/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.8582039]

Post the book that fundamentally changed the way you view the world

[Anonymous No.8582051]

[Anonymous No.8582055]

Flatland: a romance of many dimensions

[Anonymous No.8582088]

[Anonymous No.8582089]

>>8582088
It honed my paranoia to my advantage.

[Anonymous No.8582104]

[Anonymous No.8582108]

>>8582088
>Condensed book of Dianetics

Go away L. Ron, you'll lure no-one into your spooky dirt collecting idiot cult today.

[Anonymous No.8582113]

I had a lot of misconceptions about Christianity and this was a big part of my becoming one. It explains a lot of the what we believe and why.

[Anonymous No.8582120]

>>8582113
>this was a big part of my becoming one
You became a misconception about Christianity?

[Anonymous No.8582122]

>>8582113

>this was a big part of my becoming one

So you were stupid all along...

[Anonymous No.8582123]

>>8582039
What a horrible way to start a thread like this.

[Anonymous No.8582124]

>>8582120

Don't be autistic

[Anonymous No.8582127]

>>8582113
>we believe

Is the stupidest and most offensive part of your post. Incredibly presumptuous, too.

[Anonymous No.8582129]

>>8582123

How so? The Bell Curve was a book with huge impact and despite all the hysteria and whining was based on sound science.

[Anonymous No.8582134]

>>8582127

That offended you?

[Anonymous No.8582140]

>>8582127

How is that in any way presumptuous?

[Anonymous No.8582144]

[Anonymous No.8582152]

>>8582129
>sound science

Eh, no, many parts of it was a horribly disingenuous and racist presentation of scientific findings. Its main points are completely bunk, as evidenced by the following APA task force review, whose more modest conclusions are still valid today, almost 20 years later.

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-67-2-130.pdf

[Anonymous No.8582162]

>>8582127
He said "we" as in Christians, not /lit/ in general.

[Anonymous No.8582164]

>>8582162
This is the most needless clarification I've ever encountered.

[Anonymous No.8582166]

>>8582152
>"racist"

opinion discarded

>APA task force review

Just took a glance over that report. It is the typical anti science egalitarian crap using sources from the 70s. I don't care about social "scientists" and their agenda.

[Anonymous No.8582169]

Deletion can't come soon enough.

[Anonymous No.8582173]

>>8582039
A deep and profund choice. It really has immense explanatory power.

[Anonymous No.8582176]

>>8582166
Wow. GLHF. The actual study that i cited is very well founded and reflects the up-to-date (2012) scientific knowledge on the subject. You clearly wish the world was a certain way, and so you discard evidence that goes contrary to this, which is fine, but at least you have a good resource now.

Also, Herrnstein and Murray are social scientists too. So it's not true that you don't care about social scientists because you care about them. It's more correct to say that you only care about particular social scientists who share your opinion.

[Anonymous No.8582183]

>>8582176

The point is you can cherry pick studies to fit your agenda and reach your desired conclusion. There are twin studies that contradict each other pick whatever you like. I care about the science and the raw data not the dubious interpretration of social scientists with agendas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

[Anonymous No.8582196]

>>8582183
I guess you've figured out how the universe doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.8582199]

>>8582183
>come down my rabbit hole, I can lead out out of the matrix of social conditioning

[Anonymous No.8582201]

>>8582152
http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf

[Anonymous No.8582203]

>>8582183
>I don't care about the interpretation of social scientists.
>Here's some other social scientists interpretetations.

lol

[Anonymous No.8582207]

Tractatus logico-philosophicus and Ulysses, probably

[Anonymous No.8582220]

>>8582201
You're clinging to straws. This "statement" really doesn't conclude on the genetic foundation of the race gap in IQ. It says there is little knowledge on whether it's genetic or environmental. It also acknowledge that environmental effects exists. In fact, the whole IQ gap can possibly be explained by differences in environmental conditions so concluding that the race gap is genetically conditioned is conjecture and highly disingenuous.

[Anonymous No.8582237]

>>8582220
I'm not the person you've been arguing with (that was my first post in this thread), and I haven't read The Bell Curve itself but have read related work.

Wikipedia says [1] that Hernstein and Murray argue:

>One part of the controversy concerned the parts of the book which dealt with racial group differences on IQ and the consequences of this. The authors were reported throughout the popular press as arguing that these IQ differences are genetic, and they did indeed write in chapter 13: "It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences." The introduction to the chapter more cautiously states, "The debate about whether and how much genes and environment have to do with ethnic differences remains unresolved."

So I didn't disagree with you to begin with.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Race_and_intelligence

[Anonymous No.8582241]

>>8582220
>>8582237
(as far as your quoted post's objective content is concerned, although you might be misunderstanding what argument The Bell Curve is making or reading misrepresentations of its arguments)

[Anonymous No.8582253]

everyone knows the Bell Curve is right lol
no one wants to admit it but we all tacitly agree

[Anonymous No.8582257]

I knew nothing of the world before I read this.

[Anonymous No.8582267]

>>8582253

No, we have massive populations that were apart long enough to developed distinct physical characteristics but surely we would never develop differently mentally, can't possibly happen :^)
I knew a smart black guy so there for something something all statistical evidence that corresponds to these groups even after factors like family life education and wealth are controlled for are totally irrelevant.

If you don't agree it's creepy and gross!

[Anonymous No.8582289]

I doubt that book changed your worldview. At best, it reinforced whatever ebin beliefs you had before.

[Anonymous No.8582301]

>>8582257

Why? Spot is clearly on the cover, dude

[Anonymous No.8582338]

[Anonymous No.8582377]

Nice way to start the thread OP. Don't listen to these egalitarian-multiculturalist retards.

[Anonymous No.8582384]

>>8582267
>long enough to developed distinct physical characteristics
those are called "highly heritable traits", some traits aren't highly heritable and they are not different between ethnicities
intelligence isn't very well understood, but evidence seems to suggest that it is not highly heritable

why would you assume the opposite without knowing what you're talking about

couldn't be living in a society that was explicitly racist for centuries, nope

[Anonymous No.8582389]

>>8582253
>>8582267
"non"-racists clearly agree with the... I'll say, empirical, practical, phenotypical inferiority of certain races- if they were not inferior then plainly they would be as well off as their white peers.
The disagreement is simply over the cause of this inferiority- whether it is internal, from the coloreds' genes, or external, from the environment.
Obviously it easily be a mix of both. But there is no reason to à priori deny that genotypical inferiority could be a cause of phenotypical inferiority, as non-racists do.
I don't say that the genetic inferiority of blacks and other such races is proven. But it is clearly a strong possibility.

[Anonymous No.8582391]

Not even trolling, I read it before I went full patrician because of bioshock. I didn't really accept the 'I got mine, fuck you' attitude but it got me out of a shitty victim complex I had when I was younger

[Anonymous No.8582398]

>>8582124
That was actually very funny in many ways.

[Anonymous No.8582463]

>>8582384
>but evidence seems to suggest that it is not highly heritable
uhh

[Anonymous No.8582470]

>>8582124
Come on that was funny. You're the autistic one

[Anonymous No.8582475]

>>8582384
>couldn't be living in a society that was explicitly racist for centuries, nope

woah like every civilization in history

made me think

[Anonymous No.8582507]

>>8582039


I have been reading a lot, and my poetry and drama, evolving very slowly for something like 6-7 years. But when I discovered pic related (and in a great Portuguese translation) all the many small cobwebs of connections (rhyme, metaphors, similes, diction) in my brain finally united into a larger new knitting, and I suddenly learned to write in a completely different way, much more exuberant, bold, inventive and beautiful.

[Anonymous No.8582512]

>>8582389
Phenotypical inferiority is due to the evil whites holding everyone else down. Haven't you consulted your local narrative authority?

[Anonymous No.8582523]

>>8582512
I know (You) think that's witty but it's not.

[Anonymous No.8582662]

>>8582039
So is this book legit or just RACIST

[Anonymous No.8582694]

>>8582267
If this is so, then the amount of european ancestry in the genes of african americans would determine their average IQ right? It's just that, no matter if 30% of your ancestry or 70% is african, probability of IQ will be unchanged.

[Anonymous No.8582701]

>>8582377
Yep, plug your ears and ride on.

[Anonymous No.8582705]

>>8582463
.4 - .8 heritibility quotient suggests it's not highly heritable.

[Anonymous No.8582717]

>>8582694
You are just pulling things out of your ass because we don't have good mulatto statistics.

[Anonymous No.8582723]

>>8582051
this and the unbearable lightness of being. plebcore, I know, but there's a reason they're so well known

[Anonymous No.8582733]

>>8582717
Look what I found in my ass:

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1986-24139-001

[Anonymous No.8582739]

>>8582039
Was this the book that said poor people are stupid or black people are stupid

[Anonymous No.8582742]

>>8582124
>posts about not only being a christian, but CONVERTING to one per his own volition
>called stupid twice
>calls autistic on a reply that's actually funny/clever

classic christians

[Anonymous No.8582751]

>>8582742
yeh, because all those non christians on this board /never/ call anyone autistic. a uniquely christian phenomenon

[Anonymous No.8582755]

>>8582733
>46 kids total in the study
>No mulatto kids
>White mom's superior parenting have black kids 1 extra iq

I can't begine to fathom how you considered this supported your point

[Anonymous No.8582757]

>>8582751

Did his post really go over your head?

[Anonymous No.8582758]

>>8582751
if you think my problem was the use of the word 'autistic' you should read my post again.

[Anonymous No.8582765]

>>8582757
yeh apparently. could you explain what I missed?

[Anonymous No.8582766]

>>8582162
Not all Christians believe the same thing, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.8582800]

>>8582755
>Don't know what 1SD means

Really, why do you even try to read this shit. 1SD is 15 IQ points, which is approximately the size of the racial IQ gap.

[Anonymous No.8582812]

Europeans traded muskets with Africa for hundreds of years; goes without saying, but the place was obviously a shithole. The Africans use the muskets to kill each other, never reverse engineer them, literally just use them to catch more slaves to buy more guns.

America goes over to Japan with a steam boat in 1854. They're chilling like its 1000AD, no technology, Samurai bureaucracy. In 50 years they're a major player on the world stage. In 100, they're a massive superpower hell bent on expansion and empire.

Japan literally did in 50 years something Africa hasn't accomplished in 400. Probably because Asians weren't kept down by the white man, imho

In conclusion: Niggers took the wrong evolutionary path.

[Anonymous No.8582814]

>>8582705
In the social sciences, a heritability of .4 is considered very significant, and a heritability of .8 is considered huge.

>>8582152
How the hell do you present in a "racist" fashion statistical data? I guess when you don't come up with shitty excuses like the APA did (uh it's because of different expectations!)

[Anonymous No.8582816]

I really disliked reading. I started by reading some of the classics at school (Farewell to Arms, the great Gatsby). But this book right here just send me to overdrive mode.

[Anonymous No.8582817]

>>8582812
Nice speculation bro.

[Anonymous No.8582820]

>>8582817
>he states historical facts
>speculation

Whereas I'm sure you believe that the racist hidden power structures are real, right?

[Anonymous No.8582822]

>>8582817
His analysis is crude and certainly far from all encompassing, but also not untrue.

[Anonymous No.8582826]

>>8582814
Eye colour is a highly heritable trait, .4 - .8 heritability is similar to most psychological traits and are susceptible to gene-environment interaction.

[Anonymous No.8582833]

>>8582814
>How the hell do you present in a "racist" fashion statistical data?

You present it disingenuously to paint a picture which the overall data doesn't support.

[Anonymous No.8582836]

>>8582822
>>8582820
>>8582812
Wait a minute, do we have a book on a topic like this?

[Anonymous No.8582837]

>>8582826
>Eye colour is a highly heritable trait,
Well sure, it has a heritability of 1!

>4 - .8 heritability is similar to most psychological traits and are susceptible to gene-environment interaction.
Nobody claims that intelligence is purely determined by genes, otherwise identical twins should have absolutely equal IQs which is not the case.

However, a .8 heritability is still huge, and means that identical twins have very similar IQs.

Also, please expound on those "gene-environment" interactions. It's funny but not a single shared environmental effect has been proven to affect IQ.

[Anonymous No.8582839]

>>8582475
no, racism is a modern western concept
in-group out-group thinking is not racism as such

[Anonymous No.8582840]

>>8582820
>doesn't know difference between observation and explanation

it will get better after high school, friend.

[Anonymous No.8582843]

>>8582833
But the data shows a black white IQ gap.

[Anonymous No.8582844]

>>8582816
>Sophie's World
We were reading that book in my "Theory of Knowledge" class back in highschool, but everybody hated it so much, including the teacher, that we canceled the reading and all projects associated with it. We read some Phillip K Dick instead.

[Anonymous No.8582850]

>>8582836
There are a fair amount of books on racial IQ differences but none that does a historical analysis in defense of the data. That I know of, at least

[Anonymous No.8582859]

>>8582843
Yeah, but that's not the question. The question is whether it is due to actual genetic differences. It's a leap from acknowledging the IQ-gap to thinking they are inherent in races.

[Anonymous No.8582862]

>>8582844
Since childhood I was a kid that used to question things that other took for granted or dismissed as unimportant so I was positively surprised to find out that this sort of thinking can be a sap of philosophy.
I can imagine that most people dislike this book. And that's ok

[Anonymous No.8582898]

>>8582837
>Also, please expound on those "gene-environment" interactions. It's funny but not a single shared environmental effect has been proven to affect IQ.

Ok, so you're interested in shared environment? These seem to explain variance in IQ in low SES, but not high SES families:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0030320

This extends to the level of the cortex:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3197836/

[Anonymous No.8583304]

>>8582859
If it's not due to genetic differences how do you explain twin studies?

>>8582898
>Ok, so you're interested in shared environment? These seem to explain variance in IQ in low SES, but not high SES families:
Well that's to be expected. Low SES families tend to be pretty shitty, and of course IQ can be depressed by shitty violent parents who abuse their children.

The fact that the shared environment doesn't have much effect on IQ in high income families shows that IQ is mostly genetic.

[Anonymous No.8583325]

>>8582384
>evidence seems to suggest that it is not highly heritable

this is not the case

[Anonymous No.8583353]

Pic related stopped me from jumping in front of a train.

>inb4 you should have done it anyway.

[Anonymous No.8583377]

>>8582162
>>8582120
>>8582751
This board man, I tell you.

[Anonymous No.8583389]

>>8582039
Hahaha, the book whose point is that Africans are inferior human beings because of low IQ as well as anyone else with low IQ. Am I right?

[Anonymous No.8583408]

>>8582104
anyone who's read this book knows that it's utter garbage

[Anonymous No.8583412]

>>8583408
Anyone who's read this post knows you're an utter cuck

[Anonymous No.8583415]

>>8583389
No, the book is about the social stratification of american society into IQ-based social classes.

You'd know that if you had even bothered reading the summary of the book, but I guess it's easier to get your opinions from reddit.

[Anonymous No.8583429]

>>8583415
No, I read the book. Pretty much it associated IQ very well with things like poverty and crime. And race. Basically painting the picture that people with lower IQs are worse human beings. That's the message I got. No wonder it pisses people off, like you.

[Anonymous No.8583436]

>>8583429
>Basically painting the picture that people with lower IQs are worse human beings.
No, but people with lower IQs are on average more likely to engage in anti-social behavior. Herrnstein and Murray are very careful not to make moral judgements.

>That's the message I got.
Then I guess you're not a very good reader.

[Anonymous No.8583608]

[Anonymous No.8583638]

>>8582389
The concentration of literacy among white people used the be far more unbalanced than it is. The reduction in these differences was a result of the capital destroying nature of the two world wars. History clearly plays a major role in phenotypic fitness of people.

[Anonymous No.8583649]

>>8583353
Why did it make your life feel worth living? (serious question)

[Anonymous No.8583654]

[Anonymous No.8583704]

Everybody Poops

Really let me know I wasn't the only one and blew my mind

[Anonymous No.8583718]

>>8582523
Then (You) should get a sense of humor, buddy boy.

[Anonymous No.8583724]

[Anonymous No.8583743]

>>8583724
that's a board game though

[Anonymous No.8583755]

its like angels singing in my brain

[Anonymous No.8583779]

>>8582129
that book got pretty thoroughly btfo'd.
The Mismeasure of Man is the only thing that immediately comes to mind, though

[Anonymous No.8583818]

[Anonymous No.8583883]

the art of the deal

[Anonymous No.8583936]

>>8582389

>Africa

What went wrong? They had resources. They had domestic animals. They had contact with advanced civilizations in Egypt and Mesopotamia. They had a few kangz briefly. Yet they're still living in huts made out of reeds and poop in 2016.

People tell me "oh you can't ride a zebra." But it's not like Europe was teeming with good cavalry mounts either. We imported horses from the steppe nomads and then later the Arabs. The jigaboos should have asked their local Arab slave trader for a hookup. It's really hard not to be racist sometimes when certain ethnic groups have trouble with basic stuff that my ancestors figured out centuries ago.

[Anonymous No.8584267]

>>8582377

I was going to post this.

[Anonymous No.8584310]

For those arguing race: denying group differences between humans amounts to an implicit denial of evolutionary theory. Natural selection never stops occurring, and as much as human groups have been reproductively separated from each other and subject to different selection pressures, they have diverged genetically.

This is biology 101. Not politics, not ideology, just pure physical sciences.

The complete failure of Westerners to incorporate evolutionary theory into their understanding of society is like the Church denying heliocentrism in the 16th century. Dysgenics is a slow motion tragedy being imposed on Western groups (majorities and minorities alike) as a result of the ideological denial that nature does not operate for the benefit of human desires and preferences.

[Anonymous No.8584367]

>>8583936
>The problem is you're treating a continent like it's a country.
There are mudhuts literally between the (formerly) most prosperous and prevalent ancient empires(Egypt, Nubia, Mesopotamia); both the mudhuts and kingdoms populated by the same peoples. Africa's a big fuckin place, that's like pointing at the Philippines and telling Asia to get their shit together.

[Anonymous No.8584372]

>>8584367
Meant to greentext
>Africa
Then say the problem is etc.
my bad.
i'm sick as fuck.

[Anonymous No.8584684]

(((>>8582152)))
oy vee

[Anonymous No.8584691]

>>8584367
Well seeing how 50% of africa is completely uninhabitable hell hole lands, and the other half is habitable hell hole lands, who cares what size it is?

[Anonymous No.8584700]

>>8582039

Your brain will never be the same.

[Anonymous No.8584840]

>>8584684
Look again at the name of the author of The Bell Curve.

[Anonymous No.8584875]

>>8584367
To call Nubia an empire is a real stretch. People in Nubia lived in mud huts, and they still do. Obviously the people in sub Saharan Africa are very different from the people in north Africa and Mesopotamia, who are Caucasian. Egypt and Mesopotamia were doing fine until Muslims changed their view on math and science and starting believing it was the work of the devil. Their advancement pretty much stopped there. Yeah they have some soviet made weapons floating around, and some parts are slowly starting to join the rest of the world in the 21st century, we'll see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZCuF733p88

[Anonymous No.8584914]

>>8584367

That doesn't really answer my question. All the great African states vanished centuries ago, while Europe soldiered on. If Africa is so huge and diverse, why is it so devoid of native civilization?

My personal hunch is that culture can actually impair intelligence, not the other way around. Well maybe it's more like a hope.

>>8584310

We'll never get unequivocal proof until more research is done, and our supposedly objective, rational scientists are too afraid that the results of the experiment will come out "wrong." I honestly think it could go either way and I'd like to know the truth, but I doubt it will happen any time soon. Apparently there was a movement to ban twin studies a few years ago, infuriating desu.

[Anonymous No.8584928]

>>8582144

Based

[Anonymous No.8584947]

Daily reminder if you use "environment" as an argument against heritability of IQ you are most certainly an idiot who doesn't understand simple population genetics (something every agricultural scientist knows), and if you cite Gould's Mismeasure of Man you're most certainly an innumerate turbo idiot who isn't smart enough to understand the maths behind twin studies, much like Gould.

There is a small group on this board who, if you let them yap enough about things they don't understand, are probably dumb enough to argue that "The Environment(TM)" is why Chihuahuas are shorter than Great Danes, or that it was "Oppression(TM)" that causes the typical Border collie to learn a new command after 5 repetitions and respond correctly 95 percent of the time, whereas a basset hound takes 80 to 100 repetitions to achieve a 25 percent accuracy rate.

[Anonymous No.8584951]

>>8584875
>To call Nubia an empire is a real stretch. People in Nubia lived in mud huts, and they still do
Nubia conquered Egypt and ruled it for like a century. Take everything you know of Egypt- that nation was taken over by Nubia, who were then taken back again by Egypt and the two kingdoms assimilated together to form the largest iteration of the Egyptian civilization; the same Egyptian dynasty that influenced Greece (25th?)
the idea that "mudhuts" took down Egypt is a joke.

>>8584914
Yeah, I'm currently seeking some good world history books that don't lean one way or another. I do know that ancient Africa was the epicenter of arts and advancement for a while. By "ancient" I mean ancient as fuck. Like the distance between us and Jesus is the distance between Jesus and those nations.

[Anonymous No.8584957]

>>8582391
I'm really curious as to how Bioshock got you out of Atlas Shrugged when the game is a horrible criticism of the philosophy. In some parts, it's almost completely endorsing the philosophy while neglecting some obvious facts that Ayn Rand warned about
>having an isolated city
>the police is a private militia
>there are no government or regulations even though Ayn Rand clearly stated that even the best liberal societies would end in anarchy and a state of nature without a government
>Andrew Ryan randomly decides to ban religious books for no reason
>actually murdering someone
The only thing Bioshock says is ''what if these archetype idealized characters were not perfect?'' and has nothing to comment on Objectivism itself.

For example, the doctor is a clear dichotomy between artistic integrity and meeting the demands of your clients. A mix between Howard Roark and that other slapping guy in Atlas Shrugged. Do you not listen to your clients even though you are providing a service or do you do the bare minimum they ask? Bioshock just goes ''well I'll do whatever and go insane MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA''.

Or Tenenbaum who decides to help children because of her biological clock instead of monetary gain because FUCK LOGIC, ignoring that according to Ayn Rand, the ultimate goal of life is to be happy, so deciding to be altruistic is fine so long as it gives you happiness. She was just against sacrificing your life for nothing.

There's so much wrong with Bioshock it's insane people think it has anything to say on Ayn Rand.

[Anonymous No.8584968]

Most important book of the 21st century

[Anonymous No.8584982]

>>8582839
this is ridiculous

[Anonymous No.8584996]

[Anonymous No.8584998]

>>8584957
>as to how Bioshock got you out of Atlas Shrugged

what?

[Anonymous No.8585003]

Honestly, I've never read this book, but before it was released, I was blue pilled as fuck. The hype for it is what made me start despising society. From there, teenage anger towards a fad led me to delve deeper into (((their))) actions and the societal effects.

[Anonymous No.8585010]

>>8584998
I might have read that wrong.
Did you play Bioshock before or after reading Atlas Shrugged?
I've read too many of those ''I was totally into Atlas Shrugged but then Bioshock showed me how shit it is because smart people will always kill each other lololololol, Ayn Rand was wrooong''.

[Anonymous No.8585017]

>>8582055
My nigga

[Anonymous No.8585036]

>>8582113
what do you mean we paleface

[Anonymous No.8585064]

>>8585010

I'm not OP, however, I don't think him stating that bioshock uplifting him to patrician status was meant to imply that he now holds disdain for atlas shrugged. I'm pretty sure he just saw similar themes and that reinforced the appeal the book held for him. Maybe he was ironically posting atlas shrugged as a work that changed the way he views the world while simultaneously considering himself a patrician. Most likely he's just a simple /pol/fag.

[Anonymous No.8585108]

Pic related taught me that life experience isn't as important as people make it out to be and that it's pointless to try and live life to its fullest. A simple life is the best one to have.

>>8582113
This book convinced me that Christianity was bologna. I was seriously interested in Christianity for a while until I read this.

[Anonymous No.8585135]

>>8584996
How, may I ask?

[Anonymous No.8585166]

>>8582113
I was a Christian and very comfortable with my faith. I read Mere Christianity and realized I believe Lewis's take on morality more than the Bible's.

There is no unified Christianity. Once I left the comfort of my home church I realized this, my faith in god shattered and this stupid book was all that was left. You're are in error to use the phrase "what we believe," it is what you and the group of christians you identify with believe.

[Anonymous No.8585170]

>>8582162
This board is retarded man, I can't believe how many dipshits could make such a basic comprehension mistake on a fucking literature board.

[Anonymous No.8585197]

>>8582816
>Farewell to Arms, the great Gatsby
Those aren't "the classics"

[Anonymous No.8585212]

>>8584875
The grassland kingdoms were made of mud huts, but Mansa Musa was still the wealthiest person alive.

[Anonymous No.8585232]

This was the first work I read in college to fundamentally transform me. Even after all these years, and reading so many other philosophers, I still identify with The Republic on an emotional level. I believe extremely strongly in the quest for justice and the aristocratic soul. I can't avoid thinking about the Theory of the Forms, either. I think I'm just an instinctive Platonist, and the Republic made me realize it.

[Anonymous No.8585249]

Flowers for Algernon changed the way I view retards. Does that count?

[Anonymous No.8585273]

>>8584914
I think you might be right about culture impacting intelligence. Case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLOvdgXSy_Q

[Anonymous No.8585292]

>>8582039
Kek, my professor was shitting all over that book today.

[Anonymous No.8585295]

is this literally 850 pages of trying to correlate everything in the universe to iq tests?

[Anonymous No.8585304]

>>8585295
IQ is heavily correlated with life outcomes.

[Anonymous No.8585307]

you're all losers

[Anonymous No.8585309]

>>8585304
...and correlation is near worthless.

[Anonymous No.8585313]

>but but...muh equality, were all equal, race doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.8585316]

>>8585292
out of curiosity, what field is your professor?

[Anonymous No.8585323]

>>8585316
Social psychology

[Anonymous No.8585333]

>>8585309
You're an idiot. Stick to talking about things you're qualified to talk about, which seems to be very little.

[Anonymous No.8585345]

>>8585323
Thought so. It's funny that if you append many words with "social" they become the exact opposite. For example, "social science".

[Anonymous No.8585375]

>>8585313
>Cherrypicked.jpg
really makes u think

[Anonymous No.8585377]

>>8585345
Science is a method for observing phenomena.
Society isn't some random thing, it has observable patterns and so the scientific method can be used to make observations about society. Although when you get to explaining why those patterns exist is where the water gets muddy but up until that point, it's just as valid as any other knowledge empirically gained.

[Anonymous No.8585384]

>>8585292
What were his arguments against it? Also out of curiosity, is he jewish?

[Anonymous No.8585385]

>>8585375

Just look at modern science post Gallileo

literally all the most important modern developments were done by White men

why blacks were eating bugs and getting chased by lions in shit in africa

[Anonymous No.8585388]

>>8585313
Race exists, it just doesn't matter when you treat people as individuals.
The issue is that whenever people say that race doesn't exist, they mean to say that they don't treat people as different races or as an other from a collectivist perspective.

[Anonymous No.8585393]

>>8585388
>it just doesn't matter when you treat people as individuals.
It still matters in some aspects by virtue of the law of large numbers.

For example, it makes sense restricting immigration from Africa since the average IQ of africans is low, although this would also affect high IQ africans.

[Anonymous No.8585421]

>>8582301
That's not spot

[Anonymous No.8585449]

>>8582104
aside from racism this book is quite interesting.

[Anonymous No.8585455]

>>8583325
Nuh uhhh!

[Anonymous No.8585459]

>>8585384
To give some context, at that part of the lecture he'd been giving a social history of race and ethnicity. He also attacked mainstream anthropology and psychology on the basis that they both assume biological determinism in human behaviour as well as race. Also that those fields at times have been used to justify racist oppression and inequality.
His criticism is that IQ itself is flawed as a measurement and that it has been constructed as a way of stratifying people. 'IQ owes its existence to a political and social context of inequality, hierarchy and oppression, and it still functions like that.' Also that they're designed to favour white middle class people and that our being better at them is as a result of our socialisation. He's also critical of then applying it to race since race itself is something socially defined. The biggest problem he has with studies like these is that they basically say 'Some groups naturally have lower IQ, race is fixed and therefore we should do nothing about improving the social position and living conditions of our fellow Men because it would be in vain'.

He's not Jewish, he has an Irish Catholic background, though he did namedrop some Frankfurt schoolers in the lecture.

[Anonymous No.8585468]

>>8585385
>Just look at modern science post Gallileo
>literally all the most important modern developments were done by White men
>why blacks were eating bugs and getting chased by lions in shit in africa
Are those things really the result of intelligence?

[Anonymous No.8585485]

>>8585003

>((their))

You mean day-walkers?

[Anonymous No.8585544]

>>8585468
They're the result of plague and temperate farming practice. Europeans were fucking stupid and dirty, then an illness that didn't really affect places where people washed themselves killed off the stupidest and dirtiest. Then that brought them about up to par, except Europe is actually pretty good for natural resources and farmland.

[Anonymous No.8585562]

>>8584947
>and if you cite Gould's Mismeasure of Man you're most certainly an innumerate turbo idiot who isn't smart enough to understand the maths behind twin studies, much like Gould
I think read Gould. Most criticisms are from people who either didn't read the book or doing something enrelated. Like those idiots who remeasured Morton's skulls for some reason.

[Anonymous No.8585565]

>>8585309

if by correlation you mean your opinion yes.

[Anonymous No.8585591]

>>8585459

sounds like an unbearably pious political activist who would be better employed serving messes to african orphans

[Anonymous No.8585595]

>>8584982
Not an argument.
The concept of race didn't exist outside of recent Western society

[Anonymous No.8585597]

>>8585591
He tries to be edgy sometimes but I think when dealing with issues like these you've got to have a hardline stance to get the point across. Not by any means impartial but at least there is explanation.

[Anonymous No.8585604]

>>8585595
You're an idiot. You know nothing about genetics, except for a few things that aren’t so. Therefore, when you opine on it, you are reliably wrong. If your uninformed notions were true, natural selection would be impossible, and neither Guernsey cows nor Chihuahuas could exist.

Many people, often in the liberal arts or the social "sciences", feel that they are entitled to have opinions – ones that should be taken seriously – on subjects of which they know nothing. Oddly, they keep picking the same subjects, like genetics – hardly ever electrical engineering or number theory. Do you have opinions about the ABC conjecture, or on twin primes? I don’t think so. Just as well.

[Anonymous No.8585607]

dubs and this is truth. trips and i kill myself.

[Anonymous No.8585612]

>>8585604
>genetics
Irrelevant
>>8585604
>Many people, often in the liberal arts or the social "sciences",
I'm a physicist, get fucked engi-aspie.

[Anonymous No.8585616]

>>8585612
>[genetics are] irrelevant

No, they're not.

>I'm a physicist

No, you're not.

[Anonymous No.8585618]

>>8585616
>no proof
I won, and any further replies cement that.
Good night

[Anonymous No.8585623]

[Anonymous No.8585681]

>>8584951
>>8585273

Some of them are obviously very bright. Pic related this fellow made his own battery out of scrap, really ingenious. I guess we all know what average is, but still, I'm holding out hope.

>>8585212

>but Mansa Musa was still the wealthiest person alive

Debatable desu. People said that about Crassus as well. We can't exactly go back and audit them. And as for the mosque, it's nothing compared to what Europeans and Asians were building in the 13th century. Just google "Thirteenth Century Cathedral" and see for yourself. European buildings also lasted a lot longer, not being made out of mud. The building in your photo was actually built by the French in 1906 in what they imagined was the original style. It's not even a reconstruction because the original mud has all been eroded or washed away. I've always tried to give credit where credit is due but the contemporary liberal narrative-izing about ancient Africa seems very pathetic. When you write history you can't pick a side to "support." You have to be objective and imho the postmodernist "historians" can all go get French AIDS.

[Anonymous No.8585686]

>>8582742
>fedoraing out
>partaking in a lol u mad cycle
You're supposed to be over 18 on this board.

[Anonymous No.8585708]

>>8585604
Race as it is socially defined and negotiated is a construct. The genetics has nothing to do with how it affects our societies views and peoples behaviours in regards to race.

[Anonymous No.8585736]

>>8585708

I would never mistake an ethnic Congolese for an ethnic Icelander, not in a million years. If race is a social construct why does it just so happen that I'm only a racist shitlord to people who have coal black skin?

Even Africans with albinism look "black" to me; their race is as deep as their bones and DNA. It's well beyond constructs at this point.

https://www.wired.com/2007/12/ps-dna/

[Anonymous No.8585741]

>>8585597
Social Psychologist seem to treat any conservative leanings as somewhat of a mental illness. They say that of all groups conservatives behaviour is the most predictable since if they adhere to their political leanings they tend hold views that correlate with 'misogyny' and 'homophobia'.
Its interesting that they never seem to put the shoe on the other foot and search for correlations between left wing authoritarianism and low self esteem or something, but then that would undermine the broadly leftist agenda everyone who works in the humanities seems to have .
I only replied because my social psychology lecture is also a raging lefty and it pisses me off

[Anonymous No.8585754]

>>8585393
That's an immigration issue, not a race issue.
And again, you've proven the point that you only care for the collective as it hurts individuals who you deem worthy.

[Anonymous No.8585771]

>>8585708
>The genetics has nothing to do with how it affects our societies views and peoples behaviours in regards to race.

Yes it does.

>Race is a construct

"Race is a construct" is not an argument. "Race is a construct" is a construct.

[Anonymous No.8585773]

>>8585741
Certainly there are a few marxists.
I do feel though that the field has been pushed to the left by the overt rejection of the social sciences by the right.

[Anonymous No.8585776]

>>8585616
>No, they're not.
To butt in, this is my field and genetics are really a lot less significant than people used to and/or would want you to believe. Variations in genes really explain very little in most cases.

[Anonymous No.8585780]

>>8585776
Wrong. Get educated.

[Anonymous No.8585781]

>>8585459
So he didn't actually address any of the issues of the book, this is such a typically left wing thing to do

[Anonymous No.8585785]

>>8585736
>>8585771
We all have a genetic race in the same way that we all have toenails.
I'll highlight what I'm trying to get at with a hypothetical example. Say you have two mulatto people. One has fairly light olive skin, the other has dark chocolate skin. They both walk into a store on separate occasions. One is greeted warmly at the door and allowed to browse freely. When the other enters the store, they are not greeted at the door and whilst they browse they are constantly being watched. When the store attendant is asked why they treated the two customers differently, he replies saying that he did not trust the black customer because blacks tend to commit more crime proportionately than whites. Now, what if it turned out that they both had the same mixture of European and African heritage, they might even be siblings. Entirely because of their physical appearances attributed to race, these two people will have experienced radically different lives.

[Anonymous No.8585787]

>>8585459
If IQ tests are designed to favour white middle class people, why do East Asians consistently outperform whites?

[Anonymous No.8585794]

>>8585781
It was only a brief mention, he spent longer shitting on Cyril Burt.

>>8585787
Disciprine

[Anonymous No.8585802]

>>8585785
Your conception of admixture and heredity's effect on life outcomes is flawed. Your average mulatto does not fail to become a theoretical physicist because Bernie the Grocer had Loss Prevention follow him around the store one time.

You don't understand even the most basic maths and science behind population genetics so I don't know why you keep talking. Silly, clueless examples like the one you just posted are an amusing curiosity almost exclusive to the soft sciences and liberal arts, IE people not smart enough to understand the basics of heritability. Apparently simple ag science is too difficult for you, so it's not a surprise you're incapable of looking at twin studies.

This board needs to get its shit together.

[Anonymous No.8585806]

>>8585787
Ashkenazi Jews are strangely immune to the supposed white privilege of IQ tests. But no, he's right: IQ tests were created to keep the black man down, man!

[Anonymous No.8585812]

>>8585787
>>8585806
Didn't you read the part about socialisation?

[Anonymous No.8585814]

>>8585812
So how does socialisation explain it?

[Anonymous No.8585819]

>>8585812
Yes, and it was bullshit.

[Anonymous No.8585821]

>>8585802
The point is that genetics has nothing to do with how race is mediated through society. You don't care, cool. Either way I think it would be very difficult to empirically establish to what degree IQ is inheritable, due to the fact that socialisation begins in people from a very young age.

I understand you dislike the social sciences and the humanities, I'm not too fond of science or mathematics. They bore me, they tell me nothing about how I should live my life.

What do you expect though, literature is a humanities field.

[Anonymous No.8585826]

>>8585814
Little white boys and girls are trained from the earliest ages to do pattern recognition.

[Anonymous No.8585832]

>>8585821
>The point is that genetics has nothing to do with how race is mediated through society

Except it does, you just seem to be incapable of understanding how, or you just don't like the implications because the fact that race is real horrifies you.

>Either way I think it would be very difficult to empirically establish to what degree IQ is inheritable

It is very well established to what degree IQ is heritable. You are just unaware of it because you don't bother to do the research before coming onto the internet and vomiting your opinions everywhere. If you don't have a university level grasp of the topic, you could easily start just by typing "heritability of X into google". There are plenty of meta analysis studies available:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276922271_Meta-analysis_of_the_heritability_of_human_traits_based_on_fifty_years_of_twin_studies

Although it seems arguing with people like you is like trying to argue with creationists. Largely fruitless and a huge waste of time. You'll continue to believe what you want.

>I'm not too fond of science or mathematics

You don't say?

[Anonymous No.8585835]

>>8582152

yeh, no

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

[Anonymous No.8585836]

>>8585010
>>8585064
I posted that, sorry I fucked up the grammar, I wrote it while I was taking a shit.
All I meant was that playing Bioshock in high school got me interested in reading the book. I played the game first and then read the book.
And by full patrician I meant at the time I read it I didn't read literature, just genre fiction and played heaps of video games.
Also I don't consider Bioshock to be a good criticism of Rand at all, it just plays on the themes for an interesting story.

[Anonymous No.8585881]

>>8585832
Race is real, but the physical phenomena of it is not what is experienced in social life.

If I'm wrong, I can accept that and I apologise. I however, will continue to remain incredibly sceptical of biological determinism in human behaviour.

Out of curiosity, I wonder if researchers have ever gotten a bunch of babies all different ethnic groups (beyond brown, pink and yellow), socialised them in a controlled manner and then measured the outcomes.

I don't think you should be too proud of believing in empiricism, it rests on too many assumptions.

[black mail No.8585886]

MY....
.........
IQ.......
IS......
.........
188....
.........

FAGGOTSs

hjahahahahahaahah

[Anonymous No.8585901]

http://newobserveronline.com/science-confirms-genes-determine-brain-size/

[Anonymous No.8585906]

>>8585901
>conclusively disprove the lies put out by the race-denying “environmentalists” who claim that all races are equal and that all people are born “blank slates.”
kek

[Anonymous No.8585912]

>>8585901
but asians are hyper intelligent

[Anonymous No.8585923]

>>8582039
I can't think of any book that did it for me. There were many that gave me new ideas and helped shaping my opnions on things, but none had turned me completely.
I guess the closest thing to that would have been Zeitgeist if it was a book and not a film.

[Anonymous No.8585933]

>>8585881
>Out of curiosity, I wonder if researchers have ever gotten a bunch of babies all different ethnic groups (beyond brown, pink and yellow), socialised them in a controlled manner and then measured the outcomes.

No, but there is this, demonstrating differences in newborn behavior by race:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xz2jjx_cross-cultural-differences-in-newborn-behavior_news#.UW7ho8rkef0

[Anonymous No.8585935]

>>8585785

Only 2.9% of Americans are mixed race. Just because mulattos exist in a kind of limbo state does not somehow destroy the idea of biological race. Again, you would never confuse a Congolese for an Icelander.

>>8585821
>>8585881

>I however, will continue to remain incredibly sceptical of biological determinism in human behaviour.

You freely admitted that you know sweet fuck all about this. You're not "skeptical", you're willfully ignorant. For example there is a strong correlation between genetics and violent crime:

"A genetic analysis of almost 900 offenders in Finland has revealed two genes associated with violent crime. . .Those with the genes were 13 times more likely to have a history of repeated violent behaviour."
"One way of putting it is that if these two genes did not exist, there might be between five and 10 per cent less violent crime in Finland, but we cannot be sure of what the mechanism is that causes this,” Professor Tiihonen told The Independent."

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29760212
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/two-genes-found-linked-to-tendency-for-violent-crime-9824061.html

[Anonymous No.8585967]

>>8585933
The video may be onto something, I can't say.

>>8585935
>you would never confuse a Congolese for an Icelander.
A dog might, you might confuse them over 4chan.
But yes you wouldn't visually confuse them if they're indigenous, but you might treat them differently, and why? Is the differentiation necessary?

boys who inherited the low activity version of the MAOA gene and who were subjected to childhood abuse were twice as likely as non-abused carriers of the gene to become violent criminals.
>subjected to childhood abuse

The articles don't paint a picture in which genes are solely responsible for such patterns of behaviour. The genes cannot be changed and so it is more important to focus on other factors, and a situation in which people say 'you can't help me, my genes caused me to do it' is most undesirable.
But I'm sure we accommodate Durkheim's theory with some small levels of pre-determined individual disposition.

[Anonymous No.8586029]

>>8582051
Meme

[Anonymous No.8586128]

>>8583304
>If it's not due to genetic differences how do you explain twin studies?
What about twin studies? Did they have a twin studies where there were twins of two different races? A simple statistical concept: In-group variation does not imply between-group variation.

>The fact that the shared environment doesn't have much effect on IQ in high income families shows that IQ is mostly genetic.

...or also determined by environmental factors other than shared factors?

And anyway, no one is denying that IQ has a genetic basis. It's stupid to deny. It's just that there is a tremendous speculative leap to say that "because it's genetic, then there will be racial differences too because of it"

[Anonymous No.8586219]

>>8585780
I have about the best education you can get in the field of biological sciences tho bro. If you take issue with something use your words and tell me about it.

[Anonymous No.8586270]

This is one of the books that really changed my view.

I highly recommend Paul Hellyer's books if you are Canadian. American's might get a lot out of it as well.

[Anonymous No.8586284]

>>8586270
What is this about (sorry, "aboot")?

[Anonymous No.8587001]

>>8584951
The Nubians took part of Egypt when it was divided and in turmoil, by winning one battle. This was not the powerful golden age Egypt that people think of, not that Egypt's army was ever very strong.

And after only 80-100 years the Nubians were run out of Egypt, they did not contribute to Egypt in any meaningful way, they just controlled it for a relatively short period of time. When Egypt was not in ruins it dominated Nubia and even enslaved Nubians.

Also when the Nubians saw the wonders the Egyptians had made they tried to copy them, but weren't smart enough to figure out how. My house is easily bigger than a Nubian pyramid. And also after the Assyrians destroyed Egypt right after the Nubians were run out (by the Assyrians), Egypt basically got conquered by one group after another all the way up to modern times.

This was all took place in the 8th century BC, long past Egypts golden age. You had the Nubians for a short time, then the Assyrians, then Alexander the great, then the romans, then the Muslim Caliphates, then the French, then the British and I am sure I am missing more. Briefly conquering a dead civilization that was also conquered by pretty much everyone else doesn't make you great.

[Anonymous No.8587042]

>>8587001
Also to add to what I said, I forgot that the Persians conquered Egypt after the Assyrians but before the Greeks. In fact the Nubian 25th dynasty segued into what is known as the "Late Period" of Egypt, which is primarily characterized by Egypt being conquered and controlled by the Persian Empire. Egypts "Golden Period" was about 1,800 years before the Nubian 25th dynasty.

[Anonymous No.8587070]

>>8587042
That's the 4th Dynasty, but Egypt had three apogees as a quick glance at any chronology shows.

[Anonymous No.8587104]

>>8584700
Why?

[Anonymous No.8587131]

>>8585806
Ashkenazi Jews are white. Some of them are so pale they're practically ghost.

[Anonymous No.8587155]

>>8585135
Sorry for late reply, but it totally changed how I approached the world, the philosophy of nature and mankind's relationship with it changed my interactions with others, and the book itself inspired me to become a better writer.

[Anonymous No.8587233]

>>8587131
>ghost white

So are some Asians. Doesn't make them white. Learn about Ashkenazi admixture before you come back.

>>8586128
>What about twin studies? Did they have a twin studies where there were twins of two different races?
>twins of two different races

>It's just that there is a tremendous speculative leap to say that "because it's genetic, then there will be racial differences too because of it

You might actually be too stupid to live.

[Anonymous No.8587242]

>>8582183

Dude just face it science does not back your warped views. Go back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.8587303]

>>8587242
I'm not the guy you were replying to, but although there are studies in favor of either position, the vast majority find that Blacks have lower IQs, on average around 85.

I know it is unpleasant to think about this, I am sure we would all like to live in a world were we are all more or less the same, but that simply is not the case.

Evolution is real, whether you want to admit it or not. When groups separate they genetically diverge, and there are of course many other factors that contribute.

The human brain has probably evolved more than any other feature within humans in our evolutionary history. There are 12 or 13 known species of "human" that have come before us and the same things seem to always hold true.

As time goes on and we evole, the newer species that come about has a larger cranial capacity than older iterations of human. I think anyone who isn't being naive or disingenuous knows that this isa sign of increasing intelligence, unless you want to argue that modern humans are less intelligent than homo erectus or any older species.

This trend has always occurred, and has occurred with modern humans. Blacks first appeared roughly 200,000-250,000 years ago. Some people left Africa around 50,000 years ago and evolved into Caucasians.

Caucasians being the newer iteration of human have larger cranial capacities than Africans, in step with what we have seen throughout human evolution.

A result of this that we see, is that the newer species replaces the older one by out-competing them for resources. This process was effectively taking place.

Caucasians used their superior intellect to build advanced civilization while the Africans made virtually no technological advancements in 10s of thousands of years, not even inventing the wheel.

The Caucasians eventually came to sub Saharan Africa as colonists and enslaved the Africans and took their resources. The process of replacement was well under way.

However humans had now advanced to such an extent that they started to become more empathetic and changed their ways, ending colonization and allowing Africans to continue existing.

Essentially denying an IQ difference in humans is equivalent to denying the existence of evolution.

[Anonymous No.8587339]

>>8587303

niggers ARE dumber than whites but this post is pure autism

[Anonymous No.8587409]

>>8582039
so, to sum up, racism is not science

[Anonymous No.8587419]

>>8582391
I mean I get the personal side, but if you are over 20 years and still think objectivism is a valid philosophical view you need to get your vocal cords removed because any philosophy major hearing you talking will spontaneously start a mass shooting.

[Anonymous No.8587446]

>>8582723
The Bible is not plebcore, you fucking pleb. Most people haven't even read the bible, and current religious persons read shitty and revised modern translations.

[Anonymous No.8587548]

>>8582301
you truly no nothing.

[Anonymous No.8587564]

>>8585836
>Also I don't consider Bioshock to be a good criticism of Rand at all, it just plays on the themes for an interesting story.
Ah, okay, good. You're one of the lucky ones.

[Anonymous No.8587655]

>>8587104

Because Kant offers compelling arguments that space and time do not exist apart from human minds, but are only ways in which the mind organizes whatever sensory data is given to it. Thus the external universe of physical objects (including your body - and thus even your brain, technically) is only being-as-appearance, not being-in-itself; equally, your introspective self-knowledge is only how you appear to yourself, and never gives you absolute knowledge of what you are.

[Anonymous No.8587667]

>>8583743
Just like life. That's why it's so deep.

[Anonymous No.8587941]

>>8582127
If you mean from a Christian perspective, no, Mere Christianity is the non-negotiables.

[Anonymous No.8588161]

Taking over this thread

[Anonymous No.8588164]

[Anonymous No.8588173]

[Anonymous No.8588177]

[Anonymous No.8588187]

>>8587303
The problem with these studies is that none of them properly account for variables. You failed to mention that in your huge, autistic rant. None of these studies accurately do this. We would have to create a specialized control group for any of these assertions to have any significant meaning.

[Anonymous No.8588189]

>>8585967

>But yes you wouldn't visually confuse them if they're indigenous, but you might treat them differently, and why? Is the differentiation necessary?

Yes. Half the problems the Americans are having right now stem from the fact that they try to pretend race doesn't matter AND give certain ethnic groups privileges and advantages in order to uplift them. If little Johnny Smith and Johnny Chen are doing great in school, but Jaquan Smith and Juan Gonzales are doing piss-poor in the exact same school, then maybe Jaquan and Juan need a special school all of their very own. Jaquan and Juan will get the specialized curriculum they need, and they also won't be able to hurt or distract the other, better, students.

>boys who inherited the low activity version of the MAOA gene and who were subjected to childhood abuse were twice as likely as non-abused carriers of the gene to become violent criminals.

They were already 13 times more likely to be violent than non-carriers before they were abused. Subjecting them to abuse just exacerbated their problematic heredity.

>The articles don't paint a picture in which genes are solely responsible for such patterns of behaviour.

It's a huge confounding factor and may explain why some minorities remain poor and downtrodden generation after generation.

[Anonymous No.8588190]

>>8588161
Reinforced the timeless issues that don't have a definitive answer on the meaning and purpose of life. How to not keep suffering.

>>8588164
Evidence of innate drivers of meaning and purpose. To reduce the terror of death and nothingness and how that leads us to cling to particular ideologues more strongly rather than treating them as what they are phantasm of culture and society.

>>8588173
Literally life changing perspective on politics and the effect it has on an individual.

>>8588177
Wowa nelly! Empirical and quantitative grounding for literally the most important scientific method for the 21st century

[Anonymous No.8588238]

Siddartha was hugely influential

[Anonymous No.8588509]

>>8582398
>>8582470
>>8582742
Samefag.

[Anonymous No.8588532]

White male here.

[Anonymous No.8588546]

[Anonymous No.8588578]

[Anonymous No.8588615]

[Anonymous No.8588623]

>>8588615
Why do you chose this book?

[Anonymous No.8588628]

>>8582039

[Anonymous No.8588629]

>>8587303
Instead typing up such long posts what you should be focusing on is the fact that IQ and psychometrics is (just like the rest of psychology) pseudoscience

Your long winded en-devour to feign knowledge of "intellect" is hilarious though keep it up!

[Anonymous No.8588641]

>>8588189
>Yes. Half the problems the Americans are having right now stem from the fact that they try to pretend race doesn't matter AND give certain ethnic groups privileges and advantages in order to uplift them. If little Johnny Smith and Johnny Chen are doing great in school, but Jaquan Smith and Juan Gonzales are doing piss-poor in the exact same school, then maybe Jaquan and Juan need a special school all of their very own. Jaquan and Juan will get the specialized curriculum they need, and they also won't be able to hurt or distract the other, better, students.
There are special schools in the US bro. If you rode the short bus you were in one.

>it very slowly begins to dawn on anon that there were retards everywhere in school because he was the retards

[Anonymous No.8588647]

>>8582039
Unless youre just retarded I hope nothing in the bell curve or in the field of psychology in general changes the way ANYONE views the world.

Nothing related to psychometrics is scientific nor does it follow the scientific method. And if you failed to realize this or got lost somewhere along the way i suggest you look up the scientific method and study upon so you wont in the future have anymore scientifically unfounded realizations about the world.

[Anonymous No.8588652]

>>8588641

Jokes on you I walked.

[Anonymous No.8588661]

>>8587303
>As time goes on and we evole, the newer species that come about has a larger cranial capacity than older iterations of human.
Neanderthals had significantly larger brains. 1600 cubic centimeters compared to the current ~1300. They had nearly a quarter more brain.

[Anonymous No.8588664]

>>8588652
Keked

[Anonymous No.8588665]

>>8583353
Same for me.

[Anonymous No.8588669]

[Anonymous No.8588678]

>>8588661

By that logic Blue Whales are the most intelligent beings on earth. Even if Neanderthals were proven to be smarter than humans, that would still fit the ebul white narrative because Europeans interbred with Neanderthals before wiping them all out. The Asians interbred with several archaic homo species as well. Africans are genetically closest to the original homo sapiens. For example the bushmen in South Africa have the highest level of genetic diversity of any human population.

[Anonymous No.8588707]

>>8583779
Gould is the Malcolm Gladwell of anthropology.

>I have tried, in preparation for this talk, to read some evolutionary economics, and was particularly curious about what biologists people reference. What I encountered were quite a few references to Stephen Jay Gould, hardly any to other evolutionary theorists. Now it is not very hard to find out, if you spend a little while reading in evolution, that Gould is the John Kenneth Galbraith of his subject. That is, he is a wonderful writer who is beloved by literary intellectuals and lionized by the media because he does not use algebra or difficult jargon. Unfortunately, it appears that he avoids these sins not because he has transcended his colleagues but because he does not seem to understand what they have to say; and his own descriptions of what the field is about - not just the answers, but even the questions - are consistently misleading. His impressive literary and historical erudition makes his work seem profound to most readers, but informed readers eventually conclude that there's no there there.

[Anonymous No.8588727]

>>8588189
>It's a huge confounding factor and may explain why some minorities remain poor and downtrodden generation after generation.
May well be the case but we still haven't progressed to the point as a society where the historical arms of racial discrimination have been undone. Maybe we'll never reach that point but I think our society should at least make an attempt bridging any artificial gap.

[Anonymous No.8588730]

>>8588707
>the Gladwell of Anthropology
>proof is a quote from nowhere about how he's the Galbraith of Biology

[Anonymous No.8588734]

This, probably. I may take issue with some of it, but it was one of the first stepping stones for my understanding of aesthetics and ethics

[Anonymous No.8588740]

>>8582039

[Anonymous No.8588756]

>>8588730
Are you a retarded person?

[Anonymous No.8588768]

>>8587303

This post portrays just how dumb stormfront users are. No one is denying average IQ statistics among race bit if yoi think the Europeans were the most superior people technologically then you are wrong. There were many other fantastic powerful empires.

[Anonymous No.8588796]

starin' at the rear through my worldview

[Anonymous No.8588870]

Racial IQ differences are probably* at least partially genetic in origin. I would bet on there being a genetic gap of, say, at least 15 IQ points between Ashkenazi Jews and African Americans on average.

But I'm annoyed that most of the people in this thread who seem to believe so don't seem to have thought through what the actual implications of a genetically based racial gap in IQ would be. E.g. there's this weird fixation on Blacks and Mexicans dragging down schools somehow, but the underlying problem there isn't a refusal to acknowledge genetic IQ differences, it's a refusal to track students into specialized programs based on their intellect.** (Yes, race gives you some information about what a person's IQ is likely to be *in the absence of all other evidence*, but you could also just... give them an IQ test!) The real consequence is that this pushes, in a Rawlsian style, toward redistributionist programs like universal basic income and open borders.***

Race is a genetically well-defined concept, IQ exists, racial gaps in IQ exist, and those gaps probably arise from genetics, but irritatingly enough, people who acknowledge these facts seem myopically fixated on how blacks are committing a lot of crime or whatever -- like, it's relevant, sure, but there are much bigger fish to fry here!

* In the sense that although the evidence isn't conclusive, it's sufficiently suggestive that I would weakly bet on such differences existing rather than not.

** This is only weakly related to affirmative action, which can still be justified in light of genetic IQ gaps between races because that doesn't mean that racism doesn't have any environmental effect whatsoever.

*** It's true that open borders has its own problems if IQ differences between races are real, but that probably means that immigrants should be given strict ideological indoctrination and IQ tests, not that we should arbitrarily limit the number of immigrants to some very low number (as is the situation at present).

[Anonymous No.8588871]

Fabric of the Cosmos by Greene convinced me to devote my life to the study of particle physics.

[Anonymous No.8588873]

>>8588871
How is that going for you?

[Anonymous No.8588912]

>>8588870
There's no IQ difference idiot. I'm christian but if i converted to judaism it wouldn't change my iq.

[Anonymous No.8588916]

>>8588912
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews

>A 2006 study found Ashkenazi Jews to be a clear, homogeneous genetic subgroup. Strikingly, regardless of the place of origin, Ashkenazi Jews can be grouped in the same genetic cohort – that is, regardless of whether an Ashkenazi Jew's ancestors came from Poland, Russia, Hungary, Lithuania, or any other place with a historical Jewish population, they belong to the same ethnic group. The research demonstrates the endogamy of the Jewish population in Europe and lends further credence to the idea of Ashkenazi Jews as an ethnic group.

[Anonymous No.8588922]

>>8588912
>religious Judaism = Jewish ethnicity

Stop posting.

[Anonymous No.8588927]

>>8588922
How do you know their intelligence isn't coming from their religion culture or their genes? No gene has been identified.

[Anonymous No.8588928]

>>8588927
Please stop posting. Please.

[Anonymous No.8588933]

>>8588927
>How do you know their intelligence isn't coming from their religion culture or their genes?

Because I'm not an idiot.

[Anonymous No.8588942]

>>8588933
Asians are only smart because they have tiger moms.
Jewish people are tough Hebrew and a lot of stuff you don't know about!

[Anonymous No.8588964]

>>8588942
>are tough Hebrew
Go jerk off or something.

[Anonymous No.8589004]

>all these cucks shitting on the bell curve

[Anonymous No.8589063]

>>8588756
It feels weird for a retarded person to imply I'm retarded by asking me if I'm retarded.

But I know you can't help it bro, so I can deal.

[Anonymous No.8589071]

>>8589063
you literally failed to read the quote, which is REPUDIATING people who call Gould the Galbraith of biology

kill

yourself

[Anonymous No.8589073]

>>8588727

>Maybe we'll never reach that point but I think our society should at least make an attempt bridging any artificial gap

A good way to do that would be to discriminate against white people and Asians in higher education and the professions. Has anyone ever tried this? Like make colleges meet a quota of People Other Than Whites first? It just might work. After all it's a lot easier to pull down than build up.

[Anonymous No.8589076]

Iq can change drastically in a nation and through development.

[Anonymous No.8589084]

>>8588647
You mean such as a paper just slapping numbers errantely with none of the checks and rigor seen in the scientific method or statistics?

[Anonymous No.8589100]

>>8585933
There's a study on babies and when they start sitting independentantky.

Turns out the African babies did earlier and longer due to different cultural upbringing for young babies.

[Anonymous No.8589109]

>>8588870


>but irritatingly enough, people who acknowledge these facts seem myopically fixated on how blacks are committing a lot of crime or whatever

A lot of this is just trying to knock black people off the Sacred Minority pedestal. If science could prove that blacks literally are inferior in a certain limited sense it would really knock the stuffing out of the liberals. I want to go back to strict legal equality between citizens and I'm tired of people trying to make me feel bad for not being a poorfag idiot like Jaquandrias

>black failures = whitey's fault
>white successes = built on slavery and colonialism!

[Anonymous No.8589127]

Even in a world wherein one's limitless passion restrained could lead one to ineffable beauty or suicide, one must endeavour to fill one's life with intellect and artistry nevertheless. Time is a fragile bastardization mediated through the senses, and the fragility of it ought to instill us with the greatest sense of desire.

[Anonymous No.8589181]

>>8589071
>REPUDIATING
Aw... it's cute you can use a thesaurus buddy, but that's not what the quote says. It says he's the Galbraith of evolutionary biology, as in he fills the same niche: he gives pop explanations. However, he does not understand what his colleagues are doing. It doesn't """repduiate""" his Galbraithness tho.

It's okay to be bad at reading, you just got to not get so over excited and slow it down a bit. Maybe double check, yeah? It is a trash quote too tee bee aich.

[Anonymous No.8589190]

>>8589109
nice absolutist logic you got going for you there. colonialism and slavery happened, trying to make it sound like it only made a small difference is fucking retarded as shit. the irony is if you were a black guy you'd probably be a whiny drug dealing ubernigger.
also, you forgot white failures = liberals fault. "not hating minorities is the reason i'm a mid to late 20s neet stuck on 4chan!"

[Anonymous No.8589228]

>>8588796
My dad gave me this book not to long ago, along with some related books. And now i'm really starting to think my dad is low key redpilled.

[Anonymous No.8589296]

>>8589084
Thats exactly what i just said. Statistics yes but using statistics doesnt make something science.

[Anonymous No.8589651]

>>8588912
90 I'd anyone was wondering

>>8588870
If all left leaning people thought like you the discussion would be far more quality.

As a NRx type myself my issue with the genetic iq question is specifically tied to government.

Immigration as well is a major factor.

And the fact that low iq people host so many terrible behaviors.

The tl;dr version is that because these people get a vote the higher the population of low iq 3rd worlders the quicker they vote to flood your country with more immigration.

[Anonymous No.8589678]

>>8589651
>low iq is bad
>immigration is the main problem
do you not see the irony or are you projecting your low iq?

[Anonymous No.8589704]

>>8589678

Facts over ad-hominems and name-calling, anon.
>http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.372.8553&rep=rep1&type=pdf

[Anonymous No.8589721]

This book really changed how I viewed the world around us, however I am also a STEM faget that hasn't read much philosophy.

[Anonymous No.8589745]

>>8589704
scientific racism exists, imagine my surprise.
i get that nobody likes you irl and want to be special because everyone who rejected you is a PC SJW beta nu-male whiteknight. but thinking that you can solve the problems in western society via racially related policies is hilariously retarded.

[Anonymous No.8589886]

>>8589651
Glad you enjoyed my post. My take on the immigration problem is that we are morally obligated to take in more immigrants at the margin (i.e., relative to the current level of immigration), but that it is also completely morally permissible to do the following:

- filter immigrants with an IQ test so that only those with an IQ above the average IQ of citizens with at least two generations of heritage in the intake nation are accepted
- forbid immgirants and children of immigrants from citizenship and voting
- allow a sponsorship program where citizens can sponsor immigrants, but those immigrants and their children must pay the sponsor's estate 10% of all earnings
- tax immigrants more and use that tax revenue to compensate natives who suffer because of increased immigration (e.g. low-skilled workers)

...and so on and so forth.

Basically, I'm saying that even if the bathwater is tainted, there's no need to throw the baby out with it.

>>8589745
Feel free to critique the paper's methodology if you disagree with its findings.

[Anonymous No.8590047]

>>8589886
There was no problem with the methodology, his calipers were clearly working perfectly.

[Anonymous No.8590402]

>>8589190

Colonialism and slavery didn't make that much difference. The Spanish and the Portuguese did those things extensively and in 2016 they're basically third world countries. Any wealth that the US built up through slavery was wiped out in the Civil War. The South never recovered from the physical destruction of the war and the loss of the cotton market. China and Japan were both imperialist empires, us fucking white males weren't the only show in town yet only butthurt Koreans care about Jap colonialism. Where's the outrage?

>"not hating minorities is the reason i'm a mid to late 20s neet stuck on 4chan!"

This is so stupid. Nowhere in my post did I imply anything of the kind. I don't associate myself with autistic pol-r9k neets because I'm not a fucking neet. If you think that despising niggers and nigger apologists makes you some kind of alt-right skinhead then I don't know what to tell you. My whole family politely loathes the kind of behavior that's common in the "black community."

[Anonymous No.8590507]

>>8589651

Please don't call yourself an "NRx type."

OT: they really ought to teach psychometrics in high school. In the field of psychology, psychometric tests are the best replicated. There is a strong correlation between IQ - as measured on tests - and significant outcomes relating to income, relationships, academic success, and crime. IQ is the simplest and most elegant explanation for virtually all differences in groups as measured by those outcomes.

All of this information is readily accessible. All you need to do is go to Google Scholar and search "IQ 'variable' correlation" and you will find dozens of studies which all tend to replicate and confirm each other's findings. For instance, there are studies which measure childhood IQ and correlate that to income at middle age: I found two studies right away which both reported similar (positive) correlations. If you're too lazy to do that research, then allow me to simply present certain definite conclusions of psychometric testing (i.e. correlating one's performance on a test to real life outcomes):

1) IQ and income are positively correlated
2) IQ and relationship success are positively correlated
3) IQ and proclivity to crime are negatively correlated
4) IQ and academic success is positively correlated

These are claims with strong evidence that I would have no problem going on to make such inferences as:

1) The smartest person in the world is probably a male Ashkenazi Jew
2) The vast overrepresentation of Ashkenazi Jews among the elites (e.g. Ashkenazi Jews constitute over half of the 1%) can be explained by their mean IQ of 105
3) Black dysfunction and failure can be largely attributed to their mean IQ of 85

I could go on. These are pretty much just facts, and denying them is akin to denying that the earth revolves around the sun. The biological reality of race is just one of those things we've decided to go Medieval and superstitious about and it makes people do and say the most retarded things.

If we could just accept these facts, we might be able to actually help people, instead of working on the assumption that a certain group of people would be competent except that another group of people must be holding them down.

[Anonymous No.8590824]

>>8590507
Why would they teach pseudoscience in schools? Psychology has no rules so there are literally no conclusions that can be drawn from anything related to the field, this is includes IQ.

>These are pretty much just facts.

Wrong. Facts come from SCIENCE not ad hoc make-shit-up-as-you-go first principle studies.

Information about what science actually is, the scientific method, and why this method is valued is readily available on the internet.

Woops are your "inferences" just flew right the fuck out the window.

[Anonymous No.8590935]

>>8588615

Shit was about to post this

[Anonymous No.8590950]

>>8590507
I agree with your factual position but you seem peculiarly fixated on genetic differences between races, maybe in reaction to those who irritatingly deny that such differences exist at all, but nevertheless overly fixated on those differences relative to how interesting or significant they really are. Yes, acknowledging that such differences exist and studying them will demonstrate that first, systemic racism is not quite as pernicious as it is often claimed to be (but not that systemic racism is nonexistent or insignificant), and second, that affirmative action programs ought to be scaled back at the margin.

It is not a particularly fascinating conclusion. Its interest arises solely from the fact that people are so committed toward denying it, but it is of little intrinsic interest. Yes, black people have lower IQs and therefore commit more crime -- so what? Just a subset of the more general phenomenon of low IQ people committing more crimes. What do you do about it? The predictive power of race (where IQ is concerned) is completely subsumed by the information you get from a 1-minute conversation or even a simple, 10-item IQ questionnaire.

[Anonymous No.8590953]

>>8590950
That is, it is right and fine to accept that such differences exist and to say so, but fixating on them is both inane and not conducive to effectively convincing others of the validity of your claims (in fact it just makes them think you're racist).

[Anonymous No.8590972]

>>8585393
Good God, you're an idiot. >>/pol/ please.

[Anonymous No.8590993]

>>8590950
>Its interest arises solely from the fact that people are so committed toward denying it

Even if that were true (it's not; there are massive economic implications involved in the effects of average national IQ), racial IQ differences are real regardless of whether people believe in them or not, just as evolution is real regardless of whether creationists believe it or not. Some people would like to believe that evolution stopped at the neck up, so they avert their eyes, because the implications unsettle them.

[Anonymous No.8591008]

for real

[Anonymous No.8591014]

>>8590993
Are you referring to implications for immigration policy? Even there the conclusion is banal. Yes, races have different mean IQs, okay, you can just test everyone and look at the test result, so who cares? What is the actual actionable thing to do here? In almost every case where you might apply some particular action to some particular group on account of that group having a particularly low or high IQ, it would simply make more sense to just apply that policy to all people falling below or above some IQ threshold (presumably including a disproportionate number of members of said group).

And railing against people who deny facts is in general uninteresting as well. People deny reality -- what are you going to do about it? Fume about the thousands of things that people get wrong every hour of the day?

[Anonymous No.8591057]

>>8590950
IQ has no "predictive" power. A correlation is not a prediction.

I can accurately predict that water will boil at 212°F every time. With IQ the 'prediction' is like me using a broken watch to tell time.

[Anonymous No.8591077]

>>8591014
Start here, if you're genuinely interested:

https://www.amazon.com/Hive-Mind-Your-Nations-Matters/dp/0804785961

[Anonymous No.8591084]

>>8591014
>banal
>anal
>dfw pleb
>tfw horribly sad too

[Anonymous No.8591095]

>>8591057
Your hilariously mangled misreading of my post aside (maybe go over the relevant sentences a couple more times, slowly), IQ has a tremendous amount of predictive power in the literal sense that if I train a statistical model to predict someone's income, educational attainment, etc. from certain of their personal characteristics including IQ, the predictions made by the model will depend strongly on the person's IQ (e.g. in a linear model the variable for IQ will have a high coefficient).

You are also wrong in yet another sense---if two variables are correlated, then each one must have a nonzero amount of predictive power for the other (which is sort of obvious from what it means for two variables to be correlated, as obviously knowing the value of one gives you some information about the other).

>>8591077
You are misunderstanding me. I am not denying that IQ in general is important---I am saying that the specific issue of racial differences in IQ is uninteresting (because the differences are not sufficient great that they would actually affect our policy-setting significantly relative to many other factors under consideration).

I have not read Hive Mind, but I did read a review of it (http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/12/08/book-review-hive-mind/)) a while ago, which actually seems to indicate that the book does not look at racial differences at all. And rightly so, because, like I said, almost any policy change (admittedly with the exception of ones designed to combat racism) which one might conceive on the basis on different ethnic groups having different IQs would do better selecting directly for various IQ ranges across all ethnic groups.

[Anonymous No.8591179]

>>8591095
I actually didnt even read it i just glanced and saw "predictive power" so i quoted you to tell you're wrong but i sort of dont even care.

Regardless a prediction (at least a rigorous one) needs more than statistical analysis to be accurate. Otherwise you might as well be a gambler playing the lotto. If all you have to base your 'prediction' on is existing behaviors then you might as well look at your astrological summary for the day instead.

[Anonymous No.8591318]

>>8590824

Science requires that propositions about the behavior of objects can be tested, so that specific traits and properties can be separated from other phenomena. A proposition is scientific in the case it yields observable predictions about the world. In the case of IQ, it is a matter of making predictions based on performance on a test.

Here is a solid and verifiable prediction:

1) individuals with an IQ of 120 will tend to academically outperform individuals with an IQ of 80

In this case, we are able to relate one observation (performance on a test) to real life outcomes, and we can observe that individuals who perform better on IQ tests also tend to perform better in academic environments.

If this prediction is false, please point to any studies which observe the opposite, i.e. individuals with 80 IQ tending to academically outperform 120 IQ individuals.

The study of intelligence is a valid scientific discipline because it is able to make verifiable predictions about phenomena we are able to observe.

[Anonymous No.8591331]

>>8583412
>waah stop criticizing my idol!
pathetic fucking faggot

[Anonymous No.8591340]

>>8591095
I read Alexander's blog and know the article you're referring to. Alexander is aware of the kind of things we're talking about but doesn't follow through on the implications for a number of reasons. For starters he has a professional career to protect, and that his blog is linked to his real name doesn't help. Secondly I think deep down he doesn't actually want to believe it because that's just the type of person he is. He'd rather be nice.

The book didn't hone in on racial differences because to do so would be career suicide. Much better to analyze the topic in terms that won't turn away the people you're trying to reach. Pinker does the same thing. In any case, if you're familiar at all with the field of population genetics the implications are clear. What people say in public is much different than what is whispered about in private, and if you get a chance to talk to certain people in private this will be apparent.

>because the differences are not sufficient great that they would actually affect our policy-setting significantly

I disagree, for reasons I've attempted to make clear throughout the thread. Although it's obvious that this isn't the place to discuss these kinds of things, as is demonstrated by the anon who keeps responding to both of us with nonsense. People will believe what they want to without doing the necessary homework.

[Anonymous No.8591352]

>>8591179
>Didn't read it, I skimmed........ but I don't even care

not even him, but stop posting garbage. at least read posts you're replying to

>see me after class, faggot

[Anonymous No.8591362]

>>8583718
"Jokes" like yours beat a dead horse. An important component of humor is the unexpected. Laughing and clapping like a seal every time you hear the same assertion that you happen to agree with does not denote a good sense of humor.

[Anonymous No.8591367]

>>8590950
>>8590953

You sound like a creationist trying to argue that you only deny macro-evolution, not micro-evolution.

To those who would prefer to entirely avoid the topic, individuals who merely acknowledge these differences must seem fixated, but this is due to the fixation on avoidance others demonstrate. The avoidance leads to muddled thinking, as people tend to underestimate the game theoretical aspect involved in stereotyping.

>It is not a particularly fascinating conclusion

No, it isn't by itself, but our society makes it morbidly fascinating by its denial of quite elegant facts. There are massive real world implications; for instance, if you accept that the income gap between whites and blacks is largely genetic, you will be less apt to view whites as an oppressor group which deserves to have its resources and culture appropriated. This informs much of our democratic politics, and is the basis for cultural and resource appropriation from a productive group to non-productive (but Democrat voting) groups.

>Yes, black people have lower IQs and therefore commit more crime -- so what?

Most people act on this information, avoiding communities with lots of blacks. White flight, gentrification, Ferguson - these are related, and have their etiology in the social construct of race.

>The predictive power of race (where IQ is concerned) is completely subsumed by the information you get from a 1-minute conversation

True but a red herring. This is a discussion of information about groups, not individuals. They are related but separate subjects of study.

[Anonymous No.8591385]

>>8582662
Racism doesn't actually exist. It's just a tool of the Jews to keep the white man feeling guilty for doing literally nothing wrong.

[Anonymous No.8591387]

>>8583936
>We imported horses from the steppe nomads and then later the Arabs. The jigaboos should have asked their local Arab slave trader for a hookup.

Because malaria kills horses like nothing. No point in importing the expensive mounts when they drop dead as soon as they're bitten by a mosquito.

[Anonymous No.8591398]

>>8591318
But predictability is only one part of the scientific method. Prediction without highly controlled experimentation is just a statistically inferred correlation. Correlations have their uses but they rent substitutes for controlled conditions because the variables involved are virtually infinite.

>The study of intelligence is a valid scientific discipline because it is able to make verifiable predictions about phenomena we are able to observe.

What are you observing? IQ test results? How do you know the tests are accurate judges of the neurological systems you're testing for? You cant use a test arbitrarily made up by the same men of the field and call it valid that grossly stretches the terms of science.

[Anonymous No.8591531]

>>8591398
>Prediction without highly controlled experimentation is just a statistically inferred correlation

There has been highly controlled experimentation, you just don't want to examine it because it makes you feel bad.

[Anonymous No.8591537]

>>8582844
>"Theory of Knowledge" class
What a monumental waste of time that was, why couldn't there have been a mandatory philosophy class instead of a "who can sound the smartest without actually saying anything" contest?

[Anonymous No.8591546]

>>8590935
What makes it so good?

I have a copy, buts it's further down my list.

[Anonymous No.8591704]

>>8591531
How is this possible in relation to humans? Firstly how do you know precisely what alters the mind of a persons mind and what doesnt? How could you know? What variables can you control for 'highly'?

[Anonymous No.8591749]

>>8591704
You've been given plenty of advice ITT to start your journey on understanding population genetics. If you are unable to interpret the data, which is pretty obvious, you can take a university-level course in genetics if you have the time and the money.

I said it before and I'll say it again: many people feel entitled to rattle off opinions about fields they are not educated in. Start reading. You are on /lit/ after all. Shouldn't be too hard for you.

[Anonymous No.8591802]

>>8591749
Dont sit there and try bullshit your way out things. Give an actual example of the "highly controlled" experiments i asked for.

Since youre so well versed im sure you can give an example that will sate my inquiry right here in this thread. Like i said before i doubt it due to the very nature of psychology dealing with ambiguity in arbitrary ways.

Please begin giving your examples or cease quoting me.

[Anonymous No.8591841]

>>8584700
came to post this. there are some cutting critiques of his noumenal reality, but it's so, so good...hard to unthink its concepts

[Anonymous No.8591851]

>>8585821
>I'm not too fond of science or mathematics

Yeah, that isn't hard to tell.

[Anonymous No.8591855]

>>8585544
stop acting like you know everything

[Anonymous No.8591872]

>>8585393
go back to /pol/ with this pseud bs

[Anonymous No.8591906]

>>8591802
Not original argument dude.

Google natural experiment. Then stfu

[Anonymous No.8591925]

>>8591906
>quasi experiments
>highly controlled

What!

[Anonymous No.8591976]

>>8590402
>Colonialism and slavery didn't make that much difference. The Spanish and the Portuguese did those things extensively and in 2016 they're basically third world countries
Cause the debt of the Spanish and Portuguese crowns meant that the wealth flowed to other European countries and helped to kickstart capitalism. The amount of silver that came out of Latin America is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.8592275]

>>8591179
Intelligence tests, of which the IQ test is a late member, were originally designed to seek out the intellectually weak children in classrooms in order to make adjustments for them, specifically. As with most good scientific tools, the IQ test wound up having a great many predictive capabilities, which have already been delineated. They don't predict what one will do with their abilities, but what they do consistently predict is that those who have such abilities are disproportionately more likely to make use of them and have far more income, pursue more schooling, and have better relationships. If that isn't predictive to you, I don't know what to tell you.

[Anonymous No.8592426]

>>8583436
>No, but people with lower IQs are on average more likely to engage in anti-social behavior.

correlation does not equal causation. This book has almost no scientific credibility, it simply postulates arguments based on statistics.

[Anonymous No.8592428]

>>8584914
>My personal hunch is that culture can actually impair intelligence, not the other way around. Well maybe it's more like a hope.

Like >>8585295, culture could, in this case, be a very big contributor to their problem tbqh. I've yet to read it, but The book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond asks how different areas in the world lagged behind, where his conclusions amount to geography being a big contributor

http://lifeincoolcambodia.weebly.com/uploads/2/5/6/9/25698799/6583674_orig.jpg
http://naturedocumentaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/GunsGerms01.jpg

If I were to modify that analysis, I'd say that geography and mere interaction, good or bad, may be the cause for cultures/societies to develop. I added interaction to Diamond's analysis because I feel that it may explain why Sub-Saharan African empires happen to be very close to North Africa

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/African-civilizations-map-pre-colonial.svg/1024px-African-civilizations-map-pre-colonial.svg.png

I still have much, much more to look up, but I occasionally go on binges on African history, and the reason why I brought up GGS is because while it's still a very interesting analysis, I feel that it may not quite answer the "African Question", which might be something along the lines of explaining why Sub-Saharan Africa, despite having European powers export technology into their countries, are lagging behind socially, economically, etc. For this, I'd have to give another hunch and say that culture is what's currently holding them back, as there are horror stories of historical figures trying to change the cultures, only to have their efforts taken back to square 1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sankara

[Anonymous No.8592455]

>>8592428
Shit I meant to reply to
>>8585273

[Anonymous No.8592469]

>>8589004
>Thinking that intelligence is solely based off genetics

[Anonymous No.8592488]

>>8590402
Right, it only propelled two entire races into the lowest class brackets within a society.