Any more books like The Bell Curve?

File: 40 KB, 210x315, 210px-TheBellCurve.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 15:47:55 2012 No.2462430 [Reply] [Original]

Any more books like The Bell Curve?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 15:55:55 2012 No.2462448 >>2462430 I heard good things about its sequel, The Bell Jar

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 15:56:55 2012 No.2462454 inb4 shitstorm

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 15:59:55 2012 No.2462463 >>2462430 Mein Kampf Protocols of the Elders of Zion

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:03:55 2012 No.2462469 >>2462463 butthurt "we all the same/race = social construct" liberal detected

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:05:55 2012 No.2462474 >>2462430 Passing of the Great Race. Try archive.org for this kind of thing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:08:55 2012 No.2462479 >>2462469 >>>/new/

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:11:55 2012 No.2462485 >>2462479 >/mad/

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:12:55 2012 No.2462487

>>2462479
I suppose you feel superior to inbred baptists for believing in evolution. After all, we all evolved from apes in africa. Everyone with scientific knowledge can agree on that. But it takes a special kind of political knowledge to know that we all stopped evolving because handwave just before we left africa, because handwave handwave handwave good feelings good feelings and biology does not apply to us anymore because I. HAVE. A DREAM.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:14:55 2012 No.2462488 >>>/fullretard/

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:16:56 2012 No.2462491 induring liberal baiting.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:16:56 2012 No.2462492 Murray came out with a new book very recently. I've heard that it's interesting.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:17:55 2012 No.2462493 >>2462487 >>2462487 read some biology you retard dogs display a greater degree of phenotypical difference than human, but they're all one species

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:19:55 2012 No.2462496 >>2462487 >>>/umad/

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:23:55 2012 No.2462502 >thinking IQ test result disparity = ALL RACES WITH INFERIOR TEST RESULTS MUST IMMEDIATELY BE STERILISED FUCK NIGGERS WPWW 1488 lol libruls

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:25:55 2012 No.2462509

>>2462493
It's funny how dogs bred for different purposes from wolves over a few thousand years have such different traits, but humans living over generations in different climates for with different levels of urbanity and with different types of local crafts and class/caste systems and different cultural standards tens of thousands of years are all exactly the same because handwave good feelings fight the power.

>>2462496
Nowhere near as mad a lib. You're always getting ulcers about the indignities of the left handed female-to-male transexual brown people, whose custom of unicycling is being tragically obliterated by domineering white culture. Or whatever, I don't pay that much attention to the details.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:28:55 2012 No.2462521 >Murray >Herrnstein Dohohoho

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:30:55 2012 No.2462530

>>2462509
>Nowhere near as mad a lib. You're always getting ulcers about the indignities of the left handed female-to-male transexual brown people, whose custom of unicycling is being tragically obliterated by domineering white culture. Or whatever, I don't pay that much attention to the details.
>lol so randum XDD!

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:30:55 2012 No.2462531 >>2462509 >because handwave This kind of cutesy "debating" won't attract any cute boys anon.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:31:55 2012 No.2462532 >>2462509 just...fuck off i hate people like you, who read a few babby's first anthropology books and think theyre fucking adolf hitler

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:31:55 2012 No.2462534 >certain groups show greater handicap in terms of IQ >it's the tests fault Stay classy, lefties.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:32:56 2012 No.2462537 >>2462534 What's an IQ exactly? Like, define it, Scoob.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:33:56 2012 No.2462541 File: 89 KB, 800x532, lgbt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2462530 U rly got him lol! I bet he doesn't even reelize obesity is a social construct! WHat a enanderthal!

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:34:56 2012 No.2462543 Happy, OP?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:35:55 2012 No.2462545 >>2462541 >WHat a enanderthal! You're right. He really is.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:35:55 2012 No.2462546 >>2462532 I sowwy if I upset u :-(

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:36:55 2012 No.2462553

>>2462534

>import foreign populations to exploit them as labour
>fuck them over for centuries with legislation stacked against them prohibiting, amongst other things, decent education
>give them (amongst others) tests based largely on the prevailing notions of intelligence to the ruling caste of society
>wonder why they do so badly

gosh, y dont those darn'd niggarz just integrate and get ther shit togehter lol right?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:38:55 2012 No.2462557 Lots of good books. Try the leading authors in that area: John P. Rushton Arthur. R. Jensen. Helmuth Nyborg Richard Lynn Linda S. Gottfredson (no particular order) Any particular thing that you are looking for? I read a lot of this stuff.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:41:56 2012 No.2462564 >>2462502 >thinks blanket tests are a feasible means of judging intelligence of certain groups lol conservatives

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:41:56 2012 No.2462566
File: 212 KB, 640x426, 6163141030_8069376c19_z.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2462553
It's funny how they get higher results than their West African relatives. And how west Africans have so much less variation in skin tone, almost as if they weren't getting regularly raped by plantation bosses.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:45:56 2012 No.2462572 Please, just stop responding to /pol/.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:45:56 2012 No.2462573 This thread is fucking awful.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:49:55 2012 No.2462579 >>2462572 >>2462573 >OHSHI- my ingrained notions of equality and antiracism are being questioned ITT! Better sage it and ignore it before I begin questioning my convictions

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:49:55 2012 No.2462580 File: 7 KB, 225x225, yeezysmirk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2462566 Check that thug bitch. Man she's more thug than fiddy cent. Fiddy cent is pretty thug.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:50:55 2012 No.2462581 >>2462579 See >>2462491

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:50:55 2012 No.2462583 >>2462564 You don't think one has tested for obvious biases? Try reading A. Jensen, Bias in Mental Testing. Free Press, 1980.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 16:55:56 2012 No.2462589 >>2462583 >obvious biases Does obvious mean all? Maybe to simpletons.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 17:13:55 2012 No.2462633 File: 40 KB, 327x500, sjg_mom.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This one's pretty good.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 17:17:56 2012 No.2462646 >>2462633 No, that book is horrible. Reading that results in serious misinformation on various subjects of mental testing. See e.g. Pinker's The Blank Slate and Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea for criticisms of the book. I would not read it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 17:23:55 2012 No.2462654 >>2462646 http://bostonreview.net/BR21.3/Orr.html http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2003/feb/27/darwinian-storytelling/?pagination=false Sounds like poorly cobbled together soft-"science" to me.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 17:28:55 2012 No.2462659 >>2462654 Also, you should read the Pravda's review of Lysenko's new book. Those racist western pigs won't know what hit them once it's translated.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 17:30:55 2012 No.2462662 >>2462659 Yeah, Dennet and Pinker's group is a lot like Lysenko.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 17:38:55 2012 No.2462673
File: 40 KB, 340x472, 1318977181404.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2462553
>import chinese to exploit them as labour
>fuck them over for centuries with legislation stacked against them prohibiting, amongst other things, decent education
>give them (amongst others) tests based largely on the prevailing notions of intelligence to the ruling caste of society
>lol wut

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 17:42:55 2012 No.2462678

I don't doubt that, on average, there is some difference between races in IQ. You'd expect any two groups of people to be different given the fact that genetic variation exists (not that IQ can be equated to intelligence). But what I find funny is the type of people that adopt racism as their cause are the dumbest of their own respective races. Every study relating IQ and political ideology confirms that liberals/leftists enjoy a massive jump in IQ over conservatives. Except, of course, that you conveniently ignore those studies (even though they're essentially unanimous). It's true that some people are smart, but, ironically, YOU YOURSELF ARE NOT SMART. Just because some white people are smart does not mean you can falsely assume that you are smart. What practical implications does IQ testing have? Should we treat you any worse now because a test deemed you less intelligent? Should we sterilize you? Who fucking cares.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 17:46:55 2012 No.2462691 Mein Kampf Three Little Golliwogs The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 17:47:55 2012 No.2462693 >>2462678 Also, tl;dr: Ironically, the people who are racist have incredibly low IQs themselves, while liberals are confirmed by every study for having higher IQs.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 17:50:55 2012 No.2462698

>>2462662
I guess I was too subtle. I was saying the New York times and its ilk will praise the people who have the approved ideas just as the Pravda praised Lysenko, and condemn the people who don't.

You may be feeling a slight surge of buttmad right now because I'm suggesting such a mainstream newspaper is adhering to junk ideas, but that is only because you are a democrat and believe that facts are negotiable and the winner of the popularity contest is the true fact. Everything else is just smug eccentricity, ooh it makes me so mad.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 17:53:56 2012 No.2462702 >>2462693 White people who are stupid enough to be poor enough to have to live near blacks certainly are racist. Obviously that means racism is stupid. Well, enjoy your pristine, alabaster suburb.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:02:55 2012 No.2462717 >>2462678 >Every study relating IQ and political ideology confirms that liberals/leftists enjoy a massive jump in IQ over conservatives. pure nonsense They use the "liberal" and "conservative" label, so they can call all the negros "conservative".

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:08:57 2012 No.2462725

>>2462717
That sounds like some confirmation bias, bro. Why don't you read those studies yourself? As a marxist at a top college, I can honestly say I've never met a conservative who wouldn't fail out of college unless he or she majored in communications. You guys really are that stupid.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:08:57 2012 No.2462726 >>2462698 NB I meant democrat in the broadest sense, not democrat versus republican. I keep forgetting about your retarded spend-fucktons-on-government-programs versus spend-fucktons-on-the-military political system.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:12:58 2012 No.2462730

>>2462725
I'm a National Socialist, and I think there's a sliver of truth in what you're saying. Marxism is the logical conclusion of western christian morality, which we should have junked long ago, so I guess ultra-logical people go further on that line and, quite rightly, feel smarter than hypocritical baptist hicks for doing so, without questioning the basis of their values.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:12:58 2012 No.2462731 >>2462725 >As a marxist fuck off

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:15:57 2012 No.2462736 >>2462731 I'm not that guy but I am also a marxist, anybody intelligent and who has read into political theory is a marxist

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:17:57 2012 No.2462740 >>2462736 >intelligent >a marxist pick 1

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:18:57 2012 No.2462742

>>2462678

You appear not to understand statistics. From the premises that group A scores (say) 5 points on average higher than group B, and that person P belongs to B, it does not follow that person P is dumb.

It is strange that you make this argument given that in the next line you write:
>Just because some white people are smart does not mean you can falsely assume that you are smart.

(And this description has redundant elements as well and is generally not good.)

-
>not that IQ can be equated to intelligence
No serious scholar believes this. Intelligence is g, i.e. the common factor of everything that requires intelligence i.e. intelligence tests, complex problem solving, high skill jobs etc.

-
>What practical implications does IQ testing have? Should we treat you any worse now because a test deemed you less intelligent? Should we sterilize you? Who fucking cares.

It is not irrelevant. There are all kinds of problems with being wrong about the genetic component of intelligence differences between populations. The most obvious is that affirmative action is probably a bad idea since it results in wasted talent (this time in whites and even white males when women quotas are used). Another is that one mistakenly sets the expectations for many black people too high. Most of them then fail to reach them and suffer damages to their self-esteem etc. See Rushton and Jensen (2005) for a review of possible policy implications.

-
>But what I find funny is the type of people that adopt racism as their cause are the dumbest of their own respective races.
This conclusion you reach by using the unstated but implied premise that every person who believes in the genetic component of intelligence between populations is a non-liberal/conservative. This is not true.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:20:57 2012 No.2462747 >>2462717 It is not pure nonsense, but it is wrong. There is no massive difference, but a small difference. See e.g.: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/01/social-conservatives-have-a-lower-i-q-probably/

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:21:57 2012 No.2462751 >>2462736 Not sure why people say such obviously stupid things. Universal generalizations are almost always false.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:21:57 2012 No.2462752 >>2462730 I disagree that it's only the logical conclusion of "Western Christian morality" in particular. I myself actually happen to be a non-white, first-generation immigrant.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:22:57 2012 No.2462755 >>2462752 If that's what you were implying, that is.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:25:57 2012 No.2462765

>>2462747
First of all, childhood IQ's do not at all relate to your adult IQ.
You can see this in inheritance studies.

Secondly, they completely ignored race. They use the term "racist" and "conservative" to get you to think they mean, those evil racist whites, but in reality it's significantly influenced by non-whites.

who are both dumber and more "racist".

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:29:57 2012 No.2462773 File: 1006 KB, 320x338, 1330452257206.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >As a marxist

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:29:57 2012 No.2462774

>>2462742
No, I actually do understand statistics, and agree with you. In fact, it's partially the point I'm trying to make. Each race has its own intellectual outliers. Why not be consistent and single out ALL people who are less intelligent rather than a group within a particular race?

