/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10947484
why is there almost no 100% African?
why so many whites with 98%?

seems fucked up somehow

>>10947495
African-Americans average 19% European, and White Americans average 98.6% European.

>self-identified amerimuts

>>10947484
obviously, racism. biased white scientists if those scientists were black....

Hmmm let's see what this "mdpi" publisher is and their "work"

>critique was raised byMartin Haspelmathwho argues that the publication model employed by MDPI "creates a strong incentive to create journals and book imprints that function like 'vanity presses,' allowing authors to publish their low-quality work without significant risk of rejection."

>10 senior editors (including the editor-in-chief) of the journalNutrientsresigned, alleging that MDPI forced the replacement of the editor-in-chief because of his high editorial standards and for resisting pressure to "accept manuscripts of mediocre quality and importance."


Let's see who the authors are.

>William ole William Kirkeegard is aDanishpaedophiliaapologist whose defence of child-rapewas exposed by mainstream news sources in January 2018.
>His writings onrace and intelligence[10]have also caused controversy and becausepeer-reviewedjournals refuse to publish his work, he set up theOpenPsych pseudojournals.

>Kirkegaard is the current domain owner ofMankind Quarterly, a white supremacist journal.

Surely a coincidence! Let's see another
>John Fuerstis aHBDpseudoscientist,anti-Semiteandwhite nationalistwho publishes racist pseudoscience in the far-rightMankind QuarterlyandOpenPsych pseudojournals. He's obsessed withracialismand pretty much only talks about that single topic, dedicating whole blogs to fixate on "racial differences" e.g.Human Varieties,[1]Occidental Ascent[2]andRace, Genes and Disparity.

None of these people even hold PhDs in the areas of publication, except Pesta, but as it turns out
>Pesta who serves on their editorial board, is now editor-in-chief of the open accessPsychjournal, widely regarded as OpenPsych's successor.

Oh no what a coincidence!


This entire thing is /pol/ psuedo science agenda drivel. Don't be fooled by this bullshit.

>>10947576
You're literally copying and pasting from rationalwiki top fucking kek

>>10947576
ya the authors do not seem to understand that non-westerners could (hypothetically) be 2 std above western intelligence with a genetically ingrained desire to eliminate westerners, and they'd still be being imported because construction and development corporations require population growth and western countries do not have the necessary fertility rates.

Immigrant intelligence or lack thereof is completely irrelevant - as long as they need a place to live and food to eat.

>>10947510
imagine not being 100% european.

>>10947576
So in short, baseless accusations and bad-mouthing and now I'm supposed to believe your pointless post because the data is not politically correct?

Friendly reminder: Don't forget to attend Silverberg's history lecture tomorrow. You don't want to miss out on these evil white men.

Howdy doody! A scientific paper that confirms the insecure frustrated panic of the pathetic white cucks that comprise /pol/ - Politically incorrect! Let's take a look at it.

>opens article
Wubba lubba dub dub! The conclusion is explicitly some "race realist" claim and it unironically uses IQ as a one-dimensional measure of intelligence! But it was published! Let's see how trustworthy that journal is.

>looks at MDPI impact factors
>only one of the journals is above 5
Hmm hmm hmm, doesn't look like Nature has anything to worry about, does it...

>RationalWiki
>"Psych is a open-access pseudoscience journal founded in 2019 that has attracted racists from the OpenPsych pseudojournals."
Ouch mang...

>looks for lists of predatory journals
>https://beallslist.weebly.com/
>Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) - I decided not to include MDPI on the list itself. However, I would urge anyone that wants to publish with this publisher to thoroughly read this wiki article detailing their possible ethical/publishing problems.
Oopsie woopsie! Looks like some shitty's in the fannie!

>In 2013, another MDPI journal, Entropy, published a review paper claiming glyphosate may be the most important factor in the development of obesity, depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, cancer, and infertility. [...] It was criticized as pseudo-science by the popular science magazine Discover. With regard to the same controversial study, Jeffrey Beall has rhetorically asked, "When publishers like MDPI disseminate research by science activists like Stephanie Seneff and her co-authors, I think it’s fair to question the credibility of all the research that MDPI publishes. Will MDPI publish anything for money?".
Ouchie bouchie! Sounds like a blatant case of predatory publishing to me...

>looks at Jordan Lasker's publication list
>only this article
Hmmmmm...

[cont.]

>>10947592
They focus on debunking pseudo-science, crank ideas and other bullshit, so of course this crap was bound to be documented. The mdpi quotes are from wikipedia.

Nothing quoted is false and you know it. Too bad you could care less about academic integrity and instead have a need to pad your racist psuedo-garbage with these smoke and mirrors.

If what you are looking for is undiscerning simpletons this isn't the place. You must go back >>>/pol/

>>10947641
Is this real or not? I can't tell.

>>10947639
Cope
>>10947641
Rationalwiki does not "debunk" anything

>looks up Bryan Pesta
>"Bryan J. Pesta is a hereditarianism pseudoscientist and editor-in-chief of Psych."
Woodsie doodsie! Sounds like the co-autor list isn't too beautiful...

>looks up John Fuerst
>publications list is full of the same kind of papers, RationalWiki article makes it clear he's a stormnigger
Ouchie wochie! Sounds like shitty research always fits the conspiracytard stereotypes!

>looks up Emil Kirkegaard
>open his official website
>"My wake time / interests ratio is too small."
>he is unironically a nootropic fag
>no comments on his blog... lonely virgin spotted
But he has blue eyes, so I guess he must be the true pride of his European ancestery!!!

Stormie stormie go back to /pol/ie.
Stormie stormie you'll never get ladies!
Stormie stormie your board's been kinda leakie!
Stormie stormie your poor daddy's full of shamie!

>>10947633
>So in short, just because it's pay2publish pseudo garbage with a clear political agenda it isn't science
Yes, that's exactly right.

>Don't miss out [snowflake white male victim complex]
You're obviously a /pol/drone parroting the latest shtick or a legit shill. This isn't science. Fuck off.

>>10947673
>>So in short, just because it's pay2publish pseudo garbage with a clear political agenda it isn't science
Not what I said. You didn't counter any of my arguments. You use argumentum ad verecundiam and dismiss anything that is not published in "serious" journals which heavily screen for political incorrect material in the first place. Also, most journals are pay to publish.

Picture is you.

>>10947650
It's a "paper" written by people with clear ties to white supremacism and its agenda, in a paper mill journal (pay to publish) with little or no peer review. Imagine Tooker, /sci/s resident schizo, published his latest Reimannn "proof" in some garbage journal and then he or other useful idiot started making threads about how "the riemann hypothesis has been proven false and any claims to the contrary are PC police/censorship etc"--- this is that level of drivel.

>>10947666
Not the same way sites like Snopes does, but they do document and track which achieves the same purpose: expose bullshit.

>>10947679
>You dismiss any pseudoscience published in clear garbage journals with no academic integrity
Not me. The entire scientific establishment depends on solid, good faith, properly vetted research to make progress. Garbage journals are recognized and dimissed for a reason.

You are obviously hung up on a political vendetta out of your snowflake complex. This isn't science--it's mindless /pol/ pandering. Stop trying to decieve people and keep your hit garbage there.

>>10947694
Rationalwiki is run by people with clear ties to anti-racism and its agenda. Also, peer review is close to useless. See :

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

and
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/21/peer-review-replication-and-publication-bias/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR38CtjD__o&t=1497s

>Rationalwiki is run by people with clear ties to anti-racism and its agenda.
>how dare you oppose me calling you a nigger kike faggot I AM SMART AND MENTALLY SANE I SWEAR

>>10947641
damn..... so this is the power of rationalwiki..... whoah.....

>>10947725
>science bad! conspiracy theory good!

>>10947834
>If [politically correct] Print: science, rational
>If [politically incorrect] Print: conspiracy theory, pseudoscience

>>10947880
You have it backwards. Science is what is politically correct, and you can't stand it. In your obsession with being politically incorrect and edgy, you have rejected science. Sorry buddy.

>>10947576
>ad hominem the post

>>10947903
Science has hardly ever been politically correct. Throughout history it has challenged orthodoxies and power structures, and its representatives have been killed, imprisoned, bought off, threatened, or exiled.

shocking. who could have known? oh the humanity...

>>10947484
>the descendants of slaves have lower iq
not a surprise m8
back to vixra

>>10947880
Delay cancellation is a function which is dependent on time/velocity so writing a script to cancel delay is essentially the same as trying to get to work in the morning faster by parking your car and remaining stationary. Theoretically it can be done although obviously it's going to be infinitely more effective to simply drive there.

>another racial IQ thread

>>10947911
>implying you wouldn't ad hom the fuck out of a pack of 60 iq niggers posting their own biased studies

> multi-year study uncovers strong evidence that the sky is in fact blue

>>10947956
sorry sweaty I'm gonna need some peer review with that thanks

>>10947576
>>10947484
>>10947639
>>10947641
>>10947694
>>10947903
>>10947834

ignore him. it is (some Jewish kid LARP'ing as a Nazi) shilling his shit to feel superior again.
this kid was eternally BTFO'd a few years back for trying to impersonate people
you can find some archives here and there makign reference to him.
every now and again he tries to weasel himself into various 4chan affiliated communities (/lit/,/fit/,/pol/,etc)

>>10947576
Debunked I guess. Let's go home guys. Threads over

>>10948004
Sorry not ignoring him.
He blew the fuck out of the OP

>>10947669
You're my hero

>obese friendless whiteoids out on full force tonight


seek mental help

>>10947956
>no such thing as sky its a social construct
>um ever heard of clouds or night? 'blue' sky debunked
>literally shaking rn
>you cant even measure blue anyway

>>10948709
I think he means the OP is. Given that contributed to the study.

