Are stupid black people stupider than stupid white people? Is that the premise of this book?

File: 34 KB, 227x341, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 12:52:00 2015 No.7070939 [DELETED]

Are stupid black people stupider than stupid white people? Is that the premise of this book?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 12:53:58 2015 No.7070951 >believing the parabolic Jew anon, seek help

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 12:55:30 2015 No.7070958 >>7070951 I did! I came to /lit! Halp!

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:00:48 2015 No.7070972

Close but I wouldn't put it that way - it's that there are relatively more dumb black people than dumb white people.

The whole premise is shit though, neither race nor intelligence are well defined scientific topics. (Shitstorm blahblah, time to leave thread.)

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:01:06 2015 No.7070976 >>7070939 The Mismeasure of Man, Gould

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:03:01 2015 No.7070981

>>7070939

The controversial conclusions of this book are that there is significant differences in intelligence between racial groups: Africans, for example, have lower scores in IQ testes, on average, than Anglo-Saxons. There are dumb Anglo-Saxons and dumb Africans, and there are also gifted Anglo-Saxons and gifted Africans, but the average of "dumb" Africans is higher, and the average of "gifted" is lower.

The other controversial conclusion is that poverty, unemployment, low education, risk conducts, etc., are not only a result of the environment, but a reflection of the intelligence of the people. So, although nurture is important and affects people, a lot of poverty-stricken populations are in the situation because they have lower IQ's and, even with help and schooling, they would not achieve the same thing as more prosperous populations that are, organically, much more intelligent (on average). It's a way of saying that poor people are not entirely responsible for their miseries, but at least partially responsible.

This are the things that made this book a subject of furious controversy. Whether they are right or wrong is not up to me to say: I am not well versed on this subjects and cant really shed any light on the subject.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:05:40 2015 No.7070985 >>7070972 How'd he come to that conclusion? What'd he do a headcount? Yeah guess I just want to read the book without having to read the book.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:08:43 2015 No.7070994

>>7070985
Sounds like you'd be better off reading this tbh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution.. The idea is that the black population has a lower mean.

Again, it's dumb, and it's really more fodder for racists than it is actual science, but that's the idea.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:10:37 2015 No.7071000 >>7070939 basically yes

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:14:07 2015 No.7071012 >>7070994 Spoil the ending for me? What's he propose we "do" about it? Now I'm just oddly intrigued.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:15:18 2015 No.7071018 This book is an analysis of the relation between the intelligence distribution of a population and society. The white/black gap is actually a small chapter in the book, but of course that's the chapter which enraged self-righteous leftists.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:16:21 2015 No.7071022 >>7070994 why is it not actual science?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:16:22 2015 No.7071023 File: 28 KB, 650x487, 1427619946370.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7070972 >neither race nor intelligence are well defined scientific topics I want social "scientists" to leave.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:18:16 2015 No.7071031 The premise of the book is fundementally Marxist. Intelligence correlates with wealth. Without going into the specifics of statistics that is the central message.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:18:25 2015 No.7071033 >>7071023 What is race? What is intelligence?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:19:21 2015 No.7071036 >>7070981 I think poverty causing lower intelligence is the cycle

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:19:52 2015 No.7071039 >>7071023 that's the stance of all major science journals...

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:19:52 2015 No.7071040

>>7070939
Yeah, unfortunately black people are slightly stupider as a whole. It's nothing new though, especially if you've visited Africa or looked at educational statistics–economic disparity can only bring you down so far, and even then, what caused it in the beginning?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:19:56 2015 No.7071042 >>7071033 Getting a little into semantics territory...?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:20:24 2015 No.7071044 >>7071031 That sounds more libertarian than anything, the smarter you are the richer you'll be

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:20:48 2015 No.7071045

>>7070981

The thing about these things is that they are not conclusions. They are statistical objects. The conclusion is the interpretation. If you reverse what you say here then it is the poverty that causes the low intelligence, which lines up with what other studies done since the publishing of this book have suggested.

t. geneticist

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:21:22 2015 No.7071048
File: 83 KB, 839x469, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7070976
Don't get me started on The Mismeasure of Man. The Bell Curve isn't perfect but that supposed rebuttal is a total hatchet job that would never have passed peer review if it had been a scientific paper. Gould's a smart guy but he's one of a set of academics who have publicly made no bones about social justice coming before the truth, mad it's amazing that anyone would trust him to be honest on this topic. Human intelligence isn't even tangentially related to his field of expertise, so it's pretty much like having a theological library by Dawkins and Black Science Man.

>>7070972
>neither race nor intelligence are well defined
This is another big open secret and believing it gives you away as a layman. The genetic markers for sub-Saharan Africans are extremely well defined and are substantial to the point at diabetes medications have to be tailored to the specifics of black physiology. The genetic difference between Sub saharans and every other group on earth is several times greater than the difference between the blondest Scandinavian and the Indian in the furthest reaches of the amazon.

As for intelligence, the factor "g" is the real measure of overall ability to succeed in a civilized society, but IQ correlates quite well to g and is much easier to measure. Gould spends a lot of time denigrating IQ but leaves out the correlation that makes it relevant.

Btw separate twin studies show similar outcomes for black kids who grow up poor and black and those adopted by a rich white family. The lowest poverty-tier of white and Asian kids outperforms the black students from households making $200k + on the SAT. I'm no advocate for Jim Crow but we're all anonymous here. Let's be real.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:21:44 2015 No.7071053 >>7071033 >What is race? A synonym for subspecies. In modern science, it is defined via genetic clustering. >What is intelligence? One's ability for learning and problem-solving.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:21:50 2015 No.7071055 >>7071045 can you post those studies

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:22:05 2015 No.7071057 >>7071044 You're putting the cart before the horse. A wealthier upbringing is more likely to result in a higher IQ.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:22:53 2015 No.7071061 >>7071039 It really is not. Of course they don't call it "racial science" anymore, the word race is too taboo. They call it human population genetics.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:23:20 2015 No.7071063 >>7071033 The book uses scientifically defined definitions for these. You may consider these arbitrary, but the book does not claom that they are not such.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:24:25 2015 No.7071065

>>7071057
>A wealthier upbringing is more likely to result in a higher IQ.
That's not actually true, as twin adoption studies have shown.

IQ is mostly heritable. What little part of it not heritable is mostly decided by randomness.

The environment and upbringing of a child has virtually no effect on his adult IQ, except in cases of severe malnutrition.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:24:26 2015 No.7071067 >>7071055 Ok, give me a while to find them. There are numerous on this point in reputable peer reviewed journals.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:25:06 2015 No.7071070

>>7071022
There's basically a massive cottage industry of people responding to the claims in the book, but essentially: it takes two concepts ("race" and "intelligence") that do not have well-defined, scientific meanings, assumes scientific, biological methods of measuring them, and "proves" a correlation between them.

>>7071012
His prescription is more for less activity than for some positive solution: he thinks we should stop expecting majority black schools to score as high on tests as white schools (because they have less inherent abilities, so it's not a failure of the system), etc. The point of the book is to redefine what many would consider to be social problems as "not actually problems, blacks are just dumber."

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:25:25 2015 No.7071071 >>7071045 >If you reverse what you say here

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:26:36 2015 No.7071074

>>7071039
>the stance of all major science journals
They'd lose their funding if they declared that racism was cool. Scientists have to play the game too. I can't even blame them because those guys work their asses off to get money to study something way more useful than this thread and don't want it all ruined by "that guy". Nothing to do with what they actually believe.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:27:26 2015 No.7071079

>>7070939
>>7070981
Race is literally a single chapter in this book. ONE CHAPTER.

>>7070972
>>7070994
Race and intelligence are both given practical definitions and worked with scientifically. No, these definitions don't correspond to their colloquial usage. As an economist what rationality means sometimes.

>>7070976
Completely disproven, he fabricated his results. The only accurate thing Gould ever did was point out punctuated equilibrium as a possible theory for the dynamics of natural selection.

>>7071033
>>7071039
>>7071042
Read the book. Read literally any literature in genetics and/or intelligence by biologists or psychologists specializing in psychometrics.

Also, friendly reminder the APA agrees with all of the data brought forth in this book.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:28:24 2015 No.7071083

>>7071065

The adoption studies showed a correlation. If I re-call heritability of intelligence sat somewhere around 80%.
20% environmental contribution is still a massive variation, how much of this environmental variation can come down to wealth is hugely up to debate and incredibly hard to control for in studies.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:28:28 2015 No.7071084 >>7071048 The "g" claim is such pathetic, ridiculous floundering. IQ is unscientific? Let's move the goalposts!! It was really about "g" all along!

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:29:36 2015 No.7071086 >>7071071 Yes, reverse what you say here, as in reverse cause and effect. You take the intelligence as the cause of poverty, it is just as easy to take it as an effect based on the studies in this specific book.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:29:44 2015 No.7071087
File: 648 KB, 804x527, 1377129712540.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7071023
Race is quite subjective. The boundaries between races will change based on personal preferences and small parameters. Are Celts white? Are Mediterraneans white? Are Slavs white? Are Arabs white? Where do you draw the line?

Intelligence is also subjective. IQ as a measure is correlated with most important life outcomes, sometimes strongly, but says little by itself. Other intelligence measures end up being harder to measure. Puzzle and problem solving tests end up testing what kinds of problems and solutions you've seen. Vocabulary tests end up testing what words you've seen, which is a further test of how much you read. Intelligence tests are also a function of how much sleep you've gotten the night before, how much preparation you've gotten, etc.

Race and intelligence are still valuable. Race is obviously biologically real, for a number of reasons. Intelligence is still correlated with various valuable life outcomes.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:29:46 2015 No.7071088

I read somewhere some guy said that Africans' (from Africa) lower intelligence was contributed to their language...? Like they didn't have a word for "half" they would have to say "a small whole" or something like that. Supposedly contributed to lack of empathetic thinking or something like that? Sounds contrived. There are tons of languages in Africa.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:30:21 2015 No.7071090 Hello, /sci/ Welcome to /lit/

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:30:25 2015 No.7071091 >>7071079 The APA took homosexuality and transgenderism out of the DSM because it hurt people's feelings, they're willing to bend facts to remain politically correct

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:31:19 2015 No.7071093

>>7070972
>neither race nor intelligence are well defined scientific topics.

"white people" and "black people" is enough to do a comparison of those two populations and see how they score at some tests.

Whether those two are races* or not is a matter of taxonomy. IMO they aren't, but I still don't see how this makes such tests invalid.

