/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10142842
Here's the CAT scores from the UK, known as the Cognitive Ability Test. It's an IQ test for 12 year olds to determine their future. (2011)
There are large and obvious differences between every ethnicity. Even if you cut out verbal reasoning, pakistanis and blacks are 5 points behind the country mean, and coincidentally those are known as the most "troublesome" ethnicities in the UK. Chinese are 10-15 points ahead, and if you ever visited Oxford or Cambridge you'll see that quite clearly.

Only 60% of schools use the CAT test- those that don't, typically tend to be those with a high ratio of ethnic minorities in inner city areas so the racial differences are probably going to be even higher than what's reported here; realistically, I'd expect a 10 point deficit in those ethnic groups to account for the other 40%. Since GL Assessment stopped publishing racial data we'll never really know.

Asians are Smarter than everyone else, i still think that blacks could have average IQs of 100 they're just unluck.

For information, here's an IQ table categorized by race. The CAT is an IQ test taken by 12 year olds in the UK.

By this table, we can calculate there are going to be 2x as many blacks (including pakistanis and bangladeshis) with an IQ under 85 than whites as a ratio of that population's race- in other words, criminals. Ask yourself this: would you avoid a Chinese person walking across the street? Of course not. Because you know he's far less likely to rob or rape you than a black or even white person.

Now let me get to the point: we can quite accurately determine a person's intelligence solely from their facial features.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081237

We don't discriminate solely based on race, as you can see. We discriminate and rank societal value based on facial features and behavioral estimates on such facial features. It is completely natural, and very accurate. Racism is just a natural consequence of that.

>>8989753
he said related, not caused. Don't say irrelevent things and act as though they're relevent to the argument in order to change the goalposts.

>>8989754
>% of gcse scores

GCSE results can't be reduced to a summary statistic of a single number without throwing out a tonne of the information.
I believe the summary statistic this image is using is % of students who achieved at least 5 GCSE's above grade C.
This of course removes ALL the weight from people who get above this threshold, so that a student who gets 10A*s at GCSE is worth exactly the same as a student who gets 5Cs at GCSE

it's a very poor indicator of IQ , and there is actual data for IQ available in the uk
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/glassessment.pdf