>>10948004
Is this him? Would be pretty funny if OP was this stuttering autist.
https://youtu.be/VKHQpXS6Im0

>>10947576
ad hominem, can you attack the actual content of the article?

Using data from the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort, we examined whether European ancestry predicted cognitive ability over and above both parental socioeconomic status (SES) and measures of eye, hair, and skin color. First, using multi-group confirmatory factor analysis, we verified that strict factorial invariance held between self-identified African and European-Americans. The differences between these groups, which were equivalent to 14.72 IQ points, were primarily (75.59%) due to difference in general cognitive ability (g), consistent with Spearman’s hypothesis. We found a relationship between European admixture and g. This relationship existed in samples of (a) self-identified monoracial African-Americans (B = 0.78, n = 2,179), (b) monoracial African and biracial African-European-Americans, with controls added for self-identified biracial status (B = 0.85, n = 2407), and (c) combined European, African-European, and African-American participants, with controls for self-identified race/ethnicity (B = 0.75, N = 7,273). Controlling for parental SES modestly attenuated these relationships whereas controlling for measures of skin, hair, and eye color did not. Next, we validated four sets of polygenic scores for educational attainment (eduPGS). MTAG, the multi-trait analysis of genome-wide association study (GWAS) eduPGS (based on 8442 overlapping variants) predicted g in both the monoracial African-American (r = 0.111, n = 2179, p < 0.001), and the European-American (r = 0.227, n = 4914, p < 0.001) subsamples. We also found large race differences for the means of eduPGS (d = 1.89).

>>10948972
Using the ancestry-adjusted association between MTAG eduPGS and g from the monoracial African-American sample as an estimate of the transracially unbiased validity of eduPGS (B = 0.124), the results suggest that as much as 20%–25% of the race difference in g can be naïvely explained by known cognitive ability-related variants. Moreover, path analysis showed that the eduPGS substantially mediated associations between cognitive ability and European ancestry in the African-American sample. Subtest differences, together with the effects of both ancestry and eduPGS, had near-identity with subtest g-loadings. This finding confirmed a Jensen effect acting on ancestry-related differences. Finally, we confirmed measurement invariance along the full range of European ancestry in the combined sample using local structural equation modeling. Results converge on genetics as a potential partial explanation for group mean differences in intelligence.

>How is this research allowed? I can't believe I'm forced to look at such vile bigotry in 2019. Someone should dox everyone involved and their children.

>>10947669
Yikes!

>>10947484
>>10947495
"self-identified race"

this study is just a pile of bullshit

>>10948758
>being nonwhite on 4chan

>psuedo

>>10948999
>posts le funny tennis gorilla reaction image
Back to black twitter negroid

>>10948999
self-identified race correlates almost exactly with objectiv emetrics such as geographical ancestry

>>10948004
>>10948709
>>10948961
You cant make this shit up
https://tgstat.com/ru/channel/@TGHOF/47

>>10948990
>act like a retard online
>get called out
>"mommy they're doxxing me!!1!"

>>10948004
>it is (some Jewish kid LARP'ing as a Nazi) shilling his shit to feel superior again.
Fuck off, Paul.

>>10949077
We've seen your dumb mug enough, . No need to post it anymore.

>>10947484
lol, these 100% European "blacks"

wtf is going on?
all I can decipher is that some Jew wants to be /pol/ but still acts like a Jew

>>10948004
Holy fuck. You literary can't make this shit up. Here's a cap that some anon made some years back. Never thought the autism would ever linger this long.

>>10949274
Anon, you're my hero.
I remember this very post. Too bad it doesn't go into the shit that occured on Telegram. I just remember that some autist did some extreme detective work and contacted Maverick Willet (the bodybuilder) a second time. Maverick had to threaten to sue for him to finally stop. had the LARP account and a second account he used to groom underage girls. Not to mention the fact that he was datamining his /pol/group.
Were you there for that? I wasn't too involved. I just remember him getting ass blasted.

>>10947639
>The conclusion is explicitly some "race realist" claim and it unironically uses IQ as a one-dimensional measure of intelligence!

g is the basis of most of the predictive validity of IQ test results and the most heritable source of variance in IQ tests. It's also the factor that is the basis of most of the black white IQ gap (Spearman's Hypothesis) which was validated within this study using multi group confirmatory factor analysis. So it's quite natural to focus on g when examine the source of racial differences in mental ability.

The structure of human differences in mental abilities is hierarchical but non-g factors barly offer any incremental predictive validity (if any) over g in representative samples so all this talk about multi dimensionality by all the pseuds that talk about this topic is a giant red herring.

https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2003-gottfredson.pdf

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.394.8878&rep=rep1&type=pdf

http://atavisionary.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Intelligence-genes-and-genomics-plomin-2004.pdf

>RationalWiki

According to rationalwiki:
-Plomin, Rindermann, Haier and te Nijenhuis are pseudoscientists
-Woodley is not qualified when it comes to Intelligence research (he received the rising star award by the aps for his work on the Flynn effect)
-Cambridge university press is a prolific publisher of pseudoscience
-used to claim Turkheimer and Paige Harden (those are some of the most committed environmentalists in behavioral genetics) are also racist pseudoscientist

Rationalwiki will smears anything that touches IQ research and behavioral genetics for confirming completely mainstream scientific positions of these fields. It is the worst source for investigating the credibility of anything related to these fields.

THIS ISN'T ALLOWED

BLASPHEMY BLASPHEMY BLASPHEMY

>>10947484
tl;dr versions:
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=7995
http://www.unz.com/isteve/global-ancestry-and-cognitive-ability/
https://twitter.com/PedanticIdiot/status/1169310633818349571?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

>>10949022
not at all

>>10949312
>>10949274
>>10949071
>>10948004
holy shit. how many of you know of ? I thought he was just an obscure meme. after a quick search it looks like he posted the same thread on r9k and got called out there too

>>10948999
Are you retarded? This is a study that investigates the relationship of cognitive ability with genetic ancestry.

>>10949274
how much of /pol/ are yamukah wearing (((neonazis)))?

>>10949378
Probably quite a few. It is interesting how they infiltrate these groups and fuck them over every time.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Collin

>>10949413
genius strategy really,
>hey feds this site/group is full of disgusting pedo/nazis that want to shoot innocent brown people
>how do you know that?
>because we um put it the-
>[elbow](shut up Mordicai)
>ok gentlemen this seems to be in order lets go arrest some dreadful racists

>>10947694
>oh noes Perelman only published his stuff on arxiv. Let's ignore this garbage.

Since Jensen and Rushton died and Haier became editor in chief at Intelligence it has gotten a lot harder to publish investigations of the black white IQ gap in the most mainstream journals of the field especially when employing genomic methodology. Such investigations of Jewish Gentile gap (with similar hbd related authors) still get accepted in APA journals though. Admixture and PGS based investigations of group differences in non-behavioral traits have no trouble getting published.

It's quite obvious that the psych and genetics gatkeepers that try to keep genomic research of group diff. in behavior out of the lit. mostly worry about the potential impact a media shit storm could have on their funding. IQ research is always on the cusp of another "controversy" and Geneticist need all the funding they can get for the precious biobanks which they procure by overselling the potential of medical interventions based on their findings. Lefty journos talking about tax payer funded "scientfic racism" in these fields could easily fuck with their ability to continue researching whatever they want to research.

>>10949343
>Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

>Genotype data from only 50 random SNPs was sufficient to predict ancestral continent of origin in our primary test data set with anaverage accuracy of 95%. Genetic variations informative about ancestry were common and widely distributed throughout the genome.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1828730/

Racists: "blacks r dumb"
Also racists:

>>10947484
>European ancestry
that word has no meaning

>>10949559
>European ancestry
>"that word"
anon "European ancestry" is two words.

>>10949507
>black (aka African) actually have African ancestry
>white (aka European) actually have European ancestry
Amazing.

>>10949572
You're giving him too much credit. This is the guy you're responding to.

>>10949572
>African-americans have european ancestry this is why they cluster with whites.

Based on this post you probably cluster with abos especially when using IQ related SNPs.

Your daily reminder that human races are a biological fact.

>>10949672
Daily reminder that you don't know what PCA is. That's just a chart of skin color pigment because I said so and you don't know better.

>>10948972
>The differences between these groups, which were equivalent to 14.72 IQ points
Let's see his research artifacts

ITT: 115 IQ genetically close Khazar hive disliking the fact that they're not the smartest group.

>>10949565
>hah gotcha!

>>10949703
>because I said so
great argument there m8

>>10950240
Prove me wrong, please

>Recent immigrants from Africa in the sample may have affected the scores reported here as migrants may have been selected for cognitive ability when they emigrated from their home countries. As such, we conducted a robustness test by rerunning the analyses excluding individuals with one percent or less European ancestry.

Research invalidated, the paper reports that European ancestry is positively correlated with higher cognitive ability. I won't dispute that, what I will dispute is the fact that by excluding those with significant African ancestry who have been selected for higher cognition. You are in fact artificially inflating the European correlation and disregarding correlated factors of African ancestry that could point to higher cognitive ability.

