/sci/ - Science & Math

>standardized education

/thread

>>6104766
>what is education
>what is cultural bias

>>6104771
>>6104776

Thanks for playing.

yes

>>6104771
>>6104776
>Negroids of different lineage to Caucasians, haplogroups A&B
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566

>Intelligence is largely heritable
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/full/mp201185a.html
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.2250.html
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.2237.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5741/1717.abstract
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/international-team-uncovers-new-231989.aspx
https://gene.sfari.org/GeneDetail/CNTNAP2#HG

>CNTNAP2 and MCPH1 genes.
>The rs10784502 (T allele) variant of the CNTNAP2 gene associated with increased cranial volume has a greater frequency in East-Asian and Indo-European populations, and less in most African populations:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/SNP/snp_ref.cgi?rs=rs10784502

>The 15 point IQ difference between blacks and whites is in part due to genetics
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/pppl1.pdf
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2005hereditarian-hypothesis.pdf
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2012RaceandRushton.pdf
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen-reply-to-commentaries-on-30years.pdf
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/004064.html

>Race-mixing is a cause and and contribution to various health issues
http://home.uchicago.edu/~tholt/racemixing2003.doc
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84235846/Three-Effects-of-Outbreeding
http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/09/miscegenation-the-morality-of-death/
http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/genetic_structure_and_outbreeding_depression

>MHealth and behavioural problems of mixed race adolescents:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064

>New York Times distorting the truth about crime and race:
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0514hm.html

>>6104786

All wrong.

no, sub saharan african IQ is not normally distributed.

It depends upon the conditions in the community under which their children is raised.

The mean for sub-saharans in different parts of the world would be higher or lower correspondingly and you ould not see a normal distribution.

>>6104790
facts are wrong because my feelings.

>>6104786
>nature
>psychology
>Uchicago

nice pseudo science articles. Thanks for playing

>>6104802
>>6104801

>>6104790

So much denial it's not even funny.
>All those sources

>>6104793
See>>6104777

>>6104802
Top lel, psychology is only pseudoscience when it says that consciousness is non-physical. Everything else is scientific.

>>6104805
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence sorry try again with some credible sources.

>>6104806
ohh, troll got so close, you have to source all scientific literature not cherry pick your agenda.

all your sources are by old white men. So I can immediately see a sampling bias in your selection criteria for sources.

>>6104808

What would you consider a credible source?

>>6104812

He would consider kikepedia and Gender studies a reliable source

>>6104812
Try sourcing some ethnic scientists some blacks and latinos.

>>6104814

>all your sources are by old white men
So? You're obviously prejudiced.

>So I can immediately see a sampling bias in your selection criteria for sources.
Nature articles, a fucking GOVERNMENT website and plenty of other sources. Really? I think /pol/ is trolling again to try and make social liberals look bad.

>>6104786
Say we observed a trait that is far more heritable than IQ like height for instance.

Suppose i measure adult male height in a poor Indian village beset with pervasive nutritional deprivation. Suppose the average height of adult males is 5 feet 6 inches (well below the current American mean of about 5'9")

Heritability within the village will be high meaning that tall fathers tend to have tall sons while short fathers then to have short sons. But high heritability within the village does not mean that better nutrition might not raise average height to 5 feet 10 inches in a few generations.

Similarly the well-documented 15 point average difference in IQ between blacks and whites in American with the substantial heritability of IQ in family lines within each group permits no conclusion that truly equal opportunity might not raise the African-American average to equal or surpass the Caucasian mean.

>>6104817
There are hardly any latinos and black scientists compared to Caucasoid scientists. Try again.

>>6104824

I don't see what your point is.

>>6104824

Poverty doesn't explain the IQ gap. It's a scientific fact.

That is so bigoted and racist!

Why I don't understasnd is why this even matters. Even if the OP graph is true when one subtracts for education and all that, for an individual it should not matter.

>>6104819

>claims pol is trolling him
>claims to not be pol

hello pol.
0/10

>>6104852

>pol
Newfag detected.

>>6104850

Right because it's about averages. No one should take statistics personally.

>>6104777
>Psychologists have detected a general mental ability facotr that underlies all forms of thinking

'g' is not an ineluctable entitiy, it represents one mathmatical solution among many equivalent alternatives.

Spearman used factor analysis to identify a single axis which he deemed 'g'.

