/sci/ - Science & Math

With rage.

Fags who cannot wiki obviously adopted by niggers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jdwIy7AxlU

>>3670699
>that feel when all IQs are lower at age 17 than at 7

Can you collect some new data? Like not from 1976? Also, maybe you feel okay generalizing on the basis of a sample of 56 adopted kids, I have a feeling there are some unrecognized confounders at work.

IQ testing and methods for controlling research on human behavior have improved a lot since this data was collected.

>>3670680
Those are the facts. This does not prove the difference is genetic. The difference could be cultural. Because they're black, they're discriminated against, which can negatively affect their study habits, IQs, test scores, and so on. This test has not accounted for that variable.

>>3670723
It aims at disproving or challenging genetic explanations, and does it.

>>3670733
Oh, I see. Knee jerk reaction. My bad.

>>3670723
J. Philippe Rushton, in Race, Evolution, and Behavior, offered a method of disentangling expectancy effects: "Is there any way to decide between the genetic theory and the expectancy theory? There is. A special analysis of the Scarr study compared parents who believed that they had adopted a Black baby but, really, had adopted a Mixed-Race (Black-White) child. The average IQ for these Mixed-Race children was just about the same as for other Mixed-Race children and above that for adopted Black children. This was true even though the parents who adopted these Mixed-Race children thought their babies really had two Black parents."

>>3670744
Still not accounting for their peers at school, and so on. They still look black, and they'll still be treated as such by everyone who's not their parent. Really, racists care if you're half black vs all black? Lols.

Reading the posted wiki page, it seems to me they tried really hard to fit the environmental explanation to data. But it doesn't really work, does it?

>>3670723
As you call yourself a scientist, you should know that no theory could ever be proven experimentally. The only thing we can say is that the data support various explanations, one of which is genetic difference.

>>3670708
Heritability of g has been shown numerous times to increase with age.

>>3670723
>Study habits capable of affecting IQ scores
>Doesn't understand g loading and cultural fair cognitive testing.
Go back to sleep, pseudoscientist.

>>3670772
I was going more for motivation. There are studies out there which show that rearing has a huge effect on the child's testing and IQ. I'm not talking just their knowledge ala memorization as you just implied.

>>3670723
Clearly the environment of top earners is extremely hostile.

>>3670780
Clearly you've never left your house and been in the real world. You're naive.

>>3670785
good retort there, man

>>3670760
You do understand that what you just said enhances my argument and not yours right?
Let me simplify it:
Those kids who were half white scored better than those who were fully black even though they were considered fully black by both their parents and their peers. If they were discriminated against then they would be treated as black, exactly the same as those who really were fully black, but no one could differentiate.
For a scientist the least you could do is keep an open mind.

>>3670778
No, I did not imply so. I specifically alluded towards cultural fair highly g-loaded IQ tests which culture and upbringing has a zero effect over.
Working memory and processing speeds are basic neurological traits and are unaffected by upbringing and environment, and clearly not to an extent of a 20 IQ point gap.
Motivation has no bearing on reaction time, spatial perception and memory capacity oriented tests.

>>3670789
I see...

>>3670778
[citation needed]

>>3670791
>Working memory and processing speeds are basic neurological traits and are unaffected by upbringing and environment, and clearly not to an extent of a 20 IQ point gap
nice source

>>3670798
See source in pic of
>>3670764

>>3670798
Are you kidding me? Having abusive parents or bad social experiences can reduce you digit capacity from 9 to 4 or increase your basic cognitive reaction time from 120ms to 300ms?
Seriously? How asinine can you possibly be?

Well, hmm, the sample size is pretty small, and there appear to be irregularities and problems with the methodology according to the wiki talk page.

If this can be consistently repeated with the methodology errors fixed, then I'll be ready to give credence to genetic explanations.

>>3670789
And the arguments seize!! Good job anon
EVERYUN IS EQUAL

>>3670830
>appear to be irregularities and problems
No, there appear to be criticisms about it, not problems and irregularities.
And the data same data analysis is reached by both those who side with the environment hypothesis and the genetic hypothesis.

>>3670830
>irregularities and problems with the methodology
care to name some? All I see in the talk page is "bias", "racism", "it can' possibly be true, so let's find something wrong with it" etc.

>>3670830
>Sample size
How about an N=2,400,000 of the SAT test?