*race being colloquial for ethnicity/subspecies, of course

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:31:25 2015 No.7071094

>>7070939
The premise of the book is that the nature of intelligence testing and the structure of the modern education system will cause society to begin to self-segregate into as caste system: PhDs marry PhDs, college grads marry college grads, etc. This, due to the distribution of IQ scores on racial, social, and ethnic lines will mean societal inequality will begin to dramatically increase.

Personally, I think given my experience in the past few years that the evidence is bearing them out, social inequality feels like it is increasing over time and education is seen to be all important.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:32:25 2015 No.7071097

>>7071083
The thing is, the 20% cannot be ascribed to exclusively environmental factors. Perhaps that 20% of variability is genetic in origin, the result of genetic "shuffling" between genes inherited by both parents in a now still unknown mechanism.

Unless you can find a study which shows that in the case of identical twins adopted into a rich family and a poor family, the twin adopted into the rich family scores consistently better on IQ tests than the twin adopted into a poor family, you cannot claim that socioeconomic factors have an influence on IQ.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:32:38 2015 No.7071099 >>7071070 So we should give less money to Black schools that underachieve? Eliminate No Child Left Behind? Just kinda nod and reassure ourselves? What was his point in writing the book even?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:32:42 2015 No.7071100 >>7071091 And yet, it is known homosexuals and gender dysphoria correlate very strongly with mental illness, so it all basically washes out.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:33:25 2015 No.7071102 >>7071086 >You take the intelligence as the cause of poverty Do you have any studies supporting such a hypotheses?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:34:58 2015 No.7071106 >>7071094 That was the premise of Coming Apart, but The Bell Curve might've gone over it too.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:35:03 2015 No.7071107 >>7071102 My point is, that weather lower intelligence is a cause of poverty or an effect of poverty are both equally viable conclusions to the studies in The Bell Curve.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:35:18 2015 No.7071112

>>7071099
The point is that adopting the teaching practices applied to high IQ rich kids and applying them without any critical thinking in all possible circumstances to all possible people might not be the best educational paradigm. But since the fads of certain rich people basically control how education is done, don't expect this to happen anytime soon.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:36:40 2015 No.7071117
File: 119 KB, 720x540, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7071084
Over time the field found a more nuanced way to measure human potential that addresses many of the issues people had with using IQ for that purpose. Does it just trigger you that there was no need to throw out all hold "racist" IQ results?

Do you also call it flip-flopping when a politician decides he believes in climate change?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:36:46 2015 No.7071118 >>7071097 I had a neuroscience lecturer a few years ago who was quite militant on socioeconomic factors affecting IQ, he did provide us with scientific papers backing his viewpoint. I will post the studies once I locate them.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:37:22 2015 No.7071121 >>7071106 Coming Apart is basically a further analysis of trends in the Bell Curve, just updated with information from the 90s and 00s. You can tell most people in this thread haven't read the Bell Curve, because only one chapter even discusses race.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:37:34 2015 No.7071123

>>7071087
>Race is quite subjective.
Racial boundaries are subjective. Races themselves are not subjective.

>The boundaries between races will change based on personal preferences and small parameters. Are Celts white? Are Mediterraneans white? Are Slavs white? Are Arabs white? Where do you draw the line?
You can draw the line using the notion of genetic distance. You can claim that two cluster of ethnicities belong to two different races when the average genetic distance between each ethnicity within the cluster is greater than the genetic distance between each ethnicity between the two clusters. Such a definition of race based on genetic clusters and genetic distances overlaps with "traditional" definitions of race.

>Intelligence is also subjective
Not really. It's hard to quantify, I'll give you that, but IQ tests are a good approximation.

> Puzzle and problem solving tests end up testing what kinds of problems and solutions you've seen.
That's not true, modern IQ tests are tailored to have no bias at all.

>Vocabulary tests end up testing what words you've seen, which is a further test of how much you read.
IQ tests don't incorporate vocabulary tests.

> Intelligence tests are also a function of how much sleep you've gotten the night before, how much preparation you've gotten, etc.
This is irrelevant, we are here assuming that people are taking the test in normal conditions.

Race and intelligence are a lot more real and objective than you seem to believe. I encourage you to read the literature on the subject.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:38:28 2015 No.7071125 >>7071117 Is the existence of g falsifiable?

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:39:37 2015 No.7071129

>>7071107
>My point is, that weather lower intelligence is a cause of poverty or an effect of poverty are both equally viable conclusions to the studies in The Bell Curve.
All right, but there are several studies outside of those quoted by the Bell Curve which support the idea of IQ dictating socioeconomic outcome. So far, you have not provided a study showing the opposite.

>>7071118
I'd appreciate that.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:40:13 2015 No.7071132

>>7071112
I remember my calc professor saying they tried this with her back in the day. "Studies" showed girls were more eng/hist than math/sci so girls test scores were weighted that way. She almost failed out of school bc (obviously) she wasn't more eng/hist.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:40:44 2015 No.7071135 >>7071123 >average genetic distance between each ethnicity within the cluster is greater meant : "is smaller" obviously!

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:41:09 2015 No.7071138 >>7071121 >only one chapter even discusses race. we have established this but that is the chapter that everyone focuses on

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:43:21 2015 No.7071148

>>7071129

One of a number of trials correlating IQ with quality of diet. (A poor explanation of the paper, take the definition of quality of diet used within the paper.)
http://www.bmj.com/content/317/7171/1481.short

An excellent study on developmental risk risk factors which affect intelligence, focuses heavily on socioeconomic factors

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/79/3/343.short

I am both of the posters you are replying to.
There is one other study I would like to post if I can find it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:46:30 2015 No.7071160 >>7071148 Meh, your studies test the IQ of children. I'd me much more interested in studies testing the IQ of adults, as the IQ of a person between his childhood and his adulthood can vary a lot.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:46:48 2015 No.7071162 >>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:49:24 2015 No.7071175 >>7071053 there must be a lot of black races

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:51:52 2015 No.7071183

>>7071175
There are, it depends on you level of clustering specificity. I think at the highest level it's Africans vs everyone else, then Africans, Caucasians, Asians, and Native Americans, and then Africa begins to differentiate, and then everyone else does.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:51:54 2015 No.7071184

>>7071125
>>7071125
Sure. If you could prove that everybody were equally capable at intellectual pursuit regardless of upbringing then you would falsify g. The factor g is not necessarily 100% heritable so you would really just have to demonstrate that we're all mentally equal. Like I said, g is just the measure of one's ability to succeed in the areas that civilization relies on.

Not sure why this is your sticking point. It's pretty well established that there's an iq floor for success in the most demanding professions so bringing up g is a it of a canard given that the book under discussion mainly works with IQ studies.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:52:42 2015 No.7071185

>>7071160

Is it so hard to believe that neurodevelopment can be effected by socioeconomic factors like quality of diet and education?

I understand the view that smarter people are more likely to do well, but it is a two way street I think. The conditions during childhood can and will affect your intelligence later in life purely on a neurodevelopmental level.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:52:52 2015 No.7071187 >>7071175 I mean is someone from Kenya really the same as someone from Nigeria? Whenever I've run into them they both look starkly different, even in skin color.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:52:52 2015 No.7071188 >>7071162 Whenever anybody disagrees with you, remember, just tell them to go to /pol/ or tumblr. Or you could skip the hassle and tell them to go to Twitter, where they both hang out.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:54:09 2015 No.7071191 >>7071188 Fuck Twitter

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:54:27 2015 No.7071193 >>7071175 What this guy said basically : >>7071183 But the genetic distance between, say, a Swede and a Nigerian, whatever ethnic group that Nigerian belongs to, will still be greater than the genetic distance between two bantu ethnicities.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:56:14 2015 No.7071200

>>7071185
>Is it so hard to believe that neurodevelopment can be effected by socioeconomic factors like quality of diet and education?
Yes, it's hard, assuming that the diet is adequate (i.e. no sever malnutrition). I see no reason why "education" should play any role in a man's intelligent, there were plenty of illiterate intelligent people before literacy became widespread.

>I understand the view that smarter people are more likely to do well, but it is a two way street I think. The conditions during childhood can and will affect your intelligence later in life purely on a neurodevelopmental level.
Well, I've yet to see a convincing study showing that.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:57:36 2015 No.7071202

>>7071070

Not sure it's 100% genetic or "race" tho since puerto ricans could pass for mediterranean whites if they cleaned up their idiotic culture, yet they still match blacks in life failure. perhaps listening to the hippidy hops promoted by the judaic music industry and having 3 kids before you finish high school hurts your academic achievement. we'll never be able to have an honest discussion about it, so the next best thing is to just give the blacks and PRs enough free stuff so they don't terrorize urban areas too much and with solid pro-gentrification urban governments we can drive them out to the rural areas were the failed whites cluster. out of site, out of mind.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:57:51 2015 No.7071206

>>7071184
Okay, this moves the goalposts again. Now we're talking about success in modern professions in modern civilization. Why is this "intelligence"? If this is what the test is supposed to measure, why not include questions that measure one's proficiency at social climbing?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:58:46 2015 No.7071210 >>7071185 Oh really? That would explain why I graduated AP from an affluent white family and am now unemployed living in a bedroom in Queens. Intelligence and poverty are totally linked.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 13:59:43 2015 No.7071213 >>7071210 >Intelligence and poverty are totally linked. You apparently lack the required intelligence to understand the concept of averages.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:00:33 2015 No.7071216 >>7071213 The whole damn bourrough is white!

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:00:50 2015 No.7071219 >>7071202 Puerto ricans have significant sub saharan african ancestry.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:02:01 2015 No.7071225 >>7071216 Hipster artists who deliberately choose to live in poverty to get the "gritty NYC experience" don't count.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:06:10 2015 No.7071237 >>7071225 Hipsters don't live in fucking Queens! That's like saying yuppies live in Staten Island. This ain't Brooklyn yo.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:07:35 2015 No.7071239 >>7071210 >I graduated AP do you think anyone gives a shit about that you fucking loser? NYC is packed with Harvard, Yale and MIT grads. No one gives a fuck about the AP classes you did in high school you god damn clowner.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:08:16 2015 No.7071244 >>7071237 According to wikipedia Queens is 40% white

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:08:23 2015 No.7071245
File: 80 KB, 350x559, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7071206
You could spend a week administering a battery of those types of tests as has already been done, or you could administer an IQ test that has been found to correlate well with the results of those other tests except in the freak autist-tier specimens.

