/lit/ - Literature

around blacks never relax

>>6804351
>>>/pol/

Intelligence is much in part determined by genetics. It's difficult to say if it has to do anything with race though.

ass

>>6804360
arse

>>6804348
of course there is
but i also see why the mainstream discourse must remain ignorant of it and reject the possibility -- people don't understand the concept of an average. i honestly don't see how we could do anything else. what would we gain by there being acknowledgement of this fact?

>>6804385
I am inclined to agree with you that there's not a whole to be gained from public acknowledgement of something like this.

On the other hand if Jensen turns out to have been right, it seems bizarre that there are truths that are so deeply taboo in our society. It seems like an extreme warping of the principle of intellectual honesty.

And some policies are explicitly based on the assumption that these differences do not exist. It seems like rather a strange road to go down, to start making policies based on noble lies. It feels kind of Orwellian.

>>6804364
ass britfag. fucking ass

>>6804451
The very basis of life is the lie anon.

FUCK OFF NIGGER NOT /lit/

It certainly makes some difference. I think almost anyone believes that deep down.

Yes i know the controversy.

I think the real issue is that its not enough of a difference to be of all that much interest and it will end your career to try and make any conclusive study on the matter.


Different ethnic groups that selected for things like higher intelligence will obviously have that expressed more in their genes.

>>6804356
You're a nigger, aren't you?

>>6804475
You're being rude

>>6804348
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeb09GS7ids

The Evolutionary and Biological Reality of Race

It's only a "controversy" among the lay public and academics from social sciences who make a living off of being perpetually offended. The vast majority of neuroscientists accept that race and IQ are related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOnQPXuU81Q

When it comes to classic "race and IQ" stuff like The Bell Curve, the first thing that's suspicious is that all of these works are published as books, not in peer reviewed academic journals. The neo nazis will see this and scream "muh persecution", but really, if the scientific community was able to gradually accept a novel and super-controversial idea like evolution throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, I don't see how an old idea like racial supremacy which is accepted by a lot of people would have a much harder time if there was good evidence for it. BOTH ideas were connected to justifications for genocide and eugenics in the early 20th century, but evolution came out relatively unscathed in terms of scientific legitimacy.

Many of the "academics" that racialist theories hold in high regard are literally pseudo intellectuals. David Duke got his "doctorate" from a diploma mill in Ukraine. Kevin MacDonald has very low standards of evidence - evolutionary psychologists are disregarded by mainstream academia is they act like merely proposing the ancestral mechanism behind some modern group behavior is evidence itself - genetic analysis or archaeological evidence that disputes existing theories is almost never mentioned.

Also, racialist "science" almost NEVER distinguishes between correlation and causation. Black people score lowers IQs - this is not disputed by the psychometric community at large, but this observation itself does not establish to what extent the causes are social vs biological, or how environmental factors influence the expression of biological ones. A plant with the alleles for tall stem height may grow stunted in a nutrition-deprived environment, for example. Likewise, growing up in poverty has been found to lower your IQ by around 13 points.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S37/75/69M50/index.xml?section=topstories

Iodine deficiency during childhood, common in third world countries, has also been found to decrease IQ by around 13 points.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15734706

Yet for all I see racists rant about how libruls hate science, I have never seen neo-nazis or "eugenicists" make this basic distinction between genotype and phenotype! The externally observed traits are all that's considered. This is why race is really a "folk taxon", no racialists actually identify with others based on their haplogroup - but rather, immediate visual and cultural features like skin color, facial structure, clothing, religion, etc. Considering the enormous genetic diversity in Africa, if racialist science was accurate, all non-Africans would be one race, and Africa itself would have multiple races.

From what I've read; Richard Lynn's studies on race and IQ fabricated the mean IQs of many countries with no data available by simply averaging neighboring countries. He also ignored some of the higher scoring IQs of african people

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121155220.htm

>>6804582

I agree that i think most stuff published about it is bullshit.

But also i think there is no way in hell you would be allowed to carry out a real study. Nobody would fund it, and if you didn't make it undeniable conclusive (and even if you did) it would be denied for many many reasons.

IQ itself is controversial so basing a study of that is a nightmare.
And on top of that any criteria of your own you invent is open to criticism.
Not to mention your career.


That all being said, certain populations have had selective types of situation where having an intellectual job was almost necessary to have a big family.
Those are obviously conditions for intelligence to be selected.
Jews in the middle ages for example. Chinese peasants could move up because they didn't have a hard cast system.
I would be more interested to see something like Indian casts all tested then averaged then compared to averages of Chinese etc. but that will never happen.

>>6804582
>if racialist science was accurate, all non-Africans would be one race, and Africa itself would have multiple races.

see what you're doing here is saying that if you think it makes sense that there are group iq differences, then you are one of those racist nutjobs

the thing is, without the nutjobs who are certainly crazy because nobody normal would sacrifice public standing like they have, the evidence is there, the sober evidence is not coming from them

the "racialist" science's conclusion isn't what you pointed out above, that is the conclusion of normal science that doesn't filter down to mainstream discourse because that would have no utility besides "pursuit of truth" - and who gives a fuck about that really at a whole-society level? the group iq differences basically boil down to: pure africans and aborigines are not as abstractly intelligent on average than the rest of the world. and this seems pretty fucking obvious.

>>6804348
race is difficult to conceptualize so most people just thin race is phenotypes (probably is who knows)
Genetics and IQ is a different thing.
Also, what's the point of it?
Never understood why it's so important.

>>6804582
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

>>6804673
you can't trust these guys, for real
all of this shit is both likely true and discountable because to present it in naked form like they have makes them almost certainly insane

there is nothing to be gained from it

>>6804651
>see what you're doing here is saying that if you think it makes sense that there are group iq differences, then you are one of those racist nutjobs

Most of the time, this is the case. You can't understand an ideology without the component beliefs that make it up - someone who accepts the notion of class struggle is very likely to be a socialist, for example, just like someone who accepts the resurrection of Jesus is most likely a Christian. You're correct in that modern society, a binary of racist vs non racist is created, when in reality, it's more of a continuum. However, the keystone belief of these "racist nutjobs" is that some races are superior to others, with intelligence generally assumed as the defining trait.