>Frey and Detterman (2003) analyzed the correlation of SAT scores with intelligence test scores.[20] They found SAT scores to be highly correlated with general mental ability, or g (r=.82 in their sample). The correlation between SAT scores and scores on the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices was .483 (.72 corrected for restricted range). They concluded that the SAT is primarily a test of g. Beaujean and colleagues (2006) have reached similar conclusions.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT#Correlations_with_IQ

What?
The test didn't include the variable of blacks being suppressed by society?
Those are measured BEFORE school, age 7.

All of the races, including South Asians still score same as whites, everyone except blacks.
All before school, socializing AND after that.
There is no excuse.

Blacks just have lower IQ.
You do realize that people like you, politically correct, are everything ANTI-Science there is.
Like religion, and some hard liberals, or hard conservatives, putting obstacles in scientific research.
Its not about the fucking superiority, its about objectivity.
You are so BIASED towards all races being equal that you will be blind on all evidence.

I dont care you don't like it, or if the truth has a negative impact on society, this is science, the search for the objective truth, at least as objective as it can get.

You deny that IQ is an adequate test of intelligence. And potentially some analysis on the different education levels of the white/black parents who adopt their children. ie: white parents who choose to adopt may do so mainly for religious reasons, while black parents may mainly do so for economic reasons.

In any case, it doesn't justify racism because it's the mean IQ. There are still a large number of intelligent black people, and to say they are lesser people because of the color of their skin makes no sense.

> be provided with more evidence in favour of there being differences in IQ distributions between different ethnic groups than has ever been provided to the contrary
> don't accept it as more likely explanation even though there is more evidence for it than contrary explanations
>hurr look at me, I'm being unbiased and scientific

guys
guys

it's both

and not systematic

Even if there was a study that would conclusively show without any serious dispute that there exist racial difference in intelligence, it would never be published.

>>3670870
that damn leftist media, right ? goddam hippies why can't I be racist and told I'm right for it constantly

>>3670830
Okay, for the sake of argument let's suppose your critisisms are right.
Where do you base the opinion that the differences are cultural? In some other study? Personal observation? Where?

>>3670855
I think we all agree blacks have a lower IQ on average...the question is why.

>>3670879
>>3670879
because of evil whites

>>3670863
>>3670863
>There are still a large number of intelligent black people,
Yes thank you captain obvious, everyone knows that a distribution is. But the fact is that unless the variances are wildly different (which btw, they aren't) if the mean IQ of black is lower than whites that there are fewer intelligent blacks as a percentage of their total population than whites (or any other ethnicity for that matter other than Aboriginals) and more unintelligent blacks as a proportion of the population than whites

>>3670876
You're throwing new, seemingly legit, evidence at me. I have no opinion at this time.

>>3670879
Because the white man is keeping the black man down.

>>3670875
It's about being correct, and knowing that the universe is one particular way rather than another.

What kind of a scientist are you? Go write some essays about how racism is wrong. No one cares. Science isn't about such pettiness.

>>3670879
Correlation with poverty/drugs/etc/etc. Mainly the stereotypes society portrays of them. People all assume a different stereotype in society (right wing bastard, hippie, libertarian, jock). Just happens that a lot of the black stereotypes are pretty bad for their IQs.

>>3670900
fluidretard.jpg

>>3670886
What I'm saying is that in daily life you never meet the entire black population. You only meet black individuals. Therefore racism isn't justified.

I'm not too concerned about why black people under perform. In New Zealand, we have native Maori who perform badly in every statistic too (probably even worse than African Americans in USA). Perhaps it's partly a genetic thing. But it's also a society and upbringing thing. I'm not concerned, because it is most likely a mixture of both. I also don't find this topic taboo and exciting, most people I know can discuss this openly.

>>3670879
>WHY?
>WHY?
>WHY?
>WHY?


Because all Africans that left africa found themselves a new thing: harsh winters.
Something that africa didn't have.
So in order to survive a winter you must be smart, predictive, in general be smart enough to store food, build shelters that are good for environment protection etc etc etc.

Also everyone that left Africa interbreed with Neanderthals, meaning bigger brains.
Do the math and you will see why all races are significantly smarter than African blacks.
Even Indians, which can be as black as africans are on the same level as whites.

Its not about the color, but genetics in general.

