent have highest genetic variation of 'races'
Does having the highest genetic variation among humans prevent the possibility that on average there is a preponderance of a certain phenotype?

>>4299629
which is why there are many, many distinct phenotypes in Africa

>>4299638
Right, but could it be possible that there are one or two which on average they tend to share?

>>4299643
some phenotypes are driven to extinction, others are thriving
there is no "average"

OP reminds me of how godawful american historical literacy is. i mean that as a slight against OP, just to clarify.

>>4299645
>There is no average
Most people have brown eyes right? If you picked somebody on earth at random, on average they'd have brown eyes.

Take darkish skin for instance. That seems to be a phenotype that African's share, right? So the mere fact that they have the highest variety in genes doesn't exclude the possibility that on average they may have one or two traits which they tend to share, such as spatial / verbal reasoning.

>>4299667
>If you picked somebody on earth at random, on average they'd have brown eyes.
uh that's not how averages work

> So the mere fact that they have the highest variety in genes doesn't exclude the possibility that on average they may have one or two traits which they tend to share, such as spatial / verbal reasoning.
we know what darkish skin comes from and we know skin color can change extremely quickly on the evolutionary scale (like if you put a white population in Africa and isolate them they're going to become full niggers in 1000 years, and vice versa) so you can't just generalize and go like "oh well skin color is just like spatial/verbal reasoning i mean it's all genetics"

>>4299629
This question is irrelevant to my point, for more than one reason. First, genetic variation has to do with genotypes, not phenotypes. If you want to say that race is a function of genetics (I still have yet to hear what kind of function this is), then you cannot reliably call 'black people' a race, since all people in the world who appear to have 'black' skin (i put in scare quotes because its not as if there is a large, unfilled gap between black and non-black) have the greatest genetic variation. I understood the racialist position to be that one can say a 'race' is a group of humans with very similar genetic information.

If, on the other hand, you want to say that race is a function of phenotype, then you run into other problems. First and foremost, you basically concede the point that race is a social construction. That is, race is created based on visual cues, rather than the genetic information invisible to the naked human eye.

>>4299667
>they may have one or two traits which they tend to share, such as spatial / verbal reasoning.

why would any aspect of intelligence be regulated by genetics????

>>4299678
>uh that's not how averages work
The probability is, they have brown eyes. Excuse me.

>1.We know that skin colour can change very quickly
>2.Hence it is not possible that African's tend to share one or more phenotypes presently
>1.5 Because (some significant percentage) used to be white/asian/arabic
Is that what you're saying? I struggle to see how that is relevant to the point I'm making.

>>4299697
>the probability is, they have brown eyes
But that's not how probability works. Jesus.

>Is that what you're saying? I struggle to see how that is relevant to the point I'm making.
The point is that skin color is a very superficial trait, as shown by its adaptability, so it's expected it'd be shared by populations who share the same environment. The same cannot be said for intelligence related traits.

>>4299679
I agree with point two. Race is a social construct.

I am suggesting the possibility that within that socially constructed group, there may be one or two phenotypes that tend to present, such as spatial reasoning ability.

>>4299701
>that is not how probability works
You're telling me that if you put 8 brown marbles in a bag, one green, one blue, the most probable random selection from that bag isn't going to be brown?

>The point is that skin color is a very superficial trait, as shown by its adaptability, so it's expected it'd be shared by populations who share the same environment. The same cannot be said for intelligence related traits.
>cannot be expected
I'm not stating whether it is to be expected, I'm questioning whether high genetic variability prevents it as a possibility.

>>4299716
>most
there you go, learn to use appropriate words
"on probability, the marble is brown" doesn't mean anything

>>4299716
it's extremely unlikely (i mean it would require a coincidence of some sort because skin color and intelligence have no reason to have evolved together) and would need a much more thorough examination than what is being done right now

>One theory of Intelligence formulated by Psychologists Joseph Fagan and Cynthia Holland argues that what IQ tests really measure is not innate ability but a form of knowledge. From this theoretical perspective they predicted that if prior exposure to the kinds of knowledge that are typically found on an IQ tests is not equal between African-Americans and Whites that could explain the difference in performance. They then tested these predictions by providing one group of African-American test subjects with prior exposure to the task types. The researchers found that there was no subsequent difference in performance between the African-Americans and White test takers.[98][99] Daley and Onwugbuezie conclude that Fagan and Holland demonstrate that "differences in knowledge between Blacks and Whites for intelligence test items can be erased when equal opportunity is provided for exposure to the information to be tested".[100][101]

>>4299701
>The point is that skin color is a very superficial trait

Skin color is an indicator of a different evolutionary path a race has taken over time.

With that path come various genetic differences. There's nothing special about the skin, it's just an outward indicator of inner differences.

For example, African Blacks respond worse to certain heart medication due to genetic factors, and pharma companies have designed drugs that are more effective in Black people because of this.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200105033441802

>>4299719
>there you go, learn to use appropriate words
"on probability, the marble is brown" doesn't mean anything
You're a pedant bro.