>the thing is, without the nutjobs who are certainly crazy because nobody normal would sacrifice public standing like they have, the evidence is there, the sober evidence is not coming from them

There is no sober evidence, it's bad science due to methodology, that was the point of my post, which you have made no effort to refute. This "sober evidence" has had virtually no explanatory or predictive success outside of spreading support for racialist ideologies - a hallmark of pseudoscience, just like creationism is tied to religious motives or "alternative medicine" is tied to new age bullshit.

>the "racialist" science's conclusion isn't what you pointed out above, that is the conclusion of normal science that doesn't filter down to mainstream discourse because that would have no utility besides "pursuit of truth" - and who gives a fuck about that really at a whole-society level?

This is so short sighted. Since different fields of science relate to each other, and science itself relates to everyday life like economics and technology, there's no telling when knowledge that seems useless at the time may be important to society later.

Steam power was used as little more than a toy for the ancient Greeks, yet it was utilized to tremendous effect during the Industrial revolution. Electricity was also considered trivial in its early age of understanding, yet we couldn't imagine the modern world without it.

>the group iq differences basically boil down to: pure africans and aborigines are not as abstractly intelligent on average than the rest of the world. and this seems pretty fucking obvious.

Sorry bro, "common sense" is not science, or a legitimate way of really any knowledge on the massive scale of statistically generalizing entire races of people. It's a pile of uncritically accepted ideas that prevail in a time and place. In reality, the observations and frameworks produced by scientific methodology are often counter-intuitive.

>>6804582
You seem intelligent and I respect your enlightened motives but I also think you are wrong. You think you're being scientific, but you are not.

If you use David Duke and Kevin MacDonald to represent the other side of this argument, you are not attacking them at their strongest point. I have no sympathy for David Duke, and to my knowledge MacDonald is a paranoid antisemite. Some more respectable representatives of this point of view are Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, E.O. Wilson, Hans Eysenck, as well as Gottfredson, Cochran, Harpending, Rushton, Lynn.

>NEVER distinguishes between correlation and causation
This is wrong. Much of the work of Rushton and Jensen involves trying to tease out causality by various means, e.g. looking at the g-loading of sub-tests. As a reality check, Jensen is a Berkeley professor who was rated one of the most influential psychologists of the 20th century. To say he didn't understand correlation =/= causation is as absurd an accusation as saying John von Neumann didn't understand indices.

>Iodine deficiency during childhood, common in third world countries, has also been found to decrease IQ by around 13 points.
Yes, iodine deficiency is one of relatively few environmental variables that has been shown to have a large impact on IQ, which is why in the US food has been fortified with iodine. Within the United States, the heritability of IQ has been estimated at ~0.8, while the effects of differences home environment are generally negligible. It's possible that this is true within groups, but not between groups, but that would require a rather massive environmental effect that I don't think is forthcoming. There's also additional evidence for a genetic component in trans-racial adoption studies, studies of high-SES blacks vs. low-SES whites, sub-test heritability, as well as correlates of intelligence such as brain size. There may be others I'm leaving out.

>This is why race is really a "folk taxon"
It's been found that self-identified race can be predicted from looking at genetic markers with over 99% accuracy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
>Genetic cluster analysis of the (326) microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories.

It seems possible, perhaps likely, since IQ is proven to have some amount of heritability.

On the other hand I think there is also some validity to arguments about how environment influences performance on IQ tests, and also tI the concerns about the objectivity and universality of IQ tests to begin with.

Ultimately, though, I don't see how it matters at all. Even if certain races have a lower IQ on average (even if they have lower intelligence on average) they are still equal human beings who should be treated equally. It wouldn't change anything in practical, everyday life. And as with any average there would still be members of the less intelligent race who are significantly more intelligent than the average member of the more intelligent race, etc. so blanket statements and generalizations would still be wrong.

So yeah, this is a pretty pointless topic unless you're into race war bullshit (on either side).

>>6804385
This.

Whites are finished though. One of the main aspects of "white privilege" is not even being conscious of race for the most part and just being a human being. But now that's over and our art will suffer for it.

>>6804690
Just because their conclusions could prove offensive to many doesn't make them untrustworthy

I trust these researchers and their conclusions because they've both earned Ph.D.s from extremely prestigious universities and possess extensive experience in their field, earned through their lifelong careers as tenured professors at similarly reputable schools. They made a coherent argument that considered their opponents most popular claims and refuted them all in a convincing and professional manner.

I am mostly unconcerned with how this information may or may not be used; all that matters to me is the question, "is it accurate?" And the answer I think is a resounding yes.

>>6804348
nobody replied to me, why is this important?
I mean, if the whole "niggers are dumb and whiteys aren't" is completely true no matter what, what's going to happen?
Give niggers Bantu Education like in South Africa?
Apartheid?
Eugenics (kek)?
Do tell. Because all these things require heavy state intervention, something that isn't popular in modern western democracies.

>>6804633
>But also i think there is no way in hell you would be allowed to carry out a real study. Nobody would fund it, and if you didn't make it undeniable conclusive (and even if you did) it would be denied for many many reasons.

You're very vague here. Firstly, science is never "conclusive". Secondly, this relates to what I said before about other strange theories being accepted despite being implying a massive overhaul of existing cultural norms. Someone could have said to Darwin or Wallace that evolution through natural selection would "never be accepted" by the scientific community, yet today it clearly is, despite being smeared by the same social darwinist atrocities that racialism and eugenics were tied to. Quantum physics was, and still is, a gigantic and counter-intuitive shift in how we view the universe that has come to be almost universally accepted in science.
During the times that it was acceptable to publish research with racist implications, the evidence was later found to be bunk bullshit like phrenology. Why was a wealth of factual and time-tested evidence in favor of racial differences not produced during these time periods?

