Welp, I finally read it...

[Anonymous No.15300943]

And... I get how it was controversial, but ultimately it's not saying anything incorrect. There is the occasional leap in logic, but nothing that is beyond the scope of such a book.

Also, they have been vindicated by all subsequent research, including that related to the Flynn rebuttal, which was fallacious because the Flynn Effect doesn't load onto g (Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 235-294)

[Anonymous No.15300966]

>>15300943
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/07/why-is-charles-murray-odious

[Anonymous No.15300978]

>>15300966
>it doesn't matter if he is correct
>it matters that he's rude!
Lmao

[Anonymous No.15300993]

>>15300978
Read the actual article before spouting your bugman opinions.

[Anonymous No.15301095]

>>15300993
I've read it before. Nothing in it refutes racial IQ differences. If you disagree feel free to quote the relevant passage. I won't be bullied into letting you force two sides to this issue when there is only one.

[Anonymous No.15301114]

>>15300966
>Smoothbrain: the post

[Anonymous No.15301127]

>>15300993
>op posts a peer reviewed article that has been cited over 500 times
>leftist posts an online article and name calls, believing he has won
Unironically away as me toward the OP position. Congrats retard

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15301150]

>IQ
>Meaning anything

[Anonymous No.15301160]

>>15300993
Wtf I'm right wing now thanks to your poor argumentation.

See how dangerous your posting is?

[Anonymous No.15301167]

>>15300943
Imbecile
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

[Anonymous No.15301170]

>>15301150
Pathetic line of reasoning that has no basis in evidence

[Anonymous No.15301181]

>>15301167
>now he links to a self publishing blog site with zero quality control to refute a peer reviewed article
Better and better....

[Anonymous No.15301186]

Why are right-wingers so obsessed about negro IQ? Literally every time they bring up this book, or anything related to IQ, is to talk about it.

[Anonymous No.15301197]

>>15301186
>direct request to simply not talk about a subject rather than refute it
LOL

[Anonymous No.15301200]

>>15301186
You're the first person in this thread to mention negroes.

[Anonymous No.15301221]

>>15300966
>[The dubious aspect] is that Murray and Herrnstein use IQ, an arbitrary test of a particular set of abilities (arbitrary in the sense that there is no reason why a person’s IQ should matter any more than their eye color, not in the sense that it is uncorrelated with economic outcomes) as a measure of whether someone is smart or dumb in the ordinary language sense. It isn’t, though: the number of high-IQ idiots in our society is staggering.

This man attempted to refute the IQ construct by hotlinking to an article about Ted Cruz. Compelling rhetoric, but does not disprove the relationship between IQ and intelligence, and intelligence and success.

[Anonymous No.15301233]

>>15301197
I’ve in 4chan for over a decade, and the subject has been discussed to death already. This thread will add no new knowledge, and provide no intellectual stimulation to anyone present.

[Anonymous No.15301234]

>>15301186
Saying that n word is racist. What's your address so I can doxx you?

[Anonymous No.15301259]

>>15301186
The entire moral bedrock of your modern world is predicated on the assumption that 1. everyone is created equal and 2. the facts obligate us to always behave as if this is the case. This is untrue and the lengths we've gone to to sugar coat black IQ exemplifies it. You can't possibly remove it from the discussion.

[Anonymous No.15301273]

>>15301233
You'd be hard pressed to find a single original thought on this entire board, but this is the thread you went into to bitch about. Why?

[Anonymous No.15301282]

>>15301167
tl;dr yes, Taleb is correct, above a certain point (IQ of 120), IQ loses predictive power. That is entirely inline with the theory behind IQ (there are incredibly few professions or vocations that require an IQ that high, so people with IQ's >=120 end up just sort of floating around and do whatever instead of getting neatly sorted), and it does not discredit the fact that IQ has INCREDIBLE predictive power for GROUPS of people who are below 120 in IQ. Its predictive power, although not perfect, is good enough to use as a heuristic 99% of the time (people with IQs above 120 are very rare).