Why wouldn't the ability to navigate modern day situations and solve contemporary problems be the criterion for intelligence? It's what everybody wants and society could arguably use more of. Of course there are things you could succeed at without it but the dirty secret is that most people have the brains to be dirt farmers and gatherers so it's not that interesting. Chief Keef is probably the prime example of being good at something without a high IQ (giving his fans what they want, not being a musical innovator/genius) but we can only use so many Chief keefs.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:09:36 2015 No.7071249 >>7071239 That's not what your mom said when I was balls deep in her last night. I made her wear my grad cap.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:10:17 2015 No.7071250

>>7071200

Alright, due to being unable to find sufficient evidence proving that socioeconomic factors can effect final IQ I will accept that I cannot believe it until evidence presents itself.

Can you present studies showing that intelligence does in fact result in better socioeconomic standing?
I am willing to adjust my views if the data is there. I will admit I have an aversion to notions of genetic determinism, hence why I am reluctant to accept your viewpoint.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:10:55 2015 No.7071253 >>7071244 Yeah that's like fucking all of it Jamaica is way the hell out there. No one goes there unless you got your car towed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:11:20 2015 No.7071254 >>7071250 When I say correlate here, I mean generally result in.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:12:30 2015 No.7071258

>>7071245
This is my whole point: we get VERY quickly into extremely subjective questions about what society "needs," what is helpful to society, the existence of or validity of meritocracy, etc. It is impossible to talk about a correlation between race and intelligence without assuming most of this stuff away, which is why I think it is scientifically responsible to consider all such claims specious.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:17:49 2015 No.7071277
File: 12 KB, 870x195, race.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7071183
The reason I pointed it out is because I had heard that there is greater genetic difference between different groups of blacks then there is between different races.

It's probably more complicated than that though: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

>>7071187
They are very different. Even within Kenya there are major genetic differences, I've heard that almost all the Kenyan marathoners come from one "tribe" of about 5 million.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:19:08 2015 No.7071280

>>7071250
>Can you present studies showing that intelligence does in fact result in better socioeconomic standing?
There are plenty of results in "The Bell Curve". It's an interesting read, there are lots of examples of IQ being a better predictor than other factors in a lot of situations.

>I am willing to adjust my views if the data is there. I will admit I have an aversion to notions of genetic determinism, hence why I am reluctant to accept your viewpoint.
We'll probably identify the genes responsible for intelligence in the next few decades, so we'll know for sure then.

I don't understand why some people have an aversion towards accepting that intelligence is largely hereditary. Do you also have the same aversion towards the fact that tall parents tend to breed tall children?

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:19:38 2015 No.7071283
File: 46 KB, 500x363, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7071258
Yes, intelligence is partially defined by scarcity. When something is difficult, people will pay more money for the ones who can do it. It's not like scientists invented supply and demand. IQ and g are just shorthand for part of what is being demanded in our labor market. Being shorthand, we have to pay close attention to correlation between psychometric and real world outcomes. I would argue that the correlation has borne out the validity of some if these metrics as a shorthand for potential value and that large differences in metrics between large enough populations can have a hand in different outcomes for those populations.

>it is impossible to talk about race and intelligence without assuming most if this stuff anyway
As I said above, it's not just an assumption or a projection, it's a correlative measure developed over time.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:21:21 2015 No.7071288

>>7071245
>the dirty secret is that most people have the brains to be dirt farmers and gatherers

lets face it most people are fucking stupid. /lit/ is probably a little higher than average since to engage here you need to be able to quickly skim and summarize wikipedia articles, where as some boards just require the ability to sit through hours of mind numbing cartoons...but in general if you walk down the street in "mainstreet USA" or whatever, most of the people will be simpletons.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:21:40 2015 No.7071289

>>7071277
>The reason I pointed it out is because I had heard that there is greater genetic difference between different groups of blacks then there is between different races.
I don't think that it's true. It might be true that the genetic distance between west africans and east africans is much greater than between, say, the french and the russian, but you must keep in mind that the genetic distance between either west or east africans and either the french or the russian is even greater.

The african cluster is larger in terms of genetic distance than the european or asian cluster, but it is still a distinct cluster.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:23:40 2015 No.7071292 >>7071288 >most people...simpletons Remind me why I shouldn't kill myself again?

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:24:21 2015 No.7071296

>>7071289
whenever people say "there is greater genetic diversity between africans than between other races" i am suspicious that they may be weaseling in things like north african arabs or even south african boers when they carefully use the term "african" instead of black...

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:24:50 2015 No.7071298 >>7071288 Not sure what your point is. Peasants can come off as pretty stupid but they keep the crops coming well enough to survive. Russian peasants can't grasp hypotheticals for fucks sake.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:26:12 2015 No.7071302

>>7071296
No, even among subsaharan africans (blacks) there is considerable genetic variation. Some pygmy tribes have been inbreeding for the past 50 000 years! Their existence predates the out of africa expansion.

It's normal that Eurasians be genetically similar. They all descend from a few tribes which left Africa. Likewise, Native americans are even more similar to one another than eurasians

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:33:46 2015 No.7071330

>>7071283
But it's a correlative measure with deep assumptions about the validity of the meritocracy in our economic system. It's the type of thing that presents itself as apolitical, but is not.

(Scientists DID, by the way, invent supply and demand, as approximate and useful ways of discussing our economic activity. But they are ways of describing resultant behavior, not deep biological and physical sources of that behavior - the same is true of IQ.)

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:34:15 2015 No.7071333

>>7071302
also, the people who left african interbred with neanderthals, with germans and some east asians having the highest percentage of neanderthal dna, which i wonder if it is related to how all the world records for strength seem to come from these "high neanderthal dna" regions meanwhile blacks, who according to popular media are stronger and more athletic than whites, can't even make it into the top ten. from the form of neanderthal bones we can tell they had significantly more muscle density than humans, but who knows, suppose they were smarter too and just got out bred, sort of like what is happening to europeans today?

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:39:40 2015 No.7071343

>>7071283
>IQ and g are just shorthand for part of what is being demanded in our labor market.

This is a serious reach. IQ is far from the most important independent variable in how much someone is demanded in the labor market, because companies generally don't hire based on the results of open-competitive aptitude tests.

You can say that the completion of higher-demand college degrees correlated with IQ and you'd be right but that's far from the only variable involved in getting such a degree.

I would say IQ *by itself* isn't very helpful for getting a job or becoming rich. But it correlates with other things that are helpful. Having a well-off family is orders of magnitude more important by itself.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:42:34 2015 No.7071356

>>7071343
Speaking of. Adopted twin studies show that IQ correlates more strongly with biological twin, but person wealth in adulthood more strongly with adopted twin.

IQ is important and all signs point to it being largely genetic. But real-world outcomes are the result of a LOT more than IQ, and a number of things are more important on their own than IQ.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:44:53 2015 No.7071359

>>7071343
Trying to separate higher demand education from psychometrics when talking about the labor market is gonna be futile. The best we can do is look at confounding factors like economic inequality that you mentioned. I'd just point out that even when we do that, African Americans can't seem to ever reach the point where their wealth corrects their academic performance.

All the people talking about this shit outside of America are going nowhere because the race chapter in this book focuses on blacks in America.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:53:47 2015 No.7071389

There's a very simple reason this book gets called racist.

Black people perform more poorly in just about every metric of well-being or intelligence (although the validity of IQ tests are regularly disputed). People try to explain this by pointing out that black people are subject to more poverty and this explains the differences. The book then shows that even among the same economic classes, blacks perform more poorly than whites. These are all facts.

However, people contend that the book is racist due to it's interpretation: instead of perhaps contending that there might be some inherent disadvantages to being black that might skew the numbers, the book argues that black people are just objectively inferior.

THat's pretty much it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:54:13 2015 No.7071390 >>7070939 The premise of the book is that they can justify what they want based on teh sigh-ences.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:55:46 2015 No.7071398

>>7070939
>I don't understand graphs or statistics
Black people are on average dumber than whites, and there are way more dumb niggers and way less smart ones.

Is the curve really that hard to understand?
>>7070976
>Gould
>literally the only "scientist" racial egalitarians can trot out is a proven fraud and liar
TOP KEK. What next, are you going to quote the 'more variation between individuals' lie that was disproven decades go?

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:59:40 2015 No.7071415

>>7071356
>and a number of things are more important on their own than IQ.
Blatantly false. It is the single greatest predictor for success in life, more than any other variable.
>>7071389
>The book then shows that even among the same economic classes, blacks perform more poorly than whites. These are all facts.
You don't even need this book to know that.

The journal of black education released college board statistics showing that negros from families that made over $100,000 had a lower SAT average than the whites with families that made less than $10,000.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 14:59:48 2015 No.7071416
File: 294 KB, 600x2560, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7071389
>>7071390
I think it's interesting that a lot of the backlash to this book seems to imy that we should suppress those who are inferior to us and this book is dangerous just to pointing out that a group might be inferior in one area of measure. It's more frightening to me that so many progressives take it as a foregone conclusion that they can fuck over anyone they think is beneath them and the real key to virtue is to be careful who you look down on, I.e. Treat with respect.

I don't have any problem treating African Americans with respect and also believing that as a group they're different from me in ways I can't change.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:04:25 2015 No.7071428 File: 180 KB, 640x1136, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] So is the book worth reading?

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:08:06 2015 No.7071443

>>7071416
Most white people finally coming to the realization that blacks are genetically inferior would cause a huge shitstorm for multiple reasons.

Progressives are afraid because they know that affirmative action would disappear over night. They only barely manage to justify their racially discriminatory programs on the basis that blacks are secretly the white mans equals, but whitey be keepin' a brotha down.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:10:36 2015 No.7071453 >>7071298 >Russian peasants can't grasp hypotheticals for fucks sake I want to hear more about this

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:11:38 2015 No.7071456 >>7071333 Abos have Neanderthal DNA, yet they're even dumber than Negroes who don't have any.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:12:44 2015 No.7071461
File: 34 KB, 550x336, U9988P28T3D4038914F328DT20131108001526.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Ok, lets just make a mental exercise for a moment, without consideration for the reality.

Let's just say that:

a) There are different human races and some of them are less intelligent than others.

b) Poverty and low-success are not, of course, dependent only of low intelligence, but there is a quite significant correlation between low intelligence and low financial and professional success.

So, what's the problem if this is true? We still need to respect and treat everyone as human beings, and the State must still work constantly to help those who have less, treating equals equally and unequal's unequally.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:15:42 2015 No.7071469 >>7071333 No ones going to outbreed the Asians, don't worry The Neanderthal line will live on ruling over the humans

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:15:50 2015 No.7071470

>>7071389
>However, people contend that the book is racist due to it's interpretation: instead of perhaps contending that there might be some inherent disadvantages to being black that might skew the numbers, the book argues that black people are just objectively inferior.

A lot of the things that used to be bad about being black have been vastly improved. The black-white IQ gap narrowed thanks to better nutrition and early education. But it's stalled for a while even though low-performing black schools tend to get a lot of money spent on them, plus the benefit of affirmative action for college admissions.

And the whole "inferior" thing ascribes a certain moral aspect that the writers of the book wouldn't have. It implies that people who think black people as a group have a lower average IQ also think black people are less valuable as people, which is absurd. Being less intelligent doesn't make you less worthwhile of a person or less deserving of rights and respect. It should just be thought of as height. Some people are shorter and that's that -- doesn't make them morally lesser.

People should be treated as individuals -- if an intelligent black person comes along, guess what, he's smart no matter what his background is.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:16:25 2015 No.7071471 I've heard there are some problems with his methodology.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:17:39 2015 No.7071474

>>7071415
>Blatantly false. It is the single greatest predictor for success in life, more than any other variable.

IQ predicts success more than family wealth? I don't buy that. Which do you think is more beneficial -- being born in the top 1% of IQ or being born in a family in the top 1% of wealth? It's not even close. Top 1% of IQ doesn't really give you a lot of advantages by itself, because the routes to success are increasingly less tied to IQ and more tied to family background. Even the SAT is becoming less and less an aptitude test and more a curriculum-based test. The analogies section, which had the highest correlation with g, was removed years ago.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:17:43 2015 No.7071475 >>7071461 I don't know the solution but a genuinely clever, thoughtful person is worth a dozen average mooks in my eyes.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:19:19 2015 No.7071481

>>7071461
>So, what's the problem if this is true?
It should make us rethink some policies, such as our immigration policy, or affirmative action.

>>7071470
>The black-white IQ gap narrowed
The black-white IQ gap has been constant for the past 100 years.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:20:44 2015 No.7071488

>>7071474
>IQ predicts success more than family wealth?
It actually does.

Of course, most people from affluent families have high IQs, and most people from poor families have low IQs.

But what differentiates success between people WITHIN the same income bracket is IQ. Smart poor people do better than dumb poor people.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:22:17 2015 No.7071495 >>7071488 I'm sure there's a general correlation with IQ and success within the same economic groups but I doubt it's larger than the correlation between family wealth and success within the same IQ groups.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:22:50 2015 No.7071497 >>7071461 The problem is what people will do with that belief, and consistently, it has been less than salutary.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:23:36 2015 No.7071503 >>7071497 > it has been less than salutary. There is literally nothing wrong with soft eugenics.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:26:36 2015 No.7071519

>>7071503
The only argument is a "slippery slope." If more intelligent people had children and fewer unintelligent people had children, everyone would obviously be better off. Imagine if America's major cities didn't have so much crime. How much better off would the country be? The general low level of intelligence of the average person is a better major impediment to progress. Most people can hardly grasp complex concepts.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:27:26 2015 No.7071523

>>7071456
Australian abos did not mate with neanderthals, but some other primitive form of human that we aren't sure exactly what it was.

It's likely that they got negative traits as a result, rather than positive, given their general level of intelligence and behavior.
>>7071497
So whites and asians who are on average smarter than blacks might breed with them less if this knowledge becomes widespread?

Why would that be bad.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:27:55 2015 No.7071524

>>7071416

Well, your erroneous implication of what "progressives" believe aside, the human experience has included a lot of such behavior.

Religious, ethnic, linguistic, and even pseudo-scientific, this isn't new or original.

Perhaps you are enlightened enough that it's not a problem for you. But can you say it's not a perilous path to walk? That there aren't well demonstrated dangers?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:29:38 2015 No.7071531 >>7071503 >>7071519 >>7071523 I await the pronouncement of a plan to breed a superior human.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:29:41 2015 No.7071532 >>7071524 >But can you say it's not a perilous path to walk? That there aren't well demonstrated dangers? Not him, but even if it is - so what? I can see no problems coming from the truth being outed that would result in long term harm to our species.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:29:47 2015 No.7071533 >>7071519 Especially considering the fact that we're slowly but surely entering a post-industrial world were workers are obsolete. People who don't have the intelligence required to hold a "white collar" job will soon become a huge burden.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:30:48 2015 No.7071537 File: 28 KB, 620x374, everything.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7071531 What are you better at?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:30:49 2015 No.7071538 >>7071531 The idea of soft eugenics wouldn't be planned breeding programs, but encouraging smart people to have more children and encouraging dumb people to have less children. Maternity leave and free abortions are example of "soft eugenics" policies.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:32:13 2015 No.7071545 >>7071523 Only Africans did not mate with Neanderthals. Abos are more closely related to Asiatic peoples. Abos have Neanderthal DNA.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:33:39 2015 No.7071550 >>7071545 Abos are the only people to have Denisovan DNA, which probably contributes a lot in their subhuman-ness.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:34:30 2015 No.7071558 >>7071533 Well, for this particular problem a minimum income or job guarantee would work just fine. But trying to encourage intelligent people to have more children is a worthwhile goal in itself.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:35:09 2015 No.7071562 >>7071470 >Some people are shorter and that's that -- doesn't make them morally lesser. keep telling yourself that, manlet

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:36:04 2015 No.7071564 >>7071558 >minimum income or job guarantee would work just fine. Guarantee of what job? Breaking rocks on the side of the road? That's why I used the term "burden". If the only way to deal with them is to invent fake jobs or give them money...

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:36:16 2015 No.7071565

>>7071532

There's a problem right there. You think it's a given that it is somehow a truth.

Then you have to ask what might people do, especially when you look at what people have already done. It's been ugly. Quite ugly.

>>7071538

Or we could have better pre-natal care, remove lead from the environment, and other things.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:37:45 2015 No.7071570

>>7071564
>That's why I used the term "burden". If the only way to deal with them is to invent fake jobs or give them money...

Neither would be a burden because it would be giving them money to spend, stimulating demand for production and economic growth.

And it's not only unintelligent people. Plenty of very intelligent people have trouble finding jobs and will continue to.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:38:30 2015 No.7071575 >>7071488 >IQ predicts success more than family wealth? >It actually does >dumbest ppl ever=Harvard freshmen

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:41:33 2015 No.7071586

>>7071565
>Or we could have better pre-natal care, remove lead from the environment, and other things.
"Lead is the reason why blacks fail" is such a 1980s meme.

>>7071570
>Neither would be a burden because it would be giving them money to spend, stimulating demand for production and economic growth.
Who would provide the money? This is akin to doing a blood transfusion from your right arm to your left arm.

>And it's not only unintelligent people. Plenty of very intelligent people have trouble finding jobs and will continue to.
I wouldn't say plenty. A small minority.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:41:44 2015 No.7071587 >>7071470 There are contradictory results on the narrowing black-white gap. In terms of numerical IQ, the gap is less. In terms of standard deviations of IQ, the gap is roughly the same.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:42:34 2015 No.7071592 >>7071575 Your greentext makes your sense Do you have a low IQ perchance?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:44:17 2015 No.7071598 >>7071592 >Your greentext makes your sense >

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:46:41 2015 No.7071608 >>7071586 Yeah, now it's Asians suffering from it.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:49:42 2015 No.7071619

>>7071565
>there's a problem right there. You disagree with me.
Nigga please.

>>7071575
Just gonna say I know plenty of poorfags who go to Harvard and similar schools. They're "underrepresented" but loads of people at those schools are on financial aid.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:50:39 2015 No.7071623 File: 40 KB, 327x450, 1440488805510.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Is the bell curve a function or a spline? I need le redpill, bros.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:52:38 2015 No.7071629 >>7071550 >Denisovan They confirmed that? I thought it was still a missing link.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:53:53 2015 No.7071638

>>7070981
But IQ is not the only measure of intelligence; IQ is merely the capacity to find patterns. You can have a low IQ and still have good memory, quick wits, problem solving skills... isn't that true?

It doesn't make sense how merely IQ, which is measured by your ability to find some patterns in pictures and numbers within a limited time period, can lead to the ghettoization of black people in America.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:54:14 2015 No.7071640 >>7071619 People have declared a "truth" that was a lie more than a few times.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:54:30 2015 No.7071643

>>7071629
Yup
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisovan

>Subsequent study of the nuclear genome from this specimen suggests that this group shares a common origin with Neanderthals, that they ranged from Siberia to Southeast Asia, and that they lived among and interbred with the ancestors of some present-day modern humans, with about 3% to 5% of the DNA of Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians deriving from Denisovans.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:55:41 2015 No.7071648 >>7071638 >You can have a low IQ and still have good memory, Yes >quick wits, No. >problem solving skills No. The only thing IQ doesn't measure is, as you said, memory. It only measures problem solving and pattern recognition.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 15:59:48 2015 No.7071667 >>7071638 Is there anybody who thinks IQ, whatever you may consider it to be, is the only factor that has an impact?

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:00:53 2015 No.7071672

>>7071648
But couldn't you possibly still find the patterns on an IQ test, for instance, given enough time? does that make you 'just slow' or genuinely stupid? and is there a difference? could you be trained to recognize patterns better given enough training and methodology?

I can buy that retards might have low IQ, but is it fair to assume low IQ people are retarded or even exceptionally stupid, is what I am saying.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:02:01 2015 No.7071678
File: 103 KB, 624x434, pepegreek.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The thing that most exposes 'scientific' racism as bullshit is that there's no explanation for why certain groups are better, only how they are better. Why are Arabs inferior and Jews superior, even though they come from similar regions? Why, if native Americans are the most 'recent' race, aren't they superior to whites (as humans settled in Europe long before they did in America). Why are there some points in history where Arabs and Indians (e.g. 'inferior' races) were more successful/advanced than whites? And don't forget that Chinese, Japanese, and Jews used to be considered inferior to whites, but are now seen as equals. What happened in that ~100 years that brought them all up to snuff?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:02:51 2015 No.7071681 >>7071648 Working memory is one of categories of intelligence tested in most IQ tests.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:03:34 2015 No.7071685

>>7071667
Well, IQ and crime statistics are probably the only 'tangible' things racists really have. From these, they draw the conclusion that black people must be intellectually inferior to white people, making the leap to a genetic cause. As far as I am aware, scientists have not yet found conclusively what genes specifically make people smarter, and their frequency in populations specifically.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:06:06 2015 No.7071693

>>7071678
They get around it because they are ignorant of history. You'll hear racists saying things like that black people never had civilizations, or that white people invented everything (when there ARE points in history where other races were 'more advanced' like China, or the Islamic golden age).

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:06:17 2015 No.7071694

>>7071672
>But couldn't you possibly still find the patterns on an IQ test, for instance, given enough time?
Probably not. Some of them are really hard.

>could you be trained to recognize patterns better given enough training and methodology?
You can certainly improve your IQ score through training. But only to a certain extent : you won't see someone with a score of 80 ever scoring 130 after training.

>>7071681
I didn't know that.

>>7071685
>As far as I am aware, scientists have not yet found conclusively what genes specifically make people smarter, and their frequency in populations specifically.
I can't wait until they do.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:08:39 2015 No.7071701

>>7071678
Europeans had to plan for harsher winters and this selected for people with more intelligence.

European Jews were heavily discriminated against and had to carve out their own economic niche. Many people just converted and took the path of least resistance, those who stayed Jews had to be smart enough to make it in trade, finance, etc.

I'm sympathetic to IQ denialists, as a leftist I was for a long time. But the evidence is absolutely overwhelming. It would be like denying the Earth is round -- even worse because you can see the results of IQ differences with your own eyes in the world. I don't like it this way -- I would prefer all races to be of equal intelligence. But reality doesn't bend to my ideological preferences.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:09:02 2015 No.7071702 >>7071693 Honest question here - what are the major black civilizations?

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:09:30 2015 No.7071706

>>7071678
>The thing that most exposes 'scientific' racism as bullshit is that there's no explanation for why certain groups are better, only how they are better.
You must not have looked very hard..

>Why are Arabs inferior and Jews superior, even though they come from similar regions?
Jesus, really? You couldn't have taken a worst example. The question of ashkenazi jewish IQ must be one of the most studied subjects in genetics.

>Why, if native Americans are the most 'recent' race, aren't they superior to whites (as humans settled in Europe long before they did in America).
Modern europeans settled in Europe in the Neolithic. They come originally from the middle east and central asia.

> Why are there some points in history where Arabs and Indians (e.g. 'inferior' races)
Nobody uses the term "inferior race". Stop trying to put words into the mouths of researchers of a field you quite clearly have absolutely no clue about.

>And don't forget that Chinese, Japanese, and Jews used to be considered inferior to whites,
I don't think there ever has been a time when north east asians and jews were considered intellectually inferior to whites, even at the height of scientific racism during the 19th century.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:09:35 2015 No.7071707

>>7071694
It should be said, working memory is the equivalent of short term memory, like forgetting where you put your car keys or getting on the wrong bus because you were supposed to get on one with a different number; it's not testing your long term memory by any means, though I'd guess that both are linked for obvious reasons.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:09:37 2015 No.7071708

>>7071678
I've seen people try to explain it with inbreeding, but that doesn't work because Jews are more inbred than Arabs, due to a smaller mating pool and the fact that Judaism tolerates (and traditionally encouraged) uncle/niece marriage.

http://lazerbrody.typepad.com/lazer_beams/2012/10/marrying-a-niec.html

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:10:42 2015 No.7071713 >>7071693 Who is arguing whites have higher IQ than Chinese? East Asians have higher IQs than whites.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:11:03 2015 No.7071715

>>7071693
>I can't wait until they do.
Do you think that if they do something will change?

That's the thing about essentialists. You assume that if we are human beings are not 'equal' in the literal sense, it follows that there should be a caste system based on biology, with the lesser subordinated to the greater (conveniently, always white men).

Even if races were not 'equal' in the literal sense, that doesn't really mean that black people should not be helped to live to their fullest potential instead of rotting in the slums or being punished by police for being black.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:11:09 2015 No.7071716 >>7071685 IQ and crime statistics, are statistics, and you know what they say about statistics...

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:12:08 2015 No.7071721 File: 74 KB, 300x250, DNvvDEn.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7071249

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:12:10 2015 No.7071722 >>7071715 sorry, I meant to quote >>7071694

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:12:21 2015 No.7071723 >>7071094 I think it goes beyond your vision on the book. But i clearly aggree with you about your reasonment on "social marriage" who dispose the people better off , who thus conduct them to a social determinism.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:13:17 2015 No.7071728

>>7071708
The reason why ashkenazi jews have a higher average IQ than europeans is because they have been forced for over a millenia into "intellectual" jobs such as accountants and merchants, because they were forbidden to do anything else. Such jobs put a strong selective pressure upon ashkenazi jews : only the successful merchants had surviving children, the less successful jews starved. Over time, this led to a drift of ashkenazi jewish IQ upwards.

It is to note that only ashkenazi jews experienced that selective pressure, and thus only ashkenazi jews have a high intelligence. Mizrahi jews are dumb as bricks.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:13:27 2015 No.7071729

>>7071706
>I don't think there ever has been a time when north east asians and jews were considered intellectually inferior to whites, even at the height of scientific racism during the 19th century.

>Has clearly never read any scientific racist works from the 19th century.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:13:35 2015 No.7071730
File: 19 KB, 256x350, rushdie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7071640
>You can't know anything.
>So see things my way.
Hmm...

>>7071678
>no explanation for why certain groups are better
That's not actually necessary. Human evolution is just as subject to stochastic effects as the evolution of any other organism. Why did one bacteria in the petri dish develop antibiotic resistance and the others didn't? You don't have to trace the photon that flipped tweaked the DNA sequence just so to know that the organism changed.

>>7071685
>>7071693
>you'll hear racists saying...
>only tangible things racists have...
You're conflating all people who believe African Americans have lower average heritable intelligence with Stormfront users and then basing your criticism of this book on that conflation. I don't know why I bother arguing with people here anymore.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:14:09 2015 No.7071734

>>7071701
>Europeans had to plan for harsher winters and this selected for people with more intelligence.
This is ridiculous. If this pseudo-scientific logic held, the Siberian tribal people from Russia and the Natives in Canada would be the most intelligent people on the planet.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:16:35 2015 No.7071744

>>7071715
>>7071722
>Do you think that if they do something will change?
I hope so. I hope the mainstream media won't bury the news.

>That's the thing about essentialists. You assume that if we are human beings are not 'equal' in the literal sense, it follows that there should be a caste system based on biology, with the lesser subordinated to the greater (conveniently, always white men).
What's next, you're going to call me a nazi? Stop strawmanning so hard, nobody is calling for the establishment of a caste system. There are plenty of smart blacks and hispanics.

What we're against is reverse racism such as affirmative action, which would be rendered absurd if it was proven that blacks and hispanics will never perform on par with whites in intellectual endeavours, and a rethinking of our immigration policy (hey, maybe it wouldn't be a good idea to amnesty 30 million people with a low IQ!)

>Even if races were not 'equal' in the literal sense, that doesn't really mean that black people should not be helped to live to their fullest potential instead of rotting in the slums or being punished by police for being black.
Once again, no one is advocating for that. The only time you will find whites advocating for genocide against blacks are in the fantasies of anti-racists.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:17:17 2015 No.7071750

So Gould has been trotted around some, but why has nobody mentioned James Flynn? Strongest scientific critic of racial IQ studies, respected even by the likes of Jensen and Murray, and I've never seen a rigorous refutation of the Flynn effect and its implications- every "race realist" just thinks of some way to handwave it.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:17:53 2015 No.7071752

>>7071729
By the 19th century ashkenazi jews were already firmly established in the intellectual elite.

If anything, people in the 19th century were amazed at ashkenazi jews as it was during that century that they rose to prominence.

Do you think there were quotas at Harvard limiting the number of jewish students because they thought jews were dumb?

Go a read a book, nigger.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:20:19 2015 No.7071772

>>7071416
Look, the problem with the argument is that they didn't prove whether there were systemic disadvantages to being black, or that blacks were just inferior.

The problem with arguing that blacks are inferior is that it allows people to ignore the very real systemic disadvantages they face, and just blame their poverty on their racial inferiority.

That's the point here. There are real problems that the black community face that are beyond their control and people use the argument that they are intellectually inferior to justify ignoring those problems.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:21:15 2015 No.7071776 >>7071750 The Flynn effect has stopped in developed countries. It arose for the same reason average height rose : better nutrition.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:21:28 2015 No.7071781
File: 1.88 MB, 2550x3300, time.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7071744
Yeah the only reasonable policy implications of group IQ differences is that affirmative action quotas shouldn't necessarily be pegged directly to population. If this creates a de facto caste system, then tough titty, dumb Englishmen have a hard time getting rich too.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:22:34 2015 No.7071790 >>7071772 >ignore the very real systemic disadvantages they face, What systemic disadvantages? I have never read a single study showing what this mysterious "institutional racism" consisted of.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:22:50 2015 No.7071792

>>7071701
I'm a Rightist, but I think the idea that intelligence can be quantitatively measure is horseshit. I don't believe that "all races of of equal intelligence" (as that's a meaningless statement), but HBD advocates have a view of life and humanity that reminds me of role playing games (which is fitting as most of them are the sort of dorks that play RPGs).

"I have 150 HP in intelligence and a saving throw against niggers!"

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:24:24 2015 No.7071801 >>7071792 >but I think the idea that intelligence can be quantitatively measure is horseshit. You're also free to think that the earth is flat.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:25:45 2015 No.7071804 >>7071790 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCFO7oqCRiM

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:27:23 2015 No.7071811 >>7071734 HBD explanations for things like this are the racial version of Kipling's Just So Stories. >How the leopard got his spots >How the nigger got his Dindu Nuffins

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:27:59 2015 No.7071816 >>7071804 >a nigger doesn't comply with police orders >gets tasered/shot Boo fucking hoo. Let me guess, you also think that Michael Brown dindu nuffin?

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:28:31 2015 No.7071819

>>7071790
Then you havne't looked hard. Like that experiment where they sent out a shitload of resumes, but half of them had generic white names, and half had "black names" (think shaniqua). The resumes were identical, but the response rate for the resumes with white names were like, 60% higher. Or the practice of redlining. Or, how about how even though whites actually do drugs and sell them at higher rates than balcks, the vast majority of drug charges are filed against blacks?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:29:03 2015 No.7071822 >>7071801 >Believing that the human mind is too complex to be boiled down to simple numbers. >Flat Earth

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:30:12 2015 No.7071828

>>7071816
>>7071816
Okay, but white people doing the same shit don't face the same level of violence. Poliece respond to black individuals with more violence than they do against white individuals.

Here's a better example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXrh6wAxJlw

Ignore the misnomer "assault rifle", and just watch what happens.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:30:21 2015 No.7071829
File: 7 KB, 395x73, dissent.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7071772
That's a slipper slope argument. I'm all for correcting the legacy of past oppression, but if we set an unattainable goal that's not going to be good down the line. Might as well make a note of the possibility that there might be a genetic difference in cognition and use that to make a more effective education system.

I'm extremely uncomfortable with suppressing research because you don't like what people might do with it. Look up Lysenkoism. It was a program of "Marxist Biology" that, while interesting, turned up pretty much zero useful information and guided farming practices that contributed to some serious famines, all because certain conclusions of Mendellian and Darwinian genetics were labelled, "reactionary."

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:30:21 2015 No.7071830 >>7071792 However much stock you put in particular IQ tests, it's clear intelligence is real and some people are naturally smarter than others.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:32:08 2015 No.7071840 >>7071816 He was having a stroke.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:32:15 2015 No.7071841 >>7071830 No one argued otherwise.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:32:38 2015 No.7071842

>>7071819
>Like that experiment where they sent out a shitload of resumes, but half of them had generic white names, and half had "black names" (think shaniqua). The resumes were identical, but the response rate for the resumes with white names were like, 60% higher
That's not institutional racism. That's just HR secretly knowing that black employees tend to be worse than white employees.

Institutional racism would be something like segregated water fountains

>Or, how about how even though whites actually do drugs and sell them at higher rates than balcks, the vast majority of drug charges are filed against blacks?
That's actually false.

Here's a good video by Jared "Your friendly computer repair guy" Taylor about the subject :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fkZUrT7t4o

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:34:22 2015 No.7071852 >>7071842 of course that's fucking racism, it's racism whether or not it's correct you dumbass. at least have the courage of your convictions and admit that you think racism is good

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:34:42 2015 No.7071853

>>7071819
>Or, how about how even though whites actually do drugs and sell them at higher rates than balcks, the vast majority of drug charges are filed against blacks?

How much crime is associated with the white drug trade? How much crime is associated with the black drug trade?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:34:50 2015 No.7071855 >>7071776 If nutrition is influential enough to cause a 30 point shift in IQ over time, then non-hereditary IQ theories have significant merit.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:35:04 2015 No.7071858

>>7071730

You mean a lot of people think they know things when they really are wrong.

>>7071752

Such quotas exist because they wanted to keep certain groups out. This can be simply because of resentment at those groups, rather than any actual quality.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:35:11 2015 No.7071860 HBD is the right wing version of climate change. If you bring any objections, its advocates just call you a "denialist" and consider the discussion finished.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:35:44 2015 No.7071862
File: 129 KB, 724x611, 1425986181737.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7071752
Why don't YOU read a book, Stormfaggot, because I'm sitting here reading Samuel George Morton's charts (a leading anthropologist in the mid-19th century) who, arguing that cranial capacity and intelligence is directly coorelated (a common belief in the scientific community of his day), lists Semetic skulls as several cubic inches smaller than white German and English skulls. The same is true of Chinese skulls, albeit more so.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:35:56 2015 No.7071865

>>7071822
It's an approximation. A valid one.

>>7071828
>Okay, but white people doing the same shit don't face the same level of violence
Of course they do. It just never makes the news because the media can't indulge in race baiting.

Plenty of wiggers getting beaten up by black cops.

>Poliece respond to black individuals with more violence than they do against white individuals.
Might have to do that the vast majority of police are killed by blacks, don't you think?

>Here's a better example
>A fucking youtube "social experiment" video

>>7071840
Shit happens.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:36:03 2015 No.7071867 >>7071829 No, it's not a slippery slope argument, and I'm not advocating suppressing research. It's just that the bell curve didn't prove that systemic racial disadvantages aren't negatively impacting IQ.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:36:46 2015 No.7071874

>>7071819
>Like that experiment where they sent out a shitload of resumes, but half of them had generic white names, and half had "black names" (think shaniqua). The resumes were identical, but the response rate for the resumes with white names were like, 60% higher.

This is strong evidence, but I would like another study that did the same but with particularly "low class" white names vs. regular white names. How would Jim-bob, Cletus and Mary-lou fare in response vs. John, Michael and Emily? How would the disparity compare to the white vs. black disparity?

The particularly black names also have strong class connotations. Were the racial connotations or class connotations the deciding factor in that study?

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:36:52 2015 No.7071875
File: 219 KB, 1273x1024, concerned.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7071819
The drug arrest thing is because most drug busts aren't just drug busts, they're usually incidental to arrests for other crimes (robbery, violent crime, etc. that AAs tend to commit at a higher rate) where the offender happens to have drugs in their possession at the time. Source: every cop ever.

P.S. it doesn't speak well of someone's intelligence or impulse control if they bring drugs with them to do things that attract police attention.

>>7071822
>believing IQ is meant to measure everything about the human mind
>being illiterate

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:37:27 2015 No.7071878 >>7071842 >That's just HR secretly knowing that black employees tend to be worse than white employees. That is blatantly racism. Also, redlining IS institutional racism in the way you described it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:38:05 2015 No.7071882 >>7071852 My Posting Career is so much better than /pol/ and the Dark Enlightment because MPC where's the racist label with pride rather than getting offended like little girls. >eloH did nothing wrong

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:38:46 2015 No.7071884 >>7071853 Depends on what area we're talking about. Most of the crime is actually associated with the mexican cartels, though, from which the american gangs get much of it.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:39:07 2015 No.7071888

>>7071852
>of course that's fucking racism, it's racism whether or not it's correct you dumbass.
It's not institutional racism, which is what we're talking about.

And please capitalize the first word of each sentences. Failing to do so makes you look like an illiterate nigger.

>at least have the courage of your convictions and admit that you think racism is good
I believe in freedom of association. I believe that there is nothing wrong with white people wanting to only hire white people, asian people wanting to only hire asian people, black people wanting to only hire black people, etc.

>>7071855
>If nutrition is influential enough to cause a 30 point shift in IQ over time,
Not 30 points, 15 points. It's consistent with the observed IQ difference between black americans (85) and black africans (70).

> then non-hereditary IQ theories have significant merit.
They have none. Height is also affected by nutrition, but is otherwise hereditary.

>>7071858
>Such quotas exist because they wanted to keep certain groups out. This can be simply because of resentment at those groups, rather than any actual quality.
That's my point. Never have europeans considered ashkenazi jews to be intellectually inferior, like that other anon implied. To the contrary, they were scared of them being too smart.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:39:46 2015 No.7071889 >>7071865 >Attacking the source rather than the evidence. Look, you literally just watched an example of how the police respond differently to the same situation based on the color of someone's skin.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:40:03 2015 No.7071891

>>7071858
That's very true, but you're a person who can think he knows something and really be wrong who's not making any compelling case for what he thinks, and is instead using some bizarre historical/statistical argument to say that my arguments are probably wrong.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:40:04 2015 No.7071892

>>7071874
>How would Jim-bob, Cletus and Mary-lou fare in response vs. John, Michael and Emily?
Those are cartoons and don't actually exist anymore, if they ever did.

It's no mystery, though, that racists all seem to be informed by cartoons and internet memes rather than facts.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:40:16 2015 No.7071893

>>7071862
>Why don't YOU read a book, Stormfaggot, because I'm sitting here reading Samuel George Morton's charts (a leading anthropologist in the mid-19th century) who, arguing that cranial capacity and intelligence is directly coorelated (a common belief in the scientific community of his day), lists Semetic skulls as several cubic inches smaller than white German and English skulls. The same is true of Chinese skulls, albeit more so.
Find me the passage where he claims ashkenazi jews to be of inferior intelligence.

I'll be anxiously waiting.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:40:32 2015 No.7071894 >>7071862 Thank you. I was sitting here thinking of Morton's work when I saw that niggerfaggot denying that Jews and Asians were ever considered intellectually inferior.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:40:46 2015 No.7071896 >>7071874 If there are strong class connotations to racial names, doesn't that prove my fucking point.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:41:33 2015 No.7071899 >>7071888 why isn't it institutional racism you absolute fucking thickheaded mongoloid

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:42:28 2015 No.7071902

>>7071878
>That is blatantly racism
So what? It's not government policy.

>>7071889
>Attacking the source rather than the evidence.
Attacking the source is perfectly valid when the source is a fucking youtube video.

Meanwhile, you'll brush aside peer reviewed statistical research as "biased".

The reason why the police are more wary of a nigger with a gun rather than a white guy with a gun is because the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by niggers.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:42:32 2015 No.7071904 >>7071893 >Can't make a simple logical inference >Believes he is racially superior Checkmate, nigger.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:44:32 2015 No.7071908

>>7071899
Because it's not governmental policy?

Do you know what IS institutional racism?

Affirmative action!

>>7071904
"Semitic skulls" can mean anything from yemenite to persian to morrocan. You didn't prove shit.

I want the quote of him saying that ashkenazi jews are intellectually inferior.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:44:52 2015 No.7071910

>>7071888

I think you misunderstood, in that simply because they resented the groups could be the reason for those quotas. They wouldn't have to perceive of those groups as smart or dumb, just one they didn't want intruding.

>>7071891

Or I'm the kind of person who sees when they're being misrepresented, so I feel no particular urge to make a persuasive case.

It's one thing to be asked to explain your reasoning, it's another to deal with somebody who has chosen their own conception of it.

Maybe I'm smart enough to see the waste of time.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:45:56 2015 No.7071915

>>7071902
Dude, just because it's a youtube video does not mean that what was displayed was not real. Because it fucking happened. You just watched it. Jesus fuck.

Also, even if you somehow think institutional racism only applies to governmental institutions, you keep ignoring redlining WHICH IS DONE BY THE GOVERNMENT.

Like, the whole point here is that blacks face many disadvantages throughout their lives other than poverty- be they done by the government or not- that could easily impact development early on, perhaps explaining the lower IQs

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:46:26 2015 No.7071920 >>7071908 "Institutional" not "governmental." There is a difference between de jure and de facto.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:46:40 2015 No.7071921
File: 23 KB, 500x385, patrick-bateman-new-york.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7071893
>Morton thought that cranial capacity was directly coorelated with intelligence
>he lists the average cranial capacity of English people to be 96
>he lists the average cranial capacity of Semetic people (JEWS, including ASHKENAZI JEWS, in case you don't know a basic vocabulary word) to be 89
>96 is larger than 89
>therefore, Ashkenazi Jews are inferior to English people
I can't believe I had to spell this out, even a black person could understand!