>it's extremely unlikely (i mean it would require a coincidence of some sort because skin color and intelligence have no reason to have evolved together)
It doesn't seem implausible to suggest that there may have been some bottlenecks involved in migrations out of Africa, to Europe and Asia, that selected for more intelligent individuals. If successfully founding a settlement in a unknown place requires intellect, you may have multiple founder effects taking place. This is in contrast to Africa where presumably there was less drastic migration and more regular climate.

>>4299754
the point is that you can't just reduce all of africa to a few "most probable" occurences, that would be awful methodology

>>4299731

You should read the study it barely measures IQ at all.

They were given analogies to figure out like "AN APPLE A DAY KEEPS THE DOCTOR AWAY MEANS?"

And they were given memory tasks to see if they can recall faces...This was not a traditional test.

But whats funnier is that even these simple tasks the whites performed better than the africans on average. Only after they were both given instructions and cheat sheets on how to answer the questions did both groups even out....

Seems like Africans can't deduce how to solve problems as well as Whites according to their test.

http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/fagan-holland-2007.pdf

>>4299768
Do you consider the idea of high Ashkenazi intelligence unfounded? The story goes that people of Ashkenazi Jewish descent on average have very high IQ scores. Jewish Nobel Laureates occur far more often than would be expected based on their population alone. How would you argue against the existence of this phenomenon?

>>4299795
>Jewish Nobel Laureates occur far more often than

Selection bias / Political influence by the Jews.

>High Ashkenazi IQ

Ashkenazi are of White European descent and highly interbred, it's to be expected.

http://www.jta.org/2013/10/10/news-opinion/world/study-maternal-ancestry-of-ashkenazi-jews-mainly-from-europe

>>4298218

Keep a journal. After you finish reading a section try to write it in 1000 words or so.

>>4299795
take off the fedora and read an ethnography.

>>4299818
You're suggesting that Jewish people are not a genuine ethnicity or something?

>>4299830

no one knows, we just know they are an admixture of various groups, khazar, middle-eastern, european...they are a nomadic people, like the gypsies

but we can trace the gypsies heritage to india, we can't really trace jewish heritage anywhere

hmm i get it now wow

>>4299857
>what is Jerusalem

>>4299971
>>what is a fabricated history based on superstition and fairy tales

>>4299971

you must also think the Vikings were really Jarl's kin and were made by Heimdlarr the whitest God?

>be computer science major
>read Heidegger for three years
>"what are you doing anon?"
>"dwelling poetically in the world"
feels good man

>>4299979
>>"dwelling poetically in the world"

what does this mean? being oblivious?

>>4299974
>>4299975
I've reported you two to the Marxist Jew police, there will be a knock on the door and consequences will never be the same.

>>4299984

I feel nothing.

>>4298151

>this post
>not /pol/

where is the good c/lit/s?

>>4299981
>It was in this work that Heidegger finds in art a way of thinking openly, non-metaphysically, and will then show how in “Building, Dwelling, Thinking” Heidegger attempts to demonstrate how one could think differently from Western metaphysics, if one were to adopt towards experience the kind of openness that is required for the reception of art. The origin of the work of art, therefore, is the disclosure of the world on its own terms, that is, the fact that beings are revealed to us in experience. Surely it would be something very special if we could experience the world, as long as possible, the same way we experience a work of art. But how could we? The final contention of this essay is that in “Building, Dwelling, Thinking,” Heidegger does not really tell us how we could experience and think our world differently, but he shows us. ‘Poetically man dwells’ is a line Heidegger takes from Hölderlin, but, given his view of art as originating from the disclosure of beings, we may see it as an idea he shapes as a kind of response to the experience of artworks as ‘things’. But before we get to seeing how dwelling is poetic, we need to see what dwelling is.

Dwelling is a certain, careful way of living, for Heidegger. To the extent that it has this element of care, it is a life of ‘building’. The building activity humans live out is two-fold: it constructs and it cultivates. Building as ‘construction’ is something we do, for example, when we build a skyscraper, but building as ‘cultivating’ is an act of maintaining something. This mark of maintenance, of preserving, in human living or dwelling requires that we stand in a certain relation to our environment. Standing in a certain relation to experience is the mark of a dweller, for Heidegger. The dweller stands in a way that lends itself to Heidegger’s attempt at crafting a thinking to overcome metaphysics, because the dwelling lives in a relation of openness to our world, not in one of mastery. Heidegger calls what I am calling ‘openness’ here a free relation to reality, free in that it spares that to which it relates, or leaves it “in its own essence,” on its own terms, in a “preserve of peace”. Letting things be, sparing them, is the essence of dwelling. In his depiction of dwellers as essentially ‘open’ thinkers, Heidegger describes their efforts at interpreting the world around them as necessarily poetic. Where we see a terrestrial planet, they see an ‘earth’ and ‘sky’. Where we think we live as dying animals, who occasionally feel in the presence of the holy when we feel we thrown into a world with a heritage that is bigger than ourselves, they think they live as ‘mortals’ before ‘divinities’. They experience and describe the ‘things’ around them in an almost holistic fashion, in a gathering place Heidegger calls a ‘fourfold’

>>4298416
>implying Egyptians are black

>>4300515

A lot of them left for sites like r/literature. The community there is much less (overtly) racist and sexist. /lit/ has been slowly moving to the right for months.