But Thurston has already shown that 'g' can be made to dissapear by simple rotation of the factor axes to different positions.Thurstone placed the axes near the most widely sperated of attributes among IQ tests, Which gave rise to the theory of multiple intelligences.

>'g' predicts job performance better than any other indicator - even better than job experience

There are several problems with trying to couple IQ and socioeconomic status, For one thing you simply cannot predict what a person will do from his IQ score.

Furthermore a few percent of statistical determination is not equivalent to casual explantion. Then of course correlation does not imply cause in any case, even when correlation are strong.

When coupling IQ with socioeconomic status you have to take two things into account.

Form and strength The amount of variation in social factors explained by IQ or socioeconomic status is very weak, often in the 0.2 to 0.4 range.

0.4 might sound strong but the coefficient of determination is the square of the correlation coefficient and the square of a number between 0 and 1 is less than the number itself, so a 0.4 correlation yields an r-squared of only 0.

What this means in english is just that economic outcomes and IQ are only weakly related. So weakly in fact that most reports on focus on the form of the correlations rather than its strength.

To expand on this point the hypothesis that IQ is a casual influence on socioeconomic success is based off the assumption that country-level ecological correlations replicate at an idnividual level. But there is no evidence of this always being the case.

>>6104863

>doesn't define new

/pol/ detected

>>6104852
>>6104863
>>6104875
Your argument is fucking useless. Back on track.

>>6104880

It wasn't an argument. It was a statement.

>>6104830
That's probably due to the fact that you are a moron.

>>6104871

Sources?

>>6104893

common sense

>>6104900

Lel

>>6104776
>what is cognitive dissonance

>>6104826
The meer fact you would say such a thing exposes your research bias. I will bet you didn't even TRY to be inclusive in your source data. I always try to find at least some diversity in my source data.

>>6104893
>http://ntur.. lib. ntu.edu. tw/bitstream/246246/172719/1/02. pdf

Somehow, Liberals/progressives have convinced themselves that the brain is immune from evolution

Yes, however if you were put in an environement where you lacked resources of education and due to this wildly illogical ideas were accepted all around you, you have to be insane to say that you would have the same IQ. Not that IQ is accurate, but I don't think the inaccuracy causes that.

TL;DR: They don't grow up with as good education as we have in the first world you privileged, stupid fuck.

Sage, Report, hide.

>>6104835
I didnt say anything about poverty in my post.

>>6104919
somehow white men have convinced themselves that they are the smartest. Your time of hegemony is ending, get used to it.

>>6104913

It doesn't matter what the race is, what matter is what method was used. You should know this as a scientist.

>>6104926
>It doesn't matter what the race is
SO i guess we are done here then with this argument. Thanks for playing.

>>6104924
Sadly jews take that distinction.

But our track record speaks for itself.

>>6104922

See>>6104777
Privilege does not explain it.

>>6104928

You didn't win the argument. You just backed out. Thanks for playing.

>>6104929
Jews are white.

>>6104926

It's sad because you won't ever understand just how stupid that statement was.

To all of the libtards in this thread saying muh education

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/rich-black-flunking/Content?oid=1070459

just accept reality. We are not all made equal

>>6104934
>Jews are white.

JIDF detected. i thought you guys were just on /pol/

>>6104924
Back to SRS.

And for the record, Asians are a bit more intelligent than white people according to a lot of research.However we're talking about the European Caucasoid and Sub Saharan African right now and not Europeans in relation to all races.

>>6104937

>We are not all made equal

You would know, being someone of inferior intelligence.

>>6104946
I know that I am an Asian, this is how I knew you a white man were wrong.

>>6104924

http://www.superscholar.org/smartest-people/

>>6104942

What subspecie do Jews classify under?

>>6104950
Watch as the liberal resorts to it's most common defense; the ad hominem.

They typically resort to this tactic when confronted with facts or logic. Beware of the liberals vain attempt to slide the discussion. Do not let his poor rhetorical skills get the best of you.

>>6104959
master race of course

>>6104959
Well considering Ashkenazi at this point have lost most of their middle eastern DNA through mixing with europeans, I guess they are white. But most jews like to consider themselves seperate

>>6104959
Rats.

>>6104937
This has nothing to do with I.Q just talks about how some middle class black kids in ohio are flunking.