But, I mean, I disagree with the initial premise that less intelligent people deserve less. Also, It's obviously true that the quality of my writing hasn't been ideal, but I'm multi-tasking, so forgive me.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:32:57 2012 No.2462781 >>2462774 averages are what matters when it comes to society niggers may have their outliers, but a nigger country or area is a fucking shithole.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:34:58 2012 No.2462786

>>2462765
>First of all, childhood IQ's do not at all relate to your adult IQ.
You can see this in inheritance studies.

You are wrong, and I don't know why you would mention it. It doesn't seem relevant. The relation is weaker tho.

Even Wikipedia will tell inform one of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

And even the 'moderates' such as APA recognizes this.

-

>Secondly, they completely ignored race. They use the term "racist" and "conservative" to get you to think they mean, those evil racist whites, but in reality it's significantly influenced by non-whites.

:s

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:36:57 2012 No.2462792 >>2462786 >A 1996 statement by the American Psychological Association gave about .45 for children and about .75 during and after adolescence. Obviously IQ tests must be far less accurate among children.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:38:57 2012 No.2462797

>>2462751
Obviously, but most people who have actually learned anything about politics and are intelligent actually are marxists, this isn't to say an autistic physicist or whatever is going to be a marxist, they aren't necessarily intelligent enough to understand the complexities of political theory

An example would be Zizek, almost all modern philosophers are marxist because guess what? The smarter you are the higher probability you will actually read and understand history as well as morality etc

Being a marxist is basically the magnum opus of an intellectual

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:38:57 2012 No.2462798

>>2462755
It pretty much is. If your read the stuff attributed to a minor Jewish reformist in the New Testament, and pay attention to the conduct of medieval saints and communal monasteries, and even modern christian charities, you'll see how much they have in common with leftism. Christianity was initially a very radical and subversive movement, but now the churches preach stability, and extremist christianity with its communes and giving away everything you own has of course died off, never being natural or healthy to begin with, and communism came along when people were getting frustrated by the hypocrisy of the whole thing and were subjected to the new pressures of industrial life. Christianity is the cancer at the heart of European civilization. The exact theological details don't matter, it's the attitude and the morality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:39:57 2012 No.2462799 >>2462781 That reasoning makes absolutely no sense. What separation can you make based on race that you can't make based on IQ? And basing an entire country's fate off one factor? Apparently I'm dealing with intellectual giants.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:39:57 2012 No.2462800 >>2462798 Hitler was a devout catholic.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:42:57 2012 No.2462805

>>2462797
Mushy christian ethics are every intellectual's starting point and are then either refined or junked. Most refine them. A notable number in the middle twentieth century didn't, but that went out of style when bombs and bullets proved the nasty idea to be bombed-out and bullet-riddled.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:42:57 2012 No.2462806

>>2462774
>Each race has its own intellectual outliers. Why not be consistent and single out ALL people who are less intelligent rather than a group within a particular race?

Generalizations are useful for predictions. As you can see, the denial of difference between human groups, even men and women, causes 'liberals' to complain about discrimination even when there is none (or almost none). That's how they had real and, obviously so, discrimination passed into law aka. affirmative action and women's quotas (in Norway and Sweden).

>But, I mean, I disagree with the initial premise that less intelligent people deserve less.

Depending on what you mean by this, I may or may not agree. Obviously, people that are smarter deserve better jobs. It would be positively stupid to give important and hard jobs to incompetent people. I do not think that we should, e.g., make two different health-care systems: one for the smart and one for the dumb.

I do not condone segregation type practices, even if we don't do it based on 'race'/population but on actual IQ scores. I may or may not support particular eugenic practices, but I am generally skeptical of top-down negative eugenics (because of the evident stupidity of governments and the poor quality of democracies). This is the type of eugenics that was previously used in the 30s (pretty much everywhere) and people tend to think that this is only kind kind. They are wrong. For a good history and assessment of eugenics see Richard Lynn's Eugenics: A reassessment (2001).

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:45:57 2012 No.2462816 >>2462806 >I do not condone segregation type practices So male/female bathrooms are wrong? Country borders are wrong? Are the canadians oppressing us by not letting us access their glorious and free healthcare?

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:45:57 2012 No.2462817

>>2462792

No, there are just other factors that introduce noise into the data such as parents income etc. The older one becomes, the less effect such things have on one's IQ. In fact, one typically finds that shared environment has no effect on adult IQ. A very 'optimistic' prediction would be 0-10%. A more realistic is 20% non-shared environment, 80% genetics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:46:57 2012 No.2462819 >>2462816 Please stop making up stupid interpretations. I was quite clearly referring to things like segregation in the US pre-60's and apartheid in South Africa.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:46:58 2012 No.2462824

>>2462800
Hitler came from a Catholic background but was certainly not devout. He pretty much gutted the christian church in germany and made it a stepping stone to an eventual pagan nationalism. His references to Christ were populist and used as a means to spur people to anti-semitism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:47:58 2012 No.2462825 >>2462799 It is a surprisingly good predictor of wealth and prosperity actually, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations and subsequent replications.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:47:58 2012 No.2462826

>>2462817
The point being, that childhood IQ tests are not at all accurate ways to predict later IQ. Obviously genetics is a significant cause, however perhaps people develop at different rates, or whatever.

>>2462819
That is precisely my point, there was nothing wrong with segregation in either situation except that it offended leftist sensibilities who wanted to force other people to co-exist.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:48:58 2012 No.2462828
File: 114 KB, 813x439, 1330728467098.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2462742
Since this was the best post, I'll add my comments as a reply.
>No serious scholar believes this. Intelligence is g, i.e. the common factor of everything that requires intelligence i.e. intelligence tests, complex problem solving, high skill jobs etc.
I think the weighting of components on the IQ test can be said to line up with the skills most useful to a modern economy (i.e. where most such test are administered). Native Americans have a pattern of advantage on tests of spatial reasoning (and big cranial capacity), and are most likely better at navigating and like tasks.
But verbal/mathematical skills have greater economic value, and populations with a long history of agriculture (a way of life with more in common with ours) tend to do better on these.
I would also like to point out that the black-white income disparity largely disappears when IQ is controlled for, and the gap in education disappears completely. Some posters don't seem to be aware of that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:49:57 2012 No.2462830 IQ is reification

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:49:57 2012 No.2462831 >>2462798 Maybe I didn't clearly state my point (admittedly a difficult one to prove) that marxism is innately appealing to intellectuals everywhere regardless initial religious and cultural background.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:50:57 2012 No.2462832 Anything by Arthur Gobineau.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:52:57 2012 No.2462839

>>2462797
I have no faith at all in your statements and I hate Zizek and other rubbish 'philosophers'. If you have any cites about Maxists and IQ, please cite them.

FYI, political science majors are known to not be among the brightest students.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/01/classicists-are-smart/

They seem to be only slightly above the college average in the US. And these numbers are perhaps not weighted for the size of the different majors. Physicists, if you look, are the smartest. Their average IQ as calculated using those scores lie around the 130.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:54:58 2012 No.2462843 >>2462828 AFAIK, g is an almost equally good predictor for all ethnic groups. This shows that the tests are not 'culturally biased' or whatever it is that critics often claim.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:56:57 2012 No.2462849 >>2462831 If the smartest are also the most altruistic, why are elites consistently self-serving? Are you saying elites are stupid, or that intelligence isn't worth shit outside the classroom?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:57:57 2012 No.2462850 >>2462839 Oh man I am all up in quadrant I !!! Both my majors and my minor kick ass.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:57:57 2012 No.2462852 >>2462843 >AFAIK, g is an almost equally good predictor for all ethnic groups. This shows that the tests are not 'culturally biased' Actually, that'd be exactly the kind of thing that would follow assuming cultural bias.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:59:57 2012 No.2462857

>>2462826
>First of all, childhood IQ's do not at all relate to your adult IQ.
You can see this in inheritance studies.

This was your original claim, and it was false. You appear to have modified it slightly (by weakening it):
>The point being, that childhood IQ tests are not at all accurate ways to predict later IQ. Obviously genetics is a significant cause, however perhaps people develop at different rates, or whatever.

I sort of agree with this, depending on what you mean precisely with "not at all accurate ways to predict later IQ". They are certainly better than nothing. Combined with measuring the brain/cranium, reaction times etc., that should be a pretty good predictor-set. Of course, even better it would be to measure the parents and use that number (take the average and adjust for regression to the mean).

-
>That is precisely my point, there was nothing wrong with segregation in either situation except that it offended leftist sensibilities who wanted to force other people to co-exist.

I strongly disagree with this.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 18:59:57 2012 No.2462860 >>2462698 >I guess I was too subtle. I was saying the New York times and its ilk will praise the people who have the approved ideas just as the Pravda praised Lysenko Foxnews just in: Liberal bias in the predominantly right wing media

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:01:57 2012 No.2462866 >>2462852 Well then you are saying reality has a cultural bias.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:01:58 2012 No.2462864

>>2462852
You have some strange idea of cultural bias, then. I have no idea what you mean then. But, since people generally just complain about cultural biases of mental testing or 'reification' of IQ (>>2462830
) without explaining, it is hard to know what they mean (if anything).

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:02:57 2012 No.2462868 File: 84 KB, 500x658, iq.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Let's at least be scientific about this.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:02:57 2012 No.2462869

>>2462817 No, there are just other factors that introduce noise into the data such as parents income etc. The older one becomes, the less effect such things have on one's IQ. In fact, one typically finds that shared environment has no effect on adult IQ. A very 'optimistic' prediction would be 0-10%. A more realistic is 20% non-shared environment, 80% genetics.

This is insane. If IQ were a genetic thing, it would be most detectable at an early age. You're just hand-waving away data and saying the opposite.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:02:57 2012 No.2462871 >>2462860 what the fuck are you talking about "predominantly right wing media"? Most of the so called "right wing media" are leftists masquerading as conservatives!

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:02:57 2012 No.2462872

>>2462860
Reality just in: your preciously cultivated Republican-Democrat dichotomy doesn't mean shit, they both subscribe to leftist views of human nature and capitalist economics. The 'big issues' are just window dressing to make you think you have any meaningful choice in the elections.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:04:58 2012 No.2462879 >>2462869 If eye color were a genetic thing, then why are babies born with grey-blue eyes? Explain that, ayfiest!!!

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:05:57 2012 No.2462881

>>2462849
Well, I disagree that they are self-serving. The problem is simply that no nation has ever been truly meritocratic or technocratic. That combines with the fact that jobs, to a large extent, are self-selected, and most intellectuals simply choose their work over wealth and power. Many do attempt to become politicians and bureaucrats, but find that their ideas aren't appealing enough to the masses, who can only superficially and simplistically gauge their value.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:05:57 2012 No.2462882

>>2462869
No. It would be exactly as I wrote. This is a very common finding. The method is rather simple. Twin studies with identical twins reared together and reared apart, and also fraternal twins for control. One can then test and see how large the shared environment effect is. Truth is, it is very small, and often disappears completely. This is not news anymore.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:05:57 2012 No.2462883 >>2462871 Do you even news? >>2462872 >they both subscribe to leftist views Relative to what?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:07:57 2012 No.2462890 >>2462882 >Twin studies with identical twins All studies of this type are bogus. A lot of the time what appear to be "identical" twins are in fact not.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:08:57 2012 No.2462895

>>2462883
Relative to fucking Marx. Why don't you go fuss on your blog about the political status of abortions, as if it makes a difference whether some prole has her mutant babby or not? And other purely sentimental issues that decide the american elections.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:09:57 2012 No.2462900 File: 18 KB, 200x293, gr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Now everybody...

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:10:57 2012 No.2462903 >>2462895 >Relative to fucking Marx. Are you a Marxist who's still pissed off at the Anarcho-Syndicalists for not being radical enough?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:10:57 2012 No.2462905 >>2462890 They would certainly have to be bogus, otherwise they would refute your views! Pretty conclusively! Dohoho!

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:11:58 2012 No.2462907

>>2462843
Well, I didn't know that. It does follow logically for within-group difference, I think.
Just another FYI for this thread, racial differentiation in scores can be shown to be greatest on the most g-loaded subtests, and g is more heritable even than IQ at about 0.85. This is the reverse of what you would expect if such differences were caused by environment.
>>2462852
This stumped me for a bit. Which makes it interesting.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:13:57 2012 No.2462913

>>2462890
Again, don't make those universal generalizations. They are almost always wrong, and this one is wrong as well, and you don't have evidence of it. Actually, a few of such studies should be free of error by random chance since so many of them have been made the last 120 years or so.