>
That all being said, certain populations have had selective types of situation where having an intellectual job was almost necessary to have a big family.
>Those are obviously conditions for intelligence to be selected.
>Jews in the middle ages for example. Chinese peasants could move up because they didn't have a hard cast system.

This is hardly a sufficient timespan for the monumental changes in intelligence that racialists suggests to actually occur through evolution. Not to mention there's no real evidence that this intelligence benefited sexual fitness in any way, or that the financial skills necessary were more highly correlated to inherited intelligence than learned habits like simple frugal practices. This is what I mean about evolutionary psychology being speculative bullshit that connects modern behaviors to ancestral environments with nothing to back it up.

Also, "Jews" in the middle ages were not a distinctive group and really haven't been for centuries - the Ashkenazim that neo nazis lament have the highest proportion of intermixing with europeans and the lowest levels of semitic heritage compared to say, sephradic jews.

>I would be more interested to see something like Indian casts all tested then averaged then compared to averages of Chinese etc. but that will never happen.

Groups that are discriminated against tend to have lower IQs even when there is no significant bioligical difference between them. Catholics under protestant discrimination in Ireland scored up to 15 points lower than protestants, for example, Richard Lynn himself studied this (you can Google it) but did not extend the same connection to racial differences in multicultural societies like America.

>>6804755
>nobody replied to me, why is this important?
Because it might give us some clues why african countries fail to develop despite massive foreign aid and would decredibilize policies such as affirmative action. It might also affect our immigration policy.

>Apartheid?
>Eugenics (kek)?
Those might be some good consequences.

>>6804719
I think MacDonald is pretty solid. His first book was regarded highly. His books thereafter are conclusions derived from the work in his first book and other research and this is where the academic community turned on him.

The core principles of his work are in A People That Shall Dwell Alone.

>>6804673
Rushton is known for his sloppy methodology. Since you posted a link with no further elaboration and expected me to read it, I'll do the same and we can call it a day :^)

http://philipperushton.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/race-r-k-theory-rushton-weizmann-canadian-psychology-1-1991.pdf

>>6804755
It's important because a lot of attention is given to black people and their problems, and a lot of their problems (high crime rate, poor performance in school, high mortality rate, high population in prison) could easily be explained as a result of their own lesser intelligence rather than because of invisible social forces that may or may not exist

>>6804746
you should be concerned with how the information will be used
the point is that all that information is available in bits from various other sources, but then two guys bring all the evidence together. for what reason? people who need to know already know. people who don't need to know (like idiots on /pol/ who do not understand the concept of an average) probably shouldn't be armed with it.
i can only conclude that these men are insane, infused with some sort of fact-fanaticism yelling "SEE I'M NOT WRONG"
what is the point of this childish bullshit? i honestly don't know, and must conclude that these men are a bit unhinged

>>6804763
Not that anon you're talking to, but I'm taking the liberty to adress some of your points.

>This is hardly a sufficient timespan for the monumental changes in intelligence that racialists suggests to actually occur through evolution.
That's not true actually. Mutations get propagated much quicker than you think, especially in cases with severe population bottlenecks (such as in the case of ashkenazi jews)

>Not to mention there's no real evidence that this intelligence benefited sexual fitness in any way, or that the financial skills necessary were more highly correlated to inherited intelligence than learned habits like simple frugal practices.
There is actually. We actually have records from german parishes on which jews were breeding and which weren't. It was found that there was a huge disparity in the number of surviving children between successful jewish businessmen and unsuccessful jewish businessmen.

If you're arguing that you don't require a high intelligence to be successful in finance, then I'd say you're wrong.

>Also, "Jews" in the middle ages were not a distinctive group and really haven't been for centuries - the Ashkenazim that neo nazis lament have the highest proportion of intermixing with europeans and the lowest levels of semitic heritage compared to say, sephradic jews.
They have around 40% semitic ancestry, but their european ancestry is not due to mixing throughout time, but due to the founding of the population : ashkenazi jews descend from semitic men who took german wives.

Ashkenazis were actually very endogamous. They have pretty much exclusively intermarried up until modern times.

Scientists don't give a shit about race and IQ because scientists don't give a shit about IQ. No one with an IQ above 50 does. There's no giant conspiracy of PC science, it's just you're a retard. How many studies of cultural behaviours are there in psych and ways medicine impact certain ethnic groups?

>>6804348
I know that I'm going to get shit for this but just fucking read Guns Germs and Steel; there's no connection between race and intelligence (which is what you meant to say, because you're one of those cunts from the dark ages that still thinks IQ is a worthwhile measure of intelligence, assuming people ever did even think that)

>>6804769
>affirmative action and immigration
The only 2 things that will change. Not that much.
Eugenics and apartheid will never happen, remember that modern democracies like the USA or Germany dislike those things. It will probably work in countries like Russia though.
>>6804794
I know but what is the state going to do?
As I said, Bantu Education? Because it will be the same shit.

>>6804808
>Scientists don't give a shit about race and IQ because scientists don't give a shit about IQ.
How naive

>>6804813
>Eugenics and apartheid will never happen, remember that modern democracies like the USA or Germany dislike those things
Yeah, it's not like a drastic change in governmental policies has never happened before (especially in germany, wink wink)

There are also more troublesome consequences. The african population is expected to quadruple and reach 4 billion by the end of the century. Can human civilization survive when the majority of the world is comprised of people who lack the necessary intelligence to run a complex civilization?

>>6804818
my only wish is that you live long enough to physically see how autistic you are

>>6804829
I hope your naivety won't make you relax around blacks and get yourself hurt.