>>6104959
Semite Caucasoid

Also Caucasian =/= white.

>>6104964
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

Don't lie, Jew.

>>6104961

Oy vey, I know goy.

>>6104964
Doesn't matter, they still classify as Cockasoid.

>>6104965
Oy vey! Anti-Semitic Nazi! Remember the six gorillion women and children!

>>6104968
I know.

>>6104967
>Education has nothing to do with IQ

>>6104937
If that were the case then /pol/ still lost because that means Asian>Caucasian.

Ridiculous racists.

>>6104970
Education doesnt have anything to do with I.Q.

How well you do in any school simply depends on how willing you are to do the work.

Its literally as simple as reading a book over and over and copying down the information.

>>6104970
Go away, redditor. We don't want your retard memes.

>>6104969
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/most-ashkenazi-jews-are-genetically-europeans-surprising-study-finds-8C11358210

Daily reminder that the Jews of today are not descendants of the ancient Jews who lived in Israel

>>6104975
How's life at a community college?

>thread about IQ
>slide into Jew arguments

works every time

>>6104972

There's only a small IQ gap between Asians and Cockasians, so it's probably cultural.

>>6104975
So I'm wondering if you can cite me one intelligent person that has never had an education. I'll be waiting.

>>6104978
>Implying Jewddit would start a "meme" like this

>>6104979
>nbcnews

Alright, Jew.

Keep this shit on >>>/pol/ where everyone is equally ignorant about IQ.

Why do so many people deny the data? It's pretty simple. If group of kids A did better than kids B, you would say, "I wonder why kids A did better than B" maybe it's the teacher, or maybe it's because kids A all have down syndrome and you would investigate the reasons by controlling for certain factors, not say "YOUR TEST IS FLAWED KIDS A AND B ARE EXACTLY THE SAME YOU'RE RACIST"

>>6104975
>How well you do in any school simply depends on how willing you are to do the work.
That's actually not true.
The children who work the most are the one in academic failure.

>>6104983
>denies the rightful claim of modern Jews to israel
>gets called a jew

oy vey... who's jewing who anymore

>>6104982
Define 'intelligent'.

>>6104990

Jews.

>>6104986
nigga wat

It's because the test wasn't written in ebonics. It's racist not to deliver the test in the speaker's non-native tongue.

>>6104998

It's racist to assume that all blacks speak ebonics. I'm loving this irony.

>>6104990

See>>6104777

>>6104871
Spot on.

Truck on back to that cesspool OP.

IQ has no genetic, or evolutionary component. To even suggest such a thing is inherently evil and racist.

Every person on this planet has the capability to be einstein level smart if they weren't oppressed by evil white men.

That's why africans never even developed the wheel before white men came. Because the oppression was transmitted through the fabric of space time to the African continent long before white men actually got there.

>>6105003

>Implying there weren't any African empires

>>6105001
See

>>6104871

Intellectual qualities are not superposable.

Unless you want to give me some proof otherwise?

>>6105003
But white men didn't develop the wheel before near easterners came.

>jews rule the world
>jews have almost as high a gap above whites as whites have above blacks in IQ
>IQ is bullshit because it obviously takes the same amount of intelligence to be a banker or a lawyer or a politician as it does to be a gangbanger drug dealer and saying otherwise is racist.

>>6105006
racist fuck face

Are you implying that the African empires where inferior to white empires? Well maybe if the fucking whites didn't oppress the fuck out of africa then they actually would have had a chance to build up productive empires

>>6105009
>thinking white means northern european

stay ignorant

>>6105009
[citation needed] (from a primary source)

>>6105007

>Implying the flyer mentioned anything about intellectualism

>>6105012
They were smaller, just like you're penis. Also Africans had 5,000 years before Cockasians came.

>>6105011

What if a politician couldnt become a successful gang-banger, does that make him intellectually inept?

>>6105006
>Sub-saharan Africa

>Empires

What the fuck qualifies as an Empire to you?

>>6105009
>>The earliest well-dated depiction of a wheeled vehicle (here a wagon—four wheels, two axles) is on the Bronocice pot, a c. 3500 – 3350 BC clay pot excavated in a Funnelbeaker culture settlement in southern Poland.[4]

dumb ass

>>6105020

There were empires, but none of them pared up to Yuropeepee civilizations.

