Why is this book so controversial?

[Anonymous No.11804845]

[Anonymous No.11804875]

it prooves niggers are stupid and you'r not allowed to say that

[Anonymous No.11804877]

>>11804845
Because no one likes to be told that they're a moron.

[Anonymous No.11804913]

>>11804875
why americans likes pandering black people

[Anonymous No.11804936]

>>11804845
It makes non-whites feel uncomfortable and makes low IQ whites feel smarter than they really are.

[Anonymous No.11804954]

It doesn't support the conclusions that people use it to justify, but at the same time its association with those people doesn't invalidate what conclusions it can support.

[Anonymous No.11804966]

>>11804845
>Herrnstein and Murray were criticized for not submitting their work to peer review before publication, an omission many have seen as incompatible with their presentation of it as a scholarly text.[8][11] A writer at the online publication Slate magazine complained that the book was not circulated in galley proofs, a common practice to allow potential reviewers and media professionals an opportunity to prepare for the book's arrival.[12] Many scholarly responses to the book arrived late. Richard Lynn (1999) wrote that "The book has been the subject of several hundred critical reviews, a number of which have been collected in edited volumes,"[13] suggesting that the book's lack of peer review had not prevented it from becoming the subject of subsequent academic commentary. Over two decades after its publication, one set of scholarly authors stated that The Bell Curve contained ". . . very little information that has since come into question by mainstream scholars. . . . The Bell Curve is not as controversial as its reputation would lead one to believe (and most of the book is not about race at all)."[14]

because it was BTFO'd right out of the gates but ideologues need it so they shill it anyway

>Stephen Jay Gould wrote that the "entire argument" of the authors of The Bell Curve rests on four unsupported, and mostly false, assumptions about intelligence:[9][20]

>Intelligence must be reducible to a single number.
>Intelligence must be capable of rank ordering people in a linear order.
>Intelligence must be primarily genetically based.
>Intelligence must be essentially immutable.
>But in an interview with Frank Miele, co-author Charles Murray denied making any of these assumptions.

>Interviewer: Let me go back to Gould's four points. Is there any one of those that you think is not a fair and accurate statement of what you said?
>Murray: All four of them.[21]
>Interviewer: You are not a determinist. You are not saying everything is in the genes. You think free will is a meaningful concept.
>Murray: Yes, and so did Dick Herrnstein ...[21]
>Murray said he does not reduce intelligence to a single number but is sympathetic to Howard >Gardner's idea of multiple intelligences.

>Interviewer: So you are not saying intelligence is a single number?
>Murray: No.[21]

[Anonymous No.11804993]

>>11804966
>>Intelligence must be reducible to a single number.
But it is - IQ. IQ predicts performance in all fields we would consider requiring intelligence.
>>Intelligence must be capable of rank ordering people in a linear order.
You can do this with IQ.
>>Intelligence must be primarily genetically based.
IQ is very heritable.
>>Intelligence must be essentially immutable
IQ is virtually impossible to increase, though you can decrease it by getting old or with a big enough hammer.

[Anonymous No.11804998]

>>11804845
because the author is a pseud and the people who buy t are the kind of mongoloids who vote for trump and spend all day on /pol/

[Anonymous No.11805006]

>>11804845
I'll bite. Some of the content of this book, some would argue, shows that, among other things, black people are inherently stupider than the other races. This is then used by white nationalists to try and gain leverage in the argument that the US would probably be a better-off place without black people. It's only controversial to those who think all races are equal and that white nationalism is bad.

[Anonymous No.11805017]

>>11804966
Your quotes directly contradict your characterization.

[Anonymous No.11805020]

before we have a 250+ reply thread again, the APA issued a report in response to the book and they agree with almost all of the conclusions of the book with regard to intelligence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence:_Knowns_and_Unknowns

[Anonymous No.11805026]

>>11804966
>Intelligence must be reducible to a single number.
It's not, but IQ is a good measure of one's ability to see patterns, which is the main feature of intelligence.
>Intelligence must be capable of rank ordering people in a linear order.
What the fuck does that even mean?
>Intelligence must be primarily genetically based.
It is.
>Intelligence must be essentially immutable.
It is.