>>6804803
good post

>>6804348
/lit/- Literature

>>6804755
>I mean, if the whole "niggers are dumb and whiteys aren't" is completely true no matter what, what's going to happen?

but this isn't fucking true, it's true ON AVERAGE
if you go around treating black people as if they are inferior, that is retarded, because that handicap is only one of the characteristics that have come into play, they are likely not pure black anyway, they may be of a lineage that has selected for intelligence somehow etc etc

the evidence does not show that "niggers are dumb", it shows that the average person of african descent is less intelligent in that abstract IQesque waythan whites, who are in turn less intelligent than asians ON AVERAGE

this means very little as the individual level

the help that may be rendered by widespread knowledge of this fact is basically nil as far as i can see, while the harm that will be done by people who cannot understand what a fucking average means is very large

>>6804755
>nobody replied to me
I'm not sure which is your original post. Someone who asked a similar question above that I did respond to.
>why is this important?
First of all, it's a scientific question that we may just be curious about the answer to. And racial differences could be relevant to so many facts about our world that are of interest to us. Why is Sweden a developed country with all that entails, while Somalia is not? Surely a question like that is of deep interest to many people. Why do Jews win over 20% of Nobel Prizes? Why is China rapidly industrializing, but Sierra Leone isn't? These strike me as interesting questions. Central questions about the human world, even.

Affirmative-action and disparate-impact policy have in the past been explicitly based on the assumption on factual claims about racial differences or the non-existence thereof. If we wish to keep these policies, we ought at least to put them on a factually sound footing. And the reasons why black communities tend to be poorer, less educated, and less safe than white communities is of great political relevance, because these differences are frequently thought of as being a result of political injustices against black people that urgently need to be remedied.

>>6804818
Kek, well I really doubt countries like Germany or France will do it. Even in a situation where liberals go back to the old liberalism which was racist.
>The african population is expected to quadruple and reach 4 billion by the end of the century. Can human civilization survive when the majority of the world is comprised of people who lack the necessary intelligence to run a complex civilization?
Isn't this the least worry? After all, they are in their countries. And the blacks who live in first world countries will probably stay there, they won't be deported since they are part of the workforce (like slavery kek).

even if these studies are found to be completely accurate and black people are found to have lower intelligence quotients on average, so what? i don't really base my relationships on intelligence. i mean i don't get much of anything out of interfacing with a complete dud, but i don't notice a disproportionate amount of too-stupid black people (live Atlanta as white guy). when it comes to developing friendship, it more has to do with them being smart emotionally in some capacity and having some common interest with me. but then again people who are interested in literature are disproportionately intelligent

>>6804864
>Kek, well I really doubt countries like Germany or France will do it.
Really? Front national is polling at 25% in France. Nationalist parties are on the rise everywhere in Europe.

>Isn't this the least worry? After all, they are in their countries.
For now. In case you haven't been following the news, the stream of africans trying to cross the mediterranean has been steadily increasing.

>>6804856
I mean in a hypothetical situation.
>>6804859
Yeah but is not such a big deal, in a practical way. Things will stay the same albeit affirmative action and massive immigration will not be a thing. Not sure if these things will radically change the world.
>>6804867
It's also my concern. For me it's not such a great deal, in a practical way of course.

>>6804790
It's nice to see that you're already attacking the researchers' character rather than their argument

I didn't bother to post any elaboration because the image I attached and its source very clearly and concisely refuted almost every single one of the claims you made in your post. The fact is, many academics following the hereditarian model of IQ do have reputable credentials, do acknowledge the environmental influences on IQ like poverty and a lack of nutrition, do make an effort to explain the biological causes of lower IQ scores, do make a distinction between genotype and phenotype, and do distinguish between causation and correlation.

Bury your head in the sand all you want, the science won't change even if you ignore it

>>6804719
>Jensen

Has consistently ignored evidence that scores on supposedly g-loaded tasks which show racial differences have been significantly improved by mediated learning.

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Suzuki-Aronson-commentary-on-30years.pdf

Scientific thinking is, to some degree, poorly compatible with everyday human thinking, and it's easy for anyone - even acclaimed researchers, to fall into cognitive traps that befuddle it.

>Lynn

As I posted before, has been caught selectively ignoring high scoring IQs of africans that were tested.

>Trans racial adoption studies

I've never seen one with a valid sample size.

>Yes, iodine deficiency is one of relatively few environmental variables that has been shown to have a large impact on IQ, which is why in the US food has been fortified with iodine. Within the United States, the heritability of IQ has been estimated at ~0.8, while the effects of differences home environment are generally negligible. It's possible that this is true within groups, but not between groups, but that would require a rather massive environmental effect that I don't think is forthcoming

Between continents, however, the difference is significant, which is what I was referring to.

You mention this, but ignore the link I posted about poverty having a detrimental effect on IQ between groups in the same country. The difference was around 13 points, very close to the black-white IQ gap in the USA.

The fact that the Flynn effect has shown faster IQ gains for minorities and women doesn't give racialist science much solid ground to stand on. Such changes are too rapid to be attributed to selection of inherited traits, although you know as well as I that Flynn peddles his idea of dysgenics and that IQ doesn't measure real intelligence anyway, which kinda throws the baby out of the bathwater.

>Genetic cluster analysis of the (326) microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories.

Four categories? I find it hard to believe that participants actually identify in such a small number of boxes; the average Cletus does not see Ahmed as a fellow Caucasian.

>>6804875
honestly i don't think this serves any practice though. the only thing that will come of this is racist people justifying their cruel actions. black people on average having lowe IQs does not legitimize exterminating them, for god sake

>>6804878
How is bad methodology not an attack on their argument?

>I didn't bother to post any elaboration because the image I attached and its source very clearly and concisely refuted almost every single one of the claims you made in your post.

And I link I posted refutes Rushton's r/K selection model applied to human races, but you didn't read it.

>>6804873
I really doubt they will establish eugenics as something obligatory made by the state. You are probably a first world citizen so you know how loud people complain about minor things, and eugenics is not a minor thing. It won't happen since the state needs to intervene and nowadays nobody really likes that the state meddles in something, specially the right-wing.
>>6804886
The only thing that would change is affirmative action and massive immigration. Not suck a big deal imo.

An interesting take on this:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/kk/why_are_individual_iq_differences_ok/

>tl;dr: people get offended by claims of IQ differences between sexes/races but they accept IQ differences between individuals, why is that any less shocking?

From the point of view of an individual, it doesn't matter what colour someone is, if their intelligence is subpar or if they behave rudely, you won't want to associate with them.
Discrimination based on biological traits.