They say that African migrants didn't substantially "affect" the results for African Americans so why didn't they provide the scoring for with African migrants and without?

Mfw there are more white people at the bottom of the intelligence scale than black people. Is this supposed to be white supremacist propaganda? If so the authors do not understand how to create biased statistics lmao.

>>10950454
>white people at the bottom of the intelligence scale
and they hang out in /pol/

>>10950473
Agreed. Where they post charts they do not understand. Like this one. I feel like I shouldn't be laughing.

>>10950405
I don't understand what you're trying to say there. If selected high IQ African immigrants would affect the results it would bias the relationship downwards not upwards. The reported results don't use this exclusion criteria it was merely performed as robustness test.

If you want more details on the analysis that excludes <1% eur ancestry: emil@emilkirkegaard.dk

>>10950454
>Mfw there are more white people at the bottom of the intelligence scale than black people

This claim is so vague that it can't be evaluated within the the US context. Can you quantify what "bottom of the intelligence scale" means?

>>10950454
>mfw 20% of black people are smarter than 50% of white people
holy....

>>10950616
>quantify
It is a very simple chart. Why would you require an explanation? If you need one then you won't be capable of understanding the explanation anyway.

>>10950628
>chart
Wtf are you talking about?

>>10947576

Do you have any actual arguments, or are you just going to spout irrelevant bullshit all day?

>>10947576
Cope.

>>10947484
DELET

>>10947669
>Rationalwiki
YIIIK

>>10950635
Only respondining to contribute to the bump limit of this shitty thread desu.

Just look at the datapoints at the bottom of the intelligence scale as per the image in the op. There are more really stupid white people than there are really stupid black people. Additionally most of the stupid black people have white genetics.

Is this a troll thread for morons? I'm out guys, have fun in here with whatever circlejerk of stupidity is going on in here. Thanks for the chuckle.

>>10949413
>>10949458
whenever I see someone a little over-the-top racist on /pol/ I just assume it's Them

>>10950653
I thought you wanted to make some general claim about the world or the US. Since you don't: Whatever.

Even in this sample your claim depends on your definition. It's true for g<-5 (randomness happens to be on your side), It's false for g<-4.

>>10947484
r8 my research

>>10949326
>>10949331
>>10949340
>>10949461
>>10949507
>>10950405

You've been ousted for a fraud yet keep samefagging your cooked up bullshit. Fuck off already.

>>10951016
you don't even know what samefagging is

>>10951045
>what is inspect element
Regardless, he still got 4 of 6.

>>10950751
You forgot units in your axes

>>10947576
>if you say blacks are dumb it must be false if you're also a racist

WHAT CONVENIENT REASONING

>>10947576
>science is wrong because it triggers my morals
Science denialism in left, everyone.

>result known for 10000 years and already confirmed in hundreds of studies is still true
did not see that one coming

>>10951306
Posting multiple times in one thread while responding to different posts is not samefagging. I'm also not Jordan Lasker or the op.

>>10951386
These admixture studies are pretty cool because they are used for causal interference on group differences in other research questions and environmentalists like Nisbett used to tout admixture studies when they were in his favor (due to severely flawed methods for assessing ancestry):

>So what do we have in the way of studies that examine the effects of racial ancestry—by far the most direct way to assess the contribution of genes versus the environment to the black/white IQ gap? [...] In short, though one would never know it by reading Herrnstein and Murray’s book (1994) or Rushton and Jensen’s article (zoos), the great mass of evidence on racial ancestry—the only direct evidence we have—points toward no contribution at all of genetics to the black/white gap.

So Nisbett will have to twist himself like a pretzel to defend his previous position on the source of the black white IQ gap in light of the emerging evidence with vastly superior methodology for assessing ancestry than the studies he based his claim on.

https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=7641
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=7632

>>10950653
you’re so stupid

>>10947484
we all come from africa, duh

>>10947576
>le rational skeptic breaks down and resorts to the most bare-faced example of argumentum ad hominem i've ever seen

>>10947641
Holy cringe, ad hominems are the best you have

>>>/lgbt/

>We can't let non-leftist have access to genome data
>Employer? Why do you allow this research. You must stop these madman.
>Publisher? Stop platforming data analyses that might be used to argue against woke narratives!

The absolute state of woke academia.

>>10951782
these people are insane

I cant believe how racist the medical/biology community is. pic related, how is this allowed in 2019?

>>10947576
>copy pasting from a libshit site
>not even a sentence addressing the actual article just attacking the persons involved
wow, it's almost like you're retarded.

>>10951880
>>10951782
>>10951630

Not sure if samefag, but sure smells like discord-groupie bumps.


>>10951528
>I'm not, i'm the dutch peddler running the white supremacist site
Clown world indeed fren.

Everyone just keep calm and keep your garbage back in /pol/. Thanks.

>>10951985
> smells like discord-groupie bumps.
what the hell is this even supposed to mean?

>>10951985
I'm german but close enough. Can you substantiate your claim that this study or hereditarianism on racial differences in intelligence is based on pseudoscientific methodology?

The second of the three posts is mine. The other two are by different posters with IPs that are new to this thread. There is quite a bit of shitpoisting in this thread but most of it is coming from your camp:

>>10951985
>>10950751
>>10950454
>>10949637
>>10949572
>>10949354
>>10948999
>>10948961
>>10947669
>>10947641
>>10947639
>>10947576

All these posts are complete garbage without anything even approaching a refutation, a counter case or even a relevant citation.

>discord-groupie bumps
Stop pushing these crazy conspiracy theories without any supporting evidence. This nonsense does not constitute a refutation of anything and vastly overestimate the extend to which people care about what is on the first pages of /sci/.

>>10951985
"Everyone Who Calls Out My Bullshit is the Same Person: A Retards Guide to the Internet"

>>10951998
>most of it is coming from your camp
yes, but thats deserved.

>>10951985
>2.29 posts/IP
>everybody who isn't me is the same person.

What an absolute retard you are.

>>10951998
How do you know they're different IPs, nigger?

>>10952017
By not being a redditor trying to push an empirically vapid narrative. You probably one of the Kevin Bird dicksuckers. Must be embarrassing seeing your commie idol who considers himself a serious researcher getting destroyed by someone calling himself trannypornO.

>>10952017
https://github.com/ccd0/4chan-x/

>>10951985
The environmentarian is immunized against all dangers:

one may call him a anti-darwinist, retard, liar, marxist, it all runs of him like water off a raincoat. But call him a redditor and ask him for empirical evidence and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: 'I've been found out'.

>another IQ thread

>>10952798
Going by Niesbett's assessment of the importance of admixture studies this and other very recent studies with direct genetic evidence represent a significant change in the totality of the evidence on the cause of the black-white-IQ gap: A research question with serious social implications.

Why shouldn't these developments be discussed on a science board?

>>10951528

>>10947484
> r = 0.411
So in other words, no relation at all.

>>10952845
Learn statistics. the difference was about 1 standard deviation at the endpoints, which means that with an r of 0.4 that half of Europeans have a g-factor higher than 80% of Africans, which is significant.

>>10952845
>Our data are compatible with a between-group heritability (variance explained by European ancestry) of between 50% and 70% depending on the model chosen (see Scarr et al.,p. 85 [52]). This estimate of between-group heritability is consistent with Rushton and Jensen’s [9] hereditarian model, according to which 50%–80% of the African-/European-American cognitive difference is due to genetic differences.

>>10947484
niggers are stupid
water is wet
more at 9

>>10952832
> direct genetic evidence
Completely arbitrary genetic divisions. With an r value of 0.411, you might as well say that people with blue eyes are smarter than people with brown eyes.

No relation is no relation.

>>10952901
you are aware that no relation would be 0, and not 0.4, right?

>>10952901
I believe an r score of .411 is defined as a positive correlation

>>10952861
>>10952867
> No, you learn statistics. Specifically, what r actually means. The model has a fit of 0.411, which means that there is only a 60% chance of the curve being right. In science, that's garbage.

>>10952926
You believe wrong. Google if unclear on the definition.

>>10952951
>googlel
riddle me this
why have blacks never invented written text or the wheel?

>>10952903
> Claiming r of 0.4 to have meaning because, gosh, 0.4 is greater than 0
Please tell me you aren't this retarded.

>>10952946
That isn’t what r2 means either

>>10952946
>there is only a 60% chance of the curve being right
thats not how you interpret R you retard.

>>10952028
>everyone who opposes me must be the follower of some obscure researcher

>someone calling himself trannypornO
Well it looks like the commies were right about one thing.

>>10952955
>
why have blacks never invented written text or the wheel?
> Goalpostshifting.jpg
I'll take what is Egypt for 400, Alex.

>>10952957
> That isn’t what r2 means either
> thats not how you interpret R you retard.

Good God, how can people talk about science and be this stupid?

Lrn2statistics.

>>10952973
>Egypt
>Black
did you miss the shitstorm when they found out that back then egypt was much less black?

>>10952951
Nope, just googled it, that's a positive correlation, I was right.

>>10952973
north africans were not black

>>10953002
It is not black even today. And was even less black in the past.

>>10952989
R-squared is the percentage of the dependent variable variation that a linear model explains.

>>10953012
egyptian royals were redheads.

Imagine having niggers living rent free in your mind. Imagine being white in 2020-1 America kek.

>>10952970
Kevin Bird is some phd student that tries to debunk hereditarianism on twitter and reddit and fails miserably. He has no publication history on this topic. If you talk about this stuff there is a high probability one of his goons will tag him since all they can do themselves is calling things racist and pseudoscience. His effort has gotten him mentioned in the nytime though so I guess he's happy even though he can't even hold his own in live debates against complete psych/genetics amateurs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/insider/science-genetics-white-supremacy.html

trannypornO/Crémieux is well connected with researchers as evidenced by his access to unpublished manuscripts and his medium posts get linked on twitter by people with pubs in the field.

https://medium.com/@cremieux
https://www.reddit.com/r/heredity/comments/9nnmb6/fallacious_or_otherwise_bad_arguments_against/

>>10953080
Is TrannypornO? I can only assume so, given the name.

>trannypornO/Crémieux is well connected with researchers
Well yeah, he LARPs and infiltrates as noted by others.

>>10953187
No clue. He makes a bunch of claims about his background and political views bu they could be false leads.

I don't know about lore but why would he he use a pseudonym when he publishes hbd stuff under his real identity anyways?

>>10953219
Then why even mention TrannypornO. Who is he?

>>10953243
His identity isn't public knowledge. Pseudonyms aren't particularly uncommon in the hbd sphere even though they have gotten a bit less common in recent years since many migrated from blogs to publishing in journals.

>>10953267
That isn't what I meant by "who is he."
I mean why even post on him in the first place. Just seems like an excuse to shit on bird and link some Reddit post.

>>10953283
Shitting on the internet science man of the environmentarians is always appropriate and trannyporno has compiled the most comprehensive debunking of IQ denial that goes beyond merely stating that IQ tests are racist pseudoscience and referencing Garders multiple intelligences model as superior alternative.

>>10947484

>>10953539
>i posted it again
Refrain from posting debunked infopics in /sci/.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/our-human-reference-genome-is-missing-a-lot-of-material/
>...the reference genome is missing a colossal 10 percent of the genetic information found in the genomes of hundreds of people with African ancestry -- information that also appears in other human populations.
>That's not to say this information is unique to African people: about 40 percent of this data matched either the Korean or Chinese genomes. This suggests that it's important genetic material that's present across a huge range of humans, but still not captured by the reference genome assembled from just a small number of people.

The paper in Nature:
http://archive.is/hUkel
>Our analysis revealed 296,485,284bp in 125,715 distinct contigs present in the populations of African descent, demonstrating that the African pan-genome contains ~10% more DNA than the current human reference genome.
>The lack of diversity in the reference genome poses many challenges when analyzing individuals whose genetic background does not match the reference.
>A single reference genome is not adequate for population-based studies of human genetics

http://archive.is/xAGL5
Pic related from Cell shows that reference genome-based predictions about African traits, avg. height, incidence of schizophrenia and type 2 diabetes badly conflict with known empirical values.
Therefore, different genes not found in the reference must be coding for the differences.

>>10953539
>africans do not have the same genetics as europeans
>being european is correlated with increased intelligence
>therefore, africans are less intelligent than europeans
Circular logic

>>10947928
You're confusing science with the interpretation of science by non scientist. Not that I was expecting something intelligent by a /pol/tard
>>10947903
This, by the way

>>10953730
Genetics is overwhelming agnostic on the sociobiological ramifications of behavioral genetics research, the most aggressive policy reccomendations you will hear are screening for dangerous endophenos like schizophrenia and encouraging special attention paid to low and high pgs for intelligence linked traits in early childhood from people like Plomin. no one thinks science should be racist lol its only you retards that think you can make declarative statements about actual causes (or lack there of, the more nebulous and non-mechanistic the explanation the better amirite?) of life outcome differences and differentiation in expressed behavioral phenotypes among cohabiting mixed ancestry populations. Attacking halfwit /pol/tards doesn’t change the research and denying people the right to explore plausible hypotheses for observed biological phenomena doesn’t make the explanations and their possible real mechanisms vanish. If environment does constitute most of human development then we have to find evidence this is so, continue to find evidence this is so, collate evidence, come up with causal explanations, relate these with existing theory and explain evolutionary and historical phenomena accurately using these new models. If that’s not interesting to you then don’t interfere with the process.

>>10949672
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2947357/
>/pol/tard can't even comprehend the purpose of the study
My major histocompatibility complex is COMPLETELY different from yours, so that prove that we are from different races? Fucking uneducated /pol/tard, I have worked my ass off to get a Ph.D. in Clinical genetic while mongoloids like you are allowed to open the mouth in things they can't even understand.
People like you should have the freedom of speech, just little braindead inepts failed in life whose only purpose is to make McDonald richer. How the fuck in the internet a retard like you has the same freedom of speech as someone who has studied for years
Kill yourself, subhuman

>>10953766
TL;DR

>>10953787
You are attempting to claim moral high ground for an amoral endeavor which requires commitment to causal-mechanistic explanations. if an environmentalist explanation of behavior is not founded in that kind of model and does not extend to wider evolutionary processes in other species over the whole of observed history and prehistory it is not useful and must be rejected or modified extensively. One does not say that because environment may be the best explanation for a specific observed result in a single or even group of studies that it is a new explanation for the phenomena throughout evolutionary and behavioral biology. To do so is to flout the basic processes which insure empirical rigor and explanatory power in the life sciences, a set of fields which already have trouble with just that.

>>10953787
further if a genetic explanation does offer extensive explanatory power and can be integrated into existing robust models then it must be preferenced until this is proven to no longer hold. therefore we cannot make moral or political statements about behavioral research as we endanger the entire process of forming coherent multidisciplinary studies of biological systems especially evolutionary theory and developmental biology which rely heavily on mathematical models, relatively consistent and careful logical deductions and biochemistry/molecular biology for their explanatory power and robustness. Environmentalist explanations seldom offer routes for observing the mechanism in play and frequently make rather unconvincing recourse to stochastic models and “emergence” without any desire to find evidence of these things or to connect them aggressively with systematics, evo bio and dev bio.

>>10953779
>>>/pol/

>>10953697
>posting about non-intelligence PGS issues to debunk intelligence PGS

These issues don't seem to apply to intelligence gwas results. Their results are very consistent with observed phenotypical differences.

https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/5/htm

>>10953707
Problem is the gwas hits are from monoracial samples (whites) and were then applied to population differences so your point is not reflective of what has actually happened.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6393768/
>In our primary GWAS, we study EA, which is measured as number of years of schooling completed (EduYears). All association analyses were performed at the cohort level in samples restricted to European-descent individuals.

>pretending to be informed while talking rubbish
don't do this.

>>10952955
Neither did white Europeans.

>>10953960
The wheel was invented by the Yamnaya independently, who were "white" as they were descended from eastern European hunter-gatherers and carried genes for blond hair

>>10947576
tl;dr but what the fuck is wrong with your spacebar dude

>>10947641
>They focus on debunking pseudo-science, crank ideas and other bullshit
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gamergate

>>10953968
The wheel was invented by Middle Easterners.

>>10953834
>These issues don't seem to apply to intelligence gwas results. Their results are very consistent with observed phenotypical differences.
"our method generally yields faulty predictions, but it worked in this case because we know niggers are dumb"

>Height was used as a control variable, due to its similar polygenic nature to cognitive ability.
What did they mean by this?

>A limitation of the present study is its reliance on estimates of population IQ as the phenotypic variable, which are not perfectly accurate, besides potentially reflecting environmental and economic differences between populations.
What did they mean by this?

>>10954129
What is the likelihood that IQ/EA PGS just happen to make quite accurate predictions (more accurate than environmental variables) of group differences in measured IQ wherever they are employed while not actually reflecting some underlying causal genetic difference? Seems like a mighty coincidence.

See:
>>10947484
and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601752_Polygenic_Scores_Mediate_the_Jewish_Phenotypic_Advantage_in_Educational_Attainment_and_Cognitive_Ability_Compared_With_Catholics_and_Lutherans

>>10953985
>He still thinks gamergate was anything more than a group of vidya spergs getting full triggered that some shitty depression game got some free publicity
Top kek. Let me guess, fearless kekistani red pilling normies and owning the libs everywhere you go, right?

>>10951998
>Can you refute the fact that studies proving the efficacy of snake oil published by known snake oil salesmen is pseudoscientific?
That's right. Biased, bad-faith agents don't make science. They make propaganda.

>Crazy conspiracies
> Ignores
>>10949354
>>10949312
>>10949071
>>10948004

One of the authors is a literal discord/whatsapp/social group sperg known to amass people through fraud and i'm the "crazy conspiracist"? You are gonna have to work harder on your damage control department.

Can we get a list of all the retarded things IQ deniers believe but can't prove?
>evolution isn't real
>genes aren't real
>brains aren't real
>brains are real but they didn't evolve
>they did evolve but exactly the same way in different groups
>they evolved differently but function the same way
>they function differently but not in any way that affects intelligence
>brains evolved and intelligence is heritable but only above species level
>can't measure brain size
>can't measure brain size accurately bc everyone who does is racist
>can measure brain size but extra tissue in bigger brains has no function
>extra tissue functions but not in any way that affects intelligence
>intelligence isn't real
>it is but can't be measured
>it can't be measured accurately bc everyone who does is racist
>IQ, income, brain size, educational attainment, etc all correlate with each other but not with intelligence
>intelligence tests are all inaccurate in the same way, giving brown people low scores and yellow people high scores
>yellow people get high scores despite the tests being designed to prove white supremacy by scoring traits possessed by white westerners
>can measure intelligence but brown people only score low because everything is racist
>intelligence researchers are all absolutely incompetent
>their mistakes all confirm the same results over and over just by chance
>they're competent except they have never heard of controls
>they have but don't control the right variables
>they do but the sample was too small
>the sample was big but their stats are wrong
>their stats are right but their interpretation is wrong
>they're racist
>no competent non-racist has ever entered intelligence research, defined intelligence, designed a good intelligence test, collected, analyzed or published correctly interpreted data

>>10947576
>rationalwiki

>>10953283
Because it is. That is clearly shilling his shit here. I can tell just by the schizophrenic way he types.
>Crémieux
>Adolphe Crémieux was a staunch defender of the rights of the Jews of France.

>>10954610
>One of the authors is a literal discord/whatsapp/social group sperg
100% this!

>>10954790
>>10953283
>>10954610
By the way. Want to know how else I know it is?
>Trannyporno

His old reddit was filled with that shit.
archive.is/f0vYZ
Here is an archive from social catfish showing that his old reddit username was "faliceer." He deleted it back when he was exposed the first time. HOWEVER you can still see some of his posts and comments if you plug his username into http://redditsearch.io

Lets have a look, shall we? Pic related. It maybe a bit jumbled but you can confirm for yourself. is a tranny fucking, roid using, kike. Although I can see why he might need the roids. He was too busy fucking around on Whatapps to read Scrawny to Brawny.

>>10949312
>Maverick Willet
Someone should send him this thread.

>>10954890
>"blacks are low IQ"
>drinks milk
>eats random mushrooms

And some cringe he posted in a r/Tinder post.

>>10954908

>>10954908
>>10954940

>>10954908
>>10954940
>>10954946
>"Lmfao nah"
>"This is a stupid question"
>"Cool"

>>10954610
>the stable relationship between genotype and phenotype which have is obviously completely spurious because I found two obviously unrelated arbitrary variables that are well correlated within a arbitrarily restricted range of time

The EA/IA GWAS results have been decent predictors of rank order across different data sets and within different contexts (national group differences, within family differences, individual differences within whites and African-americans, ...) and GWA Studies. There is some reduction in predictive validity within more distant populations but it still retains a large part of it within all tested populations.

The height GWAS hits (GIANT) have a lot more issues with reliably predicting phenotype rank order in different contexts.

>ad-homs against one of the authors are a valid argument against data
I know you want to defend niggers and attack whites because you're ones of these cancerous commies that can't believe people still get away with publishing """scientific racism""" but nobody is convinced that this stuff undermines the fact that niggers are dumb because of their genes.

>it's all spurious even though it's consistent with predictions made from quant. genetic data, group differences in brain size, multiple admixture studies and psychometric analysis of group differences in mental ability,

>>10947495
>slavs
>greeks
>white
Choose one schlomo

>By contrast, however, the tenured sceptics are a positive shambles. Their favourite gambits are as follows: nature and nurture cannot be separated; Bouchard's identical twins were only separated for twenty years; "the deprivation experiment can tell us nothing about the role of genes because it varies only experience"; genes have their effect in interaction with the environment; the h2 for IQ might be different in different environmental 'reaction-ranges'; the h2 might be different if new environments realized more of a person's 'genetic potential'; everything is necessarily cultural. These mouthings are variously platitudinous, incoherent, unfalsifiable, tired (seldom advancing beyond Herrman and Hogben's (1932/3) speculative reservations) or even well in line with what hereditarians themselves have demonstrated (as to how a child's genes help create its environment). Still more striking is the complete failure of the sceptics to explain any percentage of IQ variance whatsoever. Instead of seeing themselves as offering a competing, social-environmentalist theory that can handle the data, or some fraction of it, the sceptics simply have nothing to propose of any systematic kind. Instead, their point or hope is merely that everything might be so complex and inextricable and fast-changing that science will never grasp it. Hunt finally summarizes matters: the sceptics have humanitarian and hypothetical reservations about the hereditarian case, but they have no alternative to it. As Hunt says, "If we insist on treating genetic and cultural explanations of intelligence as a stomping match, then the behavioral geneticists are the stompers and the proponents of cultural effects are the stompees."

The state of environmentarians sine Jensen is absolutely pathetic. Constantly having to dream up empirically unsupported models on how it just looks like it's the genes while absolutely not being the genes while your opponents trash one theory after another must be taxing.

Interesting how obvious -tier posts are spammed shortly after someone calls him out.

>>10955002
>>10955011
>>10955025
Hey faggot, respond to these.
>>10954890
>>10954908
>>10954940
>>10954946
>>10954950

Interesting how obvious antifa tier posts are spammed when their sacred believe in the cosmic equality of the mind is challenged

>>10955072
>everyone who calls me out must be antifa

>>10955025
>appearance has precisely no correlation with iq
He’s not actually wrong but only because it has negligible association with it at one extreme (genius) and strong correlation at the other extreme (idiocy) but very inconsistent in the middle of the distribution where most people tend to lie. Though of course autists do actually present unique facial morphology and tend to skew higher or lower iq even if only slightly but that’s not the same sort of relationship.

Imagine thinking the people calling you a kike and faggot are antifa. The delusional Jewish brain at work.

>>10955081
antifa tier anon
antifa tier
its different from antifa themselves.

>>10951998
Only one of those posts is mine. You decide which. I don't like the ops shitty graph so fuck you and this thread.

Who is this faggot being posted about ITT and what does he have to do with the study?

>>10955089
Its just people trying to derail the thread from other boards and sites.

>>10955089
he cannot talk science so he talks personal insults instead

>>10955087
>"your camp"
>Only one of those posts is mine

You're exposing your inability to grasp very simple statements. Again.

>>10955089
Supposedly one of the authors did some gringe shit sometime ago. Therefor the study is bunk and blacks are actually as smart as Asians and Whites. Or something. Fairly standards arguments for anti-hereditarians.

>>10955089
It's the author "."

>>10955086
Once again...
Sorry then... Imagine thinking the people calling you a kike and faggot are antifa tier*

>>10952017
If you're an oldfag you spam f5 and stare at the numbers at the bottom right of the thread newfriend.

>>10955097
You pretentious cockbag. I pointed out various flaws in your failureganda and you insulted me for it. You should be thanking me. Obviously you have your head so far up your own ass you contracted conjunctivitis and can't even see wtf is going on anymore.

>>10947576
>>10947639
>>10947641
>>10947669

See this /sci/? Stop tolerating leftists and stop tolerating communists/marxists, and stop tolerating genetic deniers and racial equality pseudoscience.

Anti-racism is a disgusting evil ideology, an aspect of their religious insanity. It needs to die or humanity will die.

>>10955104
You pointed to multiple theoretical flaws and overgeneralized issues that were demonstrated in other studies of different traits. Not actual flaws that undermine the overall reliability of this study or the hereditarian case to a severe degree has been demonstrated.

You didn't even address the admixture analysis of the et al. paper,

>>10955111
>theoretical flaws
as in flaws that are plausible but have no specific empirical support for IQ/EA.

>>10947484
I find it repulsive that the gene denying pseudoscience that leftists preach is so behind the times

I mean, denying that cognitive ability are genetics? Just wait until you learn that EVERY SINGLE TRAIT IS GENETIC. All of them. Every feeling, every personality, every behavioral trait, they are all genetic, and they differ substainsily between races, to the point you can make prediction.

Being a far leftists is to be mentally ill, do the leftists in this thread some sane? How about the mods do something and get rid of him? I wanna punch anti-racists activists for fucking lying to me.

>>10955106
It has to be a troll, I cant see anyone actually typing like that outside of tumblr.

>>10952901
>you might as well say that people with blue eyes are smarter than people with brown eyes
>implying I'm not

>>10955111
Actually I just pointed out that the image in the op shows that white people are more stupid than black people overall and that they only have a higher place on the graphe because of so many outliers in the high intellect category as well.

Basically blacks have better intelligence collectively than whites. Whites have more really smart and really stupid people than the black people.

>>10955117
List a single trait the than gender and sexuality thats genetic, we know that even things like height and eye color can change based on the first couple of months a baby is alive (check how a babies eye color often changes). Twin studies have shown that even with identical genetics animals can turn out completely different (specifically even a clones cat turned out completely different from the original cat once)

>>10955125
wat. if anything if we remove outliers on both sides Europeans average would be even higher, look at all the retarded Europeans at -5

>>10955130
Yea. It's almost like our white genes made them stupid. Checkmate eugenics.

>>10955106
>>10955117
>>10955002
>>10955072

I love imagining sitting there samefagging his hardest to convince anons that those...
A) Calling into question his research, as could be expected from any controversial research posted on /sci/
AND
B) Calling him a homosexual kike
are part of a larger leftist/marxist/communist/antifa conspiracy out to discredit him.

>How about the mods do something and get rid of him? I wanna punch anti-racists activists for fucking lying to me.
Holy shit. Just look at this. Imagine typing this and thinking "wow this totally doesn't sound fake! This is something someone would type in defense of myself."

>>10955137
wat

>>10955125
>I just pointed out that the image in the op shows that white people are more stupid than black people overall

This doesn't even deserve a response.

>Whites have more really smart and really stupid people than the black people.

Withes (sd=15, mean=100) do have a wider distribution than backs (mean=85, sd=~12). If you use 3sd below white mean as cutoff for really fucking retarded you get roughly equal absolute numbers (in the US) of whites and blacks below that cutoff so the prevalence of being absolutely retarded is markedly different.

>>10955128
>he thinks gender is genetic

>>10955125
>Actually I just pointed out that the image in the op shows that white people are more stupid than black people

Are you fucking blind? Or lying?

>>10955163
Most of your blacks aren't blacks, just mutts like you. And me. As per the graph.

Lets talk about controls. Can you correct for socio-economic factors orrrr... Yea I didn't think so. The whole graph is fucked. It's just absolute garbage. THEY AREN'T EVEN BLACK. It's a graph comparing mutts with some arbitrary racial bullshit plastered over the top.

>>10955194
Naively correcting for SES is an example of the sociologist's fallacy see Flynn(1980, chapter 2). In behavioral genetic studies (i.e studies that control for genetic confounders) SES has pretty much no explanatory power for adult IQ differences within races so why would you expect this to be different for group differences?

http://arthurjensen.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Race-IQ-and-Jensen-James-Flynn.pdf

>THEY AREN'T EVEN BLACK
Pure blacks in Africa are even more retarded than US-Blacks. US Blacks are 80% African on average and the more African they are the lower their IQ.

>When you need 219 replies of cope from gated community suburban kiddies to try and avoid the obvious conclusion that anyone who has ever lived in a black neighbourhood could tell you
>Blacks are less intelligent than whites

>>10955194
>>10955218
But they did control for SES

>>10955218
Is flynns study able to be replicated?
That said, if all we are talking about here is iq and not intelligence, there is nothing really to discuss. I probably even agree with you on that single point.

Socio-economics does affect overall intelligence.

>>10955240
and?

>The last monoracial African-American model (Model 3, Table 5) included SES, which had a considerable effect on cognitive ability. However, the so-called sociologist’s fallacy [2,5] may be at play here. That is, controlling for parental SES also controls for genetic effects on SES which may be shared with cognitive ability.

>>10955241
This is not Flynns study. Flynn just analyzed the literature on this. This is a well replicated finding in behavioral genetics. Most of the environmental effects on behavioral traits (which explain a low proportion of variance in IQ to begin with since about 80% of variance is explained by genetic factors) are not shared among children growing up in the same household.

https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf

>>10955218
>>THEY AREN'T EVEN BLACK
>Pure blacks in Africa are even more retarded than US-Blacks. US Blacks are 80% African on average and the more African they are the lower their IQ.
Kek

Holy shit all this cope. How delusional do you have to be to ignore the world in front of your fucking face.

>>10955249
So are you telling me that the graph in the op is mislabeled as general intelligence instead of iq?

>>10955254
Nope. It shows differences in g which is the source of most of the black white IQ gap which was validated within this study using MGCFA. Jensen's method of correlated vectors is easier to understand so take a look at pic related.

>>10955256
>r=0.7
so basically meaningless?

>>10955268
retard
>>10955256
interesting cluster at the top don’t you think :^)

>>10955256
>Nope.
The graph in the op in mislabeled. Don't bullshit me you slimy cunt.

Your new graph is meaningless to me without a meaningful key. The bottom text is random and meaningless to me. Why don't you explain it.

>>10955271
Blacks are less intelligent than whites

Cope more

>>10955268
Every interpretation guideline I know of considers r=0.78 a strong effect. Stop being retarded.

>>10955269
Deviation from the spearman's hyp.for the black white gap are usually on spatial tasks (larger gap than g would predict) and Memory (lower than predicted by g). There are some other deviation patterns in different group comparisons (e.g. Inuit have very high spatial ability, Asians are worse on verbal, Jews are higher on verbal).

For recent immigrants the groups there is sometimes a language based deviation which indicates some(usually small) level of bias which can be ameliorated by removing the affected subtests.

>>10955271
>The graph in the op in mislabeled. Don't bullshit me you slimy cunt.

Nope you retard. Negative IQ scores are not something that actually exists.

>>10955271
If you actually want to learn how g works:

https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-g-factor-the-science-of-mental-ability-Arthur-R.-Jensen.pdf

>>10955289
yes, im going to go and read up on even more of this bullshit!

>>10955284
Then don't quote iq as your basis for control of socio-economics. If iq is your basis for control of socio-economics then you have not controlled effectively for socio-economics. Are you guys seriously running me around in circles with fake facts here?

>>10955289
Not especially. I like the graphs in software with labels that make sense and shiny colours. Do you have another one with average scores for blacks and whites both plotted on the same graph?
>>10955256
The data I want is just obfuscated in that graph.

>>10955329
>your face when making another post demonstrating you don't understand a thing about the structure of human differences in mental abilities

>i like graphs and shiny colours
I bet

>>10955336
I can be honest. The only thing you have over me is a better grasp of statistics and I don't even give a fuck. I've been wrecking you without one.

If the only angle you now have is to flip out graphs I can't be fucked learning to interpret then our debate is over and bluntly I feel like I've won due to the above statement.

>>10955329
read this then come back and make meaningful comments:

https://humanvarieties.org/2013/04/03/is-psychometric-g-a-myth/
https://humanvarieties.org/2013/04/14/some-further-notes-on-g-and-shalizi/

>>10947576
>"creates a strong incentive to create journals and book imprints that function like 'vanity presses,' allowing authors to publish their low-quality work without significant risk of rejection."
Translation: unpopular scientific studies get an outlet and I don't like it. Also, "some guy with a title said it, makes it true" is what we call an appeal to authority.
>William ole William Kirkeegard is aDanishpaedophiliaapologist whose defence of child-rapewas exposed by mainstream news sources in January 2018.
Probably defamation. Even so, this doesn't change the his data. This is what we call an ad hominem.
>John Fuerstis aHBDpseudoscientist,anti-Semiteandwhite nationalistwho publishes racist pseudoscience in the far-rightMankind QuarterlyandOpenPsych pseudojournals. He's obsessed withracialismand pretty much only talks about that single topic, dedicating whole blogs to fixate on "racial differences" e.g.Human Varieties,[1]Occidental Ascent[2]andRace, Genes and Disparity.
Again, ad hominem. You guys really do not like to go after his arguments.
>None of these people even hold PhDs in the areas of publication, except Pesta, but as it turns out
Why is a PhD a requirement to publish scientific articles?

So to summarize a bunch of people with academic titles don't like the journal. The authors have potentially made some statements in the past and hold right-wing opinions, somehow this discredits the person(strange how we never question this when 90%+ of the academia holds left-wing ideologies). Meanwhile you do not attack the actual study, the methodology or the data.

>>10955347
>>10947576
Emils response to the rationalwiki article on him.

>>10955347
>>10947576
Emils response to the rationalwiki article on him:
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?page_id=7034

>>10955343
I don't follow links mate. I read the wiki page. Very interesting but what i want is:
>another one with average scores for blacks and whites both plotted on the same graph

Oh jesus fuck not this shit again. Until they do a study where they correctly control for socioeconomic disadvantages in the black community you can go get fucked. Surprise aurprise, oppressed sub-communities with worse education than the general population have lower IQ scores! Or go compare ghetto blacks and white trailor trash and see if you can find a difference.

Retard.

>>10955352
Why do you want this? This data has been analyzed to death and you looking at scatter plots won't produce any new reliable findings that contradicts those established with statistical analysis of the data.

If you really want to you can just download the relevant variables NLSY79 and create it yourself.

>>10955363
What was wrong with the way they controlled for socioeconomic disadvantages in this study?

>>10955363
>You can infer environmental causality by looking at the correlation of environment with a trait

This is not how any of this works you retard.

>>10955367

"2.2. Parental Socioeconomic Status

Only paternal and maternal education were available to us as measures of SES. We coded parental education as the average of each, both z-scored first. When data were only available from one parent this value was used. The final score was then z-scored again. This variable was used as a control for SES in our admixture regressions but because we were unable to factor analyze a variety of SES measures and extract a more reliable indicator [74] the control can only be regarded as partial. With this noted, parental education has been found to be more important than wealth in shaping children’s intelligence [75]. The effect of SES as a background variable in our MGCFA is investigated in ourSupplementary Materials"

They say they controlled for it but where's the data? Can they show us graphs of subgroups based on SES status? All I see from the graph OP posted is a bunch of data points mashed together. There is no control in that image.

>>10955367
How about you read the studies? The researchers usually state the things they couldn't control for and that those are likely important factors.

>>10955377
I like how we went from 'they didn't control for X' to 'they did, but they don't show every step!'.

>>10955379
are you retarded? im not the one making the claim that they didnt control for it properly, >>10955363 is, now I have to provide the proof for his/your argument as well?

>>10955363
Naively controlling for SES is a fallacy known as the sociologist's fallacy since there are well demonstrated genetic causality on SES factors.

>>10955382
Additionally even when you control for SES it doesn't eliminate the racial IQ gap. This has been know for 50 years or so and is reflected in authoritative sources like Neisser 1996:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232430439_Intelligence_Knowns_and_Unknowns

>>10955249
>>10955218
>>10955163
>>10955256
>>10955283
>>10955289
based

>>10955363
>Until they do a study where they correctly control for socioeconomic disadvantages
they did long ago, it just does not explain the gap alone, so there likely is a genetic component

>>10955364
Because then the graph would actually say something. Don't worry about it man. I already decided a long time ago that there are too many holes in the data for it to actually mean anything. I'm not even sure where the line is to be honest. Switching back and forth between iq and g factor. Making false claims that socio-economics don't affect intelligence. Oh wait we are talking about iq again.

You poor cunts are wasting your lives. I never should have come back into this thread lmao. I want my time back.

>>10955408
>Making false claims that socio-economics don't affect intelligence
where did anyone claim this?

> I never should have come back into this thread lmao.
hopefully you decide to leave now.

>>10955408
>muh socio economics
explain why rich blacks are still dumb

>>10955408
>Switching back and forth between iq and g factor
If you don't understand how these are connected you'll have a hard time developing an informed opinion on this subject.

>>10955410
I am leaving. Next time I see your terrible graphs I'll just keep scrolling. Read back through the posts I'm too lazy to do your work for you.

>>10955419
Nobody claimed it has no effect. The claim was that the effect explains very little of the overall variance.

>>10955404

Differnces in IQ in study done "long ago" would unfortunately be complicated by teacher discrimination and preferential treatment. I wouldn't take any study seriously done before the 1990s (at least). I'm not even saying there is no genetic difference. I'm just saying that it is, as far as I can tell, unproven.

Furthermore, I'm wondering why anybody gives a shit and why it's constantly brought up on /sci/. I mean, I do know why, a ton of ya'll are alt right bigoted trash. But seriously, why can't we just drop it?

>10947576
>Rationalwiki

>>10955380
That's a perfectly valid argument, especially because anyone willing to do such a divisive study probably is not doing so in good faith. I am automatically distrustful of doing studies in this topic. These studies can do no good for anyone and can only possibly do harm. So why do them? Any scientist willing to touch this with a 20 foot poll is immediately suspect of bad faith IMO so yes, we should be extremely critical of their procedures and methods.

>>10955428
Why do environmentalists that can just claim stuff without proving empirical evidence and hereditarians have some obligation to address every narrative they can come up with (which is is infinite) and if they don't it's obvious purely environmental? Fuck of if you aren't able to provide some evidence to support your hypothesis. Your hypothesis is not some kind of default with an incredibly strong prior in favor of it.

More recent studies have been done and they also show that even naively controlling for IQ DOES NOT eliminate the IQ gap. This is not controversial every environmentalist expert (Flynn/Turkheimer) accepts this.

>>10955424
All I said was that there are a lot of really stupid white people and I am still right.

epicredpill.jpg

>>10955442
Nobody denies this. Claims that there are more stupid white people than black people are true in the absolute sense when you talk about the US (although the extend to which it is depends on your definition), completely wrong internationally. Looking at absolute numbers is also a pretty stupid way of looking at this issue.

>10955448
Dilate

>>10955428
Why do environmentalists think that they can just claim stuff without proving empirical evidence and hereditarians have some obligation to address every narrative they can come up with (which is is an infinite amount) and if they don't it's obvious purely environmental? Fuck of if you aren't able to provide some empirical evidence to support your hypothesis. Your hypothesis is not some kind of default with an incredibly strong prior in favor of it.

More recent studies have been done and they also show that even naively controlling for IQ DOES NOT eliminate the IQ gap. This is not controversial every environmentalist expert (Flynn/Turkheimer) accepts this.

10955452
Have sex!

>10955457
>t. Seething negrophile

Why is this repeatedly posted and why are we supposed to give a shit?

This board is supposed to be for talking about science, not some pathetic, hurr-durr-niggers-are-dumb circle jerk. Grow the fuck up. :point_up_2:

>>10955428
>Furthermore, I'm wondering why anybody gives a shit and why it's constantly brought up on /sci/. I mean, I do know why, a ton of ya'll are alt right bigoted trash. But seriously, why can't we just drop it?

Because many people and political elites are erroneously pushing the narrative that this is a solved issue and it is ALL due to socioeconomics. If anything, we need more IQ threads on /sci/ until this science denialism ends.

>>10955524
Even Flynn himself, considered a godlike figure among devoted blank-slatists, acknowledged that the issue is at best unresolved. And yet we have people screeching that even if you consider a significant genetic component (after all, nobody says that environment plays no role at all), then you are a nazi SS officer. Go figure..

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/science/arthur-r-jensen-who-set-off-debate-on-iq-dies.html

>>10955443
Imagine thinking Argentina has a 93 IQ average lmao
Lad you are very naive about the world.

>>10955461
Its kind of misleading to be comparing different time eras. Europeans and Asians don't know how to build castles anymore either lad.

Lmao you need papers to know niggers are stupid? Like open your eyes nigga.

>>10955524

Bullshit, this has nothing to do with scientific integrity and everything to do with white supremacy and wanting to rationalize your own racism and bigotry.

The topic has no inherent value other than to demean others.

Get fucked, bro

>>10955569

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

>>10955558
Here's the most complete and up to date dataset on national IQ/school assessment studies with a lot of economic, development,geographic, ... data:

https://viewoniq.org/?page_id=9

>>10955591
the point is that white supremacy and racism is a viable scientific hypothesis and needs to be thus discussed and pushed

blank slatism is getting more than enough coverage and recognition already, so there is no problem there

IQ gap demands an explanation, and contrary to what you believe, the issue is not settled

>>10955638
>white supremacy and racism is a viable scientific hypothesis

Please expand what these hypothesis are.

>>10955638
Science isn't in the business of oughts

>>10955464
It's more iq-deniers-are-dumb.
It only gets posted so much because deniers deny it. It gets posted here because you need anonymity and limited censorship to talk about it.
Genetics, human biodiversity and intelligence research are all science. Keeping up to date on politically motivated denial and suppression of science is pretty important especially for those who work in the relevant fields.

>>10955662
this has nothing to do with oughts

>>10947576
>>10947639
>Calling out the journal to discredit the paper
In that case I look forward to someone submitting a similar study with more egalitarian results to Nature. Make sure to post it here when it happens.

I suspect I'll be waiting a long time.

>>10948999
Self-identified race is just used to color the dots. The "European Ancestry" axis is based on genetics.

>>10955638

It's convenient you have the veil of anonymity because if we were having this conversation in person I would beat the living shit out of you and not feel guilty in the slightly. There is no place in this world for people like you. Do yourself, and society at large, a favor, and just end it. Better yet, seek redemption and repentance. Of course that would require you to be enough of a man to admit fault, and I bet you don't have it in you.

>>10950454
Easy to explain. The white sample size was larger.

>>10955662
You're not a scientist, merely a shit stain. Purely an afterthought, like a wet putrit fart that society let loose accidentally after a satisfying meal. You ought to be ashamed of yourself and you ought to go fuck yourself. I use the word "ought" because I know that people like you aren't often capable of self reflexion and intellectual honesty. The only choice is to use the conditional tense.


Get the fuck out of /sci/ with your pseudo science racist apologetics and make yourself useful by doing literally anything else.
>>10955662

>>10955727
angry ideological outburst perfectly illustrating why we fight

>>10955746

Wrong, you fight because you're a closet racist/white-supremacist and hope that science will come to the rescue to back up your ideas so you don't have to use anonymous boards to talk about your personal beliefs. Stop trying to make it happen. You will never succeed in your endeavor because the world has largely moved on from racial segregation, for good reason. I suggest you move on as well.

>>10953766
>>10953787
>>10953797
>>10953811
>post a blog
>get asked for tl; dr
>post two more blogs in response
based

>>10955754
Not going to stop until the science is settled conclusively. You are an idiot ideologue and a complete brainlet influenced by societal trends, however some of us are actually interested in the truth.

>>10955727
Individuals high in psychopathy lack any true sense of guilt or remorse for harm they may have caused others. Instead, they rationalize their behavior, blame someone else, or deny it outright.

>>10955128
Just because height and eye color are influenced by environment, doesn't mean they aren't also influenced by genes.

By the same token, the black-white IQ gap almost certainly is partially due to environmental differences. But there is also a genetic component to the gap. That's the race-realist claim. We're not cartoons who say 100% of the difference is genetic.

>>10955770

Self proclaimed racist and white supremacist accuses others of psychopthy.

Holy shit dude you're fucked up. Might want to get that checked out by a professional.

>>10955778
Didnt you admit to wanting to beat the shit out of someone? Racists may be low, but people like you are the lowest scum.

>>10955768

You're not looking for truth, you're looking to justify your bigotry.

Even if you're able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that white people are significantly smarter than blacks, you're never going to convince society to be willing to talk about it. We've been pushing back against this horseshit for the last 70 years, we do not want to go searching for reasons to justify it.

And the very reason that you're actively searching for research to support your ideas shows lot about what kind of a person you are; hateful, narcissistic, claiming superiority. There's no place for people like you in society. Go back into your closet.

>>10955782
You use the word "someone" loosely. Anyone who goes searching online for reasons to feel superior to those of a "lesser" race deserves to get the shit kicked out of them. Period.

>>10955743
Cringe

>>10955794
>Even if you're able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that white people are significantly smarter than blacks,

This is proven without a reasonable doubt. The only (somewhat) reasonable debate there is is about the causes of the gap in general congestive ability.

>you're never going to convince society to be willing to talk about it.
If you mean about a partial genetic explenation:
Why is this a good thing? We're currently dealing with racist unempirical conspiracy theories about "white privilege" (but not asian and jewish privilege who are pops. with similar patterns of superior social outcome, interestingly enough) that supposedly explain these gaps because we have a lack of public understanding of the actual causes of these gaps. These racist conspiracy narratives are used to justify open and convert racial discrimination against whites (and asians) and they breed racial tension and societal conflict.

This is obviously terrible.

>>10955778
Not the same guy.
>>10955803
>rationalize their behavior, blame someone else
>>10955727
>lack any true sense of guilt or remorse for harm they may have caused others
Textbook psychopath, unironically.

>>10955809

Perhaps that was cringy. But not half as cringy as a guy with such shitty self esteem that he has to look for articles from disrepute scientific journals in order to convince himself that "well at least I'm not as shitty as the niggers".

Normally I would try to comfort someone with self esteem issues but with you, man, you've actually got it spot on. You really ARE a shit person. That might be the only truthful thing your subconscious tells you.

>>10955817
>congestive
cognitive

>>10955817
>general congestive ability.

I think you meant cognitive. But I agree that blacks tend to be dumb as a rock.

>>10955829
Lol go sleep Hershel!

>>10955829
>pathologizing being informed on a topic with high societal importance

Are you black, a boomer normie or a woke leftist?

>>10955849

Nah, I'm just not a piece of shit. Ain't really that hard.

>>10955849
>Are you black, a boomer normie or a woke leftist?

You forgot one group.

>>10955865
Why don't you respond to my point about the way in which empirically unjustified assumptions about the causes of differences in social outcome shape our policies and public discourse in ways that are detrimental to particular groups? There are many historical examples of terrible outcomes for groups that were deemed to be unjustly privileged, exploitative and an overall evil that must be abolished.

How is opposing these narratives with empirically based arguments bad?

>>10955638

Not him but the IQ gap can already be explained via population dynamics (genetic bottlenecking, mating habits, disease affliction, nutrition/malnutrition and cortisol rates). All sub-populations of the human species have the viability for high IQ but the frequency of it differs between them. Genetic bottlenecks can alter that frequency, specific nutrition minerals like iodine can alter that frequency, various mating habits can alter that frequency, disease affliction can alter that frequency and cortisol rates (the hormones that affect stress) can alter that frequency via increase low birthweight pregnancies.

All of these factors can and have affected any race. The idea that any one race can be considered "superior" when it's clearly shown that all racial genomes are malleable enough to be altered is nonsensical. Honestly if the concept of a superior race was viable then what exactly is the whole discussion concerning eugenics really about? Why would a superior race need to be concerned about strengthening, weeding out or protecting parts of its genome? Shouldn't their genes be dominant enough on their own without controlled help?

>>10955524
>erroneously
Hello! I remember we used to bully this kike over how much he used erroneous/erroneously. It was like he picked up a thesaurus and found a dozen words that made him sound "high IQ."

>>10955938
How does that make sense? No one even claiming that the African genome doesn't have the potential for high IQ, but that statistically most don't have those genes. your saying the exact same thing as white supremacists with your post.

>>10955938
>All of these factors can and have affected any race. The idea that any one race can be considered "superior" when it's clearly shown that all racial genomes are malleable enough to be altered is nonsensical. Honestly if the concept of a superior race was viable then what exactly is the whole discussion concerning eugenics really about? Why would a superior race need to be concerned about strengthening, weeding out or protecting parts of its genome? Shouldn't their genes be dominant enough on their own without controlled help?

Modern societies are not shaped in a way that is conductive to maintaining or advancing the genetic traits that made them possible.

They lead to:
-more individual selection
-less group selection
-dysgenic fertility
-aggregation of mutational loads

Michael Woodley has a lot of stuff on this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn7VCTexGiU&list=PLqXUBhlAdvYn93f3V4yU4UfiLgBAbUOjV&index=8

>>10955932

What point am I supposed to respond to? You mentioned a "conspiracy" of white privilege, proving that you don't even know the definition of the term. All white privilege means is that whites don't have to deal with racial discrimination like blacks do. That's literally all that it is. Yes, the term is in bad taste but we're stuck with it. It's not a privelege so much as a lack-of-disadvantage. White privelege can also apply to Asians if, for example, an Asian person is not discriminated against in a situation where a black person would be. Jewish people are white and it applies to Jewa just like anyone else. Again the term is unfortunate and family unclear, but there is no conspiracy. An d don't give me the "but blacks don't face discrimination" argument. You can't participate in a thread on 4chan supporting the idea that blacks are stupid and simultaneously tell me that blacks don't face discrimination. You are a racist, whether you identify as one or not, and so YES, racism does indeed exist, along with the discrimination that inevitably follows. White privilege is a simple idea and cannot be refuted unless you truly think that we don't live in a society that discriminates against blacks. And if you believe that you're simply ignorant to the facts.

>>How is opposing this narrative a bad thing.

Well for one, your basic principle that whites are being discriminated against is inherently flawed, so there really is no narrative to oppose. Sure, the SJWs have taken it all too far, but they don't actually control society and, last I heard, white people still control the entire planet. No fear being dethroned any time soon.

Also, I wouldn't say that an effective way to "oppose this narrative" is to make an argument that black people are stupid. How the fuck is that helpful? Lol

>>10955968

>No one even claiming that the African genome doesn't have the potential for high IQ,

Several people have stated that in this very thread let alone other threads on this board.

>your saying the exact same thing as white supremacists with your post.

Actually I'm not because the vast majority of white supremacists don't even acknowledge that the African genome is capable of having those genes, let alone in abundance in any future scenario. They also frame the IQ gap situation as unbridgeable regardless of possible methodologies that could be pursued.

>>10955982

>Modern societies are not shaped in a way that is conductive to maintaining or advancing the genetic traits that made them possible.

Personally I do not believe that, but I also can't really make a retort to your post without at least watching the link you posted. So I'll have to save an in depth response for you later.

>>10954890
>"blacks are low IQ"
>drinks spoiled milk and eats random mushrooms

>>10956061
>And don't give me the "but blacks don't face discrimination" argument. You can't participate in a thread on 4chan supporting the idea that blacks are stupid and simultaneously tell me that blacks don't face discrimination.
Didn't you just call this guy a loser? If he has no impact on society and just spends his time shitposting then he doesn't have the power to discriminate against blacks does he?

>>10955347
>Someone using a pseudo-scientific front to push a racist agenda doesn't raise red flags or issues
>It's just an excuse because we iz oppressed peoples :(((
Funny how /pol/ idiots keep making this argument while ignoring the fact that experts in the field reject these kind of studies because they are trained to recognize and reject bunk on the spot.

>>10955710
Nature. You're gonna have to settle for drooling state of the idiots padding you in the back because you confirm their snowflake complex. It's pathetic how starved for attention and credit this charlatan is.

For anyone idiotic zoomie thinking this thread is anything but a single guy's desperate attempt at self-promotion and white supremacist shilling please see:

>>10954950
>>10954946
>>10954940
>>10954908
>>10954890
>>10954790
>>10949354
>>10949312
>>10949071
>>10948004

>>10956087

Anyone who openly discusses their ideas on the internet has an impact on society. Merely supporting the ideas of OP strengthens the "blacks are stupid" narrative, thereby strengthening predudice and racism on 4chan, the users of which also post on other sites and, unfortunately, even socialize beyond the internet from time to time. This is not a vacuum.

>>10956061
>All white privilege means is that whites don't have to deal with racial discrimination like blacks do
How is having to score significantly higher on standardized test to be admired to good universities because of your race not a form of racial discrimination? How is being discriminated against in government contracts because you're white not a form of racial discrimination?

>It's not a privelege so much as a lack-of-disadvantage.
Privilege is always relative so this is exactly the same thing.

> White privilege is a simple idea and cannot be refuted unless you truly think that we don't live in a society that discriminates against blacks.
The concept only makes sense if blacks face more racial discrimination with important consequences than white people. I have given you clear examples of anti-white discrimination. How about you give me comparable concrete examples of anti-black discrimination.

>Jews
The way by which arguments for the concept of white privilege is usually supported is by pointing to overrepresentation in elite outcome or superior average outcome in socially important metrics (incarceration, income, education, ...). Jews are far more overrepresented among elite outcome than whites are so by this (flawed) standard they are privileged relative to whites. They also have superior measures in pretty much every metric of social success so by this standard they are also privileged above non-jewish whites.

You're also underplaying the malignancy of anti-white discourse. You're probably aware of critical witness studies and the anti-white statements by the main proponents of the field (Time Wise, Noel Ignatiev, ...) and the negative generalisations about white people that are commonplace in western media ("all white people are racist"). Please stop with this dishonest motte and bailey tactic.

>>10956063
>Personally I do not believe that, but I also can't really make a retort to your post without at least watching the link you posted. So I'll have to save an in depth response for you later.

This thread will probably die until then. I'll try to respond if you make a thread on this.

High general mental ability predicts low fertility in modern socities there is no real dispute about that. General intelligence has probably been falling for a while now which has been masked by the Flynn effect (increase in specific abilities, more guessing and more familiarity with rules based tests like raven). He discusses one line of evidence for the decline in g in the third video of the playlist.