Stephen Jay Gould is a full-blooded Jew BTW. Of course he would try to debunk independent research on race.

[Anonymous No.11805032]

>>11804998
>the author
There's two authors, brainlet. You're too stupid to read OP's image, nevermind the actual book.

[Anonymous No.11805044]

>>11805032
touched a nerve, kekistani?

go back to ben shapiro videos on youtube you brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11805076]

>>11804845
Because the conclusions you can draw from it are incompatible with society. I'm not saying that you can show one race is superior to another, just that there may exist predilections for different things based on race and genetics. (ie black athletics, rich Jews, intelligent Asians, etc)

The possibility that these differences exist and might be genetic are unthinkable by the public.

It's funny because operating under the assumption that this is false has only ever resulted in horrible things (the state of the black population today vs 60 years ago, transgender suicide rates are due to enviornment and couldn't possibly be internal)

But I'm rambling

[Anonymous No.11805097]

>>11805044

[Anonymous No.11805139]

>>11804993
>IQ predicts performance in all fields we would consider requiring intelligence.
Besides philosophy, because philosophers are more intelligent than scientists, ergo scientists don't know how to quantify theirs.

[Anonymous No.11805176]

>>11804966
They cited peer-reviewed works, imbecile.
Peer-reviewed works affirming what they have said have long existed.

Publishing a book for the research journal illiterate masses merely made this otherwise esoteric information more accessible.

[Anonymous No.11805187]

>>11805139
This was not a finding of the book. This is something you made up.
A low IQ philosopher is by definition, not intelligent. In fact, a low IQ philosopher may as well be an oxymoron. Joe Rogan is perhaps a low IQ philosopher. Yet, even he would admit that he isn't intelligent.
You have some deep-seated resentment against the book and IQ. It really makes one ponder.

[Anonymous No.11805193]

>>11805187
>This was not a finding of the book.
I didn't say it was.

>Joe Rogan is perhaps a low IQ philosopher.
lmfao, you're trolling I hope.

[Anonymous No.11805207]

>>11805139
>Besides philosophy, because philosophers are more intelligent than scientists, ergo scientists don't know how to quantify theirs.
... what?

[Anonymous No.11805210]

This book has been refuted a million times. It's just used for insecure white men who feel insecure. Gives them a sense of superiority.

Economic background has and always will be the biggest determinant of success. Plus jews and asians are smarter than everyone. How r/thedonald reconcile this with their white supremacy is beyond me.

[Anonymous No.11805224]

>>11805210
>>11805210
>This book has been refuted a million times.
>jews and asians are smarter than everyone.
o the irony

[Anonymous No.11805236]

>>11805193
He made this claim which is empirically verifiable and of itself is a reasonable hypothesis even in the absence of evidence.
>IQ predicts performance in all fields we would consider requiring intelligence.
Now, you refute your own claim by admitting that your reply has no basis in reality and is just conjecture. Worse, your reply made no innate sense, making it completely untenable without any sort of proof. Even in the total absence of evidence, to even remotely expect philosophers, perform poorly on IQ tests and are hence more intelligent because of it, is so incomprehensibly stupid that it's hard to address at face value.

>lmfao, you're trolling I hope.
Him being a "low IQ philosopher" was not a compliment, you imbecile. For you not to have realized that "low IQ philosopher" further proves you have some chunks of brain matter missing.

[Anonymous No.11805238]

>>11804966
>Stephen J Gould
You mean the guy we know lied about the work of Morton to make a name for himself?

[Anonymous No.11805240]

>>11805236
>For you not to have realized that "low IQ philosopher" *is a bad thing*,

[Anonymous No.11805251]

>>11805210
Race realism does not contradict the fact that household wealth is one of the largest predictors of success.
It's not a matter of either, or.

[Anonymous No.11805283]

>>11805236
Why does it bug you that philosophy can't be measured as easily as all the other intellectual fields?

>Him being a "low IQ philosopher" was not a compliment
He's not a philosopher at all. He has nothing to do with philosophy. I really shouldn't have to point this out to you.

[Anonymous No.11805309]

Why do people have a problem accepting the conclusions that can be drawn for this? It is NOT saying that any one race is superior to the other.