>>6804907
>LessWrong

Quick! Donate all your money to the singularity institute before HAL9000 tortures you forever :^)

>>6804353
>implying /pol/ isn't right

>>6804883
I know that this is a lame move to make in an argument, but I do think that there is bias within academia against the hereditarian position. These views are unpopular, so it is relatively easy to find someone in academia writing something critical of someone who has expressed them. It's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I was unfamiliar with the concept of 'mediated learning' which seems to be a fairly obscure thing. The major source seems to be Skuy, et al 2002. The claims about mediated learning and g are repudiated here:
http://humanvarieties.org/2013/08/28/test-retest-effects-no-g-gains-in-two-independent-samples/
I know this is just me, but I also get suspicious as fuck when I read shit like
>Sue and Okazaki (1990) refuted the notion that Asians are genetically superior to other racial/ethnic groups
I feel like I'm in some kind of self-reinforcing loop where people just reference each other as bearers of academic prestige giving us the conventional wisdom. But again, just my opinion. Sue and Okazaki's say that Asians achieve in education because other avenues to success are closed. Which is also why impoverished blacks achieve so well in education! Presumably...


>I've never seen one with a valid sample size.
The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study had a sample size of 130 and found that being adopted into a white family only raised IQ a couple of points. Sure, the sample size isn't huge but it's better than nothing. It's better than filling in the blanks.

>poverty having a detrimental effect on IQ
It has been shown that blacks from the highest income brackets score lower on the SAT than do whites from the lowest incomes brackets.

>The fact that the Flynn effect has shown faster IQ gains for minorities and women doesn't give racialist science much solid ground to stand on.
The black-white IQ gap has remained relatively stable for the last 100 years. It's not clear whether the IQ gap is diminishing at the moment. If it is, the gains are small.

>Four categories? I find it hard to believe that participants actually identify in such a small number of boxes; the average Cletus does not see Ahmed as a fellow Caucasian.
This is just babbling. The point is, you can tell someone's race from looking at their genes. Racial groups seem to correspond to genetic clusters. This is pretty straightforward if you're not prone to bizarre obfuscation.

Blacks from families earning more than $160,000 per year score lower on the SAT than whites from families earning less than $20,000 per year.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1929617751.html
The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education

>>6804896
>How is bad methodology not an attack on their argument?
Because you didn't explain how bad methodology was present in this particular argument, which is not an actual experiment but an analysis of other experiments conducted by people other than Rushton. You at least bothered to skim the abstract, right? I am not defending Rushton's previous studies, I am defending this analysis and this conclusion which I found to be academically sound.

You and your link's focus on Rushton's r/K selection model is mostly irrelevant. Whether or not the r/K selection model is accurate has little relation to the fact that there exists a wealth of evidence for a genetic basis to IQ (the primary argument of the Rushton and Jensen's analysis), and this disconnect is all the more evident upon consideration that Rushton and Jensen's analysis made no use of or acknowledgement to the r/K selection model. Weizmann et al.'s paper is not a serious refutation of their methodology, it was published twenty years before the analysis I cited and reads more like an opportunity to dispense insults than a critique of this paper's method of analysis or its conclusions.

How intellectual aptitude other traits are inherited is not the same debate as whether or not they are inherited at all. Again, I ask you to respond to the actual argument made in the paper I cited and to defend the claims you made in your original post

race is a social thing, IQ is too

>>6805082
>wut is IQ even? idk. wut is race even? idk, man. you can't answer that. therefore race and iq cant be related 'cause they, like, don't even exist man. they're just ideas.

like, what are you even trying to say? are you just trying to obfuscate?

>>6805070
This is pretty important.

Even with adjusting for socioeconomic backgrounds, you find that there remains a significant black/white IQ gap.

>>6805128
Yes, because poor whites do not have the diminishing effects of the stereotype threat, a gap which can be partially closed by positive encouragement. This can be seen in women, too, even on tests that initially show the greatest difference in scores, like spatial recognition.

>>6805705
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat#Criticism

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

>>6804982
/pol/ might be right, but doesen't mean they are correct.

>>6804348
>I have been discussing the subject of a possible connection between race and IQ
There is and it's obviously mainly genetic, although it's a taboo to talk about it. You don't win ~25% of all Nobel Prizes, while constituting <0.2% of the World's population, by graft alone.

>>6804348
Fine, I see people are actually taking this serious..

Define Race. And that's a serious question. You're going to say white? Nordic? German? some /pol/ names? Who belongs to it? Where do you draw the line between one race or the other? How do you know whether someone is ''pure'' of race, or whether one of their ancestors mixed with someone? How are you going to count for the environment the ''race'' grew up in? How are you going to determine it's nature and not nurture? How are you going to account for food intake affecting ''intelligence''? Who are you going to find to have consensus on what ''Race'' actually is? And finally. What does knowing the answer to this (and you assume there is a difference, otherwise you wouldn't ask this question and challenge academic consensus) do for anyone?

>>6805813
>You don't win ~25% of all Nobel Prizes, while constituting <0.2% of the World's population, by graft alone.
It's almost as if we have schools, colleges and universities for everyone, with stable environments and no work other than education for children whatsoever.
Please just be baiting..

Of course there could be, you could find statistics for difference in other performances based on race so why not IQ? I would also note that voicing such an opinion in public will be met with horror from those who are unable to think about subjects like genetics with an open mind.

>>6805841
>Define Race.
In some sense, this question is almost unnecessary. We can simply define race as "self-identified race" (with a given number of categories like 'black', 'white', 'other), and then ask the question of whether a difference between self-identified races is genetic. All that is then required is that these self-identified groups be genetically non-identical (e.g., 60% of group A have allele x, but only 20% of B do) in order for a between-group difference to be possible.

If you need a definition, Steve Sailer’s “an extended family that inbreeds to some extent” covers the territory just fine.

>Where do you draw the line between one race or the other?
The concept of race has fuzzy boundaries, like many others. It's like saying how many neighborhoods are in your city? It's not a question that has an answer, but it doesn't mean "neighborhood" is an illegitimate concept. Most of us can usually guess what broad racial category someone belongs to.