>>3670906
Care to back that up with an argument? It's called self fulfilling prophecy - when someone is told who they are so many times they believe and act in this way. I find this easy to believe - if someone continually tells me I'm bad at something, I get pissed off and usually stop doing it. If a black person does badly at school, they can just fall back on the 'gangsta' black stereotype, and be successful at that.

>>3670923
Seems legit enough

>>3670923
Ugh. Genetics in sci. Like preaching god to christians. Do you really even think Neanderthals and shit existed? There's no way anyone can know that much. It's like all the fake dinosaurs they created by putting the wrong bones together. And assuming they had scales and shit. If I was a t-rex, I would want to have fur to keep warm.

Oh great, more retards with their debunked graphs again

>>3670941
Neanderthals were real.
Dinasaurs lived in a place where they didn't need fur.
>hurr lizards dont have fur they have to be fake, they are lest wing conspiracy.

>>3670949

>Oh great, more retards with their debunked graphs again
>debunked

Wikipedia contained both conclusions, from different scientists. I saw no information debunking the graph. Rather, it corroborated the fact that this study exists and that the results are as the graph depicts them.

I'm interested in why you feel it justified to treat things that disagree with your beliefs as automatically debunked when they are not. Do you just assume they must have been already if they conflict with popular opinion?

>>3670957
I reject your opinion.

>>3670949
>politically correct
>everyone agrees with you
>so you are right
>science

I have some good news and some bad news, the bad news is that the new goods are just as bad.

>>3670964
>I reject logic

You're not alone.

You may say am a theist~~ but am not the only one.

Appeal to the masses, fucking John Lennon.
Rape his corpse.

>>3670975
Logic and rational thought are human inventions. I will not be bound by the mainstream human belief structure. I must break free by rejecting every commonly held logical view. Only then can I be free.

the "blacks are discriminated against" argument is a joke.


blacks and hispanics have more confidence than whites. if anything, making confidence a part of the equation just hurts minorities even more.

>>3670990
Pretty sure they are discriminated against. If I'm hiring a secretary, I want someone I'm attracted to. And a lot of the people hiring don't like the arrogant black confidence very much.

>>3670995
pretty sure that despite discrimination they have more confidence.

Denial in differences in intelligence between races, is holocaust denial; it's is climate change denial. It's just a way to feel good. Today the greatest sin is too be racist, we have all been brainwashed.

>>3671000
but no job.

>>3671002
i don't see how that's relevant to twin studies.

>>3671001
Does /sci/ believe in climate change?

>>3671005
No (decent) job = poor
Poor = dumb (no money for education, not decent job to get educated in)
Have kids = whoops, also dumb
Adopt them out into a world which is prejudiced against them because of studies like this and the fact that they are weird and sticky and black = stay dumb

>>3670925
You people maintain your general inability to discern between an act, and the ability to act. While one is somewhat controlled by the individual and affected by its environment (behavior, knowledge) the other is strictly his physiological makeup (genes --> intelligence).
Learn to discern between acquired and inherent traits.

>>3671015
i still don't see how any of that is relevant. unless you're just assuming this happened without evidence.

>>3670941
>Do you really even think Neanderthals and shit existed? There's no way anyone can know that much.

>>3670949
>debunked graphs
>Were never debunked
0/10

>>3671002
Well the belief is whites are privileged in this society but this assertion is constantly destroyed by the fact that Asians out perform whites and take privilege positions. We would have to assume that Asians are discriminating against whites. This makes no sense as Asians are a tiny minority. What it boils down to is a belief that there is an invisible force of racism and discrimination that permeates all of society, it is completely based in faith, like satan causing people to be evil. It is just a way to clog their ears and blame everyone else for what happens.

Sorry guys, a real elementary question here, but surely the reason that there is an IQ gap of 15 is because blacks receive a poorer education than whites? Is this not taken into account?

>>3670982
>Human
>Temporary biological construct physically bound to his Earthly environment
>Breaks free

>>3671016
Can I infer from this that you believe in free will? I see no difference. Our choices are made from a combination on genetic and situational factors. If one of those factors is society's perception, and the stereotype I am hoping to fufill, then this does influence their IQ.

>>3671015
There is no difference between what you have just outlined and asian immigrants in this country or even white catholic immigrants who did not speak English. Both were poor and lived in horrible conditions and were discriminated against, they received no government assistance and they persevered. If you want to know why blacks are so behind everyone else genetic intelligence is definitely a factor but you should also look at how the welfare system has destroyed the black family.