>>6105016
>intellectualism

What the fuck are you going on about? When i say intellectual qualities i mean the specific traits that IQ tests claim they TEST.

As i said these qualities aren't superposable.

>>6105011

If you're going to spout stormfag-isms, go to the politics board; this isn't science.

Nobody denies there's an achievement gap, but the reasons for differences in competence between people and demographics are complexed any nuanced issues.

Laypeople driven by base ideologies and defunct mythos of race don't serve to further the dialog in a meaningful manner.

But this is the culture that the US has bred and imported, that everyone not only CAN but SHOULD be opinionated on matters they've no expertise regarding.

>Are blacks genetically less intelligent?
I don't know
>Do blacks act less intelligent?
Yes. And this is all that matters

>>6105023

What does superposable mean? I can't find it on Kikepedia.

>A definition of intelligence endorsed by 52 experts
See>>6104777

>>6105018
He's probably just too meek, not thst he's not smart enough. That's like asking if a cripple couldn't become a pentathlon runner because he's not smart enough. The skillsets needed are different.

>>6105024

>Jew is a stormfag-ism

>>6105031
How would you know faggatron? You most likely arent involved in either profession.

>>6105029
Capable of being superposed.

>>6105033

It's quite common for stormfags to use non-white examples for high achievers in a shitty attempt to confound those who would point out their supremacist position.

>>6105029
>A definition of intelligence endorsed by 52 experts


hurr hurr muh ad poplum

>>6105043

Placed by another? I have no idea what you're talking about.

>>6105048
>superposed

1. To set or place (one thing) over or above something else. (I.E IQ scaling)
2. Mathematics To place (one geometric figure) over another so that all like parts coincide.

>>6105024
What an empty post.

>>6105047

But Jews ARE WHITE.

>>6105046
>Saying that 52 experts agree on a definition is an ad poplum

>>6105055
>white
means approximately horseshit.
jews are ancestrally mixed just like most americans are mixed black / white.

>>6105055
Clamiing its a correct definition because they all agree is.

>>6105058

Jews rarely race-mix and white usually means caucasoid.
>most Americans are black / white
Top lel

>>6105061
Do you have a better definition? What would you define as a correct definition?

>>6105063

Yes, 'intelligence' in any meaningful sense of the word can be augmented by good education.

Not something that can be measured like a linear surface.

>>6105063
>Jews rarely race-mix and
whether or not they mix today is fairly immaterial, they're ancestry is mixed in that they're hybrid middle eastern - european.

>white usually means caucasoid.
when I say white I usually mean european.
to my knowledge most people, let alone stormies, don't think of east indians and mid easterners as white even though they may be mostly caucasian.

>>6105072
since you're an expert, if jews were black and everyone else was white, how dark skinned woud they be today?

>>6105046
>>6105061

The 52 experts did research on it also, so it's not an ad poplum

>>6105077
there are many people in the middle east and south asia that are pretty much black skinned and others can pass as albino.
they're not exactly all of the same ancestry even though they've homogenized over time.
it isn't surprising that european jews have light skin.

>>6105046
>expert
>populum
please stop posting you fucking peon

Why is the IQ gap not explainable by poverty again?

>>6104766
Oh, sweet, I guess this means I'll never have to study or anything again. My white person IQ will tell me everything I need to know!

>>6105092
>Inb4 keep /pol/ to /pol/

>>6104766
Do you acknowledge the fact the Early human IQ has a normally distributed curve whose average is located around one standard deviation (15 IQ) lower than the modern white European?

Best thread of the day, so many pol tears. So many white males got demolished

all these /pol/ tears

Ohh wow guys I just discovered i am the most intelligent through my own study...

#wow
#such smart I am

Why do the /pol/ crybabies always get overly emotional when we question their beliefs?

Hey guis I am white I just took an IQ test on the internet, i scored 160, same as Einstein, pretty smart are I not?

>>6105100
I'm not gonna spam >>>/pol/. I think some of the stuff in this thread is fairly valid, but I feel like /pol/ gets so hung up on it because of some self validation shit.

What are the benefits of establishing that there is a gap?

Also, I'm merely voicing thoughts and curiosities here, don't take this as a personal insult.

>>6105093
Lel.