>How are you going to determine it's nature and not nurture?
This is exactly what we've been talking about in this thread.

>How are you going to account for food intake affecting ''intelligence''?
For our purposes we are dealing with differences within developed countries, especially the US. Within the US, IQ-impacting undernourishment is *very* rare. Food is fortified with micronutrients that have been known to be important for IQ.

>What does knowing the answer to this (and you assume there is a difference, otherwise you wouldn't ask this question and challenge academic consensus) do for anyone?
This has also been discussed above. Suffice it to say, it's a matter of scientific curiosity and it could possibly have relevance for politics and for our understanding of many human phenomena. I'd prefer if you stuck to attacking this hypothesis either on the scientific/factual grounds, or else on 'why do you want to know' grounds. Either we want to know the truth or we do not, but I'd prefer if we didn't mix political and scientific questions in this way.

>>6804883
>http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Suzuki-Aronson-commentary-on-30years.pdf

>stereotype threat

Argument invalidated.

>>6805841

When people talk about race in an intelligence context, they are talking about haplogroups. This is genetic and objectively measurable.

>>6805845
>go to school
>teacher asks 'are you a jew?'
>'no'
>'then fuck off you lil prick'
>mfw

>muh averages

summed up the thread

>>6805922
I don't understand what you're talking about. Is this intended as a criticism? Of whom?

I don't think you summed up the thread at all.

>>6804582
>Many of the "academics" that racialist theories hold in high regard are literally pseudo intellectuals
Who is James Watson ?

I agree that people trying to get a grip on these theories are incompetent, but it's because it's so taboo thath nobody wants to try to demonstrate the genetic correlations between race and intelligence.

Also, we must consider different types of intelligence. I can say that IQ is based on abilities that are typically European and Asian (or Caucasoid and Mongoloid), because of the environment that these races are exposed to.

The Northern hemisphere has had deadly cold winters for hundreds of thousands of years, this major difference between this climate and the subequatorian climate is crucial when trying to understand the differences of intelligences.
Caucasoids and Mongoloids had to plan their winters because excepted hunting, nothing can bring you food when the cold season comes. The preys become less and less, birds' migration lessen the number etc.

Negroids on the other hand, benefit from the luxuriance of their environment, excepted on high tableland (see Ethiopians and their physiology, just compare an Ethiopian and a Nigerian).
They basically don't have to plan, so no natural selection permits the people more able to project himself in the future to grow stronger, as they have food everywhere around them.

Mongoloids are quite an exception though, because the adoption in Asia of an ideogram-based alphabet made relationships between the agricultural centers of the South and the other parts of the Kingdom easier, and facilitated the transactions, while at the same time, the differences between languages based on a phonetical alphabet in Europe made the countries weaker, but also permitted them to expand their intellect, as the permanent conflicts and wars required people capable of engineering of war, strategy (= tri-dimensional projection, projection in the future).
nb : The Mongoloids discovered gunpower, but they didn't have to use it in anything else than fireworks, because the realms were quite peaceful compared to Europe.

But when in Asia a problem came, the deaths probably came at a large scale, because the whole chain stopped, while in Europe it was mainly at some locations.

We (I mean by that European countries and America) just need to stop our madness saying that everybody is equal and that race is just skin deep, and that men and women aren't different excepted for genitalia.

This natural selection I talked about even had an impacting effect on differenciation between male and female behaviour.
When there are deadly winters, the Caucasoid women had to stay home (or hut, whatever) to take care about the childrens while men went hunting. This plus the natural selection caused the men to be more apt to be aware of their environment, so more and more tri-dimensional projection for men. That's why in STEM fields, chess or even driving women are worse than men. Negroid women haven't this-

The pure data is clear, Ashkanazi Jews have the highest IQs. I forget who compiled it however.

You'd honestly be better off trawling on /sci/.
They have IQ and prodigy shitfests, we have our competitive PoMo head-up-assery. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but you'll definitely get more attention on the other side of the pond.

>>6805985
- issue because the winters weren't as cold and deadly as in Europe and Asia, excepted in platelands.
They didn't have to stay home to take care of their childrens, so they gathered berries and other vegetals, grains, etc. That leaded to no or nearly no agriculture or domestication (again, excepted in these highlands of Ethiopia), and a less projecting race, but also to nearly no difference in tri-dimensional projection between Negroid males and females.

About that tri-dimensional stuff, read Doreen Kimura.

>>6805985
>The Northern hemisphere has had deadly cold winters

This explains nothing.

>>6804474
>not enough of a difference
Asians test only a few iq points higher on average than whites.

Yet, asian families are doing much better than whites in america. While it's hypothesized that blacks score as much as 15 points lower than whites on average. And you see how well they're doing in america.

>>6806002
This explains nothing? Do you not think that it takes a higher capacity of intelligence to plan ahead and comprehend the idea of "foresight"? To survive in such a climate, you have to evolve to become a species that has developed its prefrontal cortex considerably. What would a human in say, africa, have to prepare for? They can just throw a rock into a bush year round and suppers ready.

>>6804348
>Recently, a friend and I have been discussing the subject of a possible connection between race and IQ.
Do you also discuss the subject of the possible non-connection between the hiv virus and AIDS?

>>6806043
>muh climate
And why did the first civilizations rise in the fertile river valleys with nice climates?

>>6806056
because those areas provided easier acquisition of resources to large amounts of people? I don't see your point?

If you're going to try to argue at least address the point in making and stop throwing shit around like a fucking toddler

>>6806056
are you implying that Mesopotamians were Negroids ?
kek

>>6804348
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
/thread

>>6806056
>>6806056
where do you think mesopotamians migrated from

>>6804348
go back to /pol/

>>6806083
this is the kind of thinking thats going to hold us back for centuries

>wahh it's racist to think that different races brains evolved differently! We are all equal, just like god said!