When critics make such stupid objections, it merely strengthens my beliefs. It is rather easy to test to see if alleged identical twins are actually identical twins. A simple DNA test, or even a blood test, or teeth plot etc.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:14:57 2012 No.2462916

>>2462905
I'm actually of the other camp, but most twin studies are used to "prove" genetics have some significant influence. Significant usually meaning "next to nothing" most of the time, but these gene freaks take any excuse to wank off over research.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:14:57 2012 No.2462919 >>2462903 Yes, I am clearly a Marxist. That is why I am disgustedly describing the two main american political parties as marxist in their view of human nature. You're pretty fucking perspicacious, you know.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:14:57 2012 No.2462922

>>2462907
it would depend on what it is a predictor for
If it is predicting the success of different ethnic groups on activities in a one culture, then guess what
Often artifacts like IQ are used to predict income and employment and post-highshool performance

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:14:58 2012 No.2462923

>>2462882 No. It would be exactly as I wrote. This is a very common finding. The method is rather simple. Twin studies with identical twins reared together and reared apart, and also fraternal twins for control. One can then test and see how large the shared environment effect is. Truth is, it is very small, and often disappears completely. This is not news anymore.

How then do these studies explain how a so-called stable genetic trait becomes more heritable as the subject gets older.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:15:57 2012 No.2462924 >>2462919 >not being a marxist Get out of /lit/

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:15:57 2012 No.2462925

>>2462913
>Actually, a few of such studies should be free of error by random chance
That's invalid due to the large population sampling required. The whole point of large population sampling is to practically remove these "random chances". And let's not even get into the whole "natural experiment" shit.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:16:57 2012 No.2462927

>>2462907
Yes, that is correct AFAIK.

I have no idea what he means by the tests being bias. His idea of biased tests is almost that if the tests show a difference, then they are biased. Well, duh. No one disagrees with such a statement but it is a point and trivial concept of bias.

If anyone didn't know, IQ tests are stripped for sex bias by choosing sub-tests so that the sexes score equally. However, there are some small sex differences in g.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:16:57 2012 No.2462928 >>2462890 >A lot of the time what appear to be "identical" twins are in fact not Eh, no.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:16:57 2012 No.2462929 >>2462919 No, you described them as left of Marxism. You can go back and read through the comments again, if you're able.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:17:57 2012 No.2462933 itt: white basement dwellers who never did anything useful with their lives circlejerking over how superior they are to those blacks

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:19:57 2012 No.2462938

>>2462916
>0% is enough to prove that social constructivist theories are wrong.

>>2462923
It isn't obvious to you? When children move away from home, there is no longer much noise from the parents in the data. Less noise increases the correlations.

>>2462925
Twins studies do not use that large sample sizes, and there is no need to.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:23:57 2012 No.2462948

>>2462928
http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/burt.htm
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1466-9218.2000.00027.x/abstract;jsessionid=1DFE09EC2B2B
A6B820B050B787D32A55.d01t02
Top one is one of the most famous cases of fraud related to twin studies. Second one is a famous meta-analysis of various twin studies, looking at mistaken identical twins, in-utero factors confused with gene factors etc.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:23:57 2012 No.2462949 >>2462933 Trailer homes don't have basements.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:24:57 2012 No.2462956 >>2462933 and the whole negro race has never done anything useful

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:24:57 2012 No.2462958 [DELETED]

>>2462927
If anyone didn't know, IQ tests are stripped for sex bias by choosing sub-tests so that the sexes score equally. However, there are some small sex differences in g.
Yeah, once I heard they score exactly the same and knowing that the two things are apples-and-oranges I came to that conclusion.
You evidently know more about this topic than I do (could you recommend something on the g factor?), but another way to look at it is to see that gay men have the same cognitive profile as women, but score slightly higher across subtests. Perhaps this is mediated by anatomy (my euphemism for brain size).

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:26:57 2012 No.2462961 >>2462958 heh, the leftists come from the assumption everyone is identical, therefore any differing outcome must be from racism, discrimination, oppression, etc etc etc

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:27:58 2012 No.2462965

>>2462928
I did respond to this earlier, sort of. I would guess that in some older studies before modern testing, there were some errors in which twins were identical and which were not. But I suspect that the error factor was very low due to how much genetically identical people look alike. They are often mistaken for each other unless they use different hair styles.

In some interesting studies, identical twins who were reared apart met later in life and compared their life. The similarities are astonishing.

I did a random Youtube search and found: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gwnzW4jOMI

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:27:58 2012 No.2462966

>>2462927
>If anyone didn't know, IQ tests are stripped for sex bias by choosing sub-tests so that the sexes score equally. However, there are some small sex differences in g.
Yeah, once I heard they score exactly the same and knowing that the two things are apples-and-oranges I came to that conclusion.
You evidently know more about this topic than I do (could you recommend something on the g factor?), but another way to look at it is to see that gay men have the same cognitive profile as women, but score slightly higher across subtests. Perhaps this is mediated by anatomy (my euphemism for brain size).

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:27:58 2012 No.2462967 >>2462961 Not identical, just drawn from the same distribution.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:28:58 2012 No.2462972 >>2462967 so they're iid random variables, thus identical

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:29:57 2012 No.2462973

>>2462929
I suppose I did. What I meant was that their views on human nature are just like Marx's. Most leftists think that communism is good in theory, but it didn't work out in fact. They're often quite ordinary people, not very vocal or vehement in their views; you would probably call them 'liberals.' The ones who are a little pissed off that people would ever think those glorious leftist ideals could be practical are what you would call 'conservatives,' but almost all of these have the same basic moral values as a communist. It's all the same shit, don't expect me to be precise in distinguishing one type of turd from another.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:29:57 2012 No.2462974

>>2462938 It isn't obvious to you? When children move away from home, there is no longer much noise from the parents in the data. Less noise increases the correlations.

What "noise"? Are the parents taking the IQ tests with their children? Making their children smarter or dumber in the short-term by slipping drugs in their dinner?

If I moved out of my parents house and suddenly my hair-color became twice as heritable, that would be a pretty clear sign hair color wasn't strongly genetic. As if hair color could be depressed by living in a more variable hair color environment.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:31:57 2012 No.2462978

>>2462923
>How then do these studies explain how a so-called stable genetic trait becomes more heritable as the subject gets older.

Well, the truth is, no one knows EXACTLY, there hasn't been a lot of behavioral or anthropological research there. The current theory is that people with more intelligent genes are better at finding the right environment to express those genes as measurably-stable intelligence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:32:57 2012 No.2462982 >>2462948 There is some doubt as to whether that was actually fraud. And later studies have confirmed his data. So, if he made it up, he got it extremely close to right.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:32:57 2012 No.2462985

>>2462965
>I would guess that in some older studies before modern testing
It is very expensive to conduct gene testing. Not just for the test itself, in overheads too.
>But I suspect that the error factor was very low due to how much genetically identical people look alike.
Genetically similar people also look alike. It's not trivial to differentiate mz and dz twins.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:33:57 2012 No.2462988 >>2462967 That's just factually incorrect. Unless you're talking about a bimodal distribution, which would make it trivial. I can't even

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:35:57 2012 No.2462993

>>2462966

Arthur R. Jensen wrote a book dedicated to the g factor, also called "The g factor". I haven't read it but have only read good things about it. My knowledge comes from lots of sporadic sources, i.e. lots of papers from e.g. Intelligence. I have university access, so I just devour it, so to speak. :)

I plan on reading the book that I mention above later. But I first need to up my statistics skills to understand factor analysis in depth. I currently don't.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:35:57 2012 No.2462995 >>2462973 >it works in theory but not in practice And this is how I know you have never actually read anything about politics

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:35:57 2012 No.2462997 >>2462982 >So, if he made it up, he got it extremely close to right. But then it's not science. And the BPA haven't changed their view on it, so you have what is known as a fringe theory there.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:37:57 2012 No.2463002 >>2462997 BPS*

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:40:57 2012 No.2463008

>>2462974
The problem seems to be your bogus understanding of heritability. Do you have a background in statistics? As variation in upbringings is reduced, traits become more heritable. This seems counter-intuitive but it isn't. It follows trivially, yet most people get it wrong.

No, parents do not help the children with the tests. But some parents are better parents than other parents by being more supportive, are more 'tiger moms' etc. This has some effect on IQ scores but apparently this effect either entirely or wholly vanishes once the children are grown-up and presumably moved from home. Such parental factors introduce noise and environmental variation. When it is removed or reduced, the heritability numbers increase.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:41:58 2012 No.2463012 >>2462997 I don't think he made it up, and there is some recently unearthed evidence about this. But I don't care too much if that particular study was made up or not. Subsequent studies have confirmed the results, made up or not.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:42:58 2012 No.2463013

>>2462978 The current theory is that people with more intelligent genes are better at finding the right environment to express those genes as measurably-stable intelligence.

So... intelligence is a genetic factor because it selects for the correct environment for intelligence to be expressed as a measurable quantity?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:43:57 2012 No.2463015 >>2462985 One can do simpler things such as fingerprint testing. It is not very hard to distinguish between dz and mz if one tries seriously to do so.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:43:57 2012 No.2463018

>>2462995
Let me repeat myself:
>Most leftists think that communism is good in theory, but ((that)) it didn't work out in fact.

I did not say 'It works in theory but not in practice.' If a theory doesn't work in practice, it's a shitty theory. Like Marxism.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:47:59 2012 No.2463027

>>2463012
>Subsequent studies have confirmed the results
And have you just imagined them or what...?

>>2463015
>One can do simpler things such as fingerprint testing.
You are actually mental. Fingerprints aren't genetic. The easiest thing you could do is look at whether one twin has organ positions switched around (heart on the right and/or if they're left handed), but some people just develop like that anyway.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:49:59 2012 No.2463036 >>2463018 >it's shitty because i say so goddammit, I don't know anything about politics but I am smart enough to know this is dumb because yeah

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:52:57 2012 No.2463047

>>2463008 The problem seems to be your bogus understanding of heritability. Do you have a background in statistics? As variation in upbringings is reduced, traits become more heritable.

In what world do you live in that variation in upbringing is REDUCED among groups as the child is up-brung? That seems to be the main place you are going astray in this conversation. Like environment isn't cumulative.

>some parents are better parents than other parents by being more supportive, are more 'tiger moms' etc. This has some effect on IQ scores but apparently this effect either entirely or wholly vanishes once the children are grown-up and presumably moved from home. Such parental factors introduce noise and environmental variation. When it is removed or reduced, the heritability numbers increase.

What seems to be happening here is that each successive generation is matching exactly to the influence of the environment they are growing up in, which creates the illusion of a running chain of high heritability and low heritability between parents and their offspring, and offspring and their offspring, whenever they are compared.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:53:57 2012 No.2463049 I've never visited /pol/ Now it's clear I'll never have to.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:57:57 2012 No.2463061

>>2463036
Well, let me say this much. It's disgusting in theory and is disgusting and inefficient in practice. Maybe it could work in a nation for a long time, I don't know, maybe you could live with AIDS for a long time, but I don't care to find out in either case. Keep preaching the destruction of rightist white culture while enjoying achievements - well, it's not as if I need to tell you that, who would want the alternative when they actually find out what it's like? Visit the ghetto sometime.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 19:58:57 2012 No.2463064 >>2463061 >Visit the ghetto sometime. Ah, so you're "trailer trash".

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:00:57 2012 No.2463071

>>2463027
In the paper "New evidence on Sir Cyril Burt:
His 1964 Speech to the Association
of Educational Psychologists" five such studies are mentioned that found basically the same correlation (0.75) as did Burt reported (0.771). The paper is a bit dated (from 2002), so probably more studies have been done since.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:04:57 2012 No.2463077 >>2463061 >doesn't actually have any arguments >spewing baseless rhetoric >knows nothing about political theory Keep going buddy

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:04:57 2012 No.2463078 >>2463064 I live in a third story flat in a western european capital. Let's leave it at that. I don't gloat over untermenschen anything like as much as urban middle-class yanks gloat over yank hicks.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:05:57 2012 No.2463080 >>2463071 find a metaanalysis with that number

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:05:57 2012 No.2463081

>>2463027
>You are actually mental. Fingerprints aren't genetic. The easiest thing you could do is look at whether one twin has organ positions switched around (heart on the right and/or if they're left handed), but some people just develop like that anyway.