>>6105100
if the flynn effect has been sufficient in raising white IQ scores by multiple standard deviations within the course of 3 generations, even excluding supposed dysgenic effects of industrialization, then it's very much conceivable that the same can happen for blacks, who perform lower than the contemporary white average but above the estimated white average a ~century ago.

tinyurl
.com
/copule7

In fact, while they don't reach the white mean, adopted blacks in the US score markedly better than ones raised by their biological parents.

It seems quite obvious the primary reasons for differences in scores relate to nutrition (in fact, studies have indicated lack of calories isn't as much a problem as empty calories), stereotype threat, and the intellectual climate the children are raised in (higher religiosity being correlated with lower performance).

In the absence of solid genetic evidence, IQ tests scores are psychometric, not neurologic.

The best we can say for the hereditary perspective is it's still unclear why certain demographics may perform better or worse than others on tests.

>>6105118
>>6105123
samefag

also, if you refer to /pol/ as the people who acknowledge racial difference in intelligence, they have definitely been winning the arguments.

>>6105125

you're practically disproving the theory of relativity just by existing.

>>6105121
It'd be interesting to read a black dude cherrypicking some sources going his way.

>>6105123
>>6105118
>>6105142

these all look pretty samefag to me.

>>6104766
Listen here, /pol/:

If you hate blacks so goddamned much, then why bother pussyfooting around with this passive-aggressive cunt bullshit of shitposting like this? Don't you have the strength of your convictions behind your words? Get a gun, and go around in public shooting blacks in the head, if you really think they're so goddamned bad. If public opinion is on your side, then you won't be convicted of being a murderer, will you? Do it. Show us what kind of man you REALLY are and let your actions speak louder than your words, or shut the fuck up and get the fuck out with your shitpost threads.

>>6104766
HEY, FAGGOT OP, ARE YOU EVEN LISTENING?
>>6105163
>>6105163
>>6105163
>>6105163
>>6105163
YOU EVEN PAYING ATTENTION? OR ARE YOU TOO BUSY JACKING OFF?

>>6104766
> Do you acknowledge the fact that the sub Saharan Africans IQ has a normally distributed curve whose average is located around one standard deviation (15 IQ) lower than the white European?

This is wrong. The american blacks are at IQ 85. The sub-Saharan ones are around 75.

Cf. Rindermann, Heiner. "African cognitive ability: Research, results, divergences and recommendations." Personality and Individual Differences (2012).

>>6104850
>>6104867

This is not entirely correct, but almost. The thing is that when you're judging someone, you should take the base rate into account. Since these are different, not adjusting for this leads to base rate fallacies.

Cf. Sesardic, Neven. Making sense of heritability. Cambridge University Press, 2005.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy

>>6105170
>>6105163
Are you aiming for the most childish post award?

>>6105807
Bayesian statistics can create elegant methodologies you can use racial statistics, in fact all kinds of statistics to greatly increase predictive power without assuming anything definite about a person until more information is accessed.

For example you see a black person then see they have a hoodie. The odds just got worse and the base rate is now even lower. Then they speak to you in slang, no it is close enough to be definite almost 100%

>>6105828
That's already the natural way the brain works on Beynesian methodologies. Anti-Racism is asking people to remove their natural thinking methods and wipe out information and replace it. The only effective way to do this is with guilt to induce them to artificially alter their inclination or misleading information to replace their beynesian inputs.

You cannot correct racism without guilt or lies. It just will not happen.

>>6104871
Apparently someone slightly more sophisticated, but still utterly wrong.

>'g' is not an ineluctable entitiy, it represents one mathmatical solution among many equivalent alternatives.

There are many ways to derive a g factor, but they give results so close to each other that it isn't worth talking much about.

Cf. Jensen, Arthur R., and Li-Jen Weng. "What is a good g?." Intelligence 18.3 (1994): 231-258.

>But Thurston has already shown that 'g' can be made to dissapear by simple rotation of the factor axes to different positions.Thurstone placed the axes near the most widely sperated of attributes among IQ tests, Which gave rise to the theory of multiple intelligences.

The important thing is of course which of these mathematical objects have the most physical meaning. The answer is g, not any of these rotated factors. This is known because g is the active ingredient in mental tests, it is the most heritable part of the scores, correlates with many biological variables about the brain, and predicts the best. Etc.

Cf. for instance:
http://humanvarieties.org/2013/04/03/is-psychometric-g-a-myth/

Or for a longer treatment:
Jensen, Arthur Robert. The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998.

>There are several problems with trying to couple IQ and socioeconomic status, For one thing you simply cannot predict what a person will do from his IQ score.

Probabilistically, yes you can.

>0.4 might sound strong but the coefficient of determination is the square of the correlation coefficient and the square of a number between 0 and 1 is less than the number itself, so a 0.4 correlation yields an r-squared of only 0.

r 0.4 explains 16% of the variance. A correlation of 0.4 is considered medium in the relevant fields. In fact IQ scores are typically the strongest predictors in all of sociology and psychology.

The IQ gap is real. The reason for the gap is what the real debate is about.

That aside what is the point of all this? For what purpose do you want us to verify this gap is real? What are you trying to achieve with this knowledge? Your intentions seem like dubious /pol/-tier garbage but I don't want to make hasty assumptions.

I wonder how well OP would do if we dropped him off in sub-Saharan Africa. My theory is that his ability to calculate train arrival/departure times and his English word association skills would make him a major asset to the third-world subsistence farming community.

>>6105841
...You do realize how racist that sounds right?

>>6104871
>To expand on this point the hypothesis that IQ is a casual influence on socioeconomic success is based off the assumption that country-level ecological correlations replicate at an idnividual level. But there is no evidence of this always being the case.

You are ill-informed. The research started out studying individuals and then moved to countries as of recently (when Richard Lynn started collecting national IQs).

That g has causal effects on individuals is not disputed by any scholar in the field that I know of.

The design is quite simple. Gather IQ test scores of young children. See where they end up. Obviously, these children's later SES status cannot be causing the IQs in their childhood.

>>6104914
This source does not support most of those claims. In fact, it deals only with different methods for extracting g factors, and how they are generally equivalent.

>>6105843
>racism
>in my science
Why are you even on this board? Why do you even do science?

>>6105846
>Obviously, these children's later SES status cannot be causing the IQs in their childhood.

Epigentics, nutrition, early childhood, integrating with a common culture.

Are you seriously just ignoring all of this?

Not even against you but that was pretty stupid thing to say.

>>6104982
>There's only a small IQ gap between Asians and Cockasians, so it's probably cultural.

Unlikely, as it is found pretty much no matter these races are found. And their home country levels are similar too.

>>6104998
> It's because the test wasn't written in ebonics. It's racist not to deliver the test in the speaker's non-native tongue.

That idea has already been tested. It does not matter if the tests are given in written form, verbally or some other way. Attempts to create black IQ tests that both 1) make blacks and whites equal, and 2) predict things have all failed.

>>6104982
http://www.cracked.com/article_19248_6-uneducated-amateurs-whose-genius-changed-world.html

<--- how true is this?

Also, should primates like bonobos and gorillas that have pretty high IQ be given rights that humans have?

>>6105877
>59

That can't be real can it? how can an iq even be that low I already have trouble imagining what 100 must be like. Are you seriously telling me if they got an iq test they would get every single problem wrong even if they were guessing multiple choice. God damn

>>6105853
Do you even know what you're saying anymore?

>>6105877
How do you even measure a gorilla's IQ?

>>6105846
>Obviously, these children's later SES status cannot be causing the IQs in their childhood.
No, but they can have a common cause.

>>6105898
multiple choice test maybe?

>>6105134
The Flynn effect is not g-loaded. It isn't a rise in intelligence, it's a training effect or something like that.

Rushton, J. Philippe, and Arthur R. Jensen. "The rise and fall of the Flynn Effect as a reason to expect a narrowing of the Black–White IQ gap." Intelligence 38.2 (2010): 213-219.

>In fact, while they don't reach the white mean, adopted blacks in the US score markedly better than ones raised by their biological parents.

Apparently referring to The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, but no, it does not show this.

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

Look at age 17. Back at normal.

>It seems quite obvious the primary reasons for differences in scores relate to nutrition (in fact, studies have indicated lack of calories isn't as much a problem as empty calories), stereotype threat, and the intellectual climate the children are raised in (higher religiosity being correlated with lower performance).

This only seems obvious to people who are ideologically biased and accepting explanations with no good data behind them.

E.g. stereotype threat is basically just publication bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat#Criticism

Shared environment does not have effects on adult intelligence, so any explanation based on that idea is wrong. E.g. parenting or food quality.