>>6806086
no it's not
he isn't necessarily telling you to gb2/pol/ because he disagreed with you, he's telling you to because this is not literature

>>6806088
Nope, wrong again.
By saying gb2/pol/, you are implying that the topic as stated in the OP is considered /pol/ material, and is not the mounting question of a rational, intelligent discussion.

Appropriately, he should have said GB2/sci/, but the janny over there gets an asthma attack every time somebody isn't posting about popsci or helping him with his undergrad homework.

>>6804451
>to start making policies based on noble lies. It feels kind of Orwellian.

We've been going down that road since Rome converted to Christianity, my historically ignorant friend...

>>6804582
>Many of the "academics" that racialist theories hold in high regard are literally pseudo intellectuals.

How about William Shockley? Inventor of the transistor and winner of the nobel prize in physics is a "pseudo intellectual"? Nah, bitch, the only pseudo intellectual around here is you. Back to tumblr, faggot.

>>6804348
>a test designed by white people to measure intelligence by getting the participant to complete tasks favoured by white people
>export said test to Africa
>"Boy they're bad at this test, I guess they're just naturally less intelligent."

>>6804582
>Considering the enormous genetic diversity in Africa, if racialist science was accurate, all non-Africans would be one race, and Africa itself would have multiple races.

This is true though. All other races have been exposed to Neanderthal DNA, with northern Europeans and some North Asians having the highest amount of Neanderthal DNA. Humans who never left Africa may have genetic diversity, but they all lack this trait. So, actually, I would say there are only two races: Those who interbred with Neanderthals in Eurasia and those who stayed on the African continent.

>>6806132
>favored by white people
>patterns
>math
>logic

i guess rationality, logic and reason are kinda favored by white people...I mean just look at ferguson

>>6806132
Look at this racist-ass IQ-test question. Everybody knows curves and geometric shapes are part of the eurocentric conspiracy!

>>6806140
how are they not?

>>6804555
>muh impartial neurosciences
>Le offended social

>>6806139
Dude, I don't think your snide comments about stuff like Ferguson are helping. They give the impression that this is something believed by right-wing cranks. OK there certainly are right-wing cranks who take the hereditarian position on this issue are bilious right-wing cranks, but I also think that that position is correct.

>>6806140
>b-but black people think diffently! they got that street smarts, yo!

>mfw someone tries to tell me im book smart but they're "street smart"

>>6806133
>plot twist : whites are among the most mixed people and the blacks are the most inbred
It's funny when you think of it

>>6806133
>So, actually, I would say there are only two races: Those who interbred with Neanderthals in Eurasia and those who stayed on the African continent.
According to Cavalli-Sforza the most basic genetic cleavage between human groups is between Africans and non-Africans. Presumably that means they were the first to diverge, and that happened before interbreeding with Neanderthals.

I'm not really sure how that relates to the claim that Africans have the most genetic diversity, or whether that claim is true.

>>6806152
>blacks are the most inbred

there's more truth to this than most people realize. i would work in an urban school with lots of black students and the amount who have been molested or raped by family members is pretty shocking. it's allowed to happen because there is a taboo against calling the police or "airing dirty laundry". i'm starting to suspect a lot of fatherless teen pregnancies are really being fathered by older family members and then the girl is blamed for being a slut. incest has always been part of african culture, most notably the ancient egyptian royal family, but there are many examples across the millennia, and american slavery probably only made it worse. if you are a slave being raped by your dad, who are you going to call? your owner? he'll probably just rape you too. i feel bad for people of african descent, they have been treated badly at times throughout history, but i'm also realistic and can see that this is due to their inherently inferior traits.

>>6804523
[blackfag detected][/spoiler
]

>>6806147
Great argument, retard.

>>6806164
I am white and have defended the hereditarian position at length in this thread, you rude person.

>>6806172
>t. Shuntayvious Prime-Willis

>>6806172
>white
>not a robot

guess again

>>6806178
trolling is rude

>>6806132
> test designed by white people
> top scorers are asian

>>6804582
>implying all black people are poor and from broken homes

>>6806211
Is the BBC worth it?

>>6804348
This video pretty much sums up the debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9FGHtfnYWY

On one side you have a guy trying to talk about it, on the other you have a guy screaming "muh political correctness" and "think of the consequences".

People are not yet ready to deal with the truth. But they will be eventually.
Neuroscience will deconstruct a lot of what is core to the humanistic ideas (which include "all men are equal").

>>6805705
Stereotype threat research is poorly marketed. Much of the research shows whites and blacks with similar scores under no stereotype threat conditions, and a significant gap under stereotype threat conditions. However, the esults control for existing standardized test scores. In other words, people score more similarly to their existing scores in the no stereotype threat situation. This means the stereotype threat phenomenon doesn't happen except in a lab where it's made to happen.

>>6806165
Thanks, Im glad I found a fellow intellectual avant-garde on this site.

One can easily find information on the human races and how they differ, so it would be pointless to repeat the information here. Suffice it to say, race is a taxonomic or classifying term, meaning a variant of a species which, through protracted segregation in a particular environment and the operation of natural selection (in the case of domestic breeds of animals the selection has of course been artificial) acting on the changes incidental to natural variation, mutation, etc., has acquired distinctive features that have become standardised throughout its members and produced characters that are more or less homogeneous. With regards to humans it is impossible to objectively biologically identify every separate race due to the large amount of mixture which has naturally occurred; so to this extent definitions of race are socially constructed. Some people use this difficulty in defining race to deny the fact altogether, the best analogy to refute this would be the atmosphere - everyone knows it exists, but where it starts and ends is not easily defined. Nicholas Wade cites the differing methods of defining the human races in his book The Troublesome Inheritance, physical anthropologists have struggled with this and no general consensus has been agreed upon, some definitions identify three races, whereas others identify dozens. For the sake of conveniency, the favoured method is often that which was used by the likes of Philippe Rushton in Race, Evolution and Behavior, which separates race by skull type, namely caucasoid, mongoloid and negroid, where caucasoid usually refers exclusively to white Europeans, and mongoloids refers exclusively to East Asians (Han Chinese, Japanese, Korean). There is more genetic diversity amongst Sub-Saharan Africans than there is between all the other races of the world but they have similar behavioural traits.

>>6804790
>Rushton is known for his sloppy methodology
No, he's not. Stop pulling facts out your ass.

>>6806223
Suzuki actually admitted decades after that debate that Rushton was right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSgG6QxbtHY

>>6804815
It's true unless you study some soft science bullshit

>>6806324
Source? It wasn't in the video.

>>6806324
I didn't see Suzuki admit Rushton was right in the video either.

So can we all agree that information about race and iq is dangerous not because it's offensive but because /pol/fags and stormfronters would entirely misunderstand and misinterpret it?

I think the whole discussion about race and "iq" is missing the bigger problem. I don't care if black guys suck at programming, or couldn't engineer a doghouse, they can always work for the post office or or deliver pepsi or something. some are decent creative professionals, etc. there are still plenty of useful and fulfilling things for people to do besides be scientists and engineers. So if Africans are a few IQ short of a science phd, so what, society will still hold together. The problem is not "intelligence", but sociability. Black people are extremely anti-social. Not anti-social in the sense of an autistic nerd who locks himself in the basement to play with linux all day, but anti-social in the sense of performing actions that destroy the fabric of society. How homosexual black people are still have promiscuous unprotected sex in this century is hard to even grasp. If you fuck a ton of anonymous guys without a condom, you will get hiv. Yet these guys are still fucking like it's 1978. Of course, they're also homophobic like it's 1978, so they all have to go around fucking tons of chicks to cover up the fact that they're gay thus leading to horrific third world hiv levels. Moreover, the constant violence is disturbing. The lack of financial planning (this one could relate back to intelligence, but it seems to more linked to impulsivity) is another problem. They're just a drag on civilization and require constant government intervention to keep from descending into barbarism. That's what "racialists" need to be studying, not if some black guy can get a passing grade on the MCAT exam.

>>6806525
I think /pol/fags and stormfronters already have this information. When it exists, people are good at finding arguments and evidence in favor of something they already think.

This might not be 100% relevant but I don't want to start a thread for it.

I see a lot of people claiming evo pysch is bullshit? Is it true? Surely it can't be that black and white.

>>6804348
>119 replies and 12 images omitted. Click here to view.
jesus fucking christ

>>6806525
>/pol/fags and stormfronters would entirely misunderstand and misinterpret it?

How can you misinterpret the fact that having millions of people with a lower IQ than the native population will have a dysgenic effect?

>>6806686
>hurr durr what's an average
That's how you dink.

>>6805705
>Yes, because poor whites do not have the diminishing effects of the stereotype threat

This is insane to think. Lower class whites are treated like shit in the school system, just like a lot of blacks.

>>6806700
The standardised average of a European population?

>>6806717
got you covered man
>>6805922

>>6806627
Well it's my opinion that evolutionary psychology is not bullshit. But it would make much more sense to try to evaluate specific claims associated with evo psych. In the broadest way though, I would think that the notion that the human mind and brain have been shaped deeply by evolution ought to be uncontroversial.

Here's a defense Steven Pinker gave of 'evolutionary psychology'.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/a-defense-of-evolutionary-psychology-mostly-by-steve-pinker/

I still think it would make more sense to talk about more specific claims than about the value of something broad like evolutionary psychology.

>>6806717
Why not deal with people by iq instead of by race? If you're going to prevent blacks from reproducing with whites, then you risk having low-iq whites reproducing causing "dysgenic effects"

>a friend and I
>a friend

Dropped

>>6805922
Averages, especially differences therein across representative groups, can be extremely useful.

Generalization is typically the foundation of dealing with large groups after all.

>>6806822
>Averages, especially differences therein across representative groups, can be extremely useful.

for you

>>6806814
i'll drop ur dick into my mouth

>>6806826
You're a big guy.

Step 1: Worldwide iq testing
Step 2: Sub-120 iq get sterilized if not euthanized
Step 3: Send people of each race back to their own countries (blacks to Africa, whites to America, etc)
Step 4: Enjoy world peace

>>6806844
this is a really high iq idea

>>6806788
Because of the regression to the mean effect. People regress to the average for their race.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpmlqtnrec8

>>6806844
>americans
>white

pick one

also stop same fagging please
>>6806846

>>6806844
>2015
>caring about IQ

>>6806834
I don't know what you guys are even arguing about. No one's even specified what they mean in enough detail to be worth arguing about. The ">muh averages" post is essentially meaningless.

It is certainly true that there is significant overlap between the black and white distributions, and there are blacks far above the white mean. Oprah and Obama have made far more of themselves and strike me as more significantly intelligent than most white people. On the other hand, the groups cluster around different averages meaning a randomly selected black individual will more than likely score lower than a randomly selected white individual. These are facts about normal distributions that I would think should be uncontroversial.

>>6806857
you first

>>6806860
The only people who don't realise the importance of IQ have a low IQ.

>>6806867
then why is my iq higher than yours

>>6806867
The only factors motivating human behavior are money, iq and race tbh

>>6806860
>>6806867
The predictive power of IQ is well substantiated for many life outcomes. To proclaim you "don't care about IQ" seems either ignorant or incurious.

>>6806319
>According to Charles Lane, in 1988, Rushton conducted a survey at the Eaton Centre mall in Toronto, where he paid 50 whites, 50 blacks, and 50 Asians to answer questions about their sexual habits
>Because he did not clear his survey and proposed to pay for answers with the university committee at UWO, the administration reprimanded Rushton, calling his transgression "a serious breach of scholarly procedure," said University President, George Pederson.[40]
>Rushton's work was criticized in the scholarly literature; he generally responded, sometimes in the same journal.
>In 1995 in the Journal of Black Studies, Zack Cernovsky wrote, "some of Rushton's references to scientific literature with respects to racial differences in sexual characteristics turned out to be references to a nonscientific semi-pornographic book and to an article by Philip Nobile in the Penthouse magazine's Forum." [54][55]

>>6806072
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm