/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11243981
ref.

https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0160289605000929

>>11243981
This is the kind of "science" that makes me wonder if higher education should be accessible to everyone

>>11243981
So is if IQ and skin tone are correlated, then therefore IQ is a predictor of skin tone and not intelligence
Hmmmm

>>11244011
Barring negroes from entering university would be too cruel.

>>11244022
Who /pol/ the university deans?
I thought the liberals and Jews ran universities.
What makes you think you matter farm boy?

>>11243981
>Another racism thread

>>11243981
Richard Lynn’s data is fabricated and cherrypicked and extrapolated from tests not testing IQ. Don’t cite it because it’s Garbo.

RACISM IS A SCIENCE.
RACE WAR WHEN?

Hey why don’t you skip the semantics and go to /k/?
You can make race war threads there and look at your chances of winning the war. Of course it’s complicated because everyone has nukes but that doesn’t stop people like you from starting a nuclear winter

>>11244762
source?

>>11244818
Hos ass

>>11244762
well how much error is there if there are such large trends? the difference between eurasia and africa is stark

>>11243981

Only smooth brains interpret it this way. People who actually do fucking research know better.

For instance the 105 IQ average for China is specifically for the Han. The other 28 officaily recognized ethnic Chinese minorities in China have IQs that range between 80-99. But as you can tell they aren't listed because the chart is done by nation not ethnic populations within each race.

>>11244853
and the whole paucity of chinese data without bias or systematic cheating

>>11243981
>wealthier countries where people have access to better nutrition and education have more intelligent populations
No shit Sherlock, nothing genetic about it.

>>11244863
Now anon you know for a fact that you could get a similar map in the middle ages when europe was an illiterate peasant economy

>>11244863
Or maybe intelligence is the reason why Europeans have better nutrition, education and wealth in the first place. Wow, it's almost like intelligent people make more intelligent decisions.

>>11244863
See here's your problem, you were reading the graphis from left to right, this is a weab website we read from right to left

>>11244863
>da nutrition
Obese darkies in white countries are still retarded

>>11244877
No, the Flynn effect is a proven scientific fact, people have been getting smarter every decade.

>>11244881
>Or maybe intelligence is the reason why Europeans have better nutrition, education and wealth in the first place.
They didn't until the Renaissance. The Byzantines and the Arab world were more advanced (technologically, economically and culturally) than Europe during the Crusader Era.

>>11244896
yes anon but I said similar flynn only gives you a couple of points for abstract reasoning tasks anyway don't do shit for G

>>11244881
>Or maybe intelligence is the reason why Europeans have better nutrition
Other way around

Even for illiterate adults learning to read causes deep neurolical changes

>>11244896
Except Rome led to the the Byzantine Empire and Byzantines then influenced the Arabs.

>>11244901
Africans had literally all the fucking shit they could ask for and still do. Europeans were forced to be careful with nutrition or die in winter. If anything, you could argue that it's the harsh European environment that led to less intelligent Europeans getting culled by default. Africans aren't less intelligent because they lack nutrition, education or wealth, they just never developed any of those because they never had to. Their ancestors played on easy mode so of course most of them aren't capable of dealing with hard mode.

>>11244921

>muh winter theory

Motherfucker the Inuit Eskimos have been playing on the hardest ecological setting for thousands of years and got fucking nothing from it. Even Sub-saharan Africans made more in roads than them in terms of development.

That should tell you immediately harsh winter conditions mean fuck all. If it did they wouldn't look like back water trash compared to the Aztecs and Mayans.

>>11244921
>Except Rome led to the the Byzantine Empire
Culturally the Byzantines were more Greek than Roman.

>and Byzantines then influenced the Arabs.
Not really, you are thinking of the Turks. The Umayyad Caliphate doesn't really show any significant Byzantine cultural influence, if anything they were more influenced by the Persians. You are also forgetting that the Arabs introduced technologies like the compass or modern medicine into Europe and not the other way around. Ibn Sina was the father of modern medicine.

>they just never developed any of those because they never had to.
Exactly. When you study the history of ancient civilizations, it's no coincidence they all arose in temperate regions, not tropical, nor cold. There is something about temperate climate that makes it conductive to the development of agriculture and modern civilization.

>>11244829
He literally uses data for his own bias. If a nation has no stats he uses neighbouring states. Anyone who does data gathering knows that’s a retarded idea.

>>11244952
so does that mean that the islamisation of the middle east severely depressed average IQ?

>>11243981
That map is really wrong and was debunked

>>11244944
have you ever read the full theory? we had an Inuit anon here a few days ago discussing life in the arctic circle
the endless night and day and consistency of climate severely put a dampener on necessary IQ
changable conditions that require innovation and long term planning are what drive higher intelligence

>>11245493
How can something I found on /pol/ be fake?.

>another iq thread

>>11245493
went hunting old archives to find it but found this quote that seemed funny

Stop being speciesist. Did you know that chimpanzees are not even allowed to go to school? Did you know that they aren't provided housing and some are even kept in cages? And when they aren't in cages, it's really hard for them to get ahead because human colonizers won't let them vote or participate in human society. Clearly, if chimpanzees were allowed to vote and given some aid to actually build houses (they live in the woods and in trees, and if you watch documentaries you will clearly see it's because of cannibalism and tribal conflicts) they would have already colonized Andromeda.

>>11244863
>nothing genetic about it.

Dont be so sure.

>>11246314

If you reduce the iq of the masses below a certain level (effective well) organized revolution against you becomes physically impossible. The trick is to reduce it to a point where they are still marginally useful to you in some way. Eliminating schizophrenia might be requirement to prevent prophets and unintended religious waves.

>>11244863
shut the fuck up, you 105 IQ commie faggot. Stop parroting bullshit talking points and actually try to strain your prefrontal cortex enough that you can shit out at least one original coherent thought

>>11245496
The retard that you're responding to is incapable of understanding things that weren't thought of by someone else.

>>11244944
>Motherfucker the Inuit Eskimos have been playing on the hardest ecological setting for thousands of years and got fucking nothing from it.
It's not just about the environment being harsh and cold. Eskimos didn't have enough change to do any kind of real agriculture. They never had to develop forward thinking strategies to survive through winter and make it through to the next growing season. They learned to make traps and to hunt, and that's about it. There was no problem solving to make larger buildings and more sustainable structures. Why don't you take your hands off the keyboard and think for a few minutes before you post your precanned bullshit responses.
Also, go back to plebbit you retarded fucking faggot

>>11244921
Ancient Greece and Rome basically had year long growing seasons and they were the first civilizations in Europe.

>>11244894
Institutional racism holds them back from reaching their full potential.

>>11246348
yeah this is where we get into the role of the Indo european genetics that flooded out of the steppe and into europe 4,000 years
steppe survival is harsh and extremely tribal look at the IQ of mongolian steppe derived peopless

>>11246314
>genes known to increase intelligence
Lmao absolute pseudo-science
Our knowledge of intelligence and genetics is not nearly advanced enough to be making statements like that

>>11243981

In the first place, why should i fucking even care about "Race and IQ" studies obviously made only to support political agendas?
I prefer study exciting things as Arithmetic Geometry, i will not waste my time evaluating the truthfulness of your arguments. I really dont care. Spending time to verifying purporseless science dont worth my time , sorry.

Second. Whites, Asians, Blacks, dont matter which race. The human species as a whole, as we know it, is destined to become totally obsolete in the coming few decades anyway.

As Plato had said in Theaetetus, who brags about its ancestry are fucking dumb people who can't do the math and see the big picture of eternity.

>>11243981
>yup, they're correlated
W
O
W

>>11246314
Why keep posting debunked shit?

>>11246314
Is this study based on actual intelligence research or is it just a broad genetic comparison of traits associated with the nervous system being more common in one population than another?
though I'd suspect many of them do affect intelligence if the study itself has not correlated the gene association then this makes this sort of association only partly useful

>>11246334
Scary conclusion.

>WHITES ARE INHERENTLY BETTER THAN BLACKS LE BASED

>>11243981

>>11246706
only Jews push supremacy agendas
everyone else just wants to protect their countries and people

>>11244863
This is the kind of imbecile that calls the right science deniers. Imagine being delusional enough to convince yourself this is true and still having the stones to consider yourself a "man of science"

>>11246968
How is the correlation he stated any less convincing than the one of OP?

>>11246992
Claiming there is no genetic/racial component to intelligence? Literally every possible metric in the world confirms it

>>11246968
Your /pol/ infographics with no source aren't science, retard. The source for the map in the OP, Richard Lynn, has been fully debunked and exposed as a propagandist.

http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2011/08/devastating-criticism-of-richard-lynn.html
>Lynn (and Vanhanen)'s estimate of average IQ among Africans is primarily based on convenience samples, and not on samples carefully selected to be representative of a given, targeted, population (Barnett & Williams, 2004; Hunt & Sternberg, 2006).

>A literature review is necessarily selective. Despite Lynn's objective of providing a "fully comprehensive review of the evidence" (Lynn, 2006, p. 2), a sizeable portion of the relevant literature was not considered in both his own review, and in reviews with Vanhanen. Nowhere in their reviews did Lynn (and Vanhanen) specify the details of their literature search. Our own searches in library databases resulted in additional relevant studies that may be used to estimate national IQ. For instance, Lynn and Vanhanen (2006) accorded a national IQ of 69 to Nigeria on the basis of three samples (Fahrmeier, 1975; Ferron, 1965; Wober, 1969), but they did not consider other relevant published studies that indicated that average IQ in Nigeria is considerably higher than 70 (Maqsud, 1980a,b; Nenty & Dinero, 1981; Okunrotifa, 1976).

>>11246968
>>11247034
As Lynn rightly remarked during the 2006 conference of the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR), performing a literature review involves making a lot of choices. Nonetheless, an important drawback of Lynn (and Vanhanen)'s reviews of the literature is that they are unsystematic. Unsystematic literature reviews do not adhere to systematic methodology to control for potential biases in the many choices made by the reviewer (Cooper, 1998; Light & Pillemer, 1984). Lynn (and Vanhanen) failed to explicate the inclusion and exclusion criteria they employed in their choice of studies. Such criteria act as a filter, and may thus affect the estimate of national IQ. Lynn (and Vanhanen) excluded data from several sources without providing a rationale. For instance, they used IQ data from Ferron (1965), who provided averages in seven samples of children from Sierra Leone and Nigeria on a little-known IQ test called the Leone. For reasons not given, Lynn (2006) and Lynn and Vanhanen (2006) only used data from the two lowest scoring samples from Nigeria. Most of the remaining samples show higher scores, but those samples were not included in the estimation of the national IQ of Nigeria and Sierra Leone.

>>11247034
>>11247038
>>11246968
>Likewise, Lynn (and Vanhanen) did not consider several relatively high-scoring African samples from South Africa (Crawford Nutt, 1976; Pons, 1974). It is unfortunate that Lynn (and Vanhanen) did not discuss their exclusion criteria. In some cases (Crawford Nutt, 1976; Pons, 1974), the Raven's Progressive Matrices was administered with additional instruction. Although this instruction is quite similar to an instruction as described in the test manual (Raven, Court, & Raven, 1996), some have argued that this instruction artificially enhances test performance (cf. Rushton & Skuy, 2000). Given the likely differences in opinion on which samples to include or exclude in a review, inclusion and exclusion criteria should be explicated clearly and employed consistently. It is well known that unsystematic literature reviews may lead to biased results (Cooper, 1998; Light & Pillemer, 1984). Another problem is that the computation of statistics in literature reviews is quite error-prone. Indeed Lynn's work contains several errors (Loehlin, 2007).

>>11247040
How much does all this affect the results?

>>11247040
>>11247038
>>11247034
>>11246968

>Then in a later paper, Wicherts et al. dug even deeper, finding that in addition to picking and choosing, Lynn actively seeks out and uses data that's not reliable or representative:
>The samples, considered by Lynn (and Vanhanen), but discarded here, are given in the Appendix. Besides the two samples described above (Klingelhofer, 1967; Zindi, 1994), these are Wober's (1969) sample of factory workers, and Verhaegen's (1956) sample of uneducated adults from a primitive tribe in the then Belgian Congo in the 1950s. Verhaegen indicated that the SPM test format was rather confusing to the test-takers, and that the test did not meet the standards of valid measurement. In Wober's study, the reliability and validity were too low (Wober, 1975). In three of the samples in Table 1, the average IQ is below 70. These are Owen's large sample of Black South African school children tested in the 1980s, the 17 Black South Africans carefully selected for their illiteracy by Sonke (2001), and a group of uneducated Ethiopian Jewish children, who lived isolated from the western world in Ethiopia and immigrated to Israel in the 1980s (Kaniel & Fisherman, 1991). The last two samples cannot be considered to be representative.

>>11247054
>>11247040
>>11247038
>>11247034
>>11246968

>Our review of the literature on the performance of Africans on the Raven's tests showed that the average IQ of Africans on the Raven's tests is lower than the average IQ in western countries. However, the average IQ of Africans is not as low as Lynn (and Vanhanen) and Malloy (2008) maintained. The majority of studies on IQ test performance of Africans not taken into account by Lynn (and Vanhanen) and Malloy showed considerably higher average IQs than the studies that they did review. We judge the reviews of Lynn (and Vanhanen) and Malloy to be unsystematic. These authors missed a large part of the literature on IQ testing in Africa, failed to explicate their inclusion and exclusion criteria, and made downward errors in the conversion of raw scores to IQs (Wicherts, 2007). Lynn (and Vanhanen)'s estimate of average IQ of Africans of around 67 is untenable. Our review indicates that it is about 78 (UK norms) or 80 (US norms). These means are somewhat lower than the means of Africans on other IQ tests, which lie around 82 (Wicherts et al., 2010).

>>11247049
It makes the results completely invalid. For the African countries that there is data, the results are a standard deviation lower than what they should be, and for most of the other countries of Africa there is no data meaning Lynn extrapolated from their neighbors already manipulated scores.

When you account for this manipulation, the IQ gap becomes much smaller and can be explained entirely by differences in nutrition and education.

>>11247063
>explained entirely by differences in nutrition and education.
and now you're the one claiming results not supported by the data

>>11247072
You missed the word "can" in my quote.

>>11247057
>Lynn was unsystematic but the situation is more complex than you make it out to be. Wicherts et al
>was trying make the best estimate of the IQ of African test takes. To do this they used a rigorous inclusion criteria and excluded numerous samples. Lynn, on the other hand, was trying to estimate the average African IQ, that is, the IQ of Africans if IQ tests were given to representative samples, relative to African conditions. To do this, Lynn made judgement calls about what samples were representative. The difference in objective seems to have led to some of the discrepancy between the estimates. So, for example, Lynn included samples of Africans infected by malaria, arguing that malaria is common to regions in African; Wicherts et al excluded these, arguing that malaria artificially depresses IQ. If the goal is "the average African IQ," Lynn's reasoning seems reasonable -- it gives a base from which one can guesstimate the genotypic IQ.

>>11247076
no I picked up on your more important use of the word "entirely"

>>11247077

>>11247078
There is no reason to suggest a genetic component when the evidence shows that poor nutrition and lack of education can completely lead to such a gap in IQ.

By the way, research on the Flynn effect shows that African IQ scores have been consistently improving across the century (>>11244896), note how most of Lynn's sources are from the 1960s and 1970s and not the present.

>>11245496
>have you ever read the full theory?

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/PAID2012.pdf

Have you? The key points that drive intelligence were novel ways to keep warm and higher meat dependency. The day night cycle, consistency of winter climate and changable conditions in the form of seasons are not highly focused on.

>>11246339
Formulate your own argument or piss off. It's clear you don't have full awareness of the debate at hand.

>>11246345
>It's not just about the environment being harsh and cold.

Except it is though. The Cold Winter Theory's core point is about the unique adaptations to conditions that do not exist in Tropical environments. It rests it's case on IQ differences being based on temperature and latitudes that require developing ways to keep warm and hunt food.

>Eskimos didn't have enough change to do any kind of real agriculture.

The Cold Winter Theory isn't about agriculture though. It's about increase meat consumption. Read the link above, it states positive association with latitude and higher amounts of animal meat in ones diet not plants.

>They never had to develop forward thinking strategies to survive through winter and make it through to the next growing season.

Yes they did, their modes of transportation, use of domestic dogs, their clothing, basic architecture and hunting habits all show that did develop forward thinking strategies to survive. These strategies are not the same that are employed in Tropical environments either.

>Why don't you take your hands off the keyboard and think for a few minutes before you post your precanned bullshit responses.

You first anon, it's clear you can't practice what you preach or you would have not made such asinine statements in your post. The problem here is that none of you have provide a reasonable explanation for why the Inuits despite higher IQ have nothing to show for. Higher IQ is supposed to be indicative of higher development. The Inuits shows this is not the case.

>>11247103
this is the climate change discord tranny that is here 24/7 shilling communist delusions and bs

>>11247124
Yeah, I gathered they weren't open to rational non confrontational thought.

>>11244853
Non-Han Chinese have ruled over China plenty of times over human history despite being about a hundredth of the population. If anything, they probably have a much higher iq than the Han

>>11247057
>fuck you Nazis!!! Africans actually have an IQ of 80!!!! Hah gotcha

>>11247169
That's roughly the same score that America had in the 1950s.

>>11247201

>>11244011
>When truth hurts someone's feelings, we should censor it at all costs, even if it delays development and dooms billions of humans to further suffering because fuck everyone else but me

*drumroll*

>>11246997
>every possible metric
None of which have been demonstrated to accurately measure intelligence since its a vague term

>>11247235
Your "truth" has been debunked right above, /pol/ retard.

>>11247034
>>11247038
>>11247040
>>11247054
>>11247057
>>11247063

>>11247301
lol, how does this disprove the evidence of massive racial variation in IQ?

>>11247307
For starters because it's not massive, secondly because there is no evidence that it is genetic. Flynn effect suggests environmental conditions the determinant factor accounting for the difference in IQ.

But of course in typical /pol/ nigger fashion I fully expect you to wait for this thread to die so that you can repost your thoroughly debunked map somewhere else again, because you are not interested in science nor the truth at all.

>>11243981
The countries that have low IQ are also the countries with virtually inexistent education. But you can also argue that for the south (USA) which has low graduation rates.

>>11247297
if you you haven't learned from your life experience that race and intelligence is linked you are a delusional ideologue or brain damaged.

You are a darky that doesn't want to admit the obvious because of your ego, some libtard donkey who lived their whole life in a safe space with no experience traveling and/or dealing with other races, or a communist purposefully lying to further your agenda.... period

>>11247408
I'm just a medical student who doesn't believe intelligence is quantifiable, and that any "proof" that tries to do so rarely qualifies as scientific evidence.
You are someone who's obsessed with something that really doesn't matter, and anyone who disagrees with you has to be "delusional". Wake up mate, there's a reason you're not taken seriously.

>>11247433
>something that really doesn't matter
Not him, but if it is true, it's not like we can just ignore it for the sake of being nice.
I mean, sure, we could. But that would severely limit our technological production and sustainability as a competent, worthwhile nation.

Worthwhile being the key word. You can have a nation of idiots, but it won't be worth much if it's completely totalitarian or in constant war (which unintelligent nations tend to be in).

For our children's sake, some degree of eugenics has to be considered if we're to survive multi-culturally, or "nice".
Gene-augmentation, sure. Stay black skinned, but remaining genetically retarded and hyper agressive is no longer an option if you want to be a part of society.
God knows China will do this already.

>>11247433
Ok Mr Med m8 how may medical devices or procedures do use that weren't invented by a European or Asian? Yah thought so

I have never had a problem in my life being taken seriously because I don' write fan fics like yourself, you know literally nothing about me so the fact that you are writing fan fictions pretending you doto create strawmen should be a clear signal to people to not take you seriously

>>11247433
Try to tell any medical board you think you take a group of Australian aboriginals or Sub Saharan Africans and raise them from birth with all the nutrition hand picked by you to create a space program, all the engineers and astronauts to send a team to the moon and he see how "serious" they take you

>>11247549
Actually in Australia there are initiatives to help aboriginal Australians enter scientific domains where they used to be excluded, and they're doing quite well.
What exactly do you do? Or do you think having white skin automatically makes you better than others?

>>11247580
>aboriginal Australians enter scientific domains

You mean white people with 1/16th aboriginal blood?

>>11247408
>if you you haven't learned from your life experience that race and intelligence is linked
Black Africans fresh off the boat outperform White Britons in the British school system.

>>11244952
>Ibn Sina
He was actually Persian. Why do people confuse middle east with Arab so much?

>>11245491
not really, they kind of missed out on industrialization and that is where it went downhill.

>>11247882
Completely untrue. That little 'fact' forgets to mention that non whites are more likely to hit a target level of IMPROVEMENT in their schoolwork. It tells you nothing. It most likely means that their targets for improvement are set lower, which makes sense if they've had zero education. Also says nothing of class or particular ethnic groups from Africa. Middle class Nigerians probably do prep their kids better than lower class white brits.

Why is it so hard for all you ideologues to accept that the differences in base intelligence are quite small, and that if anything, the vast majority of research points to people from the equator being below people outside it? It's not niggers are apes, it's not all human populations are exactly the same by intelligent design of the species, and it's certainly not that whites are at the bottom of any hierarchy below blacks, but muh guns, germs and steel, and white people being dastardly colonialists killed all the wakandans and shiiitttteee. You really want to push the race baiting, blacks are the least likely candidates to be 'superior' as a race.

>>11247977
>Completely untrue. That little 'fact' forgets to mention that non whites are more likely to hit a target level of IMPROVEMENT in their schoolwork. It tells you nothing. It most likely means that their targets for improvement are set lower, which makes sense if they've had zero education
No retard, it's a well known fact that Black African boys outperform White British boys in the British school system.

>Why is it so hard for all you ideologues
/pol/ niggers are the only ideologues here posting fake infographics and debunked maps.

>to accept that the differences in base intelligence are quite small
That's what I've been saying.

>the vast majority of research points to people from the equator being below people outside it?
There is nothing to suggest the difference is genetic when environmental reasons can account for 100% of the difference. There could be a genetic component or not. What is ideological is to go the extra male to claim it is a genetic difference with fake infographics taken from active white supremacist sites.

>You really want to push the race baiting, blacks are the least likely candidates to be 'superior' as a race.
Strawman much, nobody is saying Blacks are superior, /pol/ nigger.

>>11247977
>Completely untrue. That little 'fact' forgets to mention that non whites are more likely to hit a target level of IMPROVEMENT in their schoolwork. It tells you nothing. It most likely means that their targets for improvement are set lower, which makes sense if they've had zero education
No retard, it's a well known fact that Black African girls outperform White British girls in the British school system.

>Why is it so hard for all you ideologues
/pol/ niggers are the only ideologues here posting fake infographics and debunked maps.

>to accept that the differences in base intelligence are quite small
That's what I've been saying.

>the vast majority of research points to people from the equator being below people outside it?
There is nothing to suggest the difference is genetic when environmental reasons can account for 100% of the difference. There could be a genetic component or not. What is ideological is to go the extra male to claim it is a genetic difference with fake infographics taken from active white supremacist sites.

>You really want to push the race baiting, blacks are the least likely candidates to be 'superior' as a race.
Strawman much, nobody is saying Blacks are superior, /pol/ nigger.

>>11248013
>>11247977
Also from that same pic, African boys from poor families outperform White British boys from poor families. If the difference was genetic it should be the other way around.

>>11247479
Before colonization, there were plenty of successful and peaceful kingdoms in Africa. Of course there was war too, just like all of European history.

>>11247934
Persians were cool it's a tragedy that the islamic invasion arabised them.

>>11248013
So why are the african migrants coming from such high status groups if they're performing so far above their native population average?

>>11248049
What makes you think they are from high status groups?

>>11247882
>thinking anyone whose isn't borderline retarded would actually believe this

>>11248213
>This is what a /pol/turd's brain shattering looks like

>>11244762
Post better datas then

>>11248329
Already did

>>11248268
>chart without title

what subjects did they take? most gcse tests are memorisation instead of cognition

>>11248366
Heres the source, page 43-45
https://www.ippr.org/publications/back-to-basics-towards-a-successful-and-cost-effective-integration-policy

The subjects were all the standard GCSE subjects, including English and Math.

>>11248366
>most gcse tests are memorisation instead of cognition
so now that blacks are doing better I guess it's time to pretend the things they did better in are shit.

>>11248403
>implying people wouldn't love for them to be able to actually build a stable nation and support themselves other than destroying every other place they swarm to like locusts and destroy

You are full of shit

>>11248403
g-loading for standardized tests has been falling for decades, the observation was made in connection with grade inflation not people trying to explain away black test scores, and the observation came from american sat scores being examined where blacks have continued to show bottom tier performance in all subjects consistently. look at advanced degree acquisition and choice of major for innate differences in g between groups and consider jensen’s hypothesis that the g loading of an activity should explain large gaps in genetically influenced group performance.

>>11248403
show me oxbridge acceptance rates

>>11248644
>implying people wouldn't love for them to be able to actually build a stable nation and support themselves
Barbados is 97% Black and it's a First World country.

Botswana in Africa, starting from the position of being one of the poorest places on the planet, has been enjoying China-style growth rates for the past 40 years.

>>11248727
Botswana avoided much of the soviet/chinese funded subversion attempts that zimbabwe suffered.

>>11248727
Botswana is literally an extraction operation

>>11248727
>Barbados is 97% Black and it's a First World country.

Almost half of it's economy is due to tourism.

>>11248814
So? Haiti could have tourism too but it's a shithole. Barbados is properly managed. Yet both are black, which goes to show the difference is not race.

>>11248826
a single case doesn't prove anything, not that I agree with the yuropoors ITT

>>11248814

Not him but tourism in Greece is at least 20% of its economy. Not everyone can rely on oil or rare earth minerals.

>>11248875
>Not everyone can rely on oil or rare earth minerals.
Thankfully, total reliance on natural resources is a big reason why Africa stays fucked

>>11248826
Barbados has pretty high euro admixture, haiti was more a prison colony with dangerous slaves later literally systematically slaughtered anyone they thought was too pale.

>>11249077
>Barbados has pretty high euro admixture
So do African Americans

>>11249341
something like 1/3 of afro-american men have euro y chromosomes
the proportion does seem to vary around the country with those closest to the more violent areas having higher african content.
it's better than

>>11243981

>>11248032
That's awesome. I wish they were still around, and I don't deny their existence.

It seems to me that problems arose when we tried to force these people to conform to our way of living. Our hyper industrialized, individualist, high expectation society has NOT been designed with the prosperity of the African in mind -- in fact it was the opposite, we exploited their natural resources and labour.

Colonialism in this way has been the single most destructive action for both races in the history of the modern world.

>>11249574
This but unironically.