>>4300635
>reddit

perhaps you should go back to your hugbox

>>4300635

>>4300635
what is wrong about moving to the right?
I hate when people talk about the left like if it was the default position of correctness
like if being right wing was some kind of anomaly caused by ignorance and stupidity
fuck their selfrighteousness

>>4300727
racism, sexism, homophobia add nothing to an intelligent conversation but in fact detract from it.

>>4299205
Quote some authorities on the matter that treat race to be interchangeable with subspecies.

>>4300787
Why are u afraid of discussing those things? As if they are taboo or sacred.

Truly a silly way to think.
.

>>4301334
edginess is the opposite of intelligence

>>4298226
Fuck, feels weird being the first one to derail the fuck out of this thread.

>>4301361
Specially since everyone refuted that point.

Serfs had longer and more pronounced slavery. They came out of it and now have normal to high IQs, while still being poorer than the average African american.

Go figure.

>>4301391
Why would you assume every race can succeed in western society/education??

IQ tests are biased, math and science are also biased. Check your white male privilege

Jews have been under much more prolonged slavery, murder and oppression than any other, but we're still easily smarter than most races.

>>4302921

this is actually a good point.

>>4298663
>That line in the Wikipedia article has three published sources linked to it as citations

You people are hopeless

>>4302981
>You people

you people?!

>>4302921

I think they might actually be the smartest, at least in some ways. Jews place a very big importance on literacy and schooling; long before other europeans gained majority literacy jews had it.

>>4301385
>Hurr durr no u hrr drr

Thats all I've been reading from both sides.

>>4298604
>>4298477
Just look at the stupid fucking map your mongoloid friends posted. There are plenty of blacks living in Europe, North and South America but that doesn't seem to significantly alter the average IQ.

>>4298320
>it would be foolish to believe that there aren't people of dark complexion with high IQs.

1 in 5 white people are more intelligent than every Negro on the planet.

>the wealth of their own country is taken away by other people
If their countries are so wealthy why were they not prosperous before Europeans showed up?

Wealth is not something that rains down from the sky. Wealth is the product of ingenuity and hard work.

Negroes are a race of lazy borderline retards, that is why they aren't and will never be wealthy. No matter what you give them, they will spend it. Because they don't create wealth, only consume it.

>>4303459
>tfw asian masterrace
why do crackers get so uppity about niggers? you're all white niggers in my eyes

>>4303459
>1 in 5 white people are more intelligent than every Negro on the planet.

>>4298679
Where does education come from? Is it mineed from the ground? Does it rain down from the sky?

How did the educators become educated?

And why when given the same education do different races have different outcomes?

>>4303459
>1 in 5 white people are more intelligent than every Negro on the planet.

That might be true if IQ testing had any ounce of empiric validity.

But, it doesnt, head on back to /pol/ stormfag.

>>4303459
Why would anyone believe this sourceless bullshit?

>in b4 faked research from the Pioneer fund

>>4299277
>>4299509
Without knowing how the participants had identified themselves, Risch and his team ran the results through a computer program that grouped individuals according to patterns of the 326 signposts. This analysis could have resulted in any number of different clusters, but only four clear groups turned up. And in each case the individuals within those clusters all fell within the same self-identified racial group.

"This shows that people's self-identified race/ethnicity is a nearly perfect indicator of their genetic background," Risch said.

http://med.stanford.edu/news_releases/2005/january/racial-data.htm

>>4299706
>Race is a social construct.
he topology of human trees (Figs. 4, 5) is remarkably consistent regardless of which class of loci are considered, and principal component analysis of genetic data also produces predictable clustering (Fig. 6). Either method gives a good visual overview of the general relatedness of the world’s populations.

By analysis of classical markers, Nei & Roychoudhury (1993) identified five major human clades: sub-Saharan Africans, Caucasians, Greater Asians, Australopapuans and Amerindians. Evolutionary trees constructed with autosomal RFLPs,[105] microsatellites[106] and Alu insertions[107] show similar topology. Frequently, Amerindians are grouped together with Asians, indicating four major clades, and it has been suggested that this should be a minimum.[108] Obviously, additional structure exists within each of these groups, but as we’ve seen, it’s generally weak compared to the differentiation among the ones listed here. For this reason alone, the term ‘race’ applies well to these major groupings.

http://www.amerika.org/conservation/the-race-frequently-asked-questions-f-a-q-by-john-goodrum/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Closing_of_the_Gap

If intelligence differences were mostly determined by genetics, the gap wouldn't be closing this quickly, nor would people's IQ increase with every generation.