The problem is denying the conclusions drawn in this book is to say "where equality does not exist there MUST exist environmental pressures (discrimination), because there is NO possibility that it could be genetic"

I shouldn't need to demonstrate why this leap in logic is untenable, and yet it is the assumption policy operates on. The result of this is the widespread and complete failure of "diversity" programs, effective racism against asians in the universities, the deterioration of the black urban population since the passage of the 1960's Civil Rights Acts, the echo-chambering of many institutions like, unfortunately, the one I work for which effectively erodes free speech

[Anonymous No.11805317]

IQ is a useless metric brandished by imbeciles to attempt to take credit for the accomplishments of others based on shared social background.

[Anonymous No.11805327]

>>11805283
>Why does it bug you that philosophy can't be measured as easily as all the other intellectual fields?
What evidence do you have to support that it's not? You realize this is a wild claim considering the rest of the population? ie why only philosophers? And where do you get the idea that philosophers are more intelligent than anyone else?

[Anonymous No.11805332]

>>11805207
IQ tests of majors in universities show that science kids are pretty smart, and philosophy kids are still ranked higher than them.

[Anonymous No.11805334]

>>11805317
And yet IQ is a predictor of personal accomplishment

[Anonymous No.11805341]

>>11805327
>What evidence do you have to support that it's not?
For starters, IQ tests have not recognized one philosopher yet.

>And where do you get the idea that philosophers are more intelligent than anyone else?
From reading philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11805345]

>>11805283
>Why does it bug you that philosophy can't be measured as easily as all the other intellectual fields?
I never subscribed to your hypothesis because it's absurd. I already refuted why it's false in the previous posts. You ignored this criticism and keep on chugging along.
Philosophy majors test extremely well on the LSAT which is comparable to an IQ test in some respects.
It proves that they do have a high IQ and that IQ is a valid measure for intelligence, for all fields, including philosophy.

>He's not a philosopher at all. He has nothing to do with philosophy. I really shouldn't have to point this out to you.

You cannot read.
You cannot fucking read.

I wrote
>A low IQ philosopher is by definition, not intelligent. In fact, a low IQ philosopher may as well be an oxymoron. Joe Rogan is perhaps a low IQ philosopher. Yet, even he would admit that he isn't intelligent.

I never was making the argument that he was some sort of formal philosopher and for you to have construed it as such shows English isn't your native language or that you have autism. Either way, you don't belong on this website.

[Anonymous No.11805349]

>>11805334
Then why haven't you accomplished anything to the point where you constantly tell people your IQ without them asking or caring?

[Anonymous No.11805351]

>>11805332
where do you get that idea?

>>11805341
>From reading philosophy
That logic would stand up in any philosophical discussion

[Anonymous No.11805357]

>>11805327
because >>11805332

Your little infographic is popscience horse shit. In one of my psychology classes we had to look at intelligence studies and one of them included choice of major. It showed that people that chose to go into philosophy, more often than not, were smarted than CS, physics, and most engineering majors.

[Anonymous No.11805361]

Because journalists didn't read it

[Anonymous No.11805363]

What was John Coltrane's IQ?

[Anonymous No.11805366]

>>11805351
It measured students who were going into their field as academics. Not simply undergrad.

[Anonymous No.11805369]

>>11805363
>this one kills the critical theorist

[Anonymous No.11805370]

>>11805363
3,000,000 easy

[Anonymous No.11805376]

>>11805357
Okay, care to back that up with some evidence maybe?
http://www.religjournal.com/pdf/ijrr10001.pdf
Because everything I'm seeing is saying that you're mistaken

[Anonymous No.11805378]

>>11805345
>Philosophy majors test extremely well on the LSAT which is comparable to an IQ test in some respects.
This is completely irrelevant because philosophy majors aren't philosophers or anything like philosophers. For you to even assert this shows that you have no clue what philosophy is about. But I'm not surprised, considering you're defending IQ (an invention of scientists, people who are NOT as intelligent as philosophers) as if it is the end-all be-all of measuring intelligence.

[Anonymous No.11805381]

>>11805351
>tfw studying accounting

i´m a brainlet?

