/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11808304
>75-95
Koko was smarter than the average african?

it's 2020
where's my flying winged busses?

>worlds smartest man
<not seeing a mile away how posting this will get him labeled as a racist piece of shit
<not being familiar with normie rationalizations for african low iq test averages

There are many types of smarts it seems

>>11808304
based

>>11808310
Around 80ish

>>11808304
A score of 190 is meaningless on almost all scales. A score of 210 is totally meaningless on every scale I know. There aren't enough people in the world for that score to make sense.
>>11808450
He likely doesn't care, he lives way out in the middle of nowhere anyway.

>>11808304
Pretty sure I've read that copypasta before. Got any proof this image is real?

>>11808475
he said it like 5 years ago on facebook

>>11808481
My question stands.

>>11808304
>Koko
>>>/x/
Koko's "sign language" was just facilitated communication only "translatable" by her handler. Anyone reading transcripts of her conversations immediately recognizes it for the scam it is.
>HaloMyBaby: SickboyRE asks: Koko, have you taught other gorillas sign language, on your own?
>DrPPatrsn: Good question.
>LiveKOKO: myself
>DrPPatrsn: part of that answer might be that she's taught us

>Question: Do you like to chat with other people?
>HaloMyBaby: That was from Rulucky!
>LiveKOKO: fine nipple
>DrPPatrsn: Nipple rhymes with people, she doesn't sign people per se, she was trying to do a "sounds like..."

>DrPPatrsn: Koko, do you think the people here love you?
>LiveKOKO: People (on her head the way Penny signed it) apple give me.
>DrPPatrsn: People give her her favorite foods. That was what she said: 'people apple give me.' Her sign for people is like this; 'Person apple give me.' Do they love you?
>LiveKOKO: Fine (at 'people' position) don't-know red-bad.
>DrPPatrsn: Do they love you?
>LiveKOKO: Love no. (Headshake.)
>DrPPatrsn: She signed something before that but now she's signing 'love' and then a 'head shake.' OH, honey, this doesn't sound good at all.
>LiveKOKO: Browse (tentative) for there hurry. (Indicating cereal treats in Penny's pocket.)
>DrPPatrsn: Oh she said something 'for'...'Michael' or what...'for?'
>LiveKOKO: Browse drink polite nipple there hurry.
>DrPPatrsn: It was 'browse drink polite nipple.' Browse is the kind of browsing food we give them. It's little things that they can graize on. And that's what I am feeding her now in lieu of her dinner because we're on the phone. But, Koko, do you think people love you?
>LiveKOKO: Kiss kiss kiss (on alligator toy) Koko-love. (Hugging toy.)
>DrPPatrsn: She's kissing her alligator and signing 'Koko-love'.
>LiveKOKO: That nipple go drink, go. Lights-off good.
>DrPPatrsn: (Laughing.) 'Lights-off good.' That's like a closer.
>Host: That sounds like a good segue!

>>11808507
>Host: What does 'fake' mean to her?
>DrPPatrsn: 'Fake' means false. I mean...
>LiveKOKO: Lip hurry there.
>DrPPatrsn: ..maybe some of what I'm saying...I don't know... She said it just before she acted out that little scene, but also, I had answered a question of yours about multiple females and 1 male and of course, that's not the situation we have.
>LiveKOKO: Obnoxious...fake.
>DrPPatrsn: She signed 'obnoxious...fake.' What I have to explain to you and her is that we're working to have this happen. She knows that it's not so right now so she might be responding to what I'm saying.
>LiveKOKO: Gorilla.
>DrPPatrsn: She signing 'gorilla.' Yes, a place for gorillas to have families.
>LiveKOKO: Frown red bad bad... red good give-me.
>DrPPatrsn: 'Frown bad' because she doesn't have one. I think this is a reaction to the fact that this is not what she has now.
>Host: She IS smart!
>DrPPatrsn: This is something I'm talking about, but it hasn't happened. And the reason we haven't been able to make it happen yet is...
>LiveKOKO: Kiss* give-me.
>DrPPatrsn: ...that we're trying very hard to raise the money that it will take to build the preserve and make it habitable for them. That's going to take about $7 million, and we're less than 1/2 way there. So we're hoping that corporations, the public at large, foundations will help us with that project. And we are now approaching them and asking, so we're asking here, too.
>LiveKOKO: Hurry give-me mouth nipple.
>Host: So everyone, buy t-shirts -- every one is a donation to the preserve! At Keyword:Heaven after the chat!
Face it, Noam Chomsky is right again. Language is unique to humans.

>>11808304
When did koko die?

>>11808530
2018.

Is there anything else you'd like for me to look up for you?

>>11808560
It was rhetorical my guy.

>>11808572
Rhetorical questions are asked with intent. Why did you intend to draw our attention to the date Koko died?

>>11808450
The dude isolates himself so I doubt he has much "normie" influence

>>11808580
Topicality.

>>11808608
This is /sci/, not /news/, is it not?

>>11808304
Is that the guy that solved Fermat's last theorem? Or was it some other notable work in mathematics and science?

>>11808304
Why wouldnt he racist? People with higher IQs are more controlled by logic than stupid primitive shit like morals because they dont need morals to remain civilized like brainlets. The idea that blacks are equal to whites in intelligence despite not a single incidence of black and white academic equality is proof positive its leftist hogwash to prevent blacks from getting expelled from the west once we realize 80% of them are useless evil criminal pieces of shit.

>>11808775
>controlled by logic
>when logic is incomplete

you got some nerve calling people brainlets

>>11808782
Lets look at reality blacks have yet to show any equality with whites in any manner, no not even whites they are not even comparable to dumber races like middle easterners or north africans. The only equivalents to them are other braindead dark browns like Aboriginals or Papuans. Despite the fact Africa has infrastructure its academics is still godawful compared to shitholes like Mexico for example no matter how much money they throw nothing really changes only a small minority of Sub Saharans even have the brain cells to not drop out of middle school in African nations. We dont see such behavior in white people as an overwhelming majority suggesting there are profound cognitive differences between the Sub Saharans and us. That combined with the fact that impoverished whites have yet to create cities as dangerous as Sub Saharan blacks is further evidence as well.

>>11808304
Reminder Richard Lynn made up over 50% of his data in "IQ and the Wealth of Nations"

>>11808797
yeah nogs wuz kangz an sheit bix nood muh fugga

>>11808450
>not realizing that such a ban would be pointless in the grand scheme of things
>not realizing that the only thing that actually matters is finishing CTMU
There are many types of stupid but yours is unique to you,

>>11808812
Reminder that you still need to prove your assertion.

why wouldn't they let this guy in the club?

not talking about as a bouncer in the club...

?? anyone??

malcolm gladwell earned him more paper than all the iq scores he accumulated...

why is that?

he just sucked at applying his intelligence?

140+ IQ and you'd think all the top universities, big pharm, big media, intelligence CIA FBI mossad etc... would be fighting over giving this guy blank checks and unlimited perks...

he's bouncing in clubs? and writing 'triggering' Facebook posts for attention??

what am i missing? Anyone??

>>11808857
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
"For 104 of the 185 nations, no studies were available. In those cases, the authors have used an estimated value by taking averages of the IQs of neighboring or comparable nations."

"The limited number of participants in some studies as well as outdated data has also been criticized. A test of 108 9- to 15-year-olds in Barbados, of 50 13- to 16-year-olds in Colombia, of 104 5- to 17-year-olds in Ecuador, of 129 6- to 12-year-olds in Egypt, and of 48 10- to 14-year-olds in Equatorial Guinea, all were taken as measures of national IQ."

This "study" is almost entirely useless

>>11808304
>tfw black and from texas
>use y'all all the time
>suddenly because of twitterfags "y'all" now triggers people on 4chan

what the fuck is wrong with you?

>>11808611
This topic doesn't seem very /sci/

>>11808612
No. He dropped out of college and has achieved anything scientific or mathematical. He's a horse rancher.

>>11808876
It's just lowlifes who think IQ determines how you communicate

>>11808876
Because words like "y'all" and "folks" were co-opted by coastal elites pretending to be down-to-earth and close to the average person. So now they carry a serious air of disingenuous condescension .

>>11808871
Autism

Anyone on the spectrum is good at being at following algorithms. Tasks with a clear goal made of elementary and simple operations are their forte.

Now tell these retarded fucks to improvise and see how miserably they fail at every turn. Some races are more in the spectrum than others. Asians are very good at counterfeiting or following traditional processes for eons, but anything creative they mostly suck at.

Blacks and mediterranean may be less smart, but they socialize better.

>>11808876
I use y'all in informal speaking but I'd never use it in writing (unless its ironic or a direct quote).

IQ is astrology for incels.

I will never not post this upon seeing these types of threads.

>>11809211
brainlet cope

>>11808871
He doesn't like being controlled

>>11809256
How could I be coping if I don’t even know what my IQ is?

I am graduate student in physics. None of my graduate student friends know their IQs, either. Productive scientists don’t give a flying fuck - incels do.

>>11809304
The reply was meant as a jocular meme.

At the individual level IQ doesn't mean much other than for hiring practices and curiosity. or for smug wazzoks claiming it makes them better.
But at the large acale the psychometric study of IQ is the most statistically valid and replicable topic in all psychology.

>>11808608
When did Einstein die?

>>11808507
>fine nipple
I haha'd.

>>11808450
>many types of smarts
True, but then there is the "I just don't give a fuck" factor. I can relate to that myself. Be careful what I say because "get labeled a racist"? Nope. I just don't give a fuck.

>>11808876
He's just retarded. It's like an onion of retardation. You're not even sure where to start because you know if you just point out the root of it, he won't understand. It's like talking to a lower form of life.

The personal tragedy for me, maybe I'm autistic or something, but I just can't quite accept how retarded most people are in a theory of mind sense. Despite knowing all about conditioning, brainwashing, strategy in general, I just can't get away from thinking "that's so obvious, it couldn't possibly work to trick anyone". So I'm left feeling impotent, where I should just get over it somehow and rise to assert dominance over the lesser among us.

>>11808304

>>11808304

Most Africans can not read and understand an entire sentence.

>>11810509
i man herzog shootin solitaire no hands savoir nova shaka glare zulu somnambulist lair

>>11808876
Niggers culturally appropriated it

>>11810501
quiet, disinfo agent

>>11808304
>man with 200IQ
>"Yes, I did solve a Millenium Prize Problem, but as I gain nothing by submitting it (one million dollars is not enough) then I will not publish"

Is this the math equivalent to "Yeah I have a girlfriend, she just goes to a different school"?

>>11810537
What he said is actually kind of right though. There is a lazy bias whereby it becomes impossible for non-professionals to solve those problems.

You have to have an academic affiliation and have published several journal papers. No one's going to look at anyone's scribblings.

>>11808304
>Koko was believed to have an IQ of between 75 and 95

IQ tests are circumspect as it is without trying to apply a test designed around human intelligence on a non-human intellect. For example, how would you test Koko's verbal reasoning? Also, for the smartest man in the World he's not exactly leading us into a golden age lmao.

>>11808304
I don’t know man, this guy doesn’t give me smart man vibes

>>11810509
>being uneducated means you're stupid
A rare look into the racist mind.

>>11810749
how stupid you are determines how quickly you learn

>>11809412
about 22 years too late

>>11808872
>>11808812
This, Richard Lynn is a racist fraud.

http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2011/08/devastating-criticism-of-richard-lynn.html
>The work by Lynn (and Vanhanen) has also drawn criticism (Barnett & Williams, 2004; Ervik, 2003; Hunt & Carlson, 2007; Hunt & Sternberg, 2006; Lane, 1994). One point of critique is that 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).

>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). 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.

>>11811677

>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. 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).

>>11811679
>We found that Lynn and Meisenberg's assessment of the samples' representativeness is not associated with any of the objective sampling characteristics, but rather with the average IQ in the sample. This suggests that Lynn and Meisenberg excluded samples of Africans who average IQs above 75 because they deemed these samples unrepresentative on the basis of the samples' relatively high IQs. We conclude that Lynn and Meisenberg's unsystematic methods are questionable and their results untrustworthy.


>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.

>>11811677
>>11811679
>>11811682
Keep seething, IQ test are not required to know blacks are dumb as shit. Simply looking at academics across the decades is evidence enough.
>but they have no funding
And yet there are thousands of blacks who dont drop out of schools suggesting the problem is genetic not cultural blacks who are born with brain cells can make it through school, most blacks have no brain cells so flunk school regardless of what you do for them.

>>11811694
>Simply looking at academics across the decades is evidence enough.
Nigerians, Ghanians and Leonese outperform White Britons on the British school system.

>>11808304
OP posts convincing support for the hypothesis that a high estimated IQ is positively correlated with idiocy and racism.

>>11811715
those are all highly selected for being the top 1% of their group. even if their mean was in the 80's they would outperform average whites but not once you get two sigma + for euros it's not really the case

>>11811756
So Pakistanis, Eastern Europeans or Yemenis living in the UK are not in the top percentile of their ethnic groups?

>>11808304

what's worse?
140+ IQ 'genius' resorting to bait/troll posting?
or people in this thread discussing the content of his bait/troll post rather than why a genius would be so limited in opportunity?

>>11811762
No, you need to understand a little about UK immigration history. A lot of pakistanis came to Britain when some bumfuck nowhere place in tribal pakistan was going to be flooded for a hydroelectric dam. I think it was a british construction company involved, so they pulled an arrangement with the UK government to offer them british Visas, to work in then functioning cotton mills (which wanted cheap labour to compete with emerging asia) in the north of england. Obviously the mills closed down and weren't competetive, but the pakis stayed and continued to marry their children off to cousins in pakistan to get marriage visas. Somalis are mostly illegals/refugees, eastern euros all came over to work as toilet cleaners and potato pickers in the last 20 years.

The NHS highers a lot in India and Nigeria, specifically for nurses and doctors. Obviously there is a little better selection doing that.

>>11811799
*hires

>>11811715
I wouldn't trust GCSE data too far. It's very far from a standardised test.

>>11811799
So you are saying environment is a big factor then? Because we can control for it, to an extent.
See pic.

>>11811814
You wouldn't be saying that if the results were in favour of the talking point you are trying to push.

If Africans back in Africa have average IQs in the 80s (as modern IQ testing shows) then it's a difference that could be explained entirely by environmental reasons. If their IQs are below 70 as per the fake Lynn data in the OP (as proven here >>11811677 >>11811679 >>11811682) then it cannot be explained by environmental reasons.

>>11808304
>The average IQ of a human is around 90 to 110

Yeah, because they literally fucking normalize the values to have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 no matter what the raw scores are.

>>11811848
>Look everyone the niggers aren’t last on this non standardised test increase immigration you racists

>>11811848
>>11811715
In your opinion, what is the reason why black africans outperform white brits? Are they socially privileged (in regards to education at least), or genetically superior, or is there an issue with the tests?

>>11811848
I wasn't saying environment was a big factor, I was saying SELECTION is a big factor. If you're only importing people who have medical degrees from a population, you're going to get close to the top that that population has to offer, as opposed to a random selection. The effect is the same in America - universities are filling up with foreign blacks for diversity because they far out perform AAs. Your image again is frequently trotted out with UK GCSE data. You really need to understand how shitty it is and would castigate anybody using an IQ test with such shit metrics. There are multiple exam boards producing different exams in the same subjects with varying levels of difficulty, with varying amounts of coursework, 5 A*-C grades can come from multiple different self selected subject areas, and finally what proportion of each population is on free school meals?

UK IQ data is pretty sparse. There's a big one called the CAT, but all the data is private, pic related is a summary of available data.

> 200 IQ
> Still retarded
Is there any hope for our spieces?

>ya'll
Where does he say that exactly?

>>11808876
everyone should say yall
it's a massive oversight in the english language to not have a second person plural pronoun
t. also from tx

>>11812270
We used to, but then people started insisting on be addressed in the plural. Now "thou" and "thee" sound like LARPing. I read that "tha" was used in Yorkshire dialect as a second person singular., if you'd rather not be taken as a US Southerner.

>>11808304
he's just a glitch in IQ testing, being able to get very high scores without actually being as intelligent

Howdy how're Y'ALL doing?

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan
>In 1999, Langan and others formed a non-profit corporation named the Mega Foundation for those with IQs of 164 or above.
>Langan has developed a "theory of the relationship between mind and reality" which he calls the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" (CTMU).[3][6][11] Langan says that the CTMU "explains the connection between mind and reality, therefore the presence of cognition and universe in the same phrase".[12] He calls his proposal "a true 'Theory of Everything', a cross between John Archibald Wheeler's 'Participatory Universe' and Stephen Hawking's 'Imaginary Time' theory of cosmology".[3] In conjunction with his ideas, Langan has stated: "You can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics."
don't care about blacks but lmao this man's life is the strongest proof against meritocracy and IQ

>>11808304
If a Horse could comprehend its own strength compared to ours, we should not ride it any longer.

If it's true for gorillas it's true for apes.

>>11808310
Aliens: lol even nigger degrasse tyson is smarter than the average white man caucasians are so fucking pathetic.

>>11811410
Well too bad half of Africa has gone to shit and you'll be lucky as a kid to have the occupation as a child soldier

>>11809296
This.

>You're smart, why don't you spend most of your hours slaving away doing stressful tasks that would mentally burn you out in the hope that you'd get more material possessions?

That's how guys like him think. He don't give a shit about what others expect of him, because he values his freedom.

>>11808797
Dude, you're trash. Mexico is getting fucked up because South America is funneling drugs through it because the USA is its biggest buyer of cocaine and heroin. Mexico is a shithole now, but it hasn't always been that way. Not until the 90s. And even then, during the day it's mostly safe. Just beware of border towns like Tijuana and Juarez.

>>11811677
>There are different types of intelligence, goyim
>Learn this one

>>11808871
he wants a chill life, I can get behind that.

>>11809330
underrated and based

>>11810497
>he just won’t understand my cognitive dissonance
ok let’s see what you got. What are the roots?

>>11810683
good IQ tests don’t go for verbal reasoning to prevent education bias, so it doesn’t matter.

Sadly, he has decided to not give a fuck about education and chill his life.

>>11811897
so what’s the problem?

>>11813845
>has gone to
when was half of Africa ever not shit?

to be fair i've been bouncing for around 5 years before starting my medical engineering degree and working as an engineer and i miss those days.
got to hustle and work on my career though because i'm an idiot who listens to society and now i'm stuck in front of a computer all the time i hate it

>>11814002
The few decades where it was run by whites.

>>11814134
hm they had the option to invest in it to make it not shit, but most colonizers didn’t do that.

>>11813980
Boasting about your intelligence while doing fuck all useful with it is equivocal to some fat boomer saying that he "could have went pro". If he wants to live a chill life then there's nothing wrong with that but don't go casting aspersions at others.

>>11814165
oh yea, he is obnoxious as fuck.
But you can’t really expect anything from someone that doesn’t even try to put in any work.

>>11813806

>>11811715
>>11811848
The Africans who can actually immigrate to the UK are the more intelligent genetic stock of their societies, try taking a look at whites in majority black nations vs the natives.

yinz > y'all

>>11808871
Terrible home life stunted this guy's social skills horribly
He's clearly smart. I've interacted with him a bit and he's 100% not a dumb guy, but he's also not a very good communicator at all.

>>11808467
>A score of 190 is meaningless on almost all scales. A score of 210 is totally meaningless on every scale I know. There aren't enough people in the world for that score to make sense.
This
Scores cap at 160, 170, or 180 at the absolute maximum for a reason. Scores above that are notoriously difficult to measure with any accuracy at all.

Iq tests aren't very accurate and you shouldn't boast about it but even then niggers are still dumb lol

>>11814343
They're very accurate if you've ever looked at the detailed breakdowns

>>11811848
>free schools meals
Do you realise what sort white kid will be on free school meals?
They'll have had shitty home lives on a council estate, born from parents that most likely drank and smoked in pregnancy, and raised on a culture that encourages them to skive off school and instead learn the 'skills' needed they'll need to scrounge, scam, and thieve through life.

If you want to talk about invalid data sets, one that only measures the White British subhuman underclass is one of them.

>>11812913
you should add california to that now because all the twitter posting libs have appropriated "y'all" to sound more ethnic and progressive

>>11812307
I use thou'll

>>11814334
160 is not the cap. 160 is the lowest a person can get and be counted as a genius up until like 10 years ago when mensa was like 150 is good enough and then the liberal media demanded it be downgraded to 150 minimum for being a genius

but here is the thing the cap is something like 240 and people have gotten it. 190 - 200 is the the cap and others have gotten a 240. you have to get every question right and that version of a iq test has to not have a handful of impossible questions like the answer isnt present but there is one marked as correct so if you get it right and everything else right you cheated but in some cases there is no impossible question

>>11814532
190 - 200 isnt* the cap.

damn key board

>>11814532
>Mensa
On a side note, paying a fee to be part of a group on the basis of being intelligent does not sound like the move a smart person would make.

>>11814532
Not true. Many modern IQ tests cap at 160. I've administered them myself.

>>11814675
To clarify, because the post I originally applied to was just bizarre, what we typically do is use a standard IQ test which we acknowledge probably won't give accurate scores above 160, and definitely above 180 things get pretty wild.
The media has nothing to do with it and mensa certainly doesn't.
What it is is simply that there are so few people capable of scoring above 160, 170, or 180 that we can't accurately score them. What we might then do is get a second test which is better suited for high range scores, or sometimes a psychologist will just comment an estimate on the test.
The way the IQ scores essentially work is that you're ranked based on how likely it is that someone would answer that question, or that number of questions in the test, correctly.
But these numbers like 210 are essentially saying you're a 1 in a number greater than the number of people we have available to compare you with, so the score doesn't make sense.
These facts have nothing to do with almost anything claimed in the above post.

>>11814449
And what do you think happens with Africans on school meals? Do you think they don't come from the same type of households? Are you stupid? The graph compares kids of all races on school meals, that's the point.

>>11811985
those blacks are selected and are not representative of their populations average

>>11814246
>The Africans who can actually immigrate to the UK are the more intelligent genetic stock of their societies
An often repeated excuse in these type of threads but with nothing to back it. The "elites" of African nations were considered an underclass and had no access to education only 50 years ago.

>try taking a look at whites in majority black nations vs the natives.
See the point above. I'm not a "woke" SJW nor anything close to it, I believe blacks whining about privilege is counterproductive to an egalitarian society, but if there was a priviledged people anywhere on Earth it was clearly whites in Africa. Most of them enjoy a high social status thanks to decades of colonialism and policies that benefitted them over the majority. Education and economic systems that catered to them, and so on and so forth.

Even so, you can find many poor whites in South Africa, many fell instantly through the cracks once apartheid discriminatory hiring policies ended.

>>11815339
>Do you think they don't come from the same type of households?
The point is that this type of household appears in both intelligent and unintelligent black families, but only in unintelligent white families.
The comparison holds only if you assume social class determines school results, and dismiss all other factors.

>>11814246
>The Africans who can actually immigrate to the UK are the more intelligent genetic stock of their societies
This can be said of most immigrants in the UK, yet those Africans still perform better than Italians, Albanians, Turks, Pakistanis, Afghans, Yemenis, Portuguese, etc.

If Africans were braindead sub-70 IQ genetically inferior humans as Lynn implies then they shouldn't be able to outperform other immigrants from "higher IQ" nations.

>>11815363
>>11815382
>don't understand what average means
Why are you here ?

>>11815379
>The point is that this type of household appears in both intelligent and unintelligent black families, but only in unintelligent white families.
Source? You think there are no intelligent whites stuck in shitty families? Alcoholism is not a problem in the West? Or in places like Russia?
Bizarre.

Also, if all Blacks came from broken families, then it's even more credit for them that they can outperform Britons in the British school system, even when not accounting for socioeconomic status (>>11811715). You are defeating your own point.

>The comparison holds only if you assume social class determines school results, and dismiss all other factors.
Social class, nutrition, family household stability, education level of the parents, are all very big factors in determining school results.

>>11815393
Why is a "self-selected intelligent minority" from a very low IQ nation (Nigeria) performing better than a "self-selected intelligent minority" from a high IQ average nation (Portugal)?

Are Africans in the UK really 1% outliers? Did the UK somehow manage to attract every single intelligent African on Earth?

Or maybe the gap is not that big (native Africans have IQs in the 80s when you rely on modern testing and not on a test taken in the 1950s Belgian Congo), a difference that can be explained by environmental factors, and thus Africans do better when taken to an environment that gives them equal opportunities?

Which makes more sense?

>>11815396
>Source?
You first source your idea that the two groups are comparable.

>Social class, nutrition, family household stability, education level of the parents, are all very big factors in determining school results.
You forgot intelligence.

>if all Blacks came from broken families, then it's even more credit for them that they can outperform Britons
It would be proof that broken families are not a very big factor, in itself.
How do you explain their better results, btw ? You give them credit for it, so you think it's just an act of individual will, pulling-themselves-by-the-bootstraps ? Or do you think it's genetic superiority ?

>>11815409
>Why is a "self-selected intelligent minority" from a very low IQ nation (Nigeria) performing better than a "self-selected intelligent minority" from a high IQ average nation (Portugal)?
Obviously they haven't faced the same selection. Why would you even assume they did ?

>>11815423
>You first source your idea that the two groups are comparable.
I mean a source for your ridiculous statement that there are no intelligent white kids suffering from broken families, it's beyond stupid.
>this type of household appears in both intelligent and unintelligent black families, but only in unintelligent white families.

>You forgot intelligence.
Intelligence of the parents sure. But obviously is not the only factor, hence what I was saying.

>It would be proof that broken families are not a very big factor, in itself.
Sure, but you are not backing your ridiculous claims that all blacks come from broken families with any evidence, so it's a moot point.

>How do you explain their better results, btw ? You give them credit for it, so you think it's just an act of individual will, pulling-themselves-by-the-bootstraps ? Or do you think it's genetic superiority ?
There is probably some self-selection going on. The smartest Africans do manage to immigrate to the UK. However, this results makes sense if the average IQ of Africans is in the low 80s as proven by modern genetic testing, and thus the Africans immigrating belong to the smartest 10-5% (two standard deviations from the average) and are thus smarter than the average white.

However, if we take Lynn's numbers of Africans being braindead with IQs in the 50s, 60s and 70s, consider IQ differences to be mostly genetic and race based, then Africans outperforming whites in the UK makes no sense, no amount of self-selection can account for such a big difference. Africans in the UK would need to be three standard deviations smarter than the people in their homeland (smarter than >99.7% of Africans) to explain these results.

>>11815423
>You first source your idea that the two groups are comparable.
I mean a source for your ridiculous statement that there are no intelligent white kids suffering from broken families, it's beyond stupid.
>this type of household appears in both intelligent and unintelligent black families, but only in unintelligent white families.

>You forgot intelligence.
Intelligence of the parents sure. But obviously it's not the only factor, hence what I was saying.

>It would be proof that broken families are not a very big factor, in itself.
Sure, but you are not backing your ridiculous claims that all blacks come from broken families with any evidence, so it's a moot point.

>How do you explain their better results, btw ? You give them credit for it, so you think it's just an act of individual will, pulling-themselves-by-the-bootstraps ? Or do you think it's genetic superiority ?
There is probably some self-selection going on. The smartest Africans are the ones that do manage to immigrate to the UK. However, this result makes sense if the average IQ of Africans is in the low 80s as proven by modern IQ testing, and thus the Africans immigrating belong to the smartest 10-5% (two standard deviations from the average) which explains how they can be smarter than the average white.

However, if we take Lynn's numbers, with Africans being braindead with IQs in the 50s, 60s and 70s, consider IQ differences to be mostly genetic and race based, then Africans outperforming whites in the UK makes no sense, no amount of self-selection can account for such a big difference. Africans in the UK would need to be three standard deviations smarter than the people in their homeland (smarter than >99.7% of Africans) to explain these results.

>>11815431
See the post above

>>11815409
Environment is a meme, those africans do well because of their neurogenetics. Imagine being a board full of people who are blessed with genetic high intelligence saying this environment horseshit. The most common ridicule on this board even highlights how this board barely believes intelligent is not 100% genetic aka brainlet.

>>11815471
The point is IQ is both genetic and environmental, there is no evidence whatsoever that your IQ is solely determined by your race. Racial differences in IQ (particularly when you are using outdated tests from the 1950s and 1980s) can be largely explained by environmental factors.

>>11815479
>IQ is both genetic and environemental
Nope its 100% genetic no amount of education can make you as intelligent as Einstein or Tesla, and no amount of child abuse can make you as stupid as a ghetto black person either.

>>11815483
That's not what the experts say, as per the Snyderman and Rothman survey taken in 1984.

To answer your extreme example with another, Einstean and Tesla wouldn't have been as intelligent if their nutrition had been stunted as children due to famines.

>>11814550
This. IQ is inherently a sham and a game of diminishing returns. Even if you halve the processing time to a problem it will only get so fast. Obviously being a brainlet is bad but once you're over the 130 mark you probably don't get an advantage in life. Creativity, drive, and education start to be more relevant with increasing IQ as a guy who's 200IQ but does bong rips all day will never learn QCD theory and solve problems; whereas a 130IQ guy with drive will take longer to solve it but will actually try.

Mensa is a bunch of sexual deviants, narcissists, and autists. (Read Pikhal if you want a good example) Only a moron would pick their companions based off big boy brain points instead of actual social cohesion.

Idk, it's like a bunch of fags measuring dicks in a closet while chads compare actual lays in a bar. I get the inclination to say to these people: "Don't tell me how smart you are, show me through interesting discourse."

-t. 99.2+ percentile IQ guy who took an in person test as part of a psych exam.

>>11815461
>Africans in the UK would need to be three standard deviations smarter than the people in their homeland (smarter than >99.7% of Africans) to explain these results.
I don't take Lynn's numbers usually, but what's impossible about this ?

>Intelligence of the parents sure. But obviously it's not the only factor, hence what I was saying.
You were saying the two groups were comparable. There's no reason to assume so. First source it and then i'll source my hyperbole.

>>11815488
>Muh famines
So what famines exist in Black America chief? You are wrong Einstein would still be vastly more intelligent than me even if he was raised as a feral child because his brain is simply genetically superior. The same reason why a feral human child is still more intelligent than almost all life on this planet dumbass.

>>11815466
It doesn't say anything about the portuguese facing the same selection as the nigerians.

>>11808304
[math]
\triangledown \cdot \iiint \dfrac{ \bar{r}_0- \bar{r}}{ \left | \bar{r}_0- \bar{r} \right |^3} \, \text{d}x \, \text{d}y \, \text{d}z = 4 \pi
[/math]

>>11815488
>>11815522
If black America is middle class enough to produce 6'6" basketball players, it should be middle class enough to produce geniuses.

>>11815534
but the integral doesnt even converge!!!! no gigachad this is an undefined expression!!

>>11815539
And your point is? Black Americas has geniuses and yet their academics is still abysmal I mean the black schools now not the geniuses. If the intelligence is not genetic why do we do not see similar lack of academic progress or ridiculous high violence in impoverished white schools in America huh? Not to mention this has a thing with black schools very high violence and no brain cells whatesover when it came to test scores its one of the main reason white people chimped out when they were told blacks were going to be integrated into white schools.

>>11811715
>>11811848
Firstly, It's well documented that first/second and possibly third generation immigrants do better academically across the board. You'll notice a fuck ton of modern academics are first/second/third generation. Secondly, academic success isn't even that predictive of intelligence, Chinese outperform whites drastically, yet their recorded IQ is 106, only marginally better than the European average. Thirdly, yeah, self-selective factors.

>>11815546
>If the intelligence is not genetic why do we do not see similar lack of academic progress or ridiculous high violence in impoverished white schools in America huh?
Could be cultural.

>>11815570
West Indian and Pure Blacks have no hip hop culture yet even worse academics than Black Americans.

>>11815576
Maybe they have even worse cultures ?

>>11815588
How can a culture be worse than literal psychotic criminal worship? The music of pure blacks is just giddy hedonistic crap not AYO I LOVE KILLING PEOPLE AYO I LOVE RAPING WOMEN AYO I LOVE RUINING BLACK LIVES FOR FUN SHIET which is black american culture.

>>11815520
>I don't take Lynn's numbers usually, but what's impossible about this ?
Do you really need me to explain to you how unlikely it is, statistically speaking, that all the Nigerians that live in the UK happen to belong to the 0.3% smartest fraction of the population? Use your brain.

>You were saying the two groups were comparable. There's no reason to assume so. First source it
Their academic results make them comparable.
Burden of proof is on you to explain why they aren't.

>>11815522
>So what famines exist in Black America chief?
Ghetto culture is a thing. Also, most "Black Americans" are mulattoes, they have significant white admixture. If genetics was as big a factor they should be doing better than the pure black Nigerians in the UK, but they aren't.

>You are wrong Einstein would still be vastly more intelligent than me even if he was raised as a feral child because his brain is simply genetically superior.
No, we know for a fact how malnutrition stunts intelligence, retard.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26569559/

Feel free to show me a single example of a high-achieving scientist that was raised as a feral child in the wild.
I'll wait.

>>11815524
They shouldn't need to be selected. You are missing the point.

A non-selected Polish or Portuguese should be able to outperform Nigerians if the IQ gap was genetic and as large as the racist infographics usually posted here claim.

>>11815599
Culture is much more than cultural industries.

>>11815613
>They shouldn't need to be selected. You are missing the point.
>A non-selected Polish or Portuguese should be able to outperform Nigerians if the IQ gap was genetic
Not him, but doesn't the Nigerians' success actually PROVE the genetic character of IQ? That is, if the environment was responsible for academic performance, they'd score the same as (non-selected) Portuguese. But since they're selected, they outperform them. Kind of like Asians in the USA.

Or are you saying that the Portuguese are as selected as Nigerians? I doubt that's true.

>>11815613
>If genetics was as big a factor they should be doing better than the pure black Nigerians in the UK, but they aren't.
Genetic outliers are not an argument and the bulk of Nigerians in the UK are feral idiots not those outliers you are talking about either. Same for the bulk for Nigerians in America.
>Malnutrition stunts intelligence
Yet a malnourished human is still smarter than a rat meaning if a human is born with high intelligence then malnutrition will only take their IQ down a certain degree not make them retard tier.

>>11815622
I am not denying there is a genetic component to IQ, I'm saying the environment is more of a determinant. Which is also what the science says.

We know for a fact how the environment affects IQ and the mechanisms involved, environmental factions affect IQ to a very large extent. We don't know entirely how the genetic part works, and we don't know if it's significant at all when it comes to race differences in IQ.

If Nigerians were genetically inferior to Portuguese as claimed by the racist infographics such as the OP then no amount of self-selection could make them perform *better* than Portuguese.

A standard deviation in IQ is roughly 15 points. Do the math.

>>11815613
>Do you really need me to explain to you how unlikely it is, statistically speaking, that all the Nigerians that live in the UK happen to belong to the 0.3% smartest fraction of the population?
Yes I do. In 2001, nigerians in the UK were 0,07% of the nigerian population.

>Burden of proof is on you to explain why they aren't.
No, you made the first statement and you made it a positive one. Burden of proof is definitely on you.
But I'll explain it again : due to different historical backgrounds, the fraction of the white population that gets free meals is constituted differently in regards to other factors as the fraction of the african population that does. Because of that sampling error, these school results don't allow us to compare these populations.

>They shouldn't need to be selected. You are missing the point.
No, your point is retarded, you're using Lynn's numbers which you yourself admit are wrong to prove that selection can't explain the gap, but even then it can.

>>11815634
>the bulk of Nigerians in the UK are feral idiots
More unsourced racist drivel I guess it's not worth having a serious debate with people not willing to.

We are talking about high school academic performance, those "feral Nigerians" are doing better than White Britons.

>Yet a malnourished human is still smarter than a rat meaning if a human is born with high intelligence then malnutrition will only take their IQ down a certain degree not make them retard tier.
We are obviously talking to genetics and environment as it pertains to differences between Humans.

>>11815643
>I'm saying the environment is more of a determinant. Which is also what the science says.
>We know for a fact how the environment affects IQ and the mechanisms involved, environmental factions affect IQ to a very large extent.
Citation needed.

>>11815654
Humans are animals meaning what applies to animals like intelligence being 100% genetic also applies to humans unless you are an irrational idiot who believes humans are special snowflakes.

The academics of Nigeria suggests Nigerians are really stupid on average, they have the same tier of hellish violent public schools like just Black Americans along with juvenile delinquency at a high rate just like black americans. Thats all you do talk about the outliers ignore the uncivilized majority of blacks who cause racism in the first place.
>doing better than White Britons
Then why are the white british still bitching about people of color doing bad in school due to muh racism?

>>11815648
>Yes I do. In 2001, nigerians in the UK were 0,07% of the nigerian population.
So you are saying every single Nigerian that emigrated for the UK belongs to the 0.9% smart fraction?

>due to different historical backgrounds, the fraction of the white population that gets free meals is constituted differently in regards to other factors as the fraction of the african population that does. Because of that sampling error, these school results don't allow us to compare these populations.
But Nigerians also outperform White Britons when you dismiss environmental control factors, that is without just restricting yourself to the kids receiving school meals. >>11811715

>No, your point is retarded
The initial point is that blacks are not "dumber than Koko the Gorilla", that most of the IQ numbers cited on those infographics are bullshit, and that the actual IQ of Africans living in Africa is in the 80s which could be explained entirely by environmental factors (nutrition, education, etc).

See >>11811677
>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). These results undermine evolutionary theories of race differences in intelligence of Lynn (2006), Rushton (2000), and Kanazawa (2004) (Wicherts, Borsboom, & Dolan, 2010a; Wicherts et al., 2010b).

>>11815682
>But Nigerians also outperform White Britons
*Nigerian genetic outliers outperform

Get it right leftist shit.

Most blacks would infact be dumber than Koko if Koko is in the mid 90s of IQ which barely any pure african is at. The IQ of Sub Saharans cannot be 80 because that would imploy Sub Saharans are on par with North Africans in intelligence and history has shown us THAT WAS NEVER EVER THE FUCKING CASE.

Keep whining about how Lynn is racist his numbers make complete sense given academic statistics of average performance of human races. Heres a reality check niggers are 13% of us yet do the absolute worst in our nation, every other minority does better than them in academics fucking explain this.

>>11815643
>I am not denying there is a genetic component to IQ, I'm saying the environment is more of a determinant. Which is also what the science says.
The science shows that the shared environment (i.e. schools quality, family life quality, etc.) has absolutely 0 effect on adult IQ, while genetics is responsible for 80%, and non shared environment 20%.
>We know for a fact how the environment affects IQ and the mechanisms involved, environmental factions affect IQ to a very large extent.
That's patently false, see above.
> We don't know entirely how the genetic part works, and we don't know if it's significant at all when it comes to race differences in IQ.
It's true that we don't know the exact mechanisms of action, but we know it's important from twin adoption studies.
>If Nigerians were genetically inferior to Portuguese as claimed by the racist infographics such as the OP then no amount of self-selection could make them perform *better* than Portuguese.
Of course there could. Although I agree that Lynn's figures are surely exaggerated, it wouldn't be surprising that the children of Nigerian doctor/engineer immigrants have a higher IQ than the children of Portuguese taxi driver/manual laborer immigrants.

Seems like you could use a refresher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

>>11815668
See the quote in >>11815682

>Humans are animals meaning what applies to animals like intelligence being 100% genetic also applies to humans unless you are an irrational idiot who believes humans are special snowflakes.
The genetic difference between a Human and a rat is much greater than between two Humans of a different race. Obviously genetics is more and more important in determining IQ the greater the genetic distance between the groups you are comparing. This is so obvious it shouldn't need explaining.

>The academics of Nigeria suggests Nigerians are really stupid on average
Nigeria is a shithole with a legacy of colonialism, dictatorship and subpar education, of course anyone raised in that environment will be doing worse. As living standards increase the Flynn effect should raise African IQ scores. In fact that is what's been happening for the past decades.

>>11815682
>every single
Why do you add this ?
Yes I'm saying that nigerians that immigrated are on average on the intellectual level of the very top of the nigerian population.

>without just restricting yourself to the kids receiving school meals
Ok, then you admit that the post I was replying to >>11815339 stupid and irrelevant ?.

>the actual IQ of Africans living in Africa is in the 80s which could be explained entirely by environmental factors (nutrition, education, etc).
That remains to be proved. You only tried to prove, inconclusively, that nigerians' school results in the UK disprove Lynn's numbers.

>>11815704
>The genetic difference between a Human and a rat is much greater than between two Humans of a different race. Obviously genetics is more and more important in determining IQ the greater the genetic distance between the groups you are comparing. This is so obvious it shouldn't need explaining.
Why would bipedal monkeys be exempt from intelligence being 100% genetic, it is the reality for all life on this planet including our closest relatives the chimps. Can muh environment help retards? No so shut up you blank slate nutjob,.
>Nigeria is a shithole with a legacy of colonialism, dictatorship and subpar education, of course anyone raised in that environment will be doing worse
Which doesnt stop around 300,000 Nigerians from succeeding academically keep the excuses coming.
>As living standards increase the Flynn effect should raise African IQ scores.
Black Americans debunk this malarky they are the most well fed blacks on Earth yet extremely fucking stupid on average.

https://businesstech.co.za/news/lifestyle/214805/80-of-grade-4-kids-in-sa-cant-read/#:~:text=The%20Progress%20in%20International%20Reading,to%20read%20in%20any%20language.

Africans are not retarded right? So fucking explain this? Then explain why there is no Balkan shithole with this sort of statistic too.

>>11815704
>See the quote in >>11815682
It doesn't say anything about how and how much environment affects IQ.

>>11815703
>while genetics is responsible for 80%, and non shared environment 20%.
Your source says AS HIGH AS 80%, not 80%.
The twin studies you are referring to say it's between 57% to 73%. You should read the caveat section because this percentage, also, refers to variability, not to the percentage of the trait itself.

More importantly, it refers to variation between individuals, not between groups, which is what we were discussing here. So basically all these numbers are irrelevant to the debate we are having here.

>That's patently false, see above.
Not false, you are referencing an article about the heritability of IQ between related individuals which does not apply between groups, see above. (Or actually READ the article you linked to me)

From your article:
>Although IQ differences between individuals are shown to have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that mean group-level disparities (between-group differences) in IQ necessarily have a genetic basis. The Flynn effect is one example where there is a large difference between groups (past and present) with little or no genetic difference.

>>11808516
Prairie dogs use language.

>>11815716
>Yes I'm saying that nigerians that immigrated are on average on the intellectual level of the very top of the nigerian population.
I am not denying that. But there's a big difference between the idea that Nigerians belong to the smartest 20% (possible) and the idea that they belong to the smartest 0.3% of all Nigerians which is highly unlikely.

>Ok, then you admit that the post I was replying to >>11815339 stupid and irrelevant ?.
It's not irrelevant it ties with the overall point.
Nigerians in the UK outperform both when controlling for British environmental factors and when not doing so.

>That remains to be proved.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608009001071

>>11815756
>Your source says AS HIGH AS 80%, not 80%.
Yes, the most recent studies (i.e. the most relevant and up to date ones) show a figure of 80%. Quoting verbatim:
> with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%[7] and 86%.
Obviously you'd agree that, just as in any field, the most recent results are probably more correct than the older results.

> You should read the caveat section because this percentage, also, refers to variability, not to the percentage of the trait itself.
Thank you, I know what heritability means. This is a moot point to bring up in this discussion, since in any case we're comparing the intelligence between people, we're not trying to measure some abstract, absolute trait which exists in a void.

>More importantly, it refers to variation between individuals, not between groups, which is what we were discussing here.
Since we know that IQ variation between individuals of the same group is primarily driven by genetics, it makes sense to extend that notion to variations between groups, unless you hypothesize the existence of some magical extraordinary environmental factor which exclusively and simultaneously affects all blacks the same way, depressing their IQ in a uniform manner.

To make an analogy: this would be akin to claiming that, although we know that the variation of height in males is primarily driven by genetics, and the variation of height in females is primarily driven by genetics, the reason why males are taller on average than females is not due to genetics, but to some unknown extraordinary environmental factor which only affects women to make them shorter than men on average.

>So basically all these numbers are irrelevant to the debate we are having here.
They're irrelevant if you're a brainlet trying to prove the impossible (that blacks aren't significantly dumber on average than other races, high IQ selective migration notwithstanding).

>>11815835
>Obviously you'd agree that, just as in any field, the most recent results are probably more correct than the older results.
Again you are quoting a sentece that says AS HIGH AS, being deliberately dishonest. There are recent studies that challenge these asumptions and show that environmental factors are just as determinant, because IQ is a malleable trait. The heritability of IQ also changes with age.

https://europepmc.org/article/med/29083200#R61
>In a French adoption study, Duyme et al. (1999) examined a group of 65 impoverished children adopted relatively late in life (between 4 and 6 years of age) who had an average IQ of 77 before adoption. When measured during adolescence, these adopted children showed significant gains in IQ, and the new values were significantly correlated with pre-adoption IQ (indicating that the measurements were reliable). The size of the gain was dependent on the socio-economic status (SES) of the adoptive families: an average gain of 7.7 IQ points in low SES adoptive families and 19.5 IQ points in high SES adoptive families. These IQ gains are far from trivial. To put them in perspective, a successful college graduate is, on average, 15 IQ points above the average of 100, and a child is considered “gifted” in the US if he/she is 30 IQ points above average.

>>11815835
>>11815914
>Even in countries with very low inequality and relatively homogeneous socio-cultural environment, changing from a relatively poor and uneducated family to a wealthier and educated family can substantially increase IQ. In a recent adoption study done in Sweden, Kendler et al. (2015) assessed the IQs of 436 pairs of separated siblings where at least one member was reared by biological parents and the other by adoptive parents. Adoption by parents with higher level of education was associated with a significant increase of 4.4 points in the child’s IQ in adulthood. Interestingly, the authors also found that in families with at least 2.5 steps higher education status than biological parents (i.e., the difference between no high school and some postsecondary education), the adopted-away siblings had 7.6 IQ points higher on average than their home-reared adopted siblings. On the other extreme, sibling sets in which the biological parental educational status was at least 2 steps higher than that of the adoptive parents, the adopted-away siblings had an IQ on average 3.8 points lower than their home-reared siblings (Kendler et al., 2015)

>In a meta-analysis, van Ijzendoorn et al. (2008) considered 75 studies (totaling more than 3800 children in 19 different countries) to compare the intellectual development of children living in orphanages to that of children living with adoptive families. On average, children growing up in orphanages had an IQ that was 16.5 points lower than their peers who were adopted. Not surprisingly, orphanages in countries with a higher Human Development Index (a combined measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, standards of living, and quality of life) had smaller detrimental effects on children’s intelligence (reduction of 11.9 IQ points) than countries with a lower Index (reduction of 21 IQ points).

>>11815914
>>11815917
>>11815835

>Winick et al. (1975) examined 205 Korean orphans (all of the viable cases from a single adoption service from 1959–1967) who were adopted during early life by US parents, and divided cases into three categories (according to the conditions of the children before adoption): malnourished (n = 59), moderately nourished (n = 76), and a control of well-nourished children (n = 70). (Keep in mind that Korea as a whole was a poor and underdeveloped country at the time of the adoptions during the 1960s.) After at least six years with their American parents, the children were assessed for IQ. The mean IQ of the previously malnourished group was 102; the moderately nourished group, 106; and the well-nourished group, 112. Strikingly, the mean IQ of the children from the previously malnourished category was 10 to 40 points higher than the IQ of malnourished children living with their biological families in Korea or other poor populations (Galler, et al., 1983; Hertzig et al., 1972; Liu et al., 2003; S. A. Richardson, 1976). In a similar analysis, O’Connor et al. (2000) examined 111 children from Romania who were adopted (after the collapse of the Soviet Union) by families in the UK at the age of four. The authors found a considerable catch-up in children’s cognitive abilities from the time at the adoption to just two years later, at age six (although these adopted Romanian children were still slightly below the average IQ of adopted UK children.)

>A meta-analysis of 62 studies from a multitude of countries (totaling 18,000 adopted children) found an average increase in IQ of 17.6 points within several years of adoption (van Ijzendoorn et al., 2005) – a remarkable cognitive gain over their biological, nonadopted siblings and their peers who stayed behind. The size of the IQ gains described in this meta-analysis is higher than typical for studies of adoption.

>>11815921
>>11815917
>>11815914
>>11815835

>Interestingly, the same pattern of changes in heritability that occurs across lifespan happens across socio-economic status. In a seminal study, Turkheimer et al. estimated genetic and environmental effects on IQ in 7-year-old twins in high and low SES families (Turkheimer, Haley, Waldron, D’Onofrio, & Gottesman, 2003). About 25% percent of the families sampled had incomes below the US poverty line (which comprises about 15% of the US population), and the median annual income of the sample was equivalent today to $37,000, which is moderately lower than the median income of the US population as whole ($52,000). Results from that study showed that among affluent families, most of IQ’s variation was associated with genetic variation, and almost none was associated with shared familial environment (heritability of 0.72, with the rest associated with unique environments). However, among the poorest families, the reverse was true: most of variation in IQ was associated with the shared familial environment, and little with genetic variation (heritability of 0.10).

>>11815923
>>11815921
>>11815917
>>11815914
>>11815835
>Since we know that IQ variation between individuals of the same group is primarily driven by genetics, it makes sense to extend that notion to variations between groups
The Flynn effect shows large variance of as much as 20 IQ points between two different generations of people, so it proves environmental causes can have a huge impact on IQ, particularly when it comes to nations or groups of people.

From the same study quoted above:
>lthough the Flynn effect is a worldwide phenomenon, it occurs predominantly in countries transitioning into what we consider today to be a “developed” society, both in social aspects like education and health access, as well as in economic aspects like per capita GDP and industrialization. In the United States, IQ increased by approximately 14 points between the years 1932 and 1978 (Flynn, 1984), and similar gains of three IQ points per decade were observed during the last century in France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada, Germany, and Japan (Lynn & Hampson, 1986). In recent decades, gains in IQ also began to emerge in developing countries such as Turkey, Sudan, and Dominica (Khaleefa et al., 2008; Meisenberg et al., 2005; Rindermann et al., 2013). Worldwide, a meta-analysis of 53 studies conducted in industrialized societies showed an increase of 17.6 IQ points occurred between 1951–2011, translating to an average increase of approximately 2.9 IQ points per decade (Trahan et al., 2014). These increases are far from trivial. According to the Wechsler IQ classification scheme, this increase translates to an equivalent shift (when comparing across the 20th century) from “average” to “superior” intelligence.

>>11815928
>>11815923
>>11815921
>>11815917
>>11815914
>>11815835

>In a recent meta-analysis on the Flynn Effect, Pietschnig & Voracek (2015) examined 271 independent samples spanning one century and four million participants from 31 countries. The authors used multiple meta-regressions on annual IQ test score changes, and included a wide range of predictor variables, including genetic miscegenation, blood lead levels, nutrition, pathogen stress, family size, test taking behavior, technology, education, and GE multipliers effects. After analyzing this extensive data set, the authors determined that IQ gains were most heavily associated with what they describe as hybrid factors (interacting biological and environmental factors), the most relevant of which were improvements of education, improvements in nutrition, and the GE multipliers proposed by Flynn (and discussed above). These results reinforce the conclusion that GE interplay is critical to the increases in intelligence that emerged across the 20th Century.

>>11815914
>There are recent studies that challenge these asumptions
>In a French adoption study, Duyme et al. (1999)
>1999
>1999
>1999

Anyway, I'm not gonna address your copy/paste. If you're too moronic to come up with your own arguments, you're not worth debating.

>>11815914
>>11815947
And I'll add: anyway, we'll soon know which one of the two of us is right. The African population is booming and they'll soon be the majority in the world. Either they'll catch up with the rest of the world, or they'll wallow in ever increasing poverty. Obviously, I think the latter is what's going to happen.

>>11808304
>with 200 IQ
According to singularity AI worshipping theory. This man should be able to hack my mind by speaking to me.
It's a good think he's banned from facebook, we need to value the cybersecurity of our minds.

>>11815947
The studies quoted are from 1975, 1999, but also from 2003, 2005, 2008, 2013, 2014 and 2015, they all show similar results. It's a general review of the literature on the topic, retard, and it shows that environmental causes are more determinant among poorer populations.

Turkheimer, Haley, Waldron, D’Onofrio, & Gottesman, 2003, found a genetic heritability of 0.10 among adopted children among poor families.

Monkey's IQ was overestimated. People with IQ < 70 can still read and write.

>>11815954
ah yes, because population IQ is literally the only factor which determines the economic development of an entire continent

>>11808516
Damn you just redpilled me on Koko. I only ever watched the video with the kitten and just believed it without further investigation because I wanted to.

Also
>Language is unique to humans.
Animals have language too, just far more primitive. What is truly uniquely human is abstractions.

>>11815930
Thanks for giving us something substantive to discuss.

>Again you are quoting a sentece that says AS HIGH AS, being deliberately dishonest. There are recent studies that challenge these asumptions and show that environmental factors are just as determinant, because IQ is a malleable trait. The heritability of IQ also changes with age.
"As high as", in this context, just compares the new studies with the older ones. It is significant.

As for the studies you're quoting there are several limits to their significance, especially in regards to your original point that that blacks' IQ can entirely be explained by environmental factors.

As you point out, heritability changes with age. More precisely, it increases with age. And most of your adoption studies do not test subjects in adulthood.
The one that does is the one that shows the lowest increases.
The highest result it shows is about half the IQ gap between african americans and european americans. And it's in the case of adoption in an extremely higher status family.
The difference between the average education status of AAs and EAs is smaller than that of the families of the children being compared.

Studies that compare adopted to orphanage children don't account for the selection done during the process of adoption.

The one that studies malnourished koreans also don't account for the reasons why they were malnourished. The comparison between the koreans that arrived at an above-average IQ and the romanians that arrived at a below-average IQ point towards persisting between-group differences.

And African-americans are not malnourished, and they consistently have lower successes than european-americans from families of the same SES level.

Who's carrying out mensa tests in Somalia in the first place?

>>11808304
based

>>11811679
>>11811682
>>11808872
>>11811677
So an important question ask here while ignoring your cope, is what the modern IQ research tells us about the average IQ of those estimated nations?
Since we should now have more accurate data thatn Lynn had available to him when he put to gether his study, as standardised tests are common in those countries he sourced his estimated data from,

Does the contemporary data agree or disagree with Lynn?

>>11811814
Nah, according to Robert Plomin the GCSE allowed him to carry out some pretty far reaching IQ research, though the GCSE are very input orientated so effort can skew IQ results

>>11811848
>>11811799
It also needs to be stated that native whites are completely shafted by the racial bullshit that redirects resources to whiney immigrants

>>11808797
Im not reading all that shit lol. An actually intelligent person wouldnt care and would spend the time you use hating nigs to expand his knowledge

>>11808450
Christopher is a pseudo-intellectual. He's basically a wikipedia/science article addict and needs to be ignored.

>>11817613
the thing everyone here is unwilling to state is that black immigrant children are the offspring of the genetically gifted from their native lands but the whites they compete with are the genetic runoff of the UK. Another thing to keep in mind is that the proportion of british incoming freshman with more than one A level that are white or asian is far larger than the black and the proportion of british blacks that get into doctorate programs in STEM is significantly smaller than it should be given their standardized test scores and population size. They woefully underperform in g loaded environments. You see this also with women in American grad school, they outperform boys in undergrad when most course work can rather easily be gamed with psychopathic studying habits and grade inflation but come GRE and first year grad they are quickly brought back down to earth.

>>11812307
parts of the UK still use some of them, like the cornish still use "thee" as "ee" for example, "how are ee moi lover", or "what do ee think ee be doing moi lad"

>>11812307
You can have a lot of fun with King James Bible English, although some of the word definitions have changed a little you can have a lot of fun with it like "wence did thee come ? thou hadst best be on thy way" thou, thee, thy, and are quite handy on occasion.

>>11815970
Isn't that the scar-rowe effect? when you reduce the effect of the environment the genetics are more important?

>>11817620
there's another factor to add here, ages that different groups reach stages of cognitive maturity, The average male brain isn't mature until 25
Often black kids will advance earlier but plateau while others keep growing.

>>11817667
I really don’t buy Rushton’s accelerated development theory for blacks, i think higher test and maybe higher developmental stress causing premature signs of aging explain why blacks appear to be more physically mature at a younger age.

>>11817670
there are other studies than Rushton's.

>>11808304
He's wrong though. Gorilla's ares violent and their ways to deal with societal issues are unlawful in the western world.

>>11817680
Anything from the last twenty years and that doesn’t rely on R-K selection?

>>11817709
Yes I was reading some alzheimers study a while back and they described a few papers looking into it. I don't recall specifically, and although r/K is important it is not the be all and end all.

>>11815520
Lynn's estimates are based off IQ under normal environmental stress.
his estimates of 70 for much of africa are due to parasites and food availability limiting cognition.
the genetic estimate is over 80 but lower than black-americans due to the latter's 20% european admixture.
He has stated this publicly many times.
we have better data now than Lynn had access to, so what does the new data say?

>>11808450

Racist is an epithet exclusively used against whites. Anyone who uses it in earnest as an attack is either evil, or ignorant.

>>11817877
>>11817608
>we have better data now than Lynn had access to, so what does the new data say?
Actual IQ testing data says Africans have an average IQ of 80 points, even with parasites and limited food availability, so there is nothing to suggest it wouldn't be higher if living conditions were better.

All of this has already been posted in the thread. It's in the post you are replying to.

http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2011/08/devastating-criticism-of-richard-lynn.html
>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). These results undermine evolutionary theories of race differences in intelligence of Lynn (2006), Rushton (2000), and Kanazawa (2004) (Wicherts, Borsboom, & Dolan, 2010a; Wicherts et al., 2010b).

In b4 "that's some blog".
The papers are listed there.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608009001071

>>11814253
youse > y'all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yinz
fuck pittsburgh.

>>11817930
>so there is nothing to suggest it wouldn't be higher if living conditions were better.
The diaspora.

>>11817941
When I pointed out that the Ghanians, Leonese or Nigerian school children in the UK were doing better than White Britons on the GCSEs they said it was a self-selected intelligent population. >>11811715

So which is it?

>>11817620
>the thing everyone here is unwilling to state is that black immigrant children are the offspring of the genetically gifted from their native lands
They aren't.

>>11817945
Both.
In general, the african diaspora shows no improvement when growing up in western countries.
At the same time, however, the only Africans who can reasonably emigrate TODAY are the best of the best.

You need to know about the population. Compare recent Nigerian immigrants to the US with the established Black population.

>>11817667
>Often black kids will advance earlier but plateau while others keep growing.
Those stats often use Blacks within a limited area and population.

>>11817877
>the genetic estimate is over 80 but lower than black-americans due to the latter's 20% european admixture.

Or because they live in a developed nation?

>>11817955
>>11817955
>In general, the african diaspora shows no improvement when growing up in western countries.
False, there is significant improvement in the second and third generation of immigrants when it comes to academic results, IQ, and other measures of intelligence, this has been observed on immigrant groups all around the world.

>At the same time, however, the only Africans who can reasonably emigrate TODAY are the best of the best.
Yet that would disprove your claim that the diaspora shows no improvement over the original population.

>Compare recent Nigerian immigrants to the US with the established Black population.
If genetics are so important in determining IQ, doesn't the fact that Black Americans have white admixture, mean that they should be doing better than Nigerians? Yet they aren't.

>>11817981
>this has been observed on immigrant groups all around the world.
We're not discussing immigrants groups around the world.
We're discussing the african diaspora into western nations.
>Yet that would disprove your claim that the diaspora shows no improvement over the original population.
No, no it wouldn't.
Because it describes the exception not the average. We deal in averages.
The men (+ Mrs. Curie) who went to the Solvay Conference should not be used as an example of Euros in general.
>Yet they aren't.
They are, slightly. By ten or so points. And that's consistent throughout the population. Nobody where in the US they are raised, the money of their parents, etc.

>>11818012
>We're discussing the african diaspora into western nations.
Yes and they show a significant improvement over the original population.

>No, no it wouldn't.
>Because it describes the exception not the average. We deal in averages.
You said the African diaspora proves Africans cannot improve and thirve in a better environment. Now you are saying the diaspora isn't representative of the population.

Which one is it? These statements are contradictory. You are contradicting yourself.

Either the African diaspora is representative of the average African, and proof of the capacity of the average African for improvement, or they are a selected population that is not representative of the average, and thus your post here (>>11817941) that triggered this entire argument is false.

Which one is it?

>The men (+ Mrs. Curie) who went to the Solvay Conference should not be used as an example of Euros in general
We are talking about school children, not world renowned scientists.

>They are, slightly. By ten or so points. And that's consistent throughout the population.
African Americans do considerably worse than White Americans academically, what are you talking about?

>>11818039
>Which one is it?
Seriously?
>African Americans do considerably worse than White Americans academically, what are you talking about?
African Americans do better than other blacks by about 10 points.

>>11818012
>They are, slightly. By ten or so points. And that's consistent throughout the population

Not at all since just like whites the metrics of Blacks vary by region.

>>11817930
>Wicherts
lol

>>11808304
Too smart for this world. I'm 158 and even I know not to shitpost irl like that.

>>11815703
Heritabiltiy isn't genetic only, it's also environmental too

When they say as HIGH as 80% that means based off the place. Some areas it's 80% others it's much lower and when you do the comparison you HAVE to do wit within the same group/nation or it's pointless. The more equitable and developed a place is the more genetics start to matter more since what one inherits in environment which matters a ton is more equal like Finland versus say India where you have wealth on ones side of the spectrum and you have immense poverty on the other.

>>11808304
If this guy actually had a 200iq he would be smart enough to realize that the IQ study he's referencing, "The systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans" that said Nigeria had an average IQ of 69, Somalia had an average IQ of 68, etc was wrought with bad science and poor data. They basically only acknowledged the test samples which proved their hypothesis, and disregarded all the others that showed the actual IQ averages were much higher.

The heritability of IQ increases with age, the young are more directly influenced by environmental factors, while the mature can shape their own environment to suit them.

>>11818121
Why are they still shithole countries so?

>>11818128
Pol tics, polices, the global economy, cold war, previous history ad a lot of other factors.

>>11818126
anon environmental factors are part of heritability lol.

>>11818128
Its hard not to be a shithole country when the government has no real control and the entire country is basically operating like the wild west. One of the biggest advantages we have is pretty good infrastructure, how the fuck do you build anything with most of the country being run by warlords?

The environment most people in those countries are born into is one based on pure survival, not an environment of learning and enrichment like most of us are born into. Its like you're making 2 soups. In one you start off with chicken stock, nice seasonings, fresh vegetables, etc. Then the other one you start off by taking a piss in the pot, throwing in a handful of cigarette butts from the street and some rusty nails.

Which one is going to make the better soup? You can put the exact same chopped beef from the same cow in the soups, one is going to taste terrible and one is going to taste good.

>>11818055
>Seriously?
You keep contradicting yourself. You cannot both claim that the African diaspora is not a representative population and proof that Africans cannot improve at the same time. (All while ignoring the actual improvement)

>African Americans do better than other blacks by about 10 points.
False. No they don't.

If you are referring to IQ, African diasporas in the United Kingdom have an average IQ of 89 points, with second and third generation immigrants scoring better than their parents.

African-Americans in contrast have an average IQ of 85 points.

https://mfr.osf.io/export?format=pdf&url=https%3A//files.osf.io/v1/resources/3txk4/providers/osfstorage/5ebf7adab9daae004950c85a%3Fformat%3Dpdf%26action%3Ddownload%26direct%26version%3D2

In both cases there has been an improvement in IQ scores over the past decades, stronger in the case of the African diaspora, but which can also be observed with the native Africans living in Africa as well.

>>11818138
Yes, did you not understand my point? The heritability of IQ attributable to genetics increases with age.

>>11818134
>>11818145
I get what you're both saying about infrastructure and I actually agree with you. But consider this would those countries still be the same if the average IQ of those countries suddenly became 100 overnight?

>>11818151
Black americans were taken wholesale mostly as captured enemy tribes sold to the jewish slave ships or sold to the arabs, and taken to the middle east as eunuchs. any africans in england got their mostly via their own efforts.

>>11818151
You raise a good point about infrastructure and institutions, now imagine if you dumped a group of germans and a group of congolese onto two broadly similar different unconnected islands and left them alone who would have the more advanced civilisation if left them alone for 500 years?

or adopted them each into a control group as orphans?

>>11818164
African-Americans have significant white admixture from generations of living in the United States. African immigrants in the UK are recent immigrants, non-mixed Black people.

If the racial genetic impact on IQ was such a determinant then we should expect the former to do better than the latter.

>>11818160
Is development a product of IQ?
Or is IQ a product of development?

Irish people have seen large increases in IQ over the past decades as their country went from one of the poorest in Europe to one of the richest. Even so, they still lag behind the UK and other major West European countries. It'd probably take a few years more for their IQ to catch up.

>>11818170
What kind of Germans are we talking about?
If it's modern Germans vs modern Congolese obviously the Germans would have the advantage. They have better education, better nutrition, and higher IQs which are helped by the aformementioned factors.

However, take Sudanese from the year 0 BC and Germans from the year 0 BC.
Which ones were living in mud huts and which ones actually developed a civilization?

>>11818170
>>11818170
What kind of Germans are we talking about?
If it's modern Germans vs modern Congolese obviously the Germans would have the advantage. They have better education, better nutrition, and higher IQs which are helped by the aformementioned factors.

However, take Ethiopians from the year 0 BC and Germans from the year 0 BC.
Which ones were living in mud huts and which ones actually developed a civilization?

>>11818174
IQ can change if you give the young ones a fair chance at educating themselves. Bill Gates for example is setting up schools in Africa to try and make a culture of learning and education. Expect to see those educated children having a higher IQ than the other people they live with in their area.

But overall I think that IQ is something natural and not a lot can be done to change it unless you educate the young people first. It is largely genetic.

I looked into that IQ test on Ireland a while ago and have concluded it was fake and biased. Maybe there's another country you could use but for me Ireland is a poor example.

>>11818174
What is your point here? if the small population in the UK was from the far right side of their native population bell curve you would expect higher averages than that of an admixed population even if the admixed population got an IQ kick up, most black americans seem to be held back by the degenerate culture.

>>11818189
Just take kids and raise them with a third party.

>>11818193
>Bill Gates for example is setting up schools in Africa
given this is Bill Gates, what is he actually doing in Africa? he's usually up to some grift or other.

let's not get confused here by taking the wrong path, IQ is a product of your ability to take tests of which their is a significant cultural effect on your ability to sit the test and use abstract thinking patterns which are more trained in complex societies.
what are the best ways to test G outside of an IQ test?

>>11818198
>UK
>Ireland

>>11808450
if he really is that smart he's also likely to be somewhat autistic.

>>11818208
we're talking about african immigrants into the UK aren't we since they are the most stark difference?

>>11810489
Sign of unintelligence.

>>11818151
UK immigrants to Ghana also have higher IQ than UK natives, there is no contradiction when immigrants are a self selecting group.

>>11818193
>But overall I think that IQ is something natural and not a lot can be done to change it unless you educate the young people first. It is largely genetic.
This is your opinion. The science is very far from settled.

We know for a fact that environmental factors affect IQ and the mechanisms involved, we know that there is a genetic component as well when it comes to individuals, but we don't fully understand those mechanisms and to what extent genetics determines IQ. We don't have any actual evidence of racial differences in IQ being caused by genetics, and to what extent.

But we do know different environmental changes can cause huge increases in IQ in populations, in as much as 20 points in a generation as per the Flynn effect. Racial differences in IQ could be entirely environmental, without a genetic component whatsoever. Emphasis on the word could. We just don't know. Trying to push the "IQ is genetic, blacks are inferior" bullshit is not based on any evidence.

>looked into that IQ test on Ireland a while ago and have concluded it was fake and biased. Maybe there's another country you could use but for me Ireland is a poor example.
Which test? There were many tests conducted.
The Flynn effect has definitively been observed in Ireland.

>>11818240
>We don't have any actual evidence of racial differences in IQ being caused by genetics
>Trying to push the "IQ is genetic, blacks are inferior" bullshit is not based on any evidence.
it's called using your eyes, chinese immigrant children whose parents worked as janitors had higher IQs than than black multimillionaires

and absolutetly no one here disputes the Flynneffect, the sad reality is though that the flynn effect did not affect the IQ difference between black and white americans.

>>11818277
*than the children of black millionaires

>>11818240
Lynn's IQ test in Ireland was comically biased. A pro British unionist from northern Ireland getting to do IQ tests in the republic of Ireland? Get real.

Also you are putting words in my mouth. I never said black people were inferior you dribbling idiot. I actually said you could raise their IQ if you educated them from a young age.

And if the Flynn effect is real then how were the people in ancient times able to build such great structures? Surely they would have been too low IQ to do it if were real?

>>11818216
You need to brush up on your geography my friend.

what does the ability to solve abstract puzzles have to do with social conventions, language skills, or academic experience, you fucking mongoloids?

this is why i keep telling you retards that iq is a meme, you keep projecting things on it that it has absolutely nothing to do with

high iq is a tool that does not predispose a person into using it in whatever way you perceive as smart

>>11818310
We're talking about blacks in the UK as a self sampled higher IQ group, aren't we? why is Ireland ever relevant?

>>11817708
True he never thought of that. All monkeys have short tempers.

>>11818315
yes and we keep acknowledging this, this issue is not with that, it's the mouth breathers still trying to claim that IQ is all environmental and that there aren't racial and ethnic IQ differences.
all IQ tests measure is an IQ test but there is a high correlation with ability to perform other tasks, IQ is the single metric with the highest correlation with life time success. But a cluster of other human behavioural traits count too, such as consciousness, curiosity and perseverance matter. the key point is that you need a certain minimum IQ to complete certain tasks to a necessary degree of competency.
Low IQ individuals struggle with basic tasks like tying their shoes.

>>11818315
>high iq is a tool that does not predispose a person into using it in whatever way you perceive as smart
So you doubt any causation between low IQ and violent crime?

>>11818337
yeah, a few people keep acknowledgin it, but even in this thread it's a minority

also maybe if abstract puzzle solving skills weren't given so much weight, maybe it wouldn't fucking matter to political hacks that some people genetically have less of it than others

>>11818346
causation and not correlation, specifically? yes

Given what we know about the genetic link with IQ how can we do to most benefit the population as a whole? education, crime, dysgenics, etc, etc?

>>11818388
high iq is not a goal, high quality of life is a goal

>>11818388
We can avoid causing frustration for them which leads to criminality by not placing them next to rich people or people who are in need of peace of mind as low iq individuals require a lot of energy and patience to have around in a humane way.
This is a topic for the humitarians at >>>/his/.

>>11818388
Best thing for Africa would be to curtail population growth regardless of whether IQ is genetic or environmental. But the Republicans are against abortion and contraceptives and are actively funding "abstinence" as a birth control method in Africa.

>>11818429
Isn't the /his/ approach usually genocide or enslavement?

>>11818447
>>>/his/ is for discussion of subjects related to history and humanities. This is /sci/, where science and mathematics are discussed.

>>11818315
>abstract puzzles
You don't even know what an actual IQ test entails if you believe that to be the only thing tested. Do you seriously believe that verbal IQ has no bearing on one's command of language?

>>11814158
actually most in africa did, as evidenced by how many have collapsed in the mean time.

>>11813928
Why does gringoland have such a bad drug problem? I thought they had a war on drugs?