>>3671015
They were tested at 7 and at 17. Up until that time all of their financial needs were catered for to the max by their rich white parents.
Your argument is invalid.

>>3671036
What if the parents getting educated in their life would improve the genetics of their child?

>>3671031
>Can I infer from this that you believe in free will?
Fallacious conclusion

>I see no difference. Our choices are made from a combination on genetic and situational factors.
Failure to contradict main argument

>If one of those factors is society's perception, and the stereotype I am hoping to fufill, then this does influence their IQ.
Non-sequitur, inherent quality unaffected by perception of environment.

Such is life on /sci/.

>>3671036
Is it

being smart makes you rich

or being rich makes you smart

>>3671040
Relevance --> 0

>>3671027

But this study is done with said black children having equal education to whites.

As for society in general i don't really know

My daddy bought me a benz and my IQ went up 2 points.

>>3671042
Black person believes they are a gangsta
Acts like a gangsta
Does badly at school
Has a low IQ

Your words fail to hide the fact that you have missed the basics of this argument.

>>3671027
IQ = general intelligence =/= acquired scholastic skills / knowledge.

Maybe it's just poor education, not intrinsic racial limitations.

>>3671056
see
>>3671059
>>3671036
>>3671016
>>3670849
>>3670780
>>3670764

Have a nice day.

> they still think IQ means something

>>3671071
Buttmad dumbfag detected

>>3670849
What's the x axis in this graph representing?

>>3671059

>>3671059

so the same person who lived in zimbabwe for 20 years and USA for 20 years has the same IQ?

>>3671071

How else would you go about measuring someone's intelligence

THEY CALLED ME NAMES SO I BECAME A RETARD

>>3671079
Yes.

>>3671077
Annual income ranging from 20,000 to 200,000

>Hasn't this been posted yet?
.
.
J. Philippe Rushton, in Race, Evolution, and Behavior, offered a method of disentangling expectancy effects: "Is there any way to decide between the genetic theory and the expectancy theory? There is. A special analysis of the Scarr study compared parents who believed that they had adopted a Black baby but, really, had adopted a Mixed-Race (Black-White) child. The average IQ for these Mixed-Race children was just about the same as for other Mixed-Race children and above that for adopted Black children. This was true even though the parents who adopted these Mixed-Race children thought their babies really had two Black parents."

>>3671089

How though? Surely someone with a solid education will have come across the sort of mental challenges in most IQ tests a lot more often than your average kid in africa?

>IQ
>measuring anything

>>3671097
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgwgv7kzpW4

>>3671099

Well?

moot was an idiot for creating /new/. The racist cancer can't be cured.

Also, yes blacks are inferior to whites, but you don't have to keep reposting this thread everyday. It's literally ad nauseam at this point.

>>3671110
Racism is how we evolve nigger, socialist states work best under a common culture ethnicity and race, its called kinship and it is the only thing that allows natural altruism.

>>3671111

So how do you feel that my wife is Asian?

>>3671120
As we say in Greece.
I write this on my bollocks. aka don't give ein fucken.

>>3671120
I guess I feel nothing it is your choice.

>>3671097
That's not how IQ tests work.

>>3670723

Goood goyim. A good goyim always defends his schvartze.

They tried to kill us and look at you now, suddenly offending any other race is hideous for a white, suddenly you're the weaklings, yessss, interbreed with blacks women, their seed is the future, if you don't breed with the schvartze you're racist, racist, racist, horrible word, horrible word, you're a terrible person for being with goygoy white boy, filthy, unintelligent white boys, you'll be sorry for all you did in the forties, hahahaha, fucking brainwashed goy.

>>3671153
go to a mental hospital, your rambling reminds me of timecube

>>3671157

Fortunately our hardened ramblings aren't injected into your television in its purest form.

>>3671153
firstly, are you implying there are no africans on this board?

and secondly, even if hypothetically, inteligence was 100% genetic, why are you insinuating that it is race that should determine the parents and not intelligence itself?

If I said the obvious failures of Jewish semites in sustaining their civilization on their own pointed to lack of achievement that was mostly genetic, I'm sure you would take offense (in fact, that's exactly what has been said for hundreds of years).