Yes, they are.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-ones-fingerprints-sim

-

I'm sure there are lots of more ways to figure out if two twins are mz or dz, even cheaply. I have not studied this topic at length.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:07:57 2012 No.2463084

>>2463071
Yeah, to me it's reading more as rhetoric than actual substance. The research assistants were always known to be real people, just not his assistants when he claimed they were. That this 10 year old paper has been cited by 7 according to google scholar is also not filling me with much faith.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:07:57 2012 No.2463085 >>2463077 What the fuck is "political theory" supposed to mean? These leftists get so far up their own asses in leftist thinking and rhetoric and ideologies, they seem to think it's the only way to view the world.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:08:57 2012 No.2463091 >>2463085 Well in order to view a world you should at least open your eyes and not just imagine something else.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:08:57 2012 No.2463092 >>2463077 My argument was made here: >>2462487 >>2462509 >>2462566 Nothing more needs to be said. National Socialism more or less comes directly from knowledge of science, a sense of manhood, a sense of fellowship, and common sense.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:09:57 2012 No.2463094 >>2463091 I shoot that right back @ u

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:09:57 2012 No.2463095

>>2463047

No idea what you were trying to say, but my point was fairly elementary and not controversial at all in population genetics.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/01/most-people-dont-understand-heritability/

As environmental variation goes down, heritability goes up.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:10:57 2012 No.2463099 >>2463081 Well, while that's interesting, it still won't help you work out an mz vs dz twin.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:10:58 2012 No.2463100 >>2463094 Ok well why don't you tell me what the defining aspect of marxism is to you and we will see if you even know how to interpret a wikipedia page

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:11:58 2012 No.2463104 >>2463100 Why do you think i care one bit about marxist nonsense?

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:12:58 2012 No.2463107

>>2463084

As I said, I don't particularly care about the Burt case, and neither, it seems, does other people (judging from the citation number that you give). Typical of the press not to jump over this as they originally did.

I suppose you could look up the studies he mentions. I don't see any reason to not trust the data mentioned. It fits with everything else I know which is the best test of any belief. (Coherentism.)

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:12:58 2012 No.2463108 >>2463104 You brought it up and are going on about it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:12:58 2012 No.2463109 >>2463104 Well in order to dismiss something you should at least know what you are dismissing, but what else would I expect from a blabbering moron

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:13:57 2012 No.2463112 >>2463108 No i didn't.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:14:57 2012 No.2463113

>>2463099

Yes, it will. Mz's have much more similar fingerprints. Even if one did not use genetic testing but used all other cheaply available evidence, the chance for a false positive is really small I dare say.

This all comes back to the stupid claim made by whoever that all twin studies are bogus because there are often errors with distinguishing between mz and dz twins. That's the dumbest claim I've ever heard about twin studies.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:19:58 2012 No.2463118

>>2463109
The basis of Marxism is the principle of equality, which is demonstrably false.
Why should we bother investigating the rest of your bullshit? This is like a realtor saying "Well yes, this house certainly is built half-way up a steadily crumbling cliff-face on a stormy coastline and can only be reached by a rope ladder, but it has a really nice rumpus room! Just check it out, come on!"

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:21:57 2012 No.2463122 >>2463118 >equality >from each according to his ability, to each according to their need Refuted.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:22:57 2012 No.2463124

>>2463113
You're joking, right? mz and dz have the same in utero environment, and thus their fingerprints are usually as similar as each other. Sometimes twins that share a placenta have mirrored fingerprints, but this is extremely rare. That is the only vaguely valid application of fingerprints related to twins, and even that is considered far from definitive.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:22:57 2012 No.2463126 >>2463122 >IF ONLY HUMAN BEINGS STOP BEING ACTUAL LIVING THINGS AND TURN INTO ROBOTS, THEN WE COULD HAVE UTOPIA!

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:23:59 2012 No.2463128 >>2463126 >caps >no actual argument >theory of alienation refutes this yet again

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:24:59 2012 No.2463130 >>2463126 Isn't that the subtext of every political theory/system?

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:25:58 2012 No.2463132

>>2463122
That's not a refutation. People have roughly equal needs as far as food and shelter go, but different levels of ability. The only way to convince a talented man not to go his own way for greater reward is to convince him of his 'essential' equality with others. That's why leftists need to lie about biology to establish their shitpile economic-political system. Maintaining the lie of equality is the pragmatic basis of Marxism.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:30:59 2012 No.2463142

>>2463132
no it's because what is good for the collective is ultimately beneficial for himself as well, he might not be able to enslave thousands, but the idea behind Marx is that the majority is forcing the exploiters to stop, thereby making their interests no longer in favor of exploitation because if they did, they would be killed, it's simply an impossibility

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:31:58 2012 No.2463144 >>2463142 >what is good for the collective is ultimately beneficial for himself as well, marxists gonna marx

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:32:58 2012 No.2463150 >>2463144 If you sell a man a fish, he will eat for a day If you teach a man to fish, you ruin a good business opportunity Price =/= value

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:35:59 2012 No.2463162 >>2463150 marxist economics is pure dogshit, you should stick to speaking in feelgood rhetoric and proposing social engineering.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:38:58 2012 No.2463169

>>2463162
"It's dumb guys, why won't you listen to me!?!??! PLEASE LISTEN TO ME" - average right winger

It would be nice if you actually justified it where I can't refute it like in the economic calculation problem, but that would never happen because if you were actually as intelligent as you think you are, you would have become a marxist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:40:58 2012 No.2463173 >>2463169 I don't want to get into it, it's all a load of dogshit, go read some austrian economics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:41:58 2012 No.2463177 >>2463173 Do you even know what Hayek says about socialism?

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:41:58 2012 No.2463178

>>2463142
The moral basis of this idea is christian. "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." But this is only good for an average man. I'm no hot shit myself, I'm basically average, but suppose this guy isn't and he actually does want to enslave thousands? What if the average members of the group are protected from this talented and selfish man by allowing him to vent his fury on foreigners and become a Julius Caesar sort of figure? Isn't this more lively and life-affirming than enforced mediocrity?

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:44:58 2012 No.2463187

>>2463124

I think that mz have more similar fingerprints than dz since they share the genetic factor. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1277/do-identical-twins-have-different-fingerprints

"If this is the kind of thing that keeps you up at night, babe, don't ever have teenagers. The sound-bite answer to your question is yes--identical twins have fingerprints that can be readily distinguished on close examination. However, the prints do have striking similarities. In fact, before the arrival of modern genetic testing, similarity of fingerprints was often used to determine whether twins were identical or fraternal. (Identical twins, you'll recall, are genetic duplicates who develop from a single egg. Fraternal twins develop from separate eggs and are no more closely related than ordinary siblings, except that they spend nine months sharing an extremely small bedroom.) "

Exactly as I suspected.

But even if this is false or nearly false, it does not matter. I am still right that it is fairly easy to distinguish mz and dz from each other and that twin studies have not generally failed hardly at this, and thus such studies are not even generally bogus, let alone always bogus as was the original stupid claim.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:44:58 2012 No.2463190

>>2463178
>christian basis
...

Anyways the idea that economic restriction restricts anything but the enslavement of individuals is ridiculous

Isn't unfair that a man born in africa with an IQ of 160 has to work in a sweatshop instead of using his abilities elsewhere?

Don't get me wrong I do not believe marxism to be perfect, no ideology is, but neither is the system we live in today, and marxism rectifies a lot of the problems

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:47:59 2012 No.2463197 >>2463190 ??? WHY DO YOU THINK A 160 IQ NIGGER WOULD WORK IN A SWEATSHOP? THE SMART NIGGERS ARE THE ONES WHO GET PAID BY MARXISTS TO ATTEND A LEFTIST WESTERN SCHOOL AND THEN GO BACK AND BE A DICTATOR.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:47:59 2012 No.2463199

>>2463187
>straight dope
I can tell you there were several papers in the early sixties, but they didn't test if the twins were actually MZ or DZ, i.e. they have no scientific value, like pretty much every twin study. The experimental designs were also kinda strange.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:47:59 2012 No.2463200 >>2463197 To keep from starving maybe

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:51:59 2012 No.2463211 >>2463187 More ways here without using DNA tests which turns out not to be that expensive again (<200 USD). http://multiples.about.com/od/funfacts/ht/identorfraterna.htm

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:51:59 2012 No.2463213

>>2463190
>...
>
>Anyways
Yes, the idea that you have idea in common with the christians is so self-evidently ridiculous that all you need to do is pause ironically, raise an eyebrow, sip your latte, adjust your beret, give a long sigh, and move on to more adult topics. Like most leftists, your thinking is dominated by totems - because the christians worship a jew-on-a-stick, have shitty moustaches, watch NASCAR and live in trailers, your ideas have nothing in common. No, you're avant-garde, you're something entirely new.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 20:59:59 2012 No.2463228

>>2463213
>ignores the rest of my post
>doesn't realize christianity was a relatively new religion and that it copies several and is impossible to link a concept directly to it

And that analogy isn't even valid, it's not saying do unto others what you would have them do unto you, although I believe that's a good statement.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 21:03:58 2012 No.2463240

>>2463199
You as stubborn as you are lazy. You can look up things yourself (I hope) and stop making dumb claims ad infinitum that other people have to spend time refuting. Twin studies are cool and nice, get over it. ;)

I looked up the newest study mentioned of the five studies before. It dates to 1992. They write:
"Zygosity diagnoses were first made on the basis of physical similarity and confirmed on the basis of serological assay. (For further details of the procedures, sample, and design of SATSA, see Pedersen et al., 1991.)"

I cba to look up that paper. It seems pretty safe to believe that it is pretty reliable from the Wiki article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serology
TL;DR It's some kind of blood/fluid test that is good enough to link criminals to semen samples in courts.

I hope that's the last of dumb claims about the problems of twin studies.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 21:17:58 2012 No.2463265

>>2463240
>You as stubborn as you are lazy.
Not being funny, but you can google any shit you want and probably find something flimsy but authoritative looking to back it up.
>>2463211
Is perhaps the funniestthing I've read, since everything is either umpteen more tests, unavailable to researchers doing twin studies, and/or not going to tell you 100% if the twins are MZ or DZ.

Antibodies, btw, are formed in response to genes over a lifetime. MZ twins would have different serological signatures due to having different diseases at different time.

This is really boring for me though, so think what you like.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 21:17:58 2012 No.2463266

>>2463228
You're just the latest phase of the slave revolt. Christianity nowadays is a slave revolt that's learned to serve again, but basically anarchistic-socialistic values are to be found in the new testament.
And what has the rest of your post got to do with anything?

We have:
>the idea that economic restriction restricts (...) is ridiculous
Which is self-contradicting, unless you really believe that economic activity is the same thing as slavery. Then you try to say that a man with an 160 IQ would be completely helpless to better himself and would inevitably remain a miserable prole without Mother Socialism to give him a suck on her nipple and to tuck him in at night, and that Marxism isn't perfect and that nothing else is either but Marxism is just more perfect than everything else, which is just a nervous and insecure way of saying the Marxism is perfect and is the only option. What can I say to things like this? Why bother?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 21:20:58 2012 No.2463271 >>2463265 >response to genes to ilnesses

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 21:24:58 2012 No.2463281 >>2463265 No one cares about 100%. There is no 100% in life. Even DNA tests are not 100%.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 21:26:59 2012 No.2463283 >>2463281 99.9999999999999%

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 21:27:58 2012 No.2463284

>>2463266
>fringe bullshit about christian conspiracies
ignored

>do you really believe economic activity is the same as slavery
Theory of alienation, slavery might not be the correct word. And yes a man of 160 IQ would be helpless if he was poor, do you not understand how the world works? The idea of private property is ridiculous, "property is theft"

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 21:42:59 2012 No.2463305

>>2463284
>fringe bullshit about christian conspiracies
>ignored
Where did I say anything about a conspiracy? I know it hurts you vanity to know that you have anything to do with your father's fuddy-duddy religion, but early christianity was about ignoring wordly pleasures like wealth, giving up your property to the poor, neither obeying nor enforcing laws, communal living, and expectation of a day of judgement where all 'good' souls would be taken up to heaven, with male and female, master and slave, rich and poor souls all indistinguishable and equal. Does this hysterical, degenerate bullshit sound familiar, with a little superstition added for good measure? Was Leon Tolstoy nuts for seeing a natural kinship between anarchism, socialism and early christianity? Is 'progress' as an idea, a vague feeling that the greatest goodness is coming along steadily, really that different in effect to the christian belief in judgment day? I'm an atheist, you know. That should be obvious, but a lot of things should be obvious to you.

>Theory of alienation, slavery might not be the correct word.
Is a self-employed man psychologically repressed by his work?