>>6105134
>The best we can say for the hereditary perspective is it's still unclear why certain demographics may perform better or worse than others on tests.

We might call this the agnostic position. The truth is closer to what Jensen wrote in 1969!

The fact that a reasonable hypothesis has not been rigorously proved does not
mean that it should be summarily dismissed. It only means that we need more
appropriate research for putting it to the test. I believe such definitive research
is entirely possible but has not yet been done. So all we are left with are various
lines of evidence, no one of which is definitive alone, but which, viewed all to-
gether, make it a not unreasonable hypothesis that genetic factors are strongly
implicated in the average Negro-white intelligence difference. The preponderance
of the evidence is, in my opinion, less consistent with a strictly environmental
hypothesis than with a genetic hypothesis, which, of course, does not exclude the
influence of environment or its interaction with genetic factors.

>>6105834
The interesting thing is that science seems to show that these stereotypes make people's judgments better, not worse. This is completely as expected for Bayesian reasons. Basically, stereotypes help with getting the base rate right.

Cf. Jussim, Lee, et al. "10 The Unbearable Accuracy of Stereotypes." Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (2009): 199.

>>6105891
>That can't be real can it?

the numbers are from wikipedia.… i checked, it's not photoshopped. so take it for what you want…

>>6105898
>How do you even measure a gorilla's IQ?

same tests you'd use for humans… show few symbols, ask what comes next etc.

you obviously can't ask them linguistic/english problems but you can quite easily ask them about concepts.

also, chimps have absolutely amazing memory skills:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/29/chimp-intelligence-aymu-matsuzawa-kyoto

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/16832379

>>6105916
>59 iq, dumber than an educated gorilla

all of my lels

>>6105846
>Epigentics, nutrition, early childhood, integrating with a common culture.

No one has not showed any interesting effects of epigenetics. It is like plasticity, something that is often claimed but no one has shown anything interesting and relevant about.

Nutrition is a shared environmental effect, and thus discarded already. Early childhood enrichment does not work. Decades of data show this, there is even the still running Head Start project.

The last one is too diffuse to be tested. Not science by Popperian standards.

>>6105899
That is true.

>>6105877

Bonobos deserve more rights than some members of the "homo sapiens sapiens" species.

I think we should support animal rights and especially animal rights for primates.

>>6105933
>No one has not showed any interesting effects of epigenetics.

AM I reading /s4s/?

>>6105916
>>6105891

It is probably too low. There was a controversy over that number when the book came out. I think it was based on a wrong data point.

I think it's revised now.

I looked up in Lynn and Vanhanen 2013, and indeed it is now given as 69 (estimated from neighboring countries).

>>6105952
You cut off the other part, which is about its relevance to intelligence research. No one has shown interesting effects of epigenetics about intelligence, as far as I know.

It is just something that is thrown around, just like brain plasticity.

>>6105933
>No one has not showed any interesting effects of epigenetics.
m8...

>>6105877
Bonobos aren't us though... they cannot be taught language, real language I mean. They could never communicate their feelings or thoughts with us.

>>6105954
What can be dismissed without evidence can be assumed true without evidence.

>>6105955
See.
>>6105954

But there has been some attempts recently:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011329

But as it is known that these kind of studies very often report false positives, I'd wait for a replication before believing anything.

I checked all the citations for the study, but no replications as of now.

>>6105964
You accept genetics but reject epigentics is this a joke?

>>6105970
I guess he thinks epigentics just stops at the shoulder lmfao

You have to be extremely mentally retarded to think genetics affects a person IQ but epigentics doesn't. I don;t even think you know what epigentics is.

IQ under 90

>>6105970
>>6105971
>>6105977

All of these are wrong. My point is that there is as of yet no good research demonstrating this, and so speculation about epigenics causing racial differences is not warranted. But sure, it is possible that epigenics is involved.

guys, IQ is highly heritable so before you mate & have kids, think about your kids' future and don't marry low IQ people/races.

>>6106080
>don't marry low IQ people/races.

wut is a low IQ race?

if a black man has an IQ greater than the white average, hasn't he genetics that predispose to above average IQ regardless of his race?

>>6106080
>/races
stormfront pls

>>6106088
>if a black man has an IQ greater than the white average, hasn't he genetics that predispose to above average IQ regardless of his race?