>>3671173
>firstly, are you implying there are no africans on this board?
Pretty much.

>>3671173
Oh look, they can type.

We Jews do not want our own society. For years we have milked country to country, often getting expelled only to find more fruitful lands. This way there is no economic downturns, there is no poverty. We are a roaming, interbreeding peoples.

Get back to shootin' hoops, rapping and fucking as many white women as you can you stud, you.

scientific racism is so thoroughly unscientific because it makes me butthurt

The IQ of all populations steadily increases as quality of life improves.

This phenomenonis most prevalent in poopulations such as African Americans more than any other ethnic counterpart.

As the environment continues to improve you see diminishing gains up to a biological plateu. This is corroberated by the evidence, most of the gains in the average IQ of the US come from an increase in the lower half of IQ standard distribution curve, you do not see the most intelligent groups increasing indefinately forward. This suggests that the most intelligent humans, regardless of race, were equally as intelligent today as 12k yr ago, but as standards improve the dynamics of populations and developmental needs are met well enough to bring more individuals in any populaiton to this plateu.

>>3671147
how do they work then?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7eW27m9bio&feature=channel_video_title

This is an example of a perfect goy. Why can't you be more like her? There's nothing more perfect than pseudo-scientists spouting off how everything's bogus when it doesn't agree with their opinion, the denial is sublime.

If there was absolutely no genetic difference in human intelligence then we'd be no smarter than chimpanzees.

Some human genes code for better intelligence than others.

Guys guys, I've got it. All we've got to do to make Planet of the Apes happen is let a baby chimpanzee be raised by rich white parents. Then he'll get into harvard and be a molecular biologist and earn a decent living then he'll raise his chimplings to be just as smart and rich. The cylce will continue until Chimpanzees are on par with humans in terms of intelligence and we'll be able to coexist in peace.

>>3671220
So what you're saying, is you don't really understand how arbitrary skin color is?

>>3671192
pretending the evidence doesn't exist because it doesn't fit your idealist imaginings = science

>>3671222
pretending not to know what the basic assumptions are in a scientific studying =/= not doing science.

>>3671221
>he thinks skin color is the only difference.

>>3671194
>Implying that IQs are affected by standards of living and not the other way around
>Implying that all races have equal biological plateaus and not divergent ones despite evidence of all studies.
>Implying that the metrics by which the change was measured are remotely as g loaded as IQ tests and the SAT.

>>3671212
I don't think most any scientists has ever disagreed that genes can influence intelligence just as genes might influence appearance or personality or anything else.

But I think peopole ignore that interbreeding populations can and do change dramatically over the coruse of generations. There are differences in genotypic frequencies between all populations, but no ethnic group has a monopoly on any given trait. As your civilization develops socially and technologically and living standards improve, breeding rations between poor and wealthy tend to decrease, approaching a point where the less wealthy (those among whom there will be a tendency to have hereditary traits that make them more sucessful, like something to influence higher intellect) have such a quality of life that they will reproduce just as much as the most wealthy. Eventually the rich and poor begin to have the same number of children per family. At this point genotype frequencies are maintained at a constant level. This will manifest in slight increase in the prevalence of "rich people" genes every generation, as a slightly lower number of poor people find mates, and infant mortality among the poor will be slightly higher, always "trimming" off the bottom of the distribution curve each generation.

It takes a long time, and major events like war and revolution and even genocide, as horrible as they may be, speed this process up by "culling" the population. But the dynamics of all human populations (none of whom have an outright monopoly on any trait like intelligence or creativity) change over time such that the average intelligence does increase.

20 points, meh. Everyone under 120 should be killed.

>>3671243
Of course all populations approach the same biological plateu. We're all human and we all are capable of carrying the same phenotypes that influence intelligence regardless of what race we are.
You don't seem to grasp what the simple term "average" means. Every ethnic group spans the entire range of intelligences.
If Africans all had genotypes that help develop higher intelligence then they would be the most intelligent humans.

>Implying that IQs are affected by standards of living and not the other way around
That's a nice sentence but just because you throw the word "implying" in front of everything doesn't necessarily mean anything.
How would you explain the phenomenon that groups that experience the greatest gains in average IQ are those which are the most environmentally challenged.