[Anonymous No.11805392]

>>11805357
You're moving the goal posts so hard, you broke them.
Jesus fucking Christ.
First you say that IQ doesn't matter. Now, you are saying it does.
It's almost laughable that you are saying his infographic is horseshit, then you go on to cite some hearsay of an undergrad psychology class. You cannot make this shit up. You're so low IQ it isn't even funny. You are one of those people who think he is intelligent but isn't. You've gone so far astray from your original point and detracted so far, that you might have a mental illness to not realize the horrible gaps of logic inherent to what you argue.

[Anonymous No.11805410]

>>11805210
>Economic background has and always will be the biggest determinant of success. Plus jews and asians are smarter than everyone.
Nice bait

[Anonymous No.11805416]

High IQ doesnt mean youre smart, but sure as hell points that you are most likely smart though

[Anonymous No.11805420]

>>11804993

Just because A predicts B does not mean that B can be reduced to A.

Then, if B cannot be reduced to A, any properties of A do not necessarily translate to B.

This is linear regression 101, which the entire human population would do well to learn.

[Anonymous No.11805424]

>>11804966

This post is the only good one in this entire thread.

[Anonymous No.11805431]

>>11805378
Prove to me philosophers are 'smarter' than scientists
Why do you think you have to be the most X person to come up with something that describes all people that are X? This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

[Anonymous No.11805446]

It receives criticism partially because it is misunderstood, partially because the people who champion it are almost exclusively stupid racists who *still* misunderstand what the book is imparting.

[Anonymous No.11805453]

>>11805431
>Prove to me philosophers are 'smarter' than scientists
Philosophy includes the scope of science and more. For someone to be a philosopher, they must excel or at minimum be adequate in all domains of human endeavor.

[Anonymous No.11805458]

>>11805416
Actually high IQ does mean you are smart. I think what you mean to say is high IQ doesn't mean someone meets your personal arbitrary socioeconomic qualifications for an intelligent person.

[Anonymous No.11805462]

>>11805420
If A predicts B, but C and D also predict B, we can test which variable, A, C or D has the most predictive power and how strong their relationships are to B. IQ has the strongest relationship and predictive power to overall career success.

[Anonymous No.11805470]

>>11805453
Damn you had me going for a while

[Anonymous No.11805476]

>>11804998
>substitutes insults for arguments

[Anonymous No.11805478]

>>11805470
Cope harder.

[Anonymous No.11805480]

>>11805478
Submit that proof to a philosophy journal, color me convinced

[Anonymous No.11805484]

>>11805480
>philosophy journal
lol. You keep confusing philosophical workers with philosophers.

[Anonymous No.11805497]

>>11805484
Oh and you're so clearly the latter. I can tell by your proof. Very good work, I must admit you are much more intelligent than I to come up with that. Very logically sound, well done man! Well done!

[Anonymous No.11805502]

>>11805497
I never claimed myself to be anything besides maybe being better read than you, dumbass. Don't make yourself look even stupider by resorting to this bullshit argument.

[Anonymous No.11805539]

u guys literally live at home and dont have jobs and give niggers shit for basically the same thing

[Anonymous No.11805556]

>>11804913
Muh feefees
Muh reparations
Muh everyone is equal
MuhCarthy did nothing wrong

[Anonymous No.11805563]

>>11805462

Look buddy I'm a working statistician and I can tell u for sure that family income is a much more consistent estimator of career success (measured by income) than IQ.

However, why are we measuring career success in income? Is compensation the only measure of career success?

Another issue: these estimators break down if we look at cross-sectional studies across nationality. I have yet to see any study that introduces a satisfactory measure of career success AND shown that the proposed estimators of that variable are consistent across cultures and countries.

[Anonymous No.11805569]

>>11805502
>He was serious the whole time
You realize you never provided evidence or proof right? And you're demonstrating a very lackluster reading comprehension

[Anonymous No.11805579]

>>11804845
It's not controversial. Only spergs think it's of any relevance. If you are among said spergs, slit your and your family's throats.

[Anonymous No.11805590]

>>11805569
I provided an argument you had no rebuttal to besides a fucking frog picture.