Yes, but there is also regression to the mean.

But it should be entirely possible to create a super black nation. Find some land and then an entrance requirement of >115. When they have children, they will regress towards 85, but that only happens in the first generation and it probably won't go below 100. The result should be a high-IQ black nation.

>>6106123
It seems racism is the most accurate when one person occupies a race. The more people added the less useful the measure is. So shouldn't racists be trying to separate races into as many separate groups as possible? I think we need way more racial identification policies, there should be at least 300 human races.

>>6106123
>When they have children, they will regress towards 85
What are you even talking about?

>>6106136
>So shouldn't racists be trying to separate races into as many separate groups as possible?
>racists
>doing anything logical
lol

We've had this troll thread 1 million times already.

Is there a correlation between race and median scores on IQ tests? Yes.

Is IQ worth a shit beyond determining if someone is simply retarded or non-retarded? You bet your ass it isn't. The "scientists" endorsing the idea of an IQ test as a be-all end-all determinant of the incredibly complex phenomenon called intelligence are quacks trying to ride another stupid popsci publicity wave.

>>6106136
If anything, limiting human diversity by getting rid of the races (i.e. by inter-breeding) would do good for humanity. This would reduce racial conflicts.

It would also seriously reduce the number of very bright people and very dull people.

Worth the trade? Probably not.

But, if we used embryo selection at the same time, it would definitely be worth the trade. Get rid of racial tensions and make everybody smarter. Win win.

>>6106139
Regression to the mean. Black children regress toward a mean of 85, while white regress toward a mean of 100 (their respective population means). These data are for the US.

Intelligence research is much misunderstood and is controversial within the general public. Most of the misconceptions that people have are due to them simply never taking the time to read anything about the subject. Not even the base minimum of reading the relevant Wikipedia articles. Below I have listed some papers and books on the subject that I consider introductory. These explain what IQ is, what intelligence is, what the g-factor is, how to measure it, and why it matters with many examples.

-

Very short (10 pages)
Gottfredson, Linda S. “Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography.” Intelligence 24.1 (1997): 13-23.

alturl com/i7cwx

-

Longer (54 pages)

Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24(1), 79-132.

alturl com/rq8ur

-

Useful follow-up to the above (21 pages).

Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Where and why g matters: Not a mystery. Human Performance, 15(1/2), 25-46.

alturl com/p5xht

-

More politically correct version of Gottfredson 1997:
Neisser, Ulric, et al. “Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns.” American psychologist 51.2 (1996): 77.

alturl com/62d4f

-

Longer and sociologically focused

Robert A. Gordon. (1997) Everyday life as an intelligence test: Effects of intelligence and intelligence context. Intelligence, Volume 24, Issue 1, January–February 1997, Pages 203–320.

alturl com/zwxa9

-

Light introduction to basic concepts. Useful for those not strong in math.
Deary, Ian J. Intelligence: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press, 2001.
Intelligence, a very short introduction

alturl com/kwe8s

-

Very long and technical (660 pages)
Jensen, Arthur Robert. The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998.

alturl com/g6jjh

What's the end-all to this argument? Justification for racism?

>>6106149
>Is IQ worth a shit beyond determining if someone is simply retarded or non-retarded? You bet your ass it isn't. The "scientists" endorsing the idea of an IQ test as a be-all end-all determinant of the incredibly complex phenomenon called intelligence are quacks trying to ride another stupid popsci publicity wave.

oh, so much nonsense in two sentences!

kids, this is what happens when you attend public school system and your head is pumped full of PC shit and garbage.

don't let your kids go to a public school. they'll end up mentally deficient like that anon.

Many authors have debunked the bell curve.

If only /pol/ was willing to read something that goes against their aggressive racist ideologies.

>>6106168
Not that guy but i believe the scale was only actually developed in the first place to be a practical guide for identifying mental deficiencies in children.

>>6106171
>Many authors have debunked the bell curve.

[citation needed]

>>6106174
Noam Chomsky and Mamadou Chinyelu, to Stephen J Gould and Richard Lewontin.

Id personally read the bell curve first then start with inequality by design.

>>6106178
>Noam Chomsky and Mamadou Chinyelu, to Stephen J Gould and Richard Lewontin.


hahaha… come on man… a bunch of linguists and popular science people