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:46:50 2015 No.7071922 >>7071875 > every cop ever. http://thefreethoughtproject.com/dea-agent-drug-laws-intentionally-rich-communities/ Oops, there's an exception to that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:47:17 2015 No.7071924 >>7071908 you literally do not understand what institution means

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:47:18 2015 No.7071925 >>7071908 Jesus fuck. You're incorrectly defining something, and holding everyone else to your incorrect definition. Institutional racism can refer to any institution, not just the government.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:47:52 2015 No.7071927 >>7071908 >Thinks Iranians and Berbers are Semites.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:48:45 2015 No.7071935

>>7071910
>I think you misunderstood, in that simply because they resented the groups could be the reason for those quotas. They wouldn't have to perceive of those groups as smart or dumb, just one they didn't want intruding.
I know. However what that anon was claiming was that they considered them indeed to be intellectually inferior (which is clearly not the case).

>>7071915
Once again, most cops are killed with blacks with guns. Most white with guns are cop friendly. It's logical for them to have reacted this way.

> you keep ignoring redlining WHICH IS DONE BY THE GOVERNMENT.
sauce?

>Like, the whole point here is that blacks face many disadvantages throughout their lives other than poverty- be they done by the government or not- that could easily impact development early on, perhaps explaining the lower IQs
Environment factors don't affect IQ except for malnutrition, which nobody suffers from in the first world. The biggest disadvantage blacks face is their own lack of intelligence.

>>7071920
Okay, if you say so.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:49:27 2015 No.7071938

>>7071910
>Maybe I'm smart enough to see the waste of time.
Why bother replying at all then? I really am trying to engage this argument in good faith but when, after I present a case based on very recent research, you bring up people who believed something similar to what I believe being wrong with decades-old research I question whether you ever intended to make a case or just came on the internet today to solopsistically insult a racist.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:51:33 2015 No.7071942

>>7071921
>(JEWS, including ASHKENAZI JEWS, in case you don't know a basic vocabulary word)
You're funny.

Does he actually say "ashkenazi jews" is what I'm asking, you drooling retard. Because semitic (and not "semetic", you fucking idiot) is a very broad category, and ashkenazi jews are often lumped in with europeans due to their very obvious european admixture.

So answer my fucking question you nigger shit.

>>7071927
Some of them are. Which is why saying "semite" is absurd, they are such a diverse people.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:51:48 2015 No.7071943 File: 339 KB, 680x680, 1423016391368.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] STORMFAGGOTS GET OUT THIS ISN'T EVEN LITERATURE

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:51:53 2015 No.7071944 Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European, just saying. They are much more a product of culture than of genetics. They are not the same as the Jews of the Middle East. http://www.livescience.com/40247-ashkenazi-jews-have-european-genes.html

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:52:24 2015 No.7071946 >>7071922 You seem to be implying that a substantial percentage of things like pot arrests are made by the feds.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:52:41 2015 No.7071948 >>7071924 I think a university policy of discrimination against whites and asians counts as institutional racism, does it not?

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:54:00 2015 No.7071956

>>7071935
>Once again, most cops are killed with blacks with guns
Untrue, more cops die in routine crashes than by specifically black shooters, now, and for most of history, it was always car crashes.

http://www.nleomf.org/assets/pdfs/reports/Preliminary-2014-Officer-Fatalities-Report.pdf

>What is redlining
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

Jesus fuck, do your own research on basic terms instead of demanding spoonfeeding.

>Environment factors don't affect IQ except for malnutrition
Fucking wrong. Also, we should stop harping on IQs, because the psychological community basically agrees that they are a terrible, meaningless way to measure intelligence. There is, as of now, no generally accepted method of determining intelligence among the psychological community.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:54:03 2015 No.7071957 >>7071944 >They are much more a product of culture than of genetics Then why do Mizrahi jews have an average IQ in the low 90s?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:54:41 2015 No.7071961 >>7071948 not if the university doesn't receive government money, according to you, somehow

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:55:32 2015 No.7071965 >>7071948 You literally just said it only counts if it's the government.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:56:24 2015 No.7071970

I'm a racist (fuck the "racial realist" pussyfooting) but I object to placing too much emphasis on IQ because HBD nerds use it to justify letting Asians into Western countries (probably because most of them have yellow fever like John Derbyshite).

Anyone who has been around chinks long enough knows that they're far from some intellectial master race. They're just good at crunching numbers and rote memorization. They're a hive mind of ant people.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:56:58 2015 No.7071977
File: 191 KB, 477x768, pepenazi.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7071942
If you're expecting me to resurrect him and ask him if he specifically meant Ashkenazi Jews when he wrote that Jews were inferior, then I would suggest that you take your weak semantics and shove in up your urethra.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:57:16 2015 No.7071978

>>7071956
>Untrue, more cops die in routine crashes than by specifically black shooters, now, and for most of history, it was always car crashes.
I meant among cops who die by being shot, obviously.

>>7071956
>What is redlining
I know what redlining is. What I was asking for is proof that it still happens, idiot.

>Fucking wrong.
Read the thread, moron.

>Also, we should stop harping on IQs, because the psychological community basically agrees that they are a terrible, meaningless way to measure intelligence
They believe the exact contrary, in fact. IQ tests are widely accepted in the psychological community as valid indicators of intelligence.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 16:58:39 2015 No.7071985 >>7071961 >>7071965 Touché. >>7071977 >when he wrote that Jews were inferior, Where?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 17:01:06 2015 No.7071997 File: 18 KB, 914x1091, just_bee_yourself.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7071985 In his book.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 17:01:44 2015 No.7072000

>>7071935

Yes, you are making that assertion, however that quota doesn't prove what they thought, other than wanting to exclude a given group.

>>7071938

There's degrees to which I'm willing to bother, it may also be a waste of time to point out the misrepresentation, but the effort is also considerably less.

As for good faith versus bad faith, I've already seen the bad faith, but then, I'd expect it to be futile to discuss in this venue anyway. If you want your effort to go to use, you may want to try other forums.

>>7071946

I'm pointing out that it wouldn't be every cop ever.

That was the assertion. Looks untrue.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 17:01:56 2015 No.7072002 >>7071985 >Thinks this semantic pants-pissing will work. >Thinks that a European writer on the 19th century would write "Semites" and exclude Ashkenazim.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 17:02:38 2015 No.7072003 >>7072000 >Yes, you are making that assertion, No, I'm not! I'm making the contrary assertion. This guy >>7071997 is making that assertion.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 17:03:43 2015 No.7072009 >>7072002 Anyways, what 19th century racialists thought is besides the point. I can't even remember why this entered the conversation.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 17:03:50 2015 No.7072010

>>7071978
> I meant most among cops who die by being shot
Way to change what you fucking said.

>I know what redlining is

No you don't or else you wouldn't even be asking if it still happens.

>Read the thread

And you think a youtube video clearly demonstrating an example of what I was talking about isn't valid, but a fucking 4chan thread with many differing opinions being asserted somehow proves your contention.

> IQ tests are widely accepted in the psychological community as valid indicators of intelligence.

No, no they are not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9755929/IQ-tests-do-not-reflect-intelligence.html

http://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20121218/iq-test-really-measure-intelligence

http://www.medicaldaily.com/iq-test-accurate-way-measure-intelligence-or-are-mental-abilities-something-you-cant-put-297244

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iq-scores-not-accurate-marker-of-intelligence-study-shows/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2250681/IQ-tests-meaningless-simplistic-claim-researchers.html

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/iq_tests_hurt_kids_schools_and_dont_measure_intelligence/

One of the most embarrassing moments of my life was when I went to a faculty presentation on psychology, and asked a question suggesting that it was a valid statistic, and nearly got laughed out of the room by fifteen different people, of of whom had PHds on the subject.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 17:07:01 2015 No.7072023 >>7072003 I believe that I replied to >>7071935 where the poster said said "(which is clearly not the case)." but the existence of a limitation quota does not prove that particular assertion.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 17:07:59 2015 No.7072028

>>7072010
>Way to change what you fucking said.
It was pretty fucking obvious from the context. You know, considering we were talking about guys walking around with guns in the open.

>No you don't or else you wouldn't even be asking if it still happens.
What kind of bullshit answer is that? Sounds to me that you have no proof of it still happening.

>And you think a youtube video clearly demonstrating an example of what I was talking about isn't valid, but a fucking 4chan thread with many differing opinions being asserted somehow proves your contention.
I meant read the thread because of plenty of studies have been posted, dimwit.

>No, no they are not.
>telegraph
>cbsnews
>dailymail
>fucking salon
Is this satire?

>One of the most embarrassing moments of my life was when I went to a faculty presentation on psychology, and asked a question suggesting that it was a valid statistic, and nearly got laughed out of the room by fifteen different people, of of whom had PHds on the subject.
I don't really care for anecdotal evidence.

Now here, this should clear some things up : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 17:09:49 2015 No.7072038
File: 68 KB, 600x600, 1422643429209.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7072000
>I'm pointing out that it wouldn't be every cop ever
Do you have trouble with exaggeration? Did that really sound like a serious assertion, and if it were would it be the crux of the entire rest of that post? Fucking autists, I swear.

>There's degrees to which I'm willing to bother, it may also be a waste of time to point out the misrepresentation, but the effort is also considerably less.
>As for good faith versus bad faith, I've already seen the bad faith, but then, I'd expect it to be futile to discuss in this venue anyway. If you want your effort to go to use, you may want to try other forums.

This is just butthurt whining. Make a case or don't, but telling me that you won't do so while I go on and on with mine is an even bigger waste of time than making your own case. With regards to good faith vs bad faith, you should make a note of my refusal to assume that you simply don't have an argument in the first place. I'd call that the height of good faith since we've gone several posts now without you bringing up anything but references to historical disputes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 17:11:48 2015 No.7072044 >>7071100 It doesn't "wash out" when no diagnosis can be made without triggering half the population.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 17:15:24 2015 No.7072051 >>7071200 >I literally do not understand what auto-didactism or outliers are: the post

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 17:16:03 2015 No.7072054 >>7072051 What do you mean?

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 17:18:48 2015 No.7072062

>>7072038

Yes, I do have a problem with that particular kind of exaggeration, as it means somebody is making their case with bluster and extreme.

I find it offensive. But you don't even want to look at what the officer said anyway, do you?