[Anonymous No.11805592]

>>11805579
But public policy in the US and elsewhere operates on the assumption that this is wrong

It's very seriously harming people by ignoring this

[Anonymous No.11805613]

>>11805590
>Philosophy includes the scope of science and more. For someone to be a philosopher, they must excel or at minimum be adequate in all domains of human endeavor.
Find me a philosopher that's adequate in all domains of human endeavor

[Anonymous No.11805622]

>>11805613
This guy: orgyofthewill.net

[Anonymous No.11805628]

>>11805613
Also, the Greek philosophers were pretty much all built like brick shit houses and polymaths at the same time. And then you had the Renaissance, also full of brilliant polymaths.

[Anonymous No.11805715]

>>11805628
>>11805622
So Schoppy, Kant, pretty much all modern philosophers, etc etc are not really philosophers?

[Anonymous No.11805740]

>>11805539
oof

inb4: "No! You stupid kike, I'm a tenured professor at Brown! Haha, kekistani native you can't prove me wrong!"

[Anonymous No.11805799]

>>11805715
Where do you get that from? Those people were not limited to just one discipline either, and tangled with problems present across the whole intellectual scope.

[Anonymous No.11805845]

>>11805799
And likely were not "adequate in all domains of human endeavor"

[Anonymous No.11805860]

>>11805845
In each domain they weren't, their philosophizing suffered for it.

[Anonymous No.11805926]

>>11804966
Gotta love the folks in this thread so invested in their interpretations of The Bell Curve that they're attempting to correct its authors about it.

>"Well you see Dr. Einstein what it Generally Relativity REALLY means is this."

[Anonymous No.11805937]

>>11804845
>tfw first retold than recommended this book to a friend and he became a full-blown racist
That's why

[Anonymous No.11805947]

>>11805860
>For someone to be a philosopher, they must excel or at minimum be adequate in all domains of human endeavor.
>These philosophers weren't adequate in all domains
Yikes

[Anonymous No.11805967]

>>11805947
Nietzsche said Kant was a philosophical worker and not a philosopher. Schopenhauer had a much broader scope than Kant and wasn't particularly inadequate at anything, so yes, he stands as a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.11805980]

>my ego reading this thread as a philosophy graduate

Anyway, back to burger flipping

[Anonymous No.11805987]

Equality is an important myth of the post-religion religion.

[Anonymous No.11805995]

>>11805424
>Over two decades after its publication, one set of scholarly authors stated that The Bell Curve contained ". . . very little information that has since come into question by mainstream scholars. . . . The Bell Curve is not as controversial as its reputation would lead one to believe (and most of the book is not about race at all)."[14]
The post literally debunks itself.

[Anonymous No.11806225]

>>11805446
>*misunderstand what the book is imparting and partly because the findings show that races aren't equal.

[Anonymous No.11806276]

>>11805210
>Economic background has and always will be the biggest determinant of success.

[Anonymous No.11806988]

>>11806276
Hahaha yokes

[Anonymous No.11807113]

>>11806276
Yikes black people. What are y'all doing?

[Anonymous No.11808170]

>>11804954
I am wondering about this conundrum all the time.

If there are differences in the median IQ of different races, that certainly merits research and discussion of said research in the literature.

However, I think a lot of folks are determined to promulgate their beliefs that their race is better than others, and they will latch on to any bit of research or any insightful analysis that seems to accomplish this.

As such, this research and it's analysis is easily weaponized.

To avoid the injustice that this might cause (e. g. dumb fucks getting away with not hiring a high IQ black guy and hiring a low IQ white guy instead or whatever), doesn't it make sense that we keep the "all men are created equal" paradigm intact in our society, at least insofar as we set the laws and policies, and even the unlegislated social norms?

I think it's analogous to how Robert Sapolsky and lots of other researchers suggest that free will doesn't exist in the way that our criminal justice system seems to suppose. People who commit crimes could be seen as slaves to their base desires or whatever, because neuroscience and determinism, etc, etc. (best example I can think of is Charles Whitman, who shot a bunch of people, but did so while afflicted with a severe brain tumor, and who doubtfully would have committed any murder were it NOT for this organic brain condition). Nevertheless, I think our society NEEDS the free will paradigm in our criminal justice system and elsewhere. Even if it's not strictly "true", or not mechanistically accurate, it's too useful as a guiding principle for us to give it up yet.

Perhaps the racial equality paradigm is the same thing--too useful to dispense with. At least for now...

[Anonymous No.11808195]

>>11808170
>To avoid the injustice that this might cause (e. g. dumb fucks getting away with not hiring a high IQ black guy and hiring a low IQ white guy instead or whatever), doesn't it make sense that we keep the "all men are created equal" paradigm intact in our society, at least insofar as we set the laws and policies, and even the unlegislated social norms?
Yes, if we just stop at that and leave people alone.
The problem arises when we use this false paradigm and come to the conclusion that any inequality in society is then the result of discrimination or pressures or anything else and try to correct it. That's when we implement policies to "fix" a problem that doesn't really exist, and the results are disastrous.

See: The state of the black population since the 1960s. Going further back, even since slavery if I may be so bold.

[Anonymous No.11808792]

>>11805563
>family income predicts income
>IQ also predicts income
>IQ is heritable
hmmmmmmmmm

[Anonymous No.11809252]

>>11804845
Politics

[Anonymous No.11809468]

>>11805026
I can't imagine being so stupid that you think intelligence is primarily genetic or is immutable. Basically an excuse to not try to raise your kids properly.

[Anonymous No.11809479]

>>11809468
Intelligence vs knowledge and application of intelligence? Cognitive ability n shiit.

[Anonymous No.11809487]

used to think it was pseud bullshit but its academically respected, 6 million citations
https://scholar.google.nl/scholar?hl=nl&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=charles+murray+bell+curve&btnG=

[Anonymous No.11809499]

>>11809468
In todays age where most have health care and most can receive all the nutrition they need genetics really is the primary determining factor in intelligence (plus a whole bunch of other things). You can stunt somebodies height or intelligence by starving them, breaking their legs/hitting them over the head, but that happens to a fraction of children.
This is inevitable - as society becomes richer there are diminishing returns for environmental gain, and genetics account for an increasing share of the difference between any two people. In a perfectly equal environment, differences in intelligence will be 100% genetic.

[Anonymous No.11809505]

>>11805563
IQ is a better predictor of success than family income.

[Anonymous No.11809512]

OP already knows why is this book "controversial".
This is a /pol/ colony thread, don't let yourself be fooled.
>>11804845
>>11804875
>>11804877
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.11809524]

>>11806225
>because the findings show that races aren't equal.
but that is literally taught in even the most liberal of schools today so that can't be it

[Anonymous No.11809619]

>>11809487
even if it has 6 million citations that doesn't mean it's not pseudoscience. I'm not saying it is, but there's no threshold of citations that can be achieved where research or studies become valid in themselves. something could be cited 6 million times and in actuality be wrong, just that those who did the research and cited said research couldn't see it, or did but cited the research anyways, would you not agree?

[Anonymous No.11809638]

>>11809505
>income is the same as success
What is this soulless capitalist bullshit you spout

[Anonymous No.11809768]

>>11809638
Success in that graph is based on the probability of owning a patent. It indicates intelligence increases that exponentially. You could probably substitute any other measure of social success - publishing a novel, getting a PhD etc.

[Anonymous No.11809780]

>>11809768
>you could probably
Ah, yes. This is the science I know and love.

So you're saying that IQ positively correlates with believing intellectual property is real and legitimate, that IQ coincides with the prevailing overarching capitalist narrative?

Gee, that's strange. Why would it do that?

[Anonymous No.11809880]

>>11809780
I suppose this is the sort of bullshit argument you should expect from somebody who can't even read a graph.

[Anonymous No.11809887]

>>11809880
No he’s right. He’s making a good argument and this post right here is just an Ad Hominem. You’ve lost

[Anonymous No.11809904]

>>11809887
To provide the level of proof he wants I would have to fundamentally restructure society. There is no ethical experiment that would satisfy him. He is sticking his fingers in his ears and going 'La La La La'. But it doesn't really matter, genetics is accelerating at such a rate in 10 years we will be predicitng SAT scores as soon as you're born.