>And yes a man of 160 IQ would be helpless if he was poor, do you not understand how the world works?
Do you not understand that elite didn't just jump out of a helhole and begin oppressing? The first elites were probably leaders of hunting parties, musical shamans, and experienced craftsmen who taught the young how to follow their trade. Wealth and power have to start somewhere, retard, and with talent you can go places. Probably slowly in bumfuck Africa, but even there you can.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 21:48:59 2012 No.2463310

>>2463305
>projecting about religion
>still drones on and on about inane bullshit
Look buddy I can tell you just read about this and you're eager to talk about it, but I don't give a shit about parallelisms anyone can draw on. You can do that with anything, not impressed in the least.

>the elite didn't emerge out of anything
Yeah you're right, they emerged out of historical materialism, Marx's most famous idea, it eliminates the accumulation of wealth (this is not a result of ability), the growing income disparity, etc

You aren't "giving up wealth", or at least not to the extent which you make it seem, another interesting idea is marginal utility, maybe that will make your head spin into place so you aren't thinking upside down any more

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 21:49:58 2012 No.2463311 >>2463310 by "it" in it eliminates etc I mean Marxism

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 22:02:58 2012 No.2463322

>>2463310
You questioned an offhand reference I made to christianity, I responded, you questioned that more extensively, I responded in a less snarky and more detailed way, you called it a conspiracy theory, I pointed out that that didn't make any fucking sense and explained it more thoroughly, and suddenly it's irrelevant bullshit and everything is like everything else. And I'm 'droning' about 'inane' stuff. Oh, that really stung. You got into a debate because you couldn't restrain your emotional knee-jerk responses to my ideas, and kept responding without having any interest in or knowledge about the subject. I guess it could happen to anyone. I'm terribly sorry.

>the accumulation of wealth (...) is not the result of ability
How could it be otherwise? Killing people and taking their shit is an excellent ability, so is being able to enslave them. Enjoy not being a Nazi.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 22:10:58 2012 No.2463333

Some questions that have been bothering me lately.

1. Is this seemingly unsolvable debt crisis the end stage of capitalism that Marx predicted. After all, we havent seen the crisis of the PIIGS progress to the point where France, the United States and Japan are equally fucked as Greece, and by just looking at the math and GDP ratios, that is coming.
2. If Marxism is the stage we are approaching, why the fuck does it look so much like the crony capitalism collectivism that Ayn Rand predicted in Atlas Shrugged (without the glorious producers to save our ass).

and

3. If stormfags and /pol/ loves this bell curve shit so much, how do they explain how Jews, East Asians, and Indians absolutely dominate whites.

Call me a liberal (im not) but I was taught (by liberals) that standardized testing on certain populations, esp native american and australian aborigine (the "purest" of all races) is an abysmal failure due to societal pressures towards collective learning, and that you have to adopt different methods of teaching to groups in order to bring out their strengths (which you cant because of govt mandated testing).

Anyways, this thread is terrible, as all /pol/ initiatives are, because of the lack of documentation of their arguments by any sort of peer review, but the marxism argument got me thinking in the end.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 22:11:58 2012 No.2463334

>>2463322
True you're right about that, but I don't want to talk about christianity, notice how I said "... Anyways." I just don't see its relevance to what we are discussing, if you were to elaborate on its importance that would be nice, I probably should have left it out entirely because it just made you talk about it more.

>enjoy not being a nazi
So you concede I assume?

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 22:23:58 2012 No.2463348

>>2463333
You can draw upon the same symptoms and have different conclusions on how to treat it. Ayn Rand is more about treating the symptoms, which is... alright I suppose. Marxism is the cure. Some people don't like what the cure gets rid of though.

I'm not sure if it's the end, but it's getting close.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 22:27:58 2012 No.2463354

>>2463334
The usefulness of likening leftism to christianity is to transfer modern disgust with christian excesses to leftism and leave it tainted in their eyes.
'Concede' isn't quite the word, since I never intended to convince you. I was just telling the truth in the most arseholish way possible. Or in other words, practicing the true art of trolling. That said, I am a genuine Nazi.

>>2463333
3. Jews and East Asians certainly do have an IQ lead over whites, but the Nordic white is more balanced in his traits and is a more stable basis for civilization. Jews are specialized by their long, long tradition of usury for desk work, and East Asians are more inhibited and group minded. (I have respect for East Asians, but you have to admit their social culture is stifling.)

Peer review? Seriously? Consensus is an OK measure of reliability for most things, but just look at the press reaction to any scientist who suggests (even in the most neutral way) differences between races. They fucking gangbang him. You just can't openly research that kind of thing in the current leftist political climate, unless you want to ruin your professional life and be treated like a leper.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 22:31:58 2012 No.2463357

>>2463354
>Nordic white is more balanced in his traits and is a more stable basis for civilization.
>Noridc white
>more balanced
>more stable basis for civilization
>Jews and East Asians
Gee, I wonder which groups have had long running civilizations. Which groups didn't build civilizations that constantly destroyed themselves and each other every couple decades?

Hint because you're kinda dumb: not the Nordic whites

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 22:36:59 2012 No.2463364

>>2463354
...I forgot to mention Indians. They don't have an IQ lead or even parity with white, at least not in the middle and lower castes, and their civilization was created by whites invading from central asia/eastern europe on their invention the chariot.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 22:45:59 2012 No.2463375

>>2463357
The Chinese states eventually united, and had an admirably long-lived empire, even though it got quite stagnant, but they spent most of the 19th and 20th centuries in constant internal turmoil, much worse than anything seen in Europe since the fall of Rome. And the Jews were always getting kicked around, enslaved, brought abroad in chains, running back, brought abroad in chains, running back, getting their homeland destroyed, scattering across the Mediterranean and later northern and eastern europe, etc. etc. All that rises must fall, even Nordic countries. But some races just spend all their time flat on the ground.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 22:47:58 2012 No.2463380 File: 10 KB, 146x133, weeaboo.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2462430 Race evolution and behaviour, by Jean Phillipe Rushton. It's got a particular slant though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 22:48:59 2012 No.2463383 File: 40 KB, 311x475, tumblr_lzutbgoYyl1qd0p8h.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ITT: Fags who haven't read this

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 22:57:58 2012 No.2463406

>>2463354
>but just look at the press reaction to any scientist who suggests (even in the most neutral way) differences between races. They fucking gangbang him. You just can't openly research that kind of thing in the current leftist political climate, unless you want to ruin your professional life and be treated like a leper.

On the contrary, if the science is good, such a scientist would revolutionize the science of genetics and the understanding of evolution. You just don't understand that because you have a poor understanding of science...and you refuse to actually learn science because you have this pre-set belief. And since this belief goes against what the science shows, you just call it all a leftist conspiracy and keep howling at the walls.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 22:58:58 2012 No.2463411 >>2463383 Diamond is a left-wing technocrat and a racial apologist. He is also a poor scientist and a terrible writer. Don't bring his laughable claims and tired conclusions into this.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 22:58:58 2012 No.2463412

>>2463354
>>2463364
You are clearly, clearly lying to yourself to maintain some artificial sense of superiority. And your knowledge of history is pathetic. Anyways,
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/24/bobby-jindal-indian-americans-opinions-contributors_immigrants_mino
rity.html
Not that Indians in America are a good representative sample, but their average IQ here is 112 here -- much higher than the average white IQ (100).

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 22:59:58 2012 No.2463414 >>2463411 >left-wing technocrat You say that like it's a bad thing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 23:00:58 2012 No.2463416 >>2463412 Sorry, I meant: Not that Indians in America are a good representative sample, but their average IQ here is 112 -- much higher than the average white IQ (100). I should start proofreading posts.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 23:01:58 2012 No.2463422 >>2463412 Then their averages have been skewed by low sample sizes or some other factor.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 23:03:59 2012 No.2463424 >>2463422 ROFL. Jesus Christ, can there be anyone more pathetically insecure than you? "IQ tests are important -- until they show that my particular race or ethnicity is inferior."

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 23:04:59 2012 No.2463427
File: 42 KB, 509x671, zyzz-ripped.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2463422

You're fucking retarded. Have you even taken a statistics course? The CONSERVATIVE estimate for the normalcy of a population is N >30. Clearly, more than 30 Indians were sampled, so their distribution of IQ's is normal, not skewed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 23:05:58 2012 No.2463429 File: 42 KB, 502x799, 1330981887022.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2463427 normalcy of a statistic, my bad, all of my mad got in the way of my reasoning

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 23:06:58 2012 No.2463431 >>2463424 It amazes me that you believe I should have to argue that my race is inferior.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 23:07:58 2012 No.2463434

There is actually IQ inflation in the developed world which must be corrected for every so often. Since it is doubtful that people are getting genetically smarter, it is probably environmental. Meaning that a population which lives in modern civilization and has had a tradition of education is more likely to score higher on IQ. Such as the Europeans, Asians, and Indians who have had thousands of years of advanced civilization.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 23:07:58 2012 No.2463435 >>2463431 But no, if someone else tries to argue that their different race is superior they're clearly racial apologists and idiots. They should totally be arguing that their own race is inferior, right?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 23:08:58 2012 No.2463440 >>2463431 >implying the "race" is "yours" It's like when you won the superbowl.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 23:11:58 2012 No.2463448

>>2463431
I'm just saying, if your goal is to stroke your own ego, you will not find sufficient grounds to do so within studies. But I do enjoy watching your mental gymnastics when faced with your self-contradictory worldview. Why not just accept that IQ doesn't prove the superiority or inferior of any group of people, and that all people should still be treated well? Some people are smarter, sure. Going by IQ, though, whites are definitely not the smartest people in the world.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 23:19:58 2012 No.2463468

>>2463412
>Not that Indians in America are a good representative sample
Of course not - It's not like they come off the boats in thousands dressed in rags and huddled together. The professionals immigrate, or are the majority of the immigrants. I don't deny their lead, but you'd find similar results for professional europeans, doctors and such.

>>2463406
>On the contrary, if the science is good, such a scientist would revolutionize the science of genetics and the understanding of evolution.
The press doesn't care. Let's be honest, if they're writing a story about a scientist with such conclusions, regardless of whether his methods are good or bad, do you think they would dwell on his methods? Ever? Their audience is scientifically uninformed, and they don't write for even a chunky minority of, say, 15% to 20%. They cut to the emotional interpretation immediately.

I'm no scientist, and I'm not even a member of the informed minority. But the basic logic of biology says that behavior is genetic, that the mind isn't separate from the body, and that there is natural variation within large groups who descend from small groups of inter-related people (within races) and between such large groups (between races.) These differences are subtle and can only be expressed as generalities, and so are easily obscured by people who are afraid of their implications. These differences may be more or less subtle than I think they are, but their existence is logically undeniable.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 23:21:58 2012 No.2463470

>>2463468
Continued.
If only nordics existed, 'races' would be found within that population. If, say, only 5 nordic people existed, there would briefly be no difference between 'race' and individual. Generalization may step on toes, but common traits are not to be denied, and are the natural extension of individual traits, the very basis of the idea of the self and of individual personality, which leftists call a puppet of its environment to reflect their own impressionability and insecurity.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 23:27:58 2012 No.2463484

>>2463468
>Of course not - It's not like they come off the boats in thousands dressed in rags and huddled together. The professionals immigrate, or are the majority of the immigrants. I don't deny their lead, but you'd find similar results for professional europeans, doctors and such.
It's possible, but you're mistaken in thinking most of the ones that immigrate are professionals. Sure, they come here to be professionals, but let's not forget why people immigrate. Many are middle-class that can afford to leave but are still not wealthy enough to receive a good education or quality of life in India.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 6 23:37:58 2012 No.2463502 >>2463354 FULL RETARD

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 23:46:58 2012 No.2463524

>>2463468
>>2463470
So now it's a press problem? The conspiracy keeps moving around, such that if someone pokes a hole in it, you have a lid. If the press wasn't the problem, then the left-leaning government would be. If not the government, then the economic higher ups?

You're suggesting that the press would attack a scientific finding because it's unpopular. Like what happened when evolution was first suggested?
Except then the scientific community embraced the ideas. Let's look at another example, the FTL neutrino. The press ate that shit up, and the scientific community went on to investigate. Now it turns out that there isn't a FTL neutrino (yet. There are other possibilities) and the press is eating their hats while the scientific community is united. You're suggesting that there is a fringe, but correct, scientific interpretation of intelligence and race, and that the community is shunning their ideas. This is a conspiracy because you're taking the only informed witnesses and claiming they're all faking their behavior for some occult reason. I could claim anything and use the same logic as you.