Is it too hard to face those words? Apparently.

You'd rather stoop to calling upon the even more offensive psychiatric superiority.

But anyway, I don't know what case you've been making as I don't know your posts here (and for that matter, you don't know mine). However, as far as I'm concerned, the good faith towards me was lost with the green text alternations of my own words.

That I found offensive enough to protest, the rest, less incentive to even try.

Much like your conduct in this own post, doesn't inspire me to give you further arguments, instead it convinces me that it would not be worth the bother.

So take your attempt to get the moral high ground elsewhere.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 17:26:08 2015 No.7072086 File: 16 KB, 499x499, 1437171136379.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >black people are poor and prone to crime in the USA, in Latin America, in Europe, in Australia, in Africa, etc. >it's not black people's fault I mean really?

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 17:26:39 2015 No.7072089

>>7072054
Your theory that socieconomic status cannot be related to intelligence because historical individuals had high intelligence is, frankly, stupid.
Not only on the basis that A: individuals are capable of teaching themselves so long as relevant information is available (which is how many did) and B: there will always be outliers, savants and the like, but also because of the complete anachronistic idiocy you're displaying by assuming that historical quality of life was so low that nobody had any advantages in education.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 17:28:03 2015 No.7072097

>>7072062
Maybe one day you'll learn that people disagreeing with your interpretations of things doesn't mean they didn't read the same things. Hopefully you'll also learn that something other than moral superiority and cool points can be gained through argument. If you're going to let the 4chan language keep you from engaging with references to documented phenomena, then why are you even here? Why enter a 4chan thread that's all about a serious topic?

>green text alternations of my own word
Are you actually upset that someone quoted you?

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 17:31:23 2015 No.7072111

>>7072089
>Your theory that socieconomic status cannot be related to intelligence because historical individuals had high intelligence is, frankly, stupid.
Strawman much? That's not my "theory".

All I said is that people weren't "stupid" before mass literacy. They had the same average intelligence.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 17:46:54 2015 No.7072169

>>7072097

Maybe one day you'll learn not to play arm-chair psycho-analyst.

Which will just make it one fewer person doing it, out of untold multitudes, but hey, small victories.

But misquoting? You making excuses for that?

Well, that's another thing that hopefully you'll change about yourself.

It'll be for the better if you do.

But only one small drop in the bucket.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 17:57:38 2015 No.7072207 >>7070939 nah

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 18:02:17 2015 No.7072233
File: 43 KB, 499x382, beavis_I-understand_your_frustration.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7072169
Maybe if you were capable of expressing yourself clearly it wouldn't be so easy to write simple statements that say exactly the same thing as what you wrote but for some reason cause you severe frustration.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 18:12:35 2015 No.7072290 >>7072233 Oh no, it's always easy to misrepresent someone, twisting words is a rather basic practice, all you need is a lack of integrity. And there is no way to prevent it, no matter how honed your erudition.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 18:16:58 2015 No.7072310

>>7072290
>I never bothered to study logic or rhetoric well enough to defend myself against mediocre intellects on the internet
You see, it's not what you meant to say, but it's clearly the truth. If you were better at this stuff you wouldn't have so much trouble putting down evil racists on 4chan.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 18:25:01 2015 No.7072344 >>7072310 Thanks for another demonstration of the practice. Did you find it difficult, or was the lack of integrity sufficient?

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 18:38:49 2015 No.7072404
File: 42 KB, 356x267, 1399518938795.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7072344
>Did you find it difficult, or was the lack of integrity sufficient?

Read that sentence again. This time I quoted you directly, straight copy-paste. Does it express a coherent thought with clarity? I contend that it does not. I'm really doing you a favor. If I had a scanner handy I would diagram that sentence for you so you can see just how hard you flounder when you try to sound smart.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 18:46:50 2015 No.7072441

>>7072404

Yes, that's a direct quote, as opposed to the ones in previous posts which were not.

Quite a difference.

Anyway, I suppose you would have trouble following it if you weren't involved in the flow of the discussion, but that's the thing about conversation, sometimes it can be a bit hard to jump in midstream.

Is this a problem to you, for some reason? Do you need a run-down of the conversation to catch up, or can you follow the posts backwards on your own?

Because if you had a problem understanding it, you could have just asked for clarification. That is not what you have chosen to do, however, now is it?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 18:52:26 2015 No.7072473 What the fuck does any of this have to do with literature?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 18:53:58 2015 No.7072482 >>7072473 Nothing, hopefully it dies soon.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 18:54:47 2015 No.7072487

>>7072010
>posts salon, and british tabloid links
Am I being trolled?
>>7071888
>Not 30 points, 15 points. It's consistent with the observed IQ difference between black americans (85) and black africans (70).
Don't ignore the fact that the difference could also be explained entirely by the fact that black americans are 20% european on average, leading to their increased intelligence compared to their pure nigger brethren in africa.
>>7071750
>So Gould has been trotted around some
Yeah, to be laughed at.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 19:02:00 2015 No.7072522

>>7071921
>Morton thought that cranial capacity was directly coorelated with intelligence
That's a fact, actually.
https://abc102.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/brain-size-and-correlates-with-iq/
>getting Morton's measurements wrong and being a fucking retard at interpreting data
His semitic skulls were from egypt and greece, you stupid nigger, not european jews.

Holy shit I don't know anything about Morton and it took me 5 minutes on google to find all this out. This is why I don't argue with racial egalitarians. You're a bunch of self deluded lying cunts.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 19:04:26 2015 No.7072528 >>7072522 >Thinks Greeks are Semites.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 19:07:33 2015 No.7072547 File: 95 KB, 439x531, Morton-CA-Table1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7072528

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 19:09:50 2015 No.7072553 >>7072547 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thebes,_Egypt

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 19:11:02 2015 No.7072556 >>7072553 Lel, I was thinking of Thebes greece. Either way, my point stands that he wasn't looking at actual ashkenazi jew skulls.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 19:11:11 2015 No.7072557 Are we sure those skulls didn't come from Tennessee?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 19:11:39 2015 No.7072558 Fuck sake. This is /lit/ not /pol/ meets shitty /sci/.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 19:13:23 2015 No.7072565 I'm surprised no one called the guy out on his ludicrous fairytale explanation of how Askhenazim got smarter on average than their Mizrahi and Sephardic brethren. >"All the dumb Ashkenazim starved to death!"

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 19:14:44 2015 No.7072572 >>7072482 >m-maybe the bad racists will go away if I just close my eyes

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 19:15:12 2015 No.7072576 >>7072565 He didn't even know there was a difference between the three until someone called him out on it. Why would anyone bother replying to him? Anti-racists are dumb as fuck.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 19:15:53 2015 No.7072578 >>7072572 Nothing said in this thread will do anything about it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 19:16:28 2015 No.7072583 >>7072572 THIS IS A LIT FORUM, DIPSHIT!

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 19:18:02 2015 No.7072587 >>7072565 But that's the truth. Read the book "the 10000 year explosion".

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 19:19:46 2015 No.7072599 >>7072578 >implying the devastating back and forth arguments and crushing verbal wit shown in this thread alone haven't converted several /lit/ dwellers to nazism on the spot

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 19:23:55 2015 No.7072629 >>7072587 >I base my beliefs on prolefeed popsci books! I argue based on their authority! Listen to me! >Not understanding that anthropology is a highly contentious and speculative field and citing one theory means jack shit.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 19:26:05 2015 No.7072637

>>7072629
It's better than chalking off everything in this world to "cultural factors".

Why are australian aboriginals retards? "Cultural factors".

Why do niggers commit so much crime? "Cultural factors".

Do you at least acknowledge that ashkenazi jews have a higher average intelligence than any other ethnic group in the world?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 19:28:53 2015 No.7072646 >>7072599 But then we'd only read approved literature.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 19:29:40 2015 No.7072649 >>7072637 I acknowledge that they're crafty, clever, sneaky bastards who can think up a million ways to stab you in the back or take your money, but I don't know if that constitutes "intelligence."

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 19:30:43 2015 No.7072653 I used to know a woman who was very into the the bell curve while being an anti-racist Marxist I kind of get it but not really

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 19:32:11 2015 No.7072660

>>7072637
Yeah I mean even the most liberal Ashkenazim believe they've got an inherited edge because it's devastatingly obvious that they outclass as a group most of their peers at academic pursuits. I don't even begrudge them being smarter than me, but insisting that Abos and Pygmies are exactly the same as Germans and Koreans is just insulting.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 19:34:44 2015 No.7072669 >>7072578 >implying lit never deals with race relations It's valid to discuss video games when they relate to a widely read and influential book, and it's valid to discuss race when Mockingbird 2: Grand Wizard Atticus is on the bestseller list.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 19:36:45 2015 No.7072677 >>7072669 Nope, implying nothing in this thread will have any great impact on anybody's actual positions. And >>7072482 Is about the thread's contents, not about anything else.

Anonymous Fri Sep 4 20:15:33 2015 No.7072826

>>7072677
>no one here will change their opinions even if they get out argued and presented with contradicting facts and information
Then why are we even on this board?

To shitpost about books of course, which is exactly what's happening in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 20:29:51 2015 No.7072888 >>7072826 I wish, then we'd have posts about Tolkien, Eddings, Ellison, even Swift.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 4 20:43:39 2015 No.7072924 >>7072111 I'd like to see how you'd ever go about proving that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 5 01:34:53 2015 No.7073768 >>7072924 Define not stupid. If you take it to mean well-read, then sure they were stupid. I take it to mean innate intelligence. They weren't stupid

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 5 09:55:20 2015 No.7074663 Black man here. Blacks are dumber than whites, naturally.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 5 10:00:03 2015 No.7074672 >>7074663 pics or it didnt happen

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 5 10:03:56 2015 No.7074682 >>7074672 I'd rather not, believe whatever you want.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 5 10:23:10 2015 No.7074728 >>7072653 I reluctantly believe in racial intelligence differences due to the overwhelming evidence and I'm a Marxist and anti-racist. Reality doesn't bend to your ideological preferences.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 5 10:26:13 2015 No.7074736 >>7071532 >>7071532 >hide from the truth! never acknowledge it! the truth might be scary if somebody misuses it! Progressive ideology in its rawest form

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 5 10:27:58 2015 No.7074738 File: 389 KB, 797x838, 1396527948004.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Oy vey! Get out of here with your racist "science', you're all Nazis!

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 5 10:29:16 2015 No.7074745 It also doesn't help that the book was financed by far right organizations.

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