>>3671220
Your likening races to chimpanzees is nonsensical to all but the simplest minds.
All humans, regardless of race, are capable of carrying the same alleles in regard to intelligence.
No Chimpanzee can ever do this, because the genes that make us functionally different, are too great.
There is no overlap between Chimpanzees and humans in terms of intelligence. This absolutely cannot be said of "races".

>>3671270
*because the differences between genes that make us functionally different, are too great.

>environment
>education
>poverty

Chinese, Indians,Middle easterners, North africans etc etc etc
All slowly and steadily worked, built up and became non-poor.
Blacks are still poor, still uneducated, still everyone 'hates' them.

What is more possible:
1)A rich person becoming smart because he has 'better' education?
2)A smart person becomes rich because he is capable of achieving great things?

Just no.
Blacks are not dumb because they are poor, they are poor BECAUSE they are dumb.
ALL evidence shows in ONE direction.

>>3671282
Invalid argument.

Blacks might have lower IQ.
Dont excel in high level thinking professions.
Kill more people, rape, steal.
Higher rates of unemployment.
And are genetically different.

Thats all irrelevant,because they are still equal in every aspect.

This is more like /b/, not /sci/.

I'm no biologist(So correct me if I'm wrong) but humans AREN'T different races. Ethnicity is sort of like the black leopard and the standard leopard. The difference in this case, and one of the differences in humans is melanin.

There is variation within our race dependant on environment, this is a given (The reason why blacks are rarely olympic swimmers and the reason why whites are rarely 100 meter champions, this being because the Sub-Saharan African has had no need to swim and more need to run from predators.

This brings us on to intelligence... It would be foolish to think that the brain doesn't vary from ethnicity to ethnicity as each one has had to overcome different environments - Africans harsh deserts, Europeans and Asians harsh winters, and of course, the less adaptable are wittled out due to natural selection.

There's also the fact that Europeans and some Asians heavily interbred with Neanderthals, though the outcome of this is not well enough documented for us to make a solid conclusion, it is thought that this helped Europeans and Asians in the intelligence ranks, the Neanderthals then died out due to low fertility.

>>3671326
>>3671326
So your point is that blacks are indeed dumber, right?

>>3671326
>repeating what is already posted
>calling that his opinion

How does it feel to not be able to think for yourself?

>>3670699
>Sandra Scarr and Richard A. Weinberg. A follow-up study was published in 1992[2] by Richard Weinberg, Sandra Scarr and Irwin D. Waldman

Sorry, I don't trust jews, they're genetically corrupted.

>>3671339
My opinion? What? It's just a rough demonstration of my understanding. I've not really read the thread too much, just looked through it seeing a load of unscientific bullshit.

>>3671334

And I don't know. There'd have to be more research by more people. The only studies I've seen was carried out by a few individuals working together.

>>3671347
Not according to IQ tests.

>>3671350
That's only Ashkenazi Jews. Feels good to be superior.

>>3670699
>The adopting parents of 12 of the interracial children wrongly believed that their adopted children had two black parents. The average IQ of these 12 children was not significantly different from the scores of the 56 interracial children correctly classified by their adoptive parents as having one black and one white parent.[5]

Racial myth : destroyed.

Hypocrisy test:

Whom would you late to handle your critical financial matters:
A jewish person or a black person?

If you were having a serious surgery, whom would you chose:
A jewish person or a black person?

Whom would you want to teach you mathematics:
A jewish person or a black person?

If you bet your life on a question: If you take 100 jewish people and a 100 black people, at the age of 5 (no education yet), of middle class with loving parents, etc all things being equal, which group would have a higher IQ average?


inb4 am comparing a race with an ethnicity.
No, you tree huggers say that everyone is equal, so that means EVERYONE is equal, right?
Answer.


Be really honest.
Protip: Einstein, Feynman, 50% of world chess champions are Jewish.

>>3671361

>Ignores vast amount of contradicting evidence
>Points out one inconsistency in the study

I hope for the love of all that is good you don't practise science.

>>3671361
99% is opposite.
What? 1% agrees with me, then it means 99% is all false!

Logic, fuck yeah.

>>3671368
Yet again, Ashkenazi. All ashkenazi.

>>3671350
Yerp . IQ tests created by jews. (zionists i should say, the jewish nazis)

>>3671372
Eh, this study destroys the original study, as it proves that the correlation isn't a causation, but that both are correlated to another variable (the parents' /environments belief(s)).

>>3671381
I know bro.
Almost all Jews in the west are asskissNazis.
Stop acting like a nigger
>hurr i is master race juice

>>3670723

Are you retarded? Blacks are catered to now, in most 1st world countries.

>>3671381
Protip^: there is no "jewish people". You ash are only converts.
So much for genetics.

>>3671368

That is because that is the only thing you could play in your labor camps.

>>3671401
Protip: nope.
Not converts.
Just natural selection.

>>3671404
Yep, converts.

The real hebrew descendants are the muslims PALESTINIANS!
lol

Poor delusional tool.

It's important to fully appreciate the concept of averages in order to draw accurate conclusions from this kind of data--assuming it's all 100% accurate.

It is an incomplete statement to simply say Whites are more intelligent than Blacks, and Asians are more intelligent than whites.

Let's, for the sake of argument, assume these kind of statistics accurately demonstrate genetic differences among racial groups that correspond directly to average intelligence. Notice, we are talking about a bell curve of an entire isolate population, or genetic group.

High and low end intelligence (and presumably the corresponding genetics) exist in ALL populations. The only difference is the distribution.

Anyone who seeks to use population genetics to draw conclusions about individuals has missed the point--either by being unnecessarily offended by one's own supposed inferiority, or erroneously flaunting one's own superiority)

If IQ is at least partially genetically determined, population genetics is still a bad reference point from which to make determinations about the genetic fitness of individuals.

Implied by the hypothesis, the most intelligent members of all population groups will have superior genetics than the entire human population as a whole, even if there are fewer such people represented in one racial group vs. another.

If you would rather have children with a dumb person from a "smart" race, than a smart person from a "dumb" race, you're not avoiding bad genes, you're confusing populations with individuals.

It'd be like not dating someone from an island with an average IQ of 80, but who himself had an IQ of 150, merely because he grew up surrounded by idiots.

>>3671408
>descendants of Ishmael
>Hebrew
Sorry, no.

>>3671408
It doesnt matter what they were, or how you call them.
A specific group called ashkenazi jews evolved higher level of intellegence due to natural selection.

Its not about the religion, seriously, it could be any group of people, it just happened that those were in the right time at the right place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence

>>3670680

your second chart says Africans have an average IQ of '70'.... Now I find that interesting because I have worked with people who have IQ of 70.... we used to call them 'retarded'.
But I also went to school with many Nigerian students. On average, they were as smart as anybody else. Care to explain the results of your 'Test'?

>>3671412
Whatever. This people of yacov doesn't exist. There was NEVER a jewish diaspora.
East European jews are all converts and they're as close genetically from ismael than a chinese is close to a spaniard .
Cry more

>>3671418
Tests were made by jews(zionists). They are racialists trying to prove their holy books to be right.
Sazme shit as creationists really. Same bias.

>>3671418
>they were smart
So you Imply that you CAN MEASURE INTELLIGENCE?
You just said it, you CAN actually measure intelligence.
That contradicts your point.

>>3671418
Nope, you're just as dumb as them.

>>3671429

That was a tactical mistake. I know my standard test scores.

Everyday the same song and dance is induced.

Rather then spending time, researching and talking about what people can do.

We spend that time on what people can't do.

Rather then making a difference in helping developed new energy sources, medicines and tools to build the future.

We spend that time complaining on why it shouldn't be developed at all.

We talk about IQ like its some grand measure of quality.

Yet IQ doesn't ensure you a job, a woman, a stable bill of health, happiness, or general success.

But then what else should I expect...

it's just another day on /sci/

>mfw

hey guys. check out this vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpIK3lsLBno

>>3671586
Yesterday we learned that breath mints are mobile

>>3671606

I got no problem with this. I think it has something to do with the Queen of Sheeba.

>>3671261
>Of course all populations approach the same biological plateu. We're all human and we all are capable of carrying the same phenotypes that influence intelligence regardless of what race we are.
>Doesn't understand divergent evolution

>You don't seem to grasp what the simple term "average" means. Every ethnic group spans the entire range of intelligences.
Yes, but they're means and variances differ. Hence, biological inequality. Welcome to reality.

>If Africans all had genotypes that help develop higher intelligence then they would be the most intelligent humans.
And if Earth's orbit was extended by 0.1 AUs there would be almost no life on Earth, your point?

>How would you explain the phenomenon that groups that experience the greatest gains in average IQ are those which are the most environmentally challenged.
My hypothesis + regression to the mean + law of diminishing returns. This is not a difficult concept.

>>3671270
>There is no overlap between Chimpanzees and humans in terms of intelligence.
False.
>This absolutely cannot be said of "races".
False.

>>3671305
Non sequitur.

>>3671347
>Sorry, I don't trust jews, they're genetically corrupted.
[citation needed]

>>3671361
>Racial myth : destroyed.
Your logical skills are severely lacking. It does not contradict the point but supports it.
If they had believed that those children were of a different mix and had therefore different expectation of them it would stand to reason from the environmental hypothesis that they're results should've been different whereas the study clearly shows that it they were not.
This is actually one of the most powerful findings from this study.
Your argument is invalid.

>>3670680
>disregard criticisms of IQ test
>disregard criticisms of attempts to define intelligence and dependence on arbitrary social values
>disregard control or rigorous science
>commit correlation is not causality fallacy
>commit incomplete evidence fallacy
conclusion: OP is a faggot

>>3671721
>>disregard criticisms of IQ test
Criticisms are invalid as long as they don't invalidate the matter at hand. IQ tests have stood to decades of criticisms and are the best measure of intelligence the world has.
>>disregard criticisms of attempts to define intelligence and dependence on arbitrary social values
g factor is a hardline biological measurable trait. It is not subject to social values nor is it subjective.
>>disregard control or rigorous science
Control was not disregarded by the study or by me.
>>commit correlation is not causality fallacy
Never committed.
>>commit incomplete evidence fallacy
Evidence is all valid and accounted for. Your argument is invalid.

>>3671699
lrn2read
When adoptive parents believe that a child is mixed blood, rather then completely black, the child performs as well as mixed blood children (and not as bad as the other black children).

>>3671746
the immortl question in 4chan! trolling or a retard?
>When adoptive parents believe that a child is mixed blood, rather then completely black, the child performs as well as mixed blood children (and not as bad as the other black children).
.
Should be:
When adoptive parents believe that a child is pure black, rather than mixed, the child performs as well as mixed blood children.

>>3671361
Nope. What that is saying is that interracial children had HIGHER IQs than full blooded blacks despite the fact that the adoptive parents thought they were full-blooded blacks.

>>3671741

>g factor is a hardline biological measurable trait. It is not subject to social values nor is it subjective.


you are assuming what you have been challenged to prove

>>3671759

THIS.

Environmental intelligence myth destroyed.

>>3671741
>>3671721
>>disregard criticisms of IQ test
>IQ tests have stood to decades of criticisms and are the best measure of intelligence the world has.
Appeal to tradition fallacy. You might as well be measuring a 'fudge factor'. Reification fallacy.
>>disregard criticisms of attempts to define intelligence and dependence on arbitrary social values
>g factor is a hardline biological measurable trait.
unsupported assertion
>It is not subject to social values nor is it subjective.
disputed
>>disregard control or rigorous science
>Control was not disregarded by the study or by me.
yes, it was. society was not controlled. messages were not controlled. no random assignment. no control group.
>>commit correlation is not causality fallacy
>Never committed.
inferring a cause = committing
>>commit incomplete evidence fallacy
>Evidence is all valid and accounted for.
fails to account for relevant, current evidence
Your argument is invalid.

>>disregard criticisms of attempts to define intelligence and dependence on arbitrary social values
>g factor is a hardline biological measurable trait. It is not subject to social values nor is it subjective.
*the world according to dogs*
an animal's ability to communicate is proportional to it's t-factor: the size of its tail. t-factor is a hardline biological measurable trait. every animal has a t-factor and it is not subject social value or subjective.
dogs have higher t-factors than humans. therefore, dogs are better communicators!

>>3671816
>fails to account for relevant, current evidence
Which are?

Bump

who would honestly think that all races have the same average intelligence? I mean there is no evidence to support it, no reason to think it, and the evidence contradicts it.

>How can anyone possible deny the factual validity of this study?
>How can anyone possible deny
>How can anyone possible
>How can anyone possible
>possible
>possible

Shame no one has pointed this out. /sci/ is filled with tards.

>>3673341
That's not in dispute, the cause for it is.

lol