>>4303493
Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2010). Editorial. The rise and fall of the Flynn Effect as a reason to expect a narrowing of the Black-White IQ gap. Intelligence, 38, 213-219.

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2010%20Editorial%20for%20Intelligence.pdf

>>4303500
>Rushton

Yeah, that's not science sorry. Everybody knows about him and the Pioneer fund, spamming their research isn't going to score you any points.

>>4303516
>ad hominem circumstatial

>>4303516
psychometrics was never a field of science in the first place.

>>4303541
>>4303516
>>4303493

>If intelligence differences were mostly determined by genetics

Of course they are:
"Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic"

http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/full/mp201185a.html


>he gap wouldn't be closing this quickly

It's not. Flynn's survey results are contradicted by Murray's results. Flynn's results are a "projected trend line" he doesn't actually have data, but uses regression techniques to make estimates. So no, "closing the gap theory" remains inconsistent.

>>4303641
Why are you quoting me with this?

I said psychometrics is psuedoscience genetic heritability of a scientifically invalid trait is meaningless to me.

>>4303654
>genetic heritability of a scientifically invalid trait
>scientifically invalid

The scientific community disagrees with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_and_crystallized_intelligence

>>4303665
>The scientific community disagrees with you.

No, they dont, because psychologists are not scientists.

Try again though.

>>4303668
>psych not scientists

the study I linked you is full of geneticists, molecular biologists, chemists who disagree with you and find intelligence to be measurable and scientifically valid

>>4303676
Im not sure if you're having trouble understanding what im telling you or what.

A theory in psychology is meaningless unless it is empirically tested. And yields empirical evidence for its validity, who agrees with something is irrelevant to the conversation.

>>4303677
>A theory in psychology is meaningless unless it is empirically tested

The two measures of intelligence are empirically tested and have meaningful predictive capabilities.

You might find it personally interesting that that: "deficits in fluid intelligence are found in individuals with Autism spectrum disorders"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_and_crystallized_intelligence

>>4303689
>empirically tested

How do you empirically test something that is based on a mental process?

You see, this shit is really simple, in science the scientific method looks at physically observable phenomenon, and makes a hypothesis to explain said phenomenon, this is where the big problem is in psychology, nothing the study of psychology observes is physical, meaning it has no basis in empiric reality. Until science can give an objective definition of what a thought is and finds a way to measure what they have defined than all theories in psychology are scientifically null.

>and have meaningful predictive capabilities.

Again, here i think you're confused, you see there is a stark difference between a correlation and a prediction, a correlation is only a statistical likelihood of a given outcome, in probability theory correlation indicates the strength and direction of a linear relation between two random variables. Which means very simply that IQ holds NO predictive power.

Its like trying to tell time with a broken watch, if the hands don't move it gives the same answer every time you look at, but thats not really evidence of the time is it? So unless you mean IQ 'predicts random events randomly' then you would be wrong.

If you're trying to make a case for the validity of IQ you're barking up the wrong tree, see, im not an idiot who bases his thinking off unscientific garbage.

>>4303700
>nothing the study of psychology observes is physical, meaning it has no basis in empiric reality.

Of course there are. Down syndrome, alzheimers, epilepsy, narcoplepsy, mental atropy and subsequent intelligence loss are very observable and measurable and have underlying genetic components.

Genes that regulate intelligence/brain size/density have also been found:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/international-team-uncovers-new-231989.aspx
> Which means very simply that IQ holds NO predictive power.
> So unless you mean IQ 'predicts random events randomly' then you would be wrong.

It has plenty of statistically significant predictions, you are just too emotional to do any research about the topic.

>>4303734
>Of course there are.

No, there arent. You're trying to couple neuroscience (an actual science) cognitive 'science' a pseudoscience. We know the causes of mental disabilities due to the physical observance of neurons.

In cognitive science you observe nothing.

All you have are theories and arguments and no empirical evidence to support any of it.

>It has plenty of statistically significant predictions, you are just too emotional to do any research about the topic.

emotion has nothing to do with anything im telling you, i just explained to you precisely why a correlation is NOT A PREDICTION and you continue to blither on.

>thinly veiled 'literature' thread designed to descend into arguments over race

>>4303753

>>4303751
>We know the causes of mental disabilities due to the physical observance of neurons.

And we know and categorize mental disabilities based on observation of behavior, mood and measuring mental capacities like memory, IQ, verbal ability, reasoning ability, etc.

Neuroscience, biochemistry, genetics, and psychology are all working together now and research suggests that intelligence is measurable, predictive, and genetically and also racially based.

>>4303753
Fuck off with your /pol/ meme, asshole. You're just as bad as the other stormfucks.

>>4303769
>/pol/ meme
could you make it any more blatant you came to /lit/ just for this garbage thread?

>>4303768
>And we know and categorize mental disabilities based on observation of behavior, mood and measuring mental capacities like memory, IQ, verbal ability, reasoning ability, etc.

And we know and categorize mental disabilities based on observation of behavior, mood and measuring mental capacities like memory, IQ, verbal ability, reasoning ability, etc.