Anonymous Tue Mar 6 23:46:58 2012 No.2463525

>>2463524
>the basic logic of biology says that behavior is genetic

To a certain extent. And that's true - you leave individuals of any race in a similar enviroment, they'll react in a similar fashion.

>that the mind isn't separate from the body
That has nothing to do with it. The "body" of a black person differs from that of a white person simply because some phenotypes are the dominant type instead of being the recessive type, and vice-versa. They may look very different, but genetically speaking they're the same, so there's no reason for their minds (which are built from a very different and complex, not-yet-understood genetic makeup) would be different at all. The same is true with pigs and boars. Look really different, are actually similar.

>and that there is natural variation within large groups who descend from small groups of inter-related people (within races) and between such large groups (between races.)
Again, not necessarily true. What accumulates differences is time, geographical isolation and mutations. Unless there is a higher power manipulating mankinds' evolution in different locations, there simply hasn't been enough time or geographical isolation to allow for "subspecies" of humans to pop up. Back when hominids were less developed, sure, we couldn't adapt to the enviroment and would end up isolated in certain regions, but for the modern homo sapiens, that simply can't happen.

You're talking about differences in the brain. An organ. That's not like talking aboy phenotypical differences. And there lies the logical phallacy. You're assuming that, since the color of the skin is different, the brain would be different as well.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 00:00:58 2012 No.2463546

>>2463525
Thank you for arguing with me rationally, despite the doubtful basis of your ideas. I'm not sure how you can claim we all have the same brains yet different bodies when we have different cranial shapes and capacities between races. And to refer back to the dog argument from earlier in this glorious shitstorm, aren't dogs well known to have different behavioral traits between breeds, despite how very, very new these Wolf-derived breeds are? True, they're bred, but wouldn't achieving urban civilization have a similar effect to breeding on Europeans and Asians, with the demands and rewards of literacy and higher organization?

And who's to say the early hominids didn't develop in different regions than is now believed, perhaps in independent groups with irregular cross-breeding? Who's to say the well-documented interbreeding with Neanderthals (whose intellectual traits are unknown) didn't have a significant impact on the white race? After all, they were surely an 'early hominid,' weren't they, and not modern humans?

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 00:07:58 2012 No.2463563

>>2463524
>So now it's a press problem?
Yes, it transformed from a press problem to a press problem. I'm such a flip-flopper. There has been a consistent cultural bias to egalitarianism since 1945, ramping up in a big way after 1969. Leftists (= most people nowadays) are willing to ignore facts because this is a social, political and cultural matter. Facts don't matter in that realm. That's why religion, which ought to be understood as a purely social phenomenon and not serious speculation on the nature of the universe, will always hang around.

>Evolution
>Except then the scientific community embraced the ideas.
And then they de-embraced the ideas and rejected their logical conclusions for humanity after the defeat of Europe's savior in 1945.

Frigid Northlander !!MUgE+GiXSgQ Wed Mar 7 00:18:58 2012 No.2463586

>"How does intelligence affect social class?" Asks Charles Murray
>Conducts research, collects data, writes a book trying to answer that
>One chapter involves how race an intelligence relate, indicating that people of certain races are surveyed as being less intelligent than others
>Book is condemned for this reason, labeled "scientific racism", generates huge controversy

This is why sociology is such a worthless fucking subject. The very people who ought to be treating it with utmost objectivity can't even be bothered to acknowledge the idea that there are gaps in ability between races as they manifest themselves in America.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 00:20:58 2012 No.2463589

>>2463546
>despite the doubtful basis of your ideas
On the contrary, my ideas are the ones accepted by the scientific community.

>we have different cranial shapes and capacities between races
Different shapes mean nothing, though. The architecture of the brain is independant on shapes, it's all about the neural conexions. It's like saying a library has better books in it because it's shaped differently. And where did you get the different capacities thing?

On the dog thing. Yeah, dogs were bred. Humans weren't bred. Humans weren't even artificially selected. If there were laws putting a hinderance on having children if people had diminished capacities, that argument would make sense. It'd still be wrong, but it'd make sense. "Smarter" humans haven't been selected in any race. This isn't Futurama, where aliens abduct the most intelligent of us and force us to have sex constantly. Urbanization wouldn't select within a few races - on the contrary, it would allow racial mixing, which itself could have positive effects of a cultural nature in overal intelligence.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 00:21:58 2012 No.2463591

>>2463589
Yeah, during the times of the neanderthal, there were different (though not many) early hominid species, and these might have had some influence on their capacities, though that is impossible to verify, and it didn't have an influence in their societal structure. You're talking about neanderthal mixings, but those happened before the second african diaspora, which means they happened before there even were different races. Not that it matters, the idea that interbreeding with neanderthals (which you imply were more intelligent) would produce more intelligent offspring is ridiculous. Because it would mean some genetic makeup in neanderthals that hasn't evolved in Cro-magnon would allow them to be smarter.

The problem seems to be that there's a grave misunderstanding on your part about how natural selection works. You seem to think that a certain enviroment would "require" smarter men, and that means humans in that enviroment evolved a smarter brain. What happens is the opposite. The brain evolved during the Homo Erectus period, when we first started eating mean and developing tools. This organ allowed us to colonize the planet because it might be used in different ways. For a rough comparison, you could say warm blood allowed animals to exist in different wheaters. From that you (but not science) would conclude that animals in colder enviroments have warmer blood.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 00:30:58 2012 No.2463610

>>2463563
Nope, you said a scientist implying there was a difference between races would jeopardize their career. Why? Not because of the press, the press has no say in what the scientific community believes. You might challenge that, because you still have your conspiracy cap on.

You're making a common mistake - you're believing that the scientific community embraced eugenics up to the thirties. In fact, eugenics didn't last very long. In the late tens it was considered a fringe theory, and by 1922 it wasn't accepted by mainstream science anymore. Of course, bad science dies hard. If someone today were to build a fascist state based on a pseudoscience such as repressed memories therapy, in sixty years someone like you would be saying repressed memory therapy was wildly accepted today.

There has been a bias towards egalitarianism, yes, but this bias has been guided by science, it hasn't been guiding science. You keep talking about a logic you don't realize is flawed and criticize the scientific community that knows more than you by saying they're being influenced by societal pressure. Why are you so sure you (who is part of a culture with no system of checks and balances) hasn't been influenced by psychological and cultural pressure?

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 00:30:58 2012 No.2463611 Google HBD or human biodiversity. The author just wrote a book on the growing divide in American Whites.

>>	fuck /adv/ Wed Mar 7 00:39:58 2012 No.2463629 >>2463586 1. It is impossible to objectively measure intelligence 2. Race is a poorly defined pseudoscientific concept 3. Phenotype is an extremely limited expression or marker of genotype So, no.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 00:43:59 2012 No.2463643

>>2463589
>On the contrary, my ideas are the ones accepted by the scientific community.
Since 1945. Well, rightly speaking, gradually accepted between 1945 and 1965. I'm not going to rely on the bias argument because that could be applied to anything, but tell me, are scientists completely invulnerable to political and cultural trends? Are they completely objective, would they ever just avoid a certain subject to keep the peace?

>Humans weren't even artificially selected.
If you define artificial selection as conscious human selection, then yes they were. The upper classes of traditional societies were ruled by the fathers, and the fathers decided who they would marry their daughter to. They had high standards. To an extent, this was also true in the lower classes, but fathers had less absolute control, and when it's just between unrelated men and women within a tribe, the women are either raped, or allow a man to approach her based on his positive traits. This is the usual state of nature, but in an urban civilization there would be much less rape, and the women would also approve of literacy, technical skills, artistic ability, and wealth, and those who were able to meet these criteria would have been selected for. And still are to this day.

>>2463591
People who moved north when it was warm would have been stuck there when it got cold, and would either have to move south or adapt. The ones most capable of adaptation survived and the rest who stayed were slowly killed off by the new environment. Perhaps Neanderthal admixture helped those who stayed. There was probably a big decline in population, leaving a hard, brutal, intelligent core that became the Nordic race. Those best at planning for the future were selected for by the environment and later by civilization.

Frigid Northlander !!MUgE+GiXSgQ Wed Mar 7 00:46:58 2012 No.2463645

>>2463629

You're pretending that we don't have basic, if general markers of race and intelligence for the sake of preserving the idea that there are no divides between races in America. The shittier thing is that you'll (deservedly so) use distinctions of race or intelligence elsewhere in your life as you approach them, not only for the convenience of assessing a situation, but because it's accurate to call a black man black and person who absolutely bombs an IQ test stupid.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 00:54:58 2012 No.2463665

>>2463610
>>Why? Not because of the press, the press has no say in what the scientific community believes.
"Hello, Mr. Government, may I please have some funding?"
"Aren't you that crackpot racist? Get the fuck out."

"Hello, Mr. University, may I please conduct research counter to your institution's beliefs?"
"Get out before I unleash the Arts students on you."

>>There has been a bias towards egalitarianism, yes, but this bias has been guided by science
It's true that "We are All African" is a sort of leftist slogan influenced by postwar research in Africa and the Out of Africa theory, but that's about it. Egalitarianism is illogical, and if the science 'guiding' it is illogical, then it's shitty science.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 00:57:58 2012 No.2463669 lmao. last time i saw this thread, the last reply read "inb4 shitstorm". 233 posts omitted later... stay trollable, /lit/.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 00:57:58 2012 No.2463672

>>2463643
>Since 1945.

Wrong, since 1919. You seem to be thinking that the scientific community in countries outside Germany and its allies still believed in eugenics. Pseudoscience dies hard. Read >>2463610

Are scientists invulnerable to political trends? That's an interesting question, because scientists are usually the ones starting political trends. There's pseudoscience on the opposite corner, which is usually resistant to newer ideas of science. You're asking if the scientific community wouldn't avoid a controversial subject. That goes to show how little you understand science, and how far deep you are into your pool of conspiracy theory ideology.

>This is the usual state of nature, but in an urban civilization there would be much less rape, and the women would also approve of literacy, technical skills, artistic ability, and wealth, and those who were able to meet these criteria would have been selected for. And still are to this day.
That's ridiculous. You really think there's a higher level of artificial selection in a modern society? When was the last time you saw a guy complaining he couldn't have kids because he was too dumb? And this is today, in a society that values intelligence more than any other before us, that is to say, at all. You're trying to apply a concept describing a millions of years long process to a couple hundred years. And you're calling it logic.

you still seem to misunderstand how intelligence works. You talk about a fairly ridiculous idea of nordic supermen of the ice age, still making use of the same fallacy of extremes as my warm-blooded animals example. Are there super-warm blood animals? Why not? Maybe if you took classes on real evolution, you'd know. But unfortunately you believe your teachers would refuse to teach the truth because of the controversy. You're no different than a creationist in that way.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 01:01:58 2012 No.2463681

>>2463665
Yeah, except if the scientific community were supporting him, he'd have all the funding he'd need. There really hasn't been a problem where good science didn't get funding because it was controversial. Bad science, on the other hand, always uses that as an excuse. Do some shitty science, get ignored by the community, claim they weren't ready for your truth bombs.

>>2463665
>Egalitarianism is illogical
Spoken like a person who doesn't understand logic. And again, cherry picking what science to follow.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 01:03:58 2012 No.2463687 File: 21 KB, 255x288, Rage_face1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2462430 THIS IS OP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_CgstmkuOE SHE SPAMS ALL OVER 4CHAN.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 01:06:59 2012 No.2463692

Until stormfags isolate the genes that determine "civilization-building capability" in a human being, this will all continue to smell like a crock of shit to me.

Khoi San people of the Kalahari have IQs that are essentially retarded in the U.S., and yet they can still hunt and gather and have sophisticated interpersonal relations. Also: their society has endured for millennia. Which seems to dictate that there is some sort of cultural subjectivity when it comes to determining "intelligence" (as if "intelligence" wasn't a loaded, subjective term to begin with).

> Spoiler Alert: Racism is a narrow ideology for infantile minds that can't cope with the uncertainty and complexity of considering other human beings in an individual light...

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 01:08:58 2012 No.2463696

>>2463672
If the northern branch of humanity wasn't subjected to brutal joule-counting scarcity, then why are we depigmented - why are we white? Are you saying that in an environment so harsh that slightly less energy-expensive skin would aid survival, the ability to plan for the future, stockpile food, make clothes and tents and plan migrations in time with the movements of herds and the seasons, etc. would all have been as useless as in fruit-plucking Africa?