>>15301186
I'm not sure what you're getting at, it always seems to be Liberals who think this is some screed about race when it's just... not.

Read the book before having an opinion on it. Nobody on Chapo Traphouse read the book, so I don't get why you're going to them for your opinion on it.

[Anonymous No.15301286]

>>15301259
>The entire moral bedrock of your modern world is predicated on the assumption that 1. everyone is created equal and 2. the facts obligate us to always behave as if this is the case.
That’s completely false. No one believes everyone is literally equal, and such belief certainly isn’t needed for the modern world to function.

[Anonymous No.15301293]

>>15301286
Yes they do and yes it is, as evidenced by how upset you guys get when someone dares to say anything to the contrary

[Anonymous No.15301298]

>>15301273
Because I see these threads popping up every week, just like unabomber threads. It’s tiresome and boring.

[Anonymous No.15301304]

>>15301286
>No one believes everyone is literally equal
Then why do you hold this belief?

[Anonymous No.15301309]

>>15301167
GOD everyone posts the fucking Taleb article with ZERO attempt to explain how it's relevant. I'm sick of having to relitigate his basic bitch statistical objections to IQ. Especially when none of them even matter if IQ has predictive validity with respect to life outcomes. Fuck you, retard.

So here's a video dealing with Taleb's objections. not gonna tell you what's in it though, just take it from me: it refutes your world view sweatie :)
https://youtu.be/fSXYhnrwjQE

[Anonymous No.15301313]

>>15301293
>Yes they do
You’re delusional. Society is absolutely aware there are meaningful differences in human traits, including intelligence, between different individuals. In what world do you live?

[Anonymous No.15301317]

>>15301313
If that's the case, why are you so upset about this book saying that there are meaningful differences in human traits, including intelligence, between different individuals?

[Anonymous No.15301323]

>>15301304
I definitely don’t. What gave you that impression?

[Anonymous No.15301334]

>>15301313
>between different individuals
Are there any patterns in these individual differences that we can identify?

[Anonymous No.15301335]

>>15301323
The fact that you're getting upset over a book that you have not read, but were told is bad because it argues that people are not equal in all ways.

[Anonymous No.15301348]

>>15301313
stop gaslighting

[Anonymous No.15301352]

>>15301286
>no one believes everyone is literally equal
Please elaborate.

>>15301313
>society is absolutely aware there are meaningful differences in human traits, including intelligence, between different individuals
Right there. You just did it. "Between individuals." That's not what we're talking about, and you know it. You people are literally incapable of having a discussion without sliding back and forth between talking about individuals and talking about groups, whichever one best serves your delusions. Groups are not equal. Nowhere near it. You can argue about to what extent we can productively coexist- I think it's more than people who aren't delusional about IQ usually think it is- but you can't say that they're equal, because that's objectively false.

[Anonymous No.15301363]

>>15301335
Again, what gave you that impression?
>>15301334
Yes, so? Does that mean you should make the same thread every week?

[Anonymous No.15301383]

>>15301352
Where did I say groups are equal?

[Anonymous No.15301385]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

[Anonymous No.15301391]

>>15301363
When you made these posts, getting upset at people believing that there are differences between people
>>15301186
>>15301286
>>15301323
>>15301363

[Anonymous No.15301402]

>>15301363
I'm glad we can agree that the book's main thesis is correct. But I wonder something.
>Does that mean you should make the same thread every week?
We both know there are identical threads that get posted not only weekly, but daily. Do you go into all of them whining about the content like this?

[Anonymous No.15301406]

>>15301385
I love rational wiki. Anytime they write a hit piece I immediately add their target to my reading list. Anyone they hate must be good.

[Anonymous No.15301413]

>>15301383
You asked a question about groups. You received and answer about groups. You then tried to make the discussion about individuals. Do you actually have anything to say, or did you just need to REEEEE for a minute?

[Anonymous No.15301428]

>>15301391
That doesn't make sense. Am I upset at myself now?
All this started because I made an observation about a group of people that repeatedly talks about the same thing on 4chan. That observation seems to have struck a nerve in you.

[Anonymous No.15301452]

>>15301402
>Do you go into all of them whining about the content like this?
A post is not "whining". And yes, I have posted against subject that are spammed, like Guenon threads. These reduce the quality of the board and you know it.
>>15301413
>You asked a question about groups.
Can you quote the specific post?

[Anonymous No.15301477]

>>15301282
>Nobody on Chapo Traphouse read the book, so I don't get why you're going to them for your opinion on it.
What?

[Anonymous No.15301498]

>>15301452
>A post is not "whining".
This post >>15301186 is, but never mind. Your work here is done, and I see at least one tedposting thread in the catalogue in desperate need of your wisdom

[Anonymous No.15301520]

>>15301309
>links YouTube faggot

massive lolz

[Anonymous No.15301523]

>>15301452
I see. You weren't REEEEing, you're just smug and retarded. If you actually need to be redirected to the initial post where you specifically asked about one group's interest in another group you can find it here: >>15301186. You were told this was because the assumption that groups were assumed to be equal when they clearly weren't. You then tried to frame the discussion as a talk about individuals instead of a talk about groups.

[Anonymous No.15301522]

>>15301498
I honestly don't see what you're trying to achieve by making these threads over and over again

[Anonymous No.15301544]

>>15301523
>You were told this was because the assumption that groups were assumed to be equal
That wasn't what I was told.
I was told that the moral foundation of modern society is based on the premise that everyone is equal, which is a ridiculous thing to say.

[Anonymous No.15301559]

>>15301522
I honestly don't see what you're trying to achieve by making these posts over and over again.

[Anonymous No.15301560]

>>15301259
Quite the massive assumption to make when it's so patently obvious that people aren't literally, completely equal. No one fucking believes that crock of shit and you asserting so means nothing. So no, you haven't definitely refuted the "bedrock of modern morality and society" you've just coopted this idea as a loose justification for your racism. But whatever, enjoy your cope.

[Anonymous No.15301561]

All this bullshit and not one rebuttal. So the IQ thing is real then huh

[Anonymous No.15301569]

>>15301559
Dissuading you from ruining the board further

[Anonymous No.15301570]

>>15301520
>NOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST PRESENT A SET OF IDEAS IN VIDEO FORM

[Anonymous No.15301578]

>>15301569
Your poor argumentation and generally irritating demeanor have caused you to fail miserably.

[Anonymous No.15301579]

>>15301560
You didn't refute anything. So you agree about race iq differences? Yes or no

[Anonymous No.15301589]

>>15301561
yes, it's clear it's real because no one even tries to refute it. all they have is "IQ doesn't exist" like this faggot >>15301167 or "pls stop talking about it guys pls it's not even important unlike the dozens of other totally-urgent threads on the board" like this faggot >>15301186

[Anonymous No.15301600]

>>15301579
Who's trying to refute? I also didn't mention racial IQ differences so why even bring it up?

[Anonymous No.15301609]

>>15301578
This wasn't an argument, anon. You clearly don't know what argumentation is.
>generally irritating demeanor
If I irritate you, I would say it's working.

[Anonymous No.15301613]

>>15301569
>n-no i'm not mad i j-just want to protect muh board quality
this thread is about an actual book and thus more relevant to the theme of the board than roughly 95% of the threads currently in the catalogue; why don't you go kvetch in a few of them if you're so concerned about it being ruined

[Anonymous No.15301618]

>>15301609
>This wasn't an argument, anon
Exactly

[Anonymous No.15301624]

>>15301600
>>15301609
State that racial groups have different average iqs or stop posting. It's time to put up or shut up. I won't respond to any more distractions

[Anonymous No.15301626]

Wait until you hear about this piece of scientific divulgation.

[Anonymous No.15301627]

>>15301544
You're either being 100% disingenuous or you have autism. I suspect the former. You knew exactly what was being said and you started a goose chase based off a willful misinterpretation. Answer the following question or no more replies for you: are "Negros" as a group measurably less intelligent than white people?

[Anonymous No.15301658]

>>15301624
There are racial differences in IQ
Now what? What am I supposed to do with that revolutionary knowledge?
>>15301627
It wasn't a willful misinterpretation, anon, that post was quite straightforward, and quite idiotic.

[Anonymous No.15301668]

>>15301658
Ok now post your address so I can send this statement you made to your jerkoff liberal friends and teachers. Or are you not that brave?

[Anonymous No.15301682]

>>15301668
Really?
Is that the best you've got? You weren't expecting that answer, were you?

[Anonymous No.15301683]

>>15301658
>There are racial differences in IQ
Take note everyone. All the leftwing lies and distraction and attempts at silencing and at the end of the day they know it's true just like everyone else.

If this doesn't convince you you're on the wrong side, nothing will.

[Anonymous No.15301694]

>>15301658
>There are racial differences in IQ
You're being evasive again. No hiding behind the unspoken "IQ doesn't mean intelligence" bullshit. Are Negros as a group measurably less intelligent than white people? Is there a reason you're avoiding a direct admission here? Is it because the moral bedrock of your society does in fact treat these facts as if they're a huge no-no?

[Anonymous No.15301698]

>>15301626
>Guy spends half the book saying racism is wrong in case anyone mistakes his claim is racist
>gets called racist anyway
>and fired from NYTimes
>and his colleagues are forced to sign a letter collectively shaming him
Gues he shouldn't have mentioned the merchant life being an evolutionary niche

[Anonymous No.15301704]

>>15301683
How am I on the wrong side? What are you suggesting here?

[Anonymous No.15301712]

A few things. Well actually, a lot of things. But you are clearly arguing in bad faith so I will dunk on you in the most obvious ways, and then leave.

One of the things that is consistent across the Bell Curve is its hilarious misunderstanding of correlation and causation. Even ignoring the fact that no general intelligence gene has yet been uncovered (if it in fact exists in the firstplace), environments are also 'inherited' in that parents share it with their offspring. Let us ignore the fact that the works of Richard Lynn directly fabricated or omitted a considerable amount of IQ data for Africans, for the moment. In his pointing out the differences between black American IQ and black African IQ, he used South African IQ studies from the 60s-80s as proof. At the time, white South Africans received ten times as much funding per pupil as black South Africans did. A lot of IQ tests involve algebra in some capacity. In order to get a good score on this, one must be familiar with algebra, recall it, use it correctly etc. etc. This is of course not really a good example of 'natural' IQ, as it requires that one's instructors be capable on a fundamental level. This is hard to do given a death of resources.

The environments cause the low IQ, not the other way around.

In addition, it is hilariously easy to introduce bias into IQ testing.

[Anonymous No.15301733]

>>15301694
>Are Negros as a group measurably less intelligent than white people?
Yes, so?
>Is it because the moral bedrock of your society does in fact treat these facts as if they're a huge no-no?
Not really

[Anonymous No.15301735]

>>15301694
What is a negro? And what is a white person?

[Anonymous No.15301756]

>>15301733
>Yes, so?
>Not really.

[Anonymous No.15301768]

>>15301756
Do you lack reading comprehension?
These were answering different questions.

[Anonymous No.15301777]

>>15301768
End of the rope, anon. No more replies for you.

[Anonymous No.15301784]

>>15301712
>n his pointing out the differences between black American IQ and black African IQ, he used South African IQ studies from the 60s-80s as proof. At the time, white South Africans received ten times as much funding per pupil as black South Africans did.
Leftoids are actually so retarded that even after decades of having this debate they haven't figured out that Africans having abominably low IQ scores like Lynn found actually makes their case stronger
>A lot of IQ tests involve algebra in some capacity.
Very strange lie that can be easily disproved by anyone with an internet connection
>The environments cause the low IQ, not the other way around.
Basic misunderstanding of what heritability means
>In addition, it is hilariously easy to introduce bias into IQ testing.
There is no racial bias in IQ testing.

[Anonymous No.15301793]

>>15301777
Hah
You clearly weren't expecting my responses, and were left out of talking points, incapable of defending your hilarious statements about the "moral bedrock" of society. Sucks to be you.

[Anonymous No.15301825]

Where does one take these an OFFICIAL IQ tests? People Always talk about them but I never understood this.

[Anonymous No.15301930]

>>15301286
Typical equivocation. As if anon, in the face of any sane person’s experience of the world, was asserting that literally all people have the exact same characteristics or whatever. And then the leftist’s version of “dunking”: you come along to point out that, no, people are not literally identical. This doesn’t say anything to anon’s point, that society is based on a bedrock belief that all traits are distributed perfectly equally among all groups of people. But the leftist is too busy hunched over, sucking his own dick by that point to worry with trivialities like that. It’s funny watching leftists argue. If a little tedious

[Anonymous No.15301962]

>>15301930
>society is based on a bedrock belief that all traits are distributed perfectly equally among all groups of people.
Based retard

[Anonymous No.15302003]

>>15301712
This is so fucking pathetic LOL

[Anonymous No.15302007]

>>15302003
>still trying to resuscitate his failed thread

[Anonymous No.15302020]

>>15301962
Funny, if tedious

[Anonymous No.15302026]

>>15302007
It has more replies than most and I'm not op. Thanks for the bump though. You seem still triggered. I'll pray for you :)

[Anonymous No.15302051]

>>15300943
>Also, they have been vindicated by all subsequent research
lol no
you've read "all subsequent research" have you? yeah right

[Anonymous No.15302078]

>>15300978
To be fair, actual anti-brown racism in the US is kind of crass and low-class. Who would feel threatened by a brown person? The patrician response is clearly to recognize the necessity of taking up the white man's burden.

[Anonymous No.15302101]

>>15302020
Society is not morally founded on the belief that all people are equal in their traits you idiot. It doesn't matter if you frame it as regarding individuals or distributions between groups (e.g. races), you are clearly clueless about the "moral foundations" of modern society.
What defines democratic liberal societies is their belief that humans are *morally* equal, not equal in a descriptive sense.

Society doesn't treat less cognitively proficient individuals as less deserving of human rights, why should it treat less cognitively proficient groups as less deserving of rights?

Just admit it, not matter how you frame it, the statement that produced this discussion is retarded and indefensible

[Anonymous No.15302170]

>>15302101
>calls me clueless
>REEEEEEEEE’s at me for restating some other anon’s argument that he ignored

Funny, if tedious

[Anonymous No.15302191]

>>15302170
You didn't restate anything, the statement was retarded under any plausible interpretation.
But thanks for trying, better luck next time.

[Anonymous No.15302208]

>>15302191
>You didn’t restate anything, the statement was retarded to begin with

lol, wtf does that even mean?

[Anonymous No.15302231]

>>15302208
Based retard

[Anonymous No.15302234]

>>15302231
lol

[Anonymous No.15302245]

>>15302234
Holy based

[Anonymous No.15302263]

>>15301825
They are given in person by a trained psychologist, typically in schools to test for giftedness or learning disabilities. I had one in high school in a psychologist's office.
The only parts of the test that could be different depending on level of education were the math and verbal portions, but the rest was basic pattern recognition.

[Anonymous No.15302290]

Why do you retards act like this book is the only evidence for racial differences? This book is old as fuck and mostly based on social science. There is a lot of better, newer, hard evidence available.

[Anonymous No.15302328]

>>15302078
>Who would feel threatened by a brown person?
Anyone who has to spend a lot of time near them

[Anonymous No.15302333]

>>15302101
>Society is not morally founded on the belief that all people are equal in their traits you idiot.
It actually is though

[Anonymous No.15302358]

>>15302333
>nuh uh
Ok retard