Im having difficulties finding where your argument for the validity of IQ begins classifying a mental disorder does not show validity of IQ because classifications of mental disorders are based upon etiology not the scientific method.

You might want to read before you make baseless claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_mental_disorders

>Neuroscience, biochemistry, genetics, and psychology are all working together now and research suggests that intelligence is measurable, predictive, and genetically and also racially based.

Show me the emprical evidence these people have surmised and your statement might have credibility, until you can put forth definitive proof, you are a person with an opinion.

And opinions are not scientific.

>>4303801
Oops i didnt mean to post my first line twice.

>>4303801
>Show me the emprical evidence these people have surmised and your statement might have credibility

See:

>"We conducted a genome-wide analysis of 3511 unrelated adults with data on 549692 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and detailed phenotypes on cognitive traits. We estimate that 40% of the variation in crystallized-type intelligence and 51% of the variation in fluid-type intelligence between individuals is accounted for by linkage disequilibrium between genotyped common SNP markers and unknown causal variants. These estimates provide lower bounds for the narrow-sense heritability of the traits. We partitioned genetic variation on individual chromosomes and found that, on average, longer chromosomes explain more variation. Finally, using just SNP data we predicted ~1% of the variance of crystallized and fluid cognitive phenotypes in an independent sample (P=0.009 and 0.028, respectively). Our results unequivocally confirm that a substantial proportion of individual differences in human intelligence is due to genetic variation, and are consistent with many genes of small effects underlying the additive genetic influences on intelligence.

http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/full/mp201185a.html

I hope you realize what a P value of 0.0009 means, and what the word unequivocally means, and the fact that this study was rooted in neuroscience and molecular biology.

The fact that you are outdated and uninformed is not something I can remedy.

>>4303809
This does not show me validity of IQ this shows me that the trait deemed 'cognition' is genetically deterministic. This shows me reliability, not validity.

But what you continue to fail to comprehend is that if the testing itself is not scientifically valid then how heritable it is, is meaningless.

>>4303815
>if the testing itself is not scientifically valid
The testing itself is scientifically valid.

>>4303815
The crucial question, which is summarized by the existence of the g factor is this: In respect to what processes or mechanisms is it that persons who perform well on anyone test, in general, also perform well on many other tests, even on tests that are highly dissimilar in content and sensory and motor modalities? The concept of intelligence depends not on the fact that people can be ranked by this test or that, but rather on the fact that, whatever the test, so long as it is cognitive in the broadest sense, a positive correlation emerges between the ranks for any two tests. If an IQ test were just a rag- bag collection of cognitive tasks that did not all measure a common factor, there could be no positive manifold.

>>4303823
Irrelevant, there is no proof that the tests test what they claim. You cannot empirically test a mental process because it is not a physical entity.

I could make up any random trait and claim that my test tests that trait, but unless i have proof what good does any of it do me? Making unfalsifiable claims that IQ testing is valid isnt scientific. At best, psychometrics is a pre-paradigm of science, claiming for more than what it is worth gets us nowhere.

>>4303828
>You cannot empirically test a mental process because it is not a physical entity.

What?

>>4303832
What, what? If you cannot physically observe something then you cannot draw any empiric conclusions from it.

>>4303838
>If you cannot physically observe something then you cannot draw any empiric conclusions from it.

We physically observe the results of the test.
The test is used to make predictions regarding the variance of an independent sample.
The data fit their prediction with a p-value of 0.009 and 0.028 for each type of intelligence.

Their conclusion also confirms pre-existing twin-studies and adoption studies which report similar results about heritability of intelligence.

The fact that you disagree with the idea of "intelligence" or measuring mental capacities is your own strange philosophical and semantic problem. The science is against you.

>>4303828
The crucial question, which is summarized by the existence of the g factor is this: In respect to what processes or mechanisms is it that persons who perform well on anyone test, in general, also perform well on many other tests, even on tests that are highly dissimilar in content and sensory and motor modalities? The concept of intelligence depends not on the fact that people can be ranked by this test or that, but rather on the fact that, whatever the test, so long as it is cognitive in the broadest sense, a positive correlation emerges between the ranks for any two tests. If an IQ test were just a rag- bag collection of cognitive tasks that did not all measure a common factor, there could be no positive manifold.

>>4303843
>physically observe the results of the test.

Please be a joke.

If there is no supporting evidence that shows the test is valid the results are meaningless.

What do you not understand?

>>4303845
A correlation is meaningless without evidence to support it.

>>4303846
The crucial question, which is summarized by the existence of the g factor is this: In respect to what processes or mechanisms is it that persons who perform well on anyone test, in general, also perform well on many other tests, even on tests that are highly dissimilar in content and sensory and motor modalities? The concept of intelligence depends not on the fact that people can be ranked by this test or that, but rather on the fact that, whatever the test, so long as it is cognitive in the broadest sense, a positive correlation emerges between the ranks for any two tests. If an IQ test were just a rag- bag collection of cognitive tasks that did not all measure a common factor, there could be no positive manifold.

>>4303853
Are you retarded? refer to
>>4303847

Even with a correlation there must be supporting evidence to suggest anything. Correlation does not imply cause in any case even when correlation is strong.

If there is no empiric evidence, it is meaningless.

Jesus, im tired of this im going to bed. Arguing with people who dont understand science nor even concern themselves with learning empiric methodology is useless.

Really wish these idiots who are obviously from /pol/ would just go back to shit flinging on their board.

>>4303846
>If there is no supporting evidence that shows the test is valid the results are meaningless.

The tests are valid which is why every serious neuroscientist, doctor, biochemist and psychologists studying mental capacities uses them.

They are very useful for measuring treatment efficacy for patients with mental disabilities like Autism/Aspergers/learning disability/brain damage --- which you seem to suffer from.

>>4303847
You offer no alternative ideas to account for all these well- established observations. Your mission in this area appears entirely nihilistic.

I thought you were better than this, /lit/.

>>4303856
In respect to what processes or mechanisms is it that persons who perform well on anyone test, in general, also perform well on many other tests, even on tests that are highly dissimilar in content and sensory and motor modalities?

>>4303856
Why do liberals despise facts, reason, and logic so?

>Discoveries using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), which creates a three-dimensional image of the living brain, have shown a strong positive correlation (.44) between brain size and IQ (see Rushton & Ankney, 1996, for a review). And there is more. The National Collaborative Perinatal Project on 53,000 children by Sarah Broman and her colleagues, showed that head perimeter at birth significantly predicts head perimeter at 7 years — and head perimeter at seven years predicts IQ. It also shows that Asian children average a larger head perimeter at birth than do White children who average a larger head perimeter than do Black children.

>Racial differences in brain size have been established using a variety of modern methods. Using endocranial volume, for example, Beals et al. (1984, p. 307, Table 5) analyzed about 20,000 skulls from around the world. East Asians averaged 1,415 cm3 , Europeans averaged 1,362 cm3, and Africans averaged 1,268 cm3 . Using external head measures to calculate cranial capacities, Rushton (1992) analyzed a stratified random sample of 6,325 U.S. Army personnel measured in 1988 for fitting helmets and found that Asian Americans averaged 1,416 cm3, European Americans 1,380 cm3, and African Americans 1,359 cm3. Finally, a recent MRI study found that people of African and Caribbean background averaged a smaller brain volume than did those of European background (again see Rushton & Ankney, 1996, for review).

>>4303898
>Phrenology

>>4303898

R.I.P Rushton

>>4303898

>real science.

>>4303904
>>4303914
>liberalism

>>4303922

>Amerifat reasoning.

>>4303937
>liberal emoting

>>4298151
>DOES ANYBODY ELSE FEEL LIKE ME GUIYZ?
No, fag.

>>4303943

>Repeat the same word over and over till everybody ignores you.
>Feel validated.

Every time I read a nonfiction book or science book I can't help but wonder what the author's bias is and what is being left out under the false pretense of objectivity.

With literature there is no pretense of objectivity, what you glean is the same (though less visceral) as what you would from an experience in real life.

The best nonfiction books are cookbooks.

What's funny is that /pol/ types are often the dregs of "the superior white race".

>>4303990
So, how does it feel to lose in debate every time you try to argue with these "dregs"?

>>4303979

You dont notice bias and ideologies at work in fiction like 1984, master and margaritas, dune, heart of darkness, the stranger, Dantes divine comedy, etc....or basically any book ever written??

>>4303979
I enjoy both fiction and nonfiction because I'm not scared of objective evidence challenging and upgrading my beliefs
:)

>>4304008
Liberals prefer fiction because the only place liberal ideology works is their imagination.

Guys, can philosophy help to form a foundation of beliefs and opinions? I feel very unsteady in that aspect and I wish to form a good foundation to build upon. Not literature wise, just life in general.

>>4304008
sacred works don't have ideology tho; christianity for the crusaders was not an 'ideology' as such
don't try and contradict me i'll fight u to the death

>>4304068
>liberal democratic republics enjoy a great deal of wealth
>half of the world is functionally liberal
>fantasy

Wait, you didn't even mean liberal, did you?

>muh superior flyover state high school education

as a muscovite that picture makes me rage so much

>>4298513

quality post. let the /pol/ babies cry their tears of vinegar

>>4304008
Yes, but that's the point. As I mentioned, there is no pretense of objectivity.

>>4298151
> OP's pic
First of all, his description of serfdom in Russia is flawed. Those abuses were going on because of corruption and lack of centralized government, not because they were enshrined in laws.

Second of all, the period of hardcore serfdom in Russia lasted only about 100 years of so. (A small blip on the historical scale, it just happened to coincide with other important historical events.)

>>4298151
Jesus christ that image is terrible and I feel bad for anyone who takes it seriously...

>>4304109
It's so common to see liberals actually believe that hoax chart, your parody of their idiocy is almost indistinguishable from the real thing!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp

>>4304001
cranial capacity and IQ aren't correlated, dumbass

>>4304179
Yes they are, dumbass.

>>4304179
Why do liberals despise facts, reason, and logic so?

>Discoveries using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), which creates a three-dimensional image of the living brain, have shown a strong positive correlation (.44) between brain size and IQ (see Rushton & Ankney, 1996, for a review). And there is more. The National Collaborative Perinatal Project on 53,000 children by Sarah Broman and her colleagues, showed that head perimeter at birth significantly predicts head perimeter at 7 years — and head perimeter at seven years predicts IQ. It also shows that Asian children average a larger head perimeter at birth than do White children who average a larger head perimeter than do Black children.

>Racial differences in brain size have been established using a variety of modern methods. Using endocranial volume, for example, Beals et al. (1984, p. 307, Table 5) analyzed about 20,000 skulls from around the world. East Asians averaged 1,415 cm3 , Europeans averaged 1,362 cm3, and Africans averaged 1,268 cm3 . Using external head measures to calculate cranial capacities, Rushton (1992) analyzed a stratified random sample of 6,325 U.S. Army personnel measured in 1988 for fitting helmets and found that Asian Americans averaged 1,416 cm3, European Americans 1,380 cm3, and African Americans 1,359 cm3. Finally, a recent MRI study found that people of African and Caribbean background averaged a smaller brain volume than did those of European background (again see Rushton & Ankney, 1996, for review).

>>4304109
>Share of Recipients of each program that self-identified as supporters of Republican party in 2004-2007 Maxwell Poll:

Gov. Subsidized Housing 12%
Medicaid: 16%
Food Stamps: 20%
Unemployment Compensation: 21%
Welfare or public assistance: 22%
Disability benefits from government 25%

http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/campbell/programs/Merged_Data_Set/

>>4304109
What people don't write about and discuss is that the average IQ of Democrats is lower than the IQ of Independents, Non-Voters and definitely lower than Republicans. Yes, categorically.

>>4304109
>>4304222
Those are the facts. Many studies have been done on non-voters level of income and education; non-voters match independents exactly.

To recapitulate: The Republican average IQ is higher than non-voters and independents and all three are higher than the Democratic average IQ.

>>4304213
...So basically what you've proved there is that Democrats are often on welfare, but Democratic states are so well run that they are a net benefit to the country?

>>4304225
Well, there's proof that IQ doesn't equate to intelligence.

>>4304232
Yeah!

Democrats are obviously the more intelligent party, because Black people vote for them. Black people are widely known for their intellect.

>>4304226
You can infer what you want from the graph. It's of no concern to me. However, when one points out red states take a lot of federal assistance and then make silly assumptions out of the fact, it tends to bother me a little. You know, Republican voters are hypocrites and all that jazz.

>>4304238
Racists aren't widely known for their intellect. Black people aren't less intelligent than white people, except in the feverish fantasies of white supremacists.

Even if you did manage to prove that a given group had a lower average IQ, it would be a fallacy to assume any individual from that group was stupid. However, believing such a fallacy would, immediately, demonstrate poor reasoning abilities.

So, I can comfortably say that racists are stupid by virtue of the fact they commit this fallacy. The fact they do it on an insane paucity of data just compounds this stupidity.

>>4298631

> Egypt
> small segment of history

Genius, there's more time between the building of the pyramids of Giza and Cleopatra than between Cleopatra and the moon landings.

Furthermore, I still don' think you understand that the advancement of a civilization was dependent heavily on

A: The aimless wanderings of their hunter-gatherer ancestors into a place with plentiful resources.

B) The decision of those hunter-gatherers to become agriculturalists early on enough to get a head start, when they weren't even certain it was necessarily a better lifestyle (it wasn't until everyone did it everywhere and engaged in trade)

C) The lack of violent neighbors willing to destroy centuries of work in a few days of pillage and rape.

D) The ability to know (which none of them had) that this would all determine how their people were seen in a distant future in getting off the planet would for some reason seem a much larger goal.

Not to begin to talk about how arbitrary, inherited superstitions inevitably held by all primitive peoples in the world prevented some of them from progressing.

And even if a people could be said collectively to be genetically inferior, etc etc etc, it's not their fault! The universe is deterministic. Far more things about your life were chosen for you than you got to chose.

>>4304251
I'm not advocating basing your interactions with people on the average group's IQ rather than the individual. All I am doing is pointing out a little accepted truth because I feel it should always be the goal of an individual to unveil the truth.

Do you hate the truth?

>>4304297
... That would be fine if it was the truth. It would also be fine if that was really what you were doing. However, aside from the methodological and conceptual problems of your assertion ('race', for instance, is a very vague term), there really isn't very much evidence for it. I had a look at the wikipedia article about race and intelligence and nearly every study is inconclusive.

>>4304304
Oh my you were getting links to wikipedia articles? Try the link below, it's a particularly well documented study with a large sample and stratified results

http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=16925

>>4304314
>http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=16925

> Results suggest the effects of family income on SAT scores, though relatively modest in contrasts to high school achievement, are substantial, non-linear, and nearly twice as large for Black students. Moreover, the unstandardized direct effect of high school achievement on SAT performance is not enough to address the substantial effects of poverty for Black students.

It also doesn't support your contention. All this is saying is 'poor black kids have a worse time of it than poor white kids'.

>>4304325
Don't ask for a full proof study if your not willing to do more than skim it. It later goes on to list score results from other economic groups and determines Hispanic and African-American students from comparable socioeconomic families scored lower than their Asian-American and White peers.

Basically, the problem for racists is:
-They have to prove that race is a scientific concept.
(Very hard, since it was developed before knowledge of genetics, is complicated by the 'one teaspoon of sewage' idea etc)
-They have to prove that race can be reliably linked to IQ.
-They have to prove that race could be reliably linked with IQ independently of other factors - (the culture of race, racism in society, etc).

Basically, to prove the last one, you'd need a study in a society with income equality between people of all races to start with. The first one, I don't think you could prove. Probably, your best bet would be to come up with entirely new categories (say, a specific gene). The second could be proven if it was true.

But to be honest, if you did take the rigorous route (saying 'people with X genotype are usually stupid') you would be basically stating a tautology, since the 'X genotype' would have to be one that expressed itself in stupidity. It would be like saying people with the genes for brown hair usually have brown hair.

>>4304337
Again, if you don't have the pre-existing assumption that black people are stupid, that just reads as 'black kids experience more racism than hispanic kids, and this has a negative effect on their education'.

>>4304339
>Race is a scientific concept. Most people have turned on this issue. Even Fedora men like renowned biologist Dawkins:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/05/richard-dawkins-accepts-the-usefulness-of-race/

>They have to prove that race can be reliably linked to IQ:
This has been proved several times over as demonstrated with links through out this thread.


>They have to prove that race could be reliably linked with IQ independently of other factors - (the culture of race, racism in society, etc).
This has also been proven with studies throughout this thread.

But you go ahead and refute the findings and live in the belief that all people are exactly the same and that genetics doesn't play any part at all, only in skincolour.

this thread's turned into a good demonstration of why nazi shitheads can't do logic

the reason why race isn't logical or scientific is that it was dreamt up to justify a prexisting situation of inequality, oppression and slavery. you don't get good concepts if your just taking whatever is at hand to paper up cracks

>>4304346
No it doesn't, you haven't read the study have you?

>>4304346
You are so blind to the truth. It does not matter how many studies you are shown because you have already determined regardless that there is some made up factor that makes it not so.

Where are your studies documenting "racism" holding back intelligence or education? There are none. You can only make baseless assertions in the face of science. You are as pathetic, dogmatic, and blind as a creationist

>>4304352
Uh sorry everything you've just said is untrue. Look through the thread again. Your last sentence is hilarious too, because you're a racist, arguing that the society you live in is non-racist enough to prove your racist arguments. I mean, that's fucking crazy doublethink right there.

You're really proving what that guy said about racists and intelligence. Although, I guess you wouldn't become a racist in the first place if you had a brain that was better than shit-tier.

>>4304364
Yeah this is a common problem with racists. Racism's such a bizzare and self-contradictory 20th century ideology that they often say things that are self-defeatiing.

If IQ is inherent, why does black IQ keep increasing?

>>4304397
because IQ is based off genetics and environment, Einstein.

>>4304346
Because differences in material resources across a broad range of family circumstances seem to have no demonstrable effect on IQ by late adolescence, culture-only theories have now begun to stress psychological rather than material disadvantage as the root cause of group differences in cognitive performance: for example, racism-depressed motivation, racial stress, race-based performance anxiety ("stereotype threat"), and low self-esteem. All are generally posited to result in some manner from White racism. However, there is no evidence that any of them causes either short- or long-term declines in actual cognitive ability, either within or between races; not all of them (e.g., self-esteem) are lower for Blacks; and none can begin to explain the large array of relevant non-psychological facts, including why the races also differ in brain size and speed (in milliseconds) of performing exceedingly simple cognitive tasks such as recognizing which of several buttons on a console has been illuminated (a reaction time task). Because the American Black-White IQ gap has not narrowed in the century since it was first measured, the psychic injury must also be just as deleterious now as it was during that earlier, more hostile era for Blacks, which seems implausible. Thus, while the proposed psychic insults may temporarily patch over some rips in the culture-only theory, they would seem to hold even less promise than the failed socioeconomic ones for explaining the longstanding, worldwide pattern of racial IQ differences and their links to the biological correlates of g.

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/hereditarianhypothesis.pdf

>>4304421
science is rasys

>>4304251
>Racists aren't widely known for their intellect.

You're assuming that intelligent racists are stupid enough to admit their views in public, given the current media-fueled crusade against racists.

>>4304251
>Racists aren't widely known for their intellect.


http://www.salon.com/2013/08/12/study_smart_people_are_not_less_racist_than_other_people/