>>When was the last time you saw a guy complaining he couldn't have kids because he was too dumb?
When was the last time you heard a women say 'Ooh, a doctor'?
That said, masculinity and health are still the main attractors, as in the stone age. Being an arrogant prick, too, but civilization provides many more offices and ranks for arrogant pricks to flaunt.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 01:09:58 2012 No.2463701 >>2463681 >And again, cherry picking what science to follow. How is that not EXACTLY what you're doing right now?

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 01:14:58 2012 No.2463713

>>2463681
After all, people were mobbing Galileo with support; even though all Europe had fought a devastating war with vicious Heliocentrists who they swore would never rise again, they saw through their religious and political prejudices and saved him from captivity. The pope exploded into rainbows, and to this day the Vatican is rainbow hued, shining with the light of truth.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 01:15:58 2012 No.2463715 >>2463687 >>2463687 >>2463687 >>2463687 >>2463687 >>2463687 >>2463687 >>2463687 >>2463687 >>2463687 >>2463687 >>2463687 >>2463687

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 01:17:58 2012 No.2463717

>>2463692
>>Khoi San people of the Kalahari have IQs that are essentially retarded in the U.S., and yet they can still hunt and gather and have sophisticated interpersonal relations. Also: their society has endured for millennia. Which seems to dictate that there is some sort of cultural subjectivity when it comes to determining "intelligence" (as if "intelligence" wasn't a loaded, subjective term to begin with).

What a wonderful encapsulation of the leftist attitude. What's so good about intelligence and civilization, anyhow? They're all just trying to judge me, with their smug subjectivity.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 01:18:58 2012 No.2463723

>>2463696
>the ability to plan for the future, stockpile food, make clothes and tents and plan migrations in time with the movements of herds and the seasons, etc. would all have been as useless as in fruit-plucking Africa?

It wouldn't. What you're missing is that these abilities aren't evolutionary. The fact that we are intelligent is a byproduct of evolution, but there aren't "levels" of intelligence. Again I'll mention the warm-blood comparison. Warm blood is good for cold wheater. That doesn't mean a species with "super duper" warm blood has evolved.

>When was the last time you heard a women say 'Ooh, a doctor'?
Right, and because he's a doctor he's rewarded with more kids? There's this movie, Idiocracy, that has the same flawed logic as you do, except in the opposite way - it portrays a world where, since the white trash, stupid poor people have more children, the future is filled with more stupid people. That's untrue, because intelligence is not inherited in that fashion.

That being said, what I think you should do is talk to an actual biology expert, because you seem to be operating on the "if he shoots down one of my points, I go on to another" and he might have all the answers you need. Of course, if you believe he's part of the "left wing egalitarian conspiracy", there's really no point in talking to you at all, since your beliefs are logic-proof.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 01:22:58 2012 No.2463735 >>2463701 Because I'm going with what has been established by the community as good science.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 01:23:58 2012 No.2463738 >>2463735 You're right, the scientific community is never wrong, and we should always appeal to their judgment, especially regarding murky and controversial social issues.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 01:23:58 2012 No.2463740 >>2463687 >>2463687 >>2463687 >>2463687 >>2463687 >>2463687 >>2463687 GTFO Heyruka. Everyone watch the video OP sounds exactly like her!

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 01:25:59 2012 No.2463742 >>2463717 You obviously have no idea what retarded actually means, do you? According to IQ tests they should be shitting their own pants, and yet they aren't.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 01:27:58 2012 No.2463746

>>2463723
>intelligence is not inherited
Here's the point on which we differ. I have indeed been stepping around it, kind of like arguing with a theist about the details of his theology and not getting to the heart of his bullshit, but you seem to believe that intelligence is just an ON/OFF switch which was switched ON long ago in central Africa, and that's the end of the story.

>Warm blood is good for cold wheater. That doesn't mean a species with "super duper" warm blood has evolved.
Why would it? It wouldn't be energy efficient after a certain point, and there's too little variation in levels of blood heat for any variant to be selected for. But intelligence, as you admit, was something that was not there, and then was. Surely it was more gradual than that? After all, there is something that you can call intelligence in animal, it's just not very self aware, with limited memory and imagination (= scenario-running ability, future-planning ability.) Some animals are smarter than others. Why wouldn't this apply to early hominids? You're not making sense, here.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 01:28:58 2012 No.2463752 >>2463738 It's not really controversial. There are people trying to stirr up controversy, but within the community, it's pretty much old news.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 01:29:59 2012 No.2463758
File: 439 KB, 676x802, 1313103245099.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2462430
What do you mean like the bell curve? Okay, so since you've already read something about intelligence, I'm guessing you're interested in different populations' differences of aggression, temperment, religiosity and so on, right?

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 01:29:59 2012 No.2463762 >>2463687 What an annoying, ugly cunt.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 01:29:59 2012 No.2463764

>>2463742
And yet they are vastly less intelligent than us in all areas that aren't hunting and gathering. But who cares, we're apparently in equal standing with people ten thousand years ago.

It's no secret that the IQ test isn't a perfect measure. But it does show when people are generally less intelligent than others.

>>	Pantheist Drunk Wed Mar 7 01:32:58 2012 No.2463769 >>2463746 I love how the great, intelligent responses like the one you gave are rarely rever responded to. Gotta love 4chan, man.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 01:40:58 2012 No.2463796

>>2463746
>you seem to believe that intelligence is just an ON/OFF switch which was switched ON long ago in central Africa, and that's the end of the story.

Yeah, that's pretty much what the science says. You may ask why - because intelligence is basically an interpretation of the scenarios. And how was it "switched on", exactly? Two reasons - a high enough protein intake for the brain to develop, and the use of tools, which itself helped us make the pass on to the capacity of abstract thought. And this basically allowed human beings to solve problems they haven't encountered before, and even recognize themselves and such.

Why, then, does it seem like intelligence increase with time? Because it does! That's just not the fault of evolution. It's the fault of the enviroment that not only facilitates finding the solutions to these problems, but also teaches the solutions of problems the previous generation faced.

This was first suggested in the late XIXth century, when they were seeing stuff about humans being raised in the wild and being no different than what our ancient counterparts were.

Why do some people say that intelligence is genetic, then? Because the factors that allow intelligence to change from one generation to the other didn't just "disappear". Just like we might inherit the shape of our noses or earlobes from our grandparents, we may inherit a bigger or smaller predisposition to solving problems - or even to the nature of problem-solving. Think of it a sin function, instead of a quadratic function.

Warm blood hasn't existed forever, either. Anyway, the reason animals can be "smarter" than other animals is because they're reacting on instinct, not on abstract thought.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 01:41:10 2012 No.2463799

I have a feeling that many people on this board are actually taking it as something of an achievement or a point of pride that they were born into a group with a higher average IQ.

Also, to anyone who has read the bell curve he doesn't discuss causality at all, only establishes a link between socioeconomic background, IQ, and wealth.

Lastly, there's a higher degree of correlation between IQ and wealth than IQ and ethnic background.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 01:43:09 2012 No.2463801 >>2463799 *greater degree of correlation between economic class and IQ.

>>	Pantheist Drunk Wed Mar 7 01:46:09 2012 No.2463805 >>2463801 You were perfectly clear the first time, bro.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 01:48:09 2012 No.2463809

>>2463799
>achievement
No, I don't think any honest person can say that. But it is something to be proud about, if you deem yourself more able than others. Why the hell not? Pride need not always involve something achieved, though it ought to, most of the time.

>Lastly, there's a higher degree of correlation between IQ and wealth than IQ and ethnic background.

This should figure. I should assume that genetic differences are slight, but the major reason that minorities post lower IQs than caucasians is entirely linked to upbringing. And those brought up in wealthy households typically have some of the best parenting, in terms of fostering intelligence.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 01:55:09 2012 No.2463815

>>2463796
>a high enough protein intake for the brain to develop
Protein intake helped, but it's hardly the only answer. Carnivores would be more intelligent, if that were the case. But about this 'development' you discreetly mention - why does it necessarily only occur once? It that were the case, why was there no gradual development? If hominids were so near that there was no intermediate stage, what were the stages between them and apes? Why didn't the stages continue after the ON button had been flipped on the more intelligent (whoops, there are no levels of intelligence) hominids?

>Anyway, the reason animals can be "smarter" than other animals is because they're reacting on instinct, not on abstract thought.
What about apes who have some limited knowledge of sign language? Is that instinctual? Isn't the association between a sign and its signified almost the definition of abstraction?

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 02:06:09 2012 No.2463827

>>2463815
Yeah, I said two things on my answer, bro.The deal is, there are two ways of solving problems - through instinct, or through abstract thought. If you're building a nest, you can either do it the bird way, and pick up whatever stick you find on the floor and put them together because that's what you evolved to do, or the human way, which is understanding what a stick is, the function of each stick in the nest, the function, size and location of the nest. Now, that's the most basic stuff. Is there any human out there that can't recognize the stick as something, as an object that can be manipulated?

There are more details on that in this article, if you have a sciverse membership you can check it out:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361923001005603

Oh, apes. Apes aren't even that smart, they just do this sign language trick that's impressive to see, but it's not that big of a deal, really - it's just a pavlovian response. We've seen parrots and dogs do the same, and I'm pretty sure dogs, thanks to their diverse diet, are smarter than apes.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 02:06:09 2012 No.2463828

>>2463809
>>2463809
but in terms of pride, merely being part of a group with a higher than average ability, which is silly.

if you were beautiful, or more intelligent than the average person, or stronger, or had greater focus, etc those are all things to be proud of.

but to take pride in being part of a group with a wide variance in that particular trait purely because the group average is higher, well that's pushing it IMHO.

Secondly, let's not forget that IQ isn't a measure of achievement, it roughly translates into a measure of the ability to achieve. As in, having a high IQ isn't something that benefits anyone until that translates into actual good.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 02:10:09 2012 No.2463833

>>2463827
Can you maybe make some attempt to answer the first part of my post? What were the stages between hominids and apes that allowed them to switch ON once they had enough steak dinners? If there are no levels of intelligence, will a few generations of steak-fed apes be ready to join our glorious multi-cultural civilization? What happens if a hominid whose brain switch is ON breeds with a hominids whose brain switch is OFF?

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 02:17:09 2012 No.2463846

>>2463827
>Oh, apes. Apes aren't even that smart, they just do this sign language trick that's impressive to see, but it's not that big of a deal, really - it's just a pavlovian response. We've seen parrots and dogs do the same, and I'm pretty sure dogs, thanks to their diverse diet, are smarter than apes.
Not that the point I'm making is at all relevant, but this statement is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Google 'Koko the gorilla' and 'Alex the african grey parrot'.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 02:19:09 2012 No.2463849

>>2463833
It actually goes back to getting down from the trees. That's what allowed us to stand up, leave our hands unused, and develop tools. Then we went on to become endurance hunters, instead of being scavengers. It's like building a stair out of legos. First we get the skills, then we get some meat, then we get some tools, which means more meat, which means more tools, which means fire, and so on. Then it happens that one lucky hominid lady gives birth to a creature that has the biology, skills, capacity and upbringing for some abstract thought to happen. Sure he isn't going to study relativity, but the possibilities are all there.

You're talking about feeding steaks to monkeys, and yeah, in a way they can use some tools, though they don't make any...but remember this processes happen with the passing of the millions of years. You need to reach a punctuated equilibrium to be on the right spot. And I think these differences mean there's no way a hybrid between these two species can show up.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 02:21:10 2012 No.2463852 >>2463846 That's exactly the point I made. Gorillas are no smarter than parrots. So, uh, thanks?

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 02:21:10 2012 No.2463854

>>2463828

>but to take pride in being part of a group with a wide variance in that particular trait purely because the group average is higher, well that's pushing it IMHO.

I completely agree. I was commenting on possessing those traits yourself. Though I suppose, in some areas, it's warranted: even the punter on a football team owns bragging rights when they take home the trophy. But with race - it's backwards to take pride in the ability of others when you don't possess that same thing.