[Anonymous No.11809912]

>>11809780
you dont think that succeeding within the capitalist paradigm would correlate with intelligence? why would it not

[Anonymous No.11809924]

>>11809780
The absolute state.

[Anonymous No.11809952]

>>11809904
>genetics is accelerating at such a rate in 10 years we will be predicitng SAT scores as soon as you're born.
(Citation needed)

[Anonymous No.11809960]

>>11809524
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

[Anonymous No.11809969]

DO YOU BELIEVE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT
different groups with distinct backgrounds and heritage (ie asians, jews, blacks, hispanics, etc) COULD have different predilections, strengths, weaknesses in the COLLECTIVE scope?

[Anonymous No.11809976]

>>11805044
>ben shapiro likes the bell curve
he does not even acknowledge racial differences you retard. ben shapiro is a liberal who hates this book as much as you do.

[Anonymous No.11809983]

>>11809969
I think by looking at those groups, which experience different amounts of wealth, you realize it is more about the economical position

[Anonymous No.11809987]

>>11809468
This post absolutely reeks of intellectual cowardice. Your apriori ideological bindings prevent you from looking at, for example, twin studies honestly. Quite embarassing that you write with such disdain and venom regardless.

[Anonymous No.11809993]

>>11809887
Samefag

[Anonymous No.11810002]

>>11809952
Read up about the UK biobank, the Beijing Genomics Institute and GWAS. Searches for common variants for higher intelligence has gone from studying populations of a few thousand to over a million people. It's only getting bigger. The chinese are explcitly searching for high intelligence people (140IQ+) for their studies.
All this will lead to embryo selection, for intelligence, health, height, even "beauty" - anything you can measure. If not in the West, then in the East.
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2018/08/genomic-prediction-hypothetical-embryo.html
The brave new world is here, whether people pretend genes don't do anything or not.

[Anonymous No.11810006]

>>11809952
Funny how you nitpick on a throw-away statement rather than adressing his point. Although, I would expect that of the kind of retard who calls genetic research "pseudoscience" and then goes off to post in a psychoanalytics thread.

[Anonymous No.11810009]

>>11809983
But that's not what he asked anon

[Anonymous No.11810010]

>>11809983
>it is the economical position which makes asians smaller than black people on average and which makes women physically weaker than men
No dude you are totally right. Just like dog breeds (i.e. pitbulls and labradors) are all the same and act all the same right?

[Anonymous No.11810250]

>>11808195
I agree wholeheartedly with leaving people alone, and not trying to fix phantom problems regarding "diversity" and the like.

[Anonymous No.11810257]

>>11809952
A bit exaggerated but yes
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.104

[Anonymous No.11810272]

>>11810006
>he still doesn't cite a source

[Anonymous No.11810285]

>Why is this book so controversial?
For the same reason this thread gotten 118 replies.

[Anonymous No.11810291]

>>11809983
So if we all had the same amount of wealth we would all be the same basically just with diffrent physical traits?
X. Doubt

Plus that sounds gay and boring.

[Anonymous No.11810375]

>>11809468
>>11809468
Have you ever seen human kids or are you that sheltered? They’re pretty much smart, average, or dumb, more interested in sports or books, from the get-go. I was raised by pretty un-intellectual parents in an un-intellectual household but became randomly fascinated by books anyway. My younger sibling never cared about books. We both received about the same upbringing.

>inb4 “lol your personal anecdote isn’t important”
Fair enough, it’s just extreme commonsense to me since that’s just one anecdote of something I’ve always found obvious. And scientific studies seem to back up that intelligence is mostly already “there” from a young age. Einstein didn’t start out as a blank slate who miraculously became Einstein from a good upbringing, he already had the “Einsteinness” in him. Although, fair enough, perhaps this inherent intelligence can be more or less well stimulated and nurtured from an early age. But you’re not going to make a kid who hates books and thinking and prefers football from an early age an intellectual genius no matter how you raise him. If you can’t see the fundamental difference between human types, you’re as good as blind. A dog can’t be a cat.

I realize how racist this can all be taken to sound and want to clarify I’m not some deus vult 14/88 neo-nazi eugenicist /pol/-yard saying the races are fundamentally different, I’m just responding to your naive contention about how important upbringing is with regards to intelligence.

[Anonymous No.11810437]

>>11810285
/pol/ shilling?

[Anonymous No.11810693]

>>11810291
>They account for about half of all differences in intelligence among people, so half is not caused by genetic differences, which provides strong support for the importance of environmental factors. This estimate of 50 percent reflects the results of twin, adoption and DNA studies. From them, we know, for example, that later in life, children adopted away from their biological parents at birth are just as similar to their biological parents as are children reared by their biological parents. Similarly, we know that adoptive parents and their adopted children do not typically resemble one another in intelligence.

[Anonymous No.11810723]

>>11804845
People on the right use it to justify abuses of power, power that originates in the capability for mastery over things, particularly in science and technology, but which can also be used to manipulate people as things, to the detriment of almost all concerned.

People on the left make themselves silly by denying, out of resentment, what the book easily and clearly demonstrates, which is that there IS a very definite and marked causal relation between innate gifts and prosperity. Their error is to make themselves enemies of cultivation and the value of skilled work.

Most of the book's readers make the same mistake the writers do, which is to equate cunning and wisdom.

[Anonymous No.11810768]

>>11809512
>>>/lgbt/

[Anonymous No.11810799]

>>11810768
Are you trying to make /lgbt/ the leftypol of 4chan?

Or do you unironically have a problem with gays?

[Anonymous No.11810849]

The book is just about IQ and how no matter how hard people try to 'debunk' it, IQ is still the best measure of general intelligence that we have yet concieved. It highly correlates to success (by any measure, not just income); is very heritable (between 40-80% heritable); and is VERY hard to permanently increase (though easier to decrease).

The topic of race comes up because average differences are observed between racial groups, and people use this as evidence to show that IQ must be a shitty, invalid way to measure intelligence.
>IQ can't be an accurate measure of intelligence because different races get different average scores - which couldn't possibly happen with an accurate test, therefore IQ as a measurement is bullshit!

But this argument doesn't hold true. The fact that different races have different average scores may just be an unfortunate finding of an accurate test - not evidence that the test itself is bad. Herrnstein and Murray do a good job of showing this.

As for the causes of the differences, allow me to provide a quote from the book:
>"If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or the environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and environment have something to do with this issue. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not yet justify an estimate"

I personally agree with this, with slightly more emphasis on the environmental side. To those that believe it is purely environmental: my only question would be that if the black-white difference is environmental, what about the white-asian difference or the white-jewish difference?

Also, if the test is just biased against blacks to give a low score (even without meaning to, because of unconscious bias of the white people who invented IQ) and the predictive validity of the test for black people is because we also live in a racist society that makes black people underperform, how is it that Asians and Jews do better on the test that white people (on average) and are more successful in society that white people (on average - by any measure of success)?

In short, the question on racial differences isn't to assert superiority or promote racist beliefs (even if it could be used that way - foolishly - by people who clearly don't understand the point of the book). The purpose of the exploration of race is to debunk the idea that racial differences somehow show that IQ in an invalid or inaccurate measurement of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.11810952]

>>11810723
>People on the right use it to justify abuses of power, power that originates in the capability for mastery over things, particularly in science and technology, but which can also be used to manipulate people as things, to the detriment of almost all concerned.
This is literally what the left does.

[Anonymous No.11811437]

>>11810002
nice, more white and jewish people then

[Anonymous No.11811582]

>>11804845
niggers & jews = bad news

[Anonymous No.11811602]

>>11805327
what monkey made this "graph"?
"materials engineering" got listed 2 times with 2 different values

[Anonymous No.11811619]

>>11810849
this is very clearly true but muh racism just shuts off the logic centres in their heads

[Anonymous No.11811840]

Aren’t Jensen’s IQ studies the ones mostl commonly cited during these arguments?

Anyways, my understanding is that there is a mathematically demonstratable difference between how races perform on IQ tests compared to each other, and that the only remaining argument against a genetic correlation with intelligence is that the IQ test itself is a flawed demonstrator of intelligence.