But if we're going to agree that IQ generally measures intelligence with some issues, such as, "how do I assess the intelligence of a people with absolutely nothing in common with the ones I'm trying to assess?" or "what is intelligence, exactly?" then it should come as no surprise that wealth families should do better that poorer families, if for either reason that IQ tests are rigged for the wealthy (a claim which I'm dubious about) as is all standardized testing in education, or perhaps being in a poorer household means valuing education less. I don't think anybody can really place this issue on race whe it's clearly divided by social and economic class lines.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 02:26:09 2012 No.2463863

>>2463852
Not at all. Saying that each is capable of language is not the same as saying they each have the same level of intelligence. Also, my main point was that it's much, much more that can be attributed to a simple Pavlovian response, and that some species of birds and other mammals show capabilities comparable to those of humans. The sad thing is that I'm on your side in this debate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 02:28:09 2012 No.2463867 >>2463863 Sorry, should be "each has"**. I'm going full retard right now. It's late and I should probably go to sleep.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 02:30:09 2012 No.2463871

>>2463849
There's nothing all that wrong with what you're saying, but you're admitting a gap of gradual development between apes and humans, and say they can't breed across this gap, which means that it's biological. Unless you believe intelligence is a heavenly fire that suddenly lit up in a sufficiently prepared ape, (a popular mythological motif, not unlike when people describe creativity and insight as a divine wind, inspiration, or a muse whispering in the artist's ear,) this means that there are levels of intelligence in hominids, and why shouldn't there be in later hominids and humans?

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 02:33:10 2012 No.2463875 >>2463871 I meant >between apes and hominids

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 02:35:09 2012 No.2463882

>>2463871
My problem with this is that members within each race have 140+ IQs. Based on the admittedly small portion that I've read, you seem to be implying that some races are "more evolved" than others, which indicates a poor understanding of evolution to begin with. Not to mention that, even if that notion were true, those statements wouldn't be compatible.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 02:45:09 2012 No.2463897

>>2463882
>My problem with this is that members within each race have 140+ IQs.
I would be genuinely interested to hear of an African with 140 IQ and no white blood, but I don't think it's impossible. The averages make the difference, and there's more to this than IQ, though that's the most obvious concern. Refer back to >>2463470 to see my stance on race/group generalization.

>you seem to be implying that some races are "more evolved" than others, which indicates a poor understanding of evolution to begin with
You seem to have inferred words into my mouth. I said that long term planning was selected for in northern Eurasia, after a great deal of misery and hardship on part of the people involved, resulting in the Nordic race, with interbreeding with Neanderthals playing an as yet poorly understood role.

I take this veering change of subject as an admission of defeat. Sieg heil and good night.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 02:57:09 2012 No.2463912

>>2463897
It's not an admission of defeat, since I'm not the guy you were debating. Regardless, the fact that there are indeed pure-black Africans with IQs at and above 140 kind of hurts your hypothesis, no? That would mean that there is gene variance within black populations to allow for genius-level intelligence. You might argue that the tough environment in Eurasia weeded out genes that allow for less intelligent people, but you would fail to prove that mutations allowing for genius-level IQs only became present after Eurasian populations split off from African populations. It would make the race debate quite pointless, since most members of each race have IQs less than 140, and each also have members with IQs over 140. Averages don't seem to contribute anything, if you truly wanted to be consistent about your stance on intelligence.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 03:04:09 2012 No.2463913

>>2463912
>Regardless, the fact that there are indeed pure-black Africans with IQs at and above 140 kind of hurts your hypothesis, no?
Uh... no? Didn't I just say it wasn't impossible? I'd also like to repeat that I'd be interested to know which Africans have 140 IQ, or maybe some documentation of this. Again, not because I'm skeptical, but because I'm genuinely interested.

>Averages don't seem to contribute anything
Visit Detroit. Or Cape Town.
I really can't argue if you think that a vast majority of a population having such-and-such a trait has no significance for the culture, economy, or political system there.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 03:09:09 2012 No.2463915

>>2463913
>Visit Detroit. Or Cape Town.
I really can't argue if you think that a vast majority of a population having such-and-such a trait has no significance for the culture, economy, or political system there.
Right, but why wouldn't you just segregate based on IQ, then? Your reasoning is incredibly roundabout and inconsistent: "Some whites have sub-90 IQ's, but that's ok, since on average whites are smarter?" That doesn't sound fallacious to you?

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 03:17:09 2012 No.2463929

>>2463915
That's not workable, politically. People need to feel as if they can advance in society, even if they don't have the skills needed. Otherwise they'd turn against it and see it as something foreign to them, something that has rejected them. And stupid members of the white race are generally less violent and disorderly than blacks with the same IQ; as I said, IQ isn't all there is to it. I'm in favour of boarding schools with IQ testing to form the basis of the elite of a national socialist state, with free cram courses provided for ambitious lower class people so they won't feel completely shut out of good education. If I remember rightly Germany had a similar system planned.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 03:26:09 2012 No.2463938

>>2463929
lol The only problem is that this stance isn't any more workable politically. Who would you be trying to convince? The most intelligent people, who would presumably be forming this society, don't at all care about race and are, on average, much more liberal. This seems like a simplistic and, more importantly, immoral solution to a complicated problem. People have every right to believe that their status as persons is more important than their economic output. Evolution is a biological mechanism, not a blueprint for society.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 03:35:09 2012 No.2463947

Also, this was the first hit on google for "pure african IQ over 140." And after literally 1 second of skimming:
A study by Witty and Jenkins (1934) identified 63 children in a sample of black Chicago
schoolchildren with IQs of 125 or above and 28 with IQs of 140 or above. On the basis of their
self reports about ancestry, the investigators classified the children into several categories of
Europeanness. The children with IQs of 125 or above, as well as those with IQs of 140 or above,
had slightly less European ancestry than the best estimate for the American black population at
the time. This study is not ideal. It would have been better to compare the degree of European
ancestry of high IQ Chicago children to that of other black Chicago children rather than to the 7
entire black population. But once again, the results are consistent with a model of zero genetic
contribution to the B/W gap or, perhaps, a slight genetic advantage for Africans.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nisbett/racegen.pdf

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 03:35:09 2012 No.2463948

>>2463938
I'm a motherfucking Nazi. And you're talking 'morality'?

It's a workable blueprint, but yes, you're right. The dream is dead, and Europe will be filled with blacks and arabs and become a directionless third world shithole, because of sympathetic, humane people like you and your open borders and your willingness to drop standards like hot fucking coals in case you hurt someone's feelings. And soon everywhere on earth will be a third world shithole, except maybe Japan, because they are the only civilized country that has its shit together regarding immigration.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 03:47:09 2012 No.2463961

>>2463948
Well, not people like me in particular. I'm not white (or black, for that matter), but I do have a tested IQ over 140. I was actually in the same boat as you, ironically, and was strongly pro-eugenics (through slightly more subtle institutions like the police force). I think less intelligent people do hurt the political process substantially and tend to be much less empathetic to outside groups (just look at Republicans in America). But I actually kind of like that it creates problems for people like me to solve. Living in America, I can definitely say that constant exposure to different cultures (including black culture that created jazz, blues, rock, etc.) has enriched my life and philosophical depth. You learn to live with stupid people, both inside and outside your own race.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 03:50:09 2012 No.2463970

>>2463948
>>2463948
Europe doesn't have that many arabs and blacks, together they make single digits of the total population.
And not all migrant groups of non-white races are harmful.
Nigerians in the US have the highest number of post-secondary degrees per household.
Iranians in sweden and denmark consistently outperform indigenous people academically.
What are you basing your predictions for Europe upon?
Surely the exception may not be the rule but it should clue you in to having a bit more nuance in a realistic worldview.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 03:55:09 2012 No.2463974 >>2463970 *single digits percentwise in most european nations. sorry, forgot to specify this.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 04:01:10 2012 No.2463980

>>2463970

>growing underclass in ethnically defined nations, separated both by economic status and ethnicity
>religious fervor
>societies where either political correctness shames speaking about this or outright racism causes explicit conflict

Picking a few details that would suggest harmony or shared values or that we've otherwise got it wrong isn't going to make the above situation any less a perferct cocktail for a class conflict.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 04:06:09 2012 No.2463986

>>2463961
Ah. Well, Europe has something resembling racial purity, doomed purity, and it had a chance to create an elitist social system without lower class resentment through National Socialism, but with these migrations and new ghettos the unity of the nations will be destroyed, it'll be one resentful group against another, it'll poison everything. What's going on is new and bitter to me.

>>2463970
I have no confidence in our leftist governments to keep these foreigners out. They're poor, so they have as many children as possible as a kind of retirement fund to look after them when they're old. They form ghettos. They are beginning to run ethnic cadidates for the ghetto's local offices. The governments treat them as if they deserve everything they want. Something resembling civil war is in the future, maybe a century ahead, maybe less. This would be the case regardless of the genetic quality of these foreigners.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 04:16:09 2012 No.2463996

>>2463986
I think I have a bit more faith in humans to learn to live among one another.
Failing that, you'll probably turn into latin-america-esq societies where the elite live in gated communities and everyone else toils in slums around them.

Either way if you count yourself among the most valuable to society, I don't think your quality of life will drop significantly.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 04:24:09 2012 No.2464009

>>2463986
Why not decide to become a socialist technocrat -- that turns a blind eye to race and intelligence -- like me? It solves the political issues by turning to a meritocratic system and doesn't lose any moral appeal. The genes that contribute to aggression will slowly be wiped out anyways through imprisonment (removing their genes from the gene pool) and greater economic development (which will remove incentives to be aggressive).

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 04:28:10 2012 No.2464016 >>2464009 Sorry, I meant that aggression in general will through eliminating both the social and genetic determinants.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 04:28:10 2012 No.2464017 >>2463970 >Iranians But...we're not arabs... ;_;

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 04:42:09 2012 No.2464031 >>2464009 >meritocratic >socialist Uh huh. No, I don't think so. I'm a traditionalist culture-wise, and I don't much care about killing, morally. That shit needs doing.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 04:47:09 2012 No.2464034
File: 15 KB, 133x234, 1331098681494.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2462868
>this fucking comic
>implying that racial oppression affects raw cognitive ability: i.e. mathematical skill, and pattern recognition
>implying that black people and white people take different IQ tests

This comic is so bias, and full of shit it pains me to read.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 04:49:09 2012 No.2464036 >>2464031 I meant meritocratic in terms of political power. Unfortunately, it's kind of late and I should go to sleep. It's been fun, Nazi friend.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 04:51:09 2012 No.2464037

>>2464034
>implying that racial oppression affects raw cognitive ability: i.e. mathematical skill, and pattern recognition
>implying that black people and white people take different IQ tests
That's not what it's saying at all. Reading comprehension. You lack it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 04:58:09 2012 No.2464043 >>2463970 I'm a half-Iranian in Sweden with no contact with my Iranian father; I'd like the sauce for this, please. I've met some Iranians with an academic power level of over nine thousand, and others who are just Soulja Boy fans.

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 05:17:09 2012 No.2464059

>>2464037

You're right, and he's wrong, but that comic is still wrong, and merely rehashes the same old excuses for why black students don't perform as well as white students. As long as the insistance is made that they are being victimized into their current plight, black America will not make strides forward.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 05:23:09 2012 No.2464067 >>2464059 How do you suggest black America take strides forward? By accepting that they have less raw cognitive power and then wishing for it in a seance? It's called ideology, bro. Lenin bought into an analogous one and got 300 million people killed.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 05:26:09 2012 No.2464068 >>2464059 >victimised >not realising it's drawing attention to the crudities of natural experiments and their generalisations It's not even that complicated a comic, how are you not getting this?

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 06:18:26 2012 No.2464107 >>2463948 >I'm a motherfucking Nazi. And you're talking 'morality'? Edgy teen 'nazi' detected! Protip: Hitler never said 'lolI'msooooooooooEVIL!!!!1!!!!'

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 06:38:28 2012 No.2464124

>>2463333
>3. If stormfags and /pol/ loves this bell curve shit so much, how do they explain how Jews, East Asians, and Indians absolutely dominate whites.

You seem awfully misinformed. East asians and Ashkenazi Jews are the highest scoring IQ groups. Lynn even wrote a book about the superiority of Ash. Jews recently.

http://www.amazon.com/Chosen-People-Jewish-Intelligence-Achievement/dp/1593680368

Anonymous Wed Mar 7 06:50:29 2012 No.2464134

>>2463970
>Iranians in sweden and denmark consistently outperform indigenous people academically.

Never heard of this and I can't find a source for that info, and I live in Denmark. More likely it is a bogus claim. I did take a quick look at the numbers of 15-19 year old immigrants from non-western countries who were taking educations. They lag a little behind ethnic Danes. Altho if these data are typical of DST, then they have fucked up the categories by including non-Danes in the Danes category.

The publication is: Tal og fakta
- udlændinges tilknytning til arbejdsmarkedet og uddannelsessystemet, p. 17.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 07:05:31 2012 No.2464142 >>2463947 It's the same studies that Nisbett mentions in his new book, and indeed your post is just a quote from that. Well, the hereditarian response is in Jensen and Rushton (2010).

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 7 11:13:25 2012 No.2464409 >>2464124 You just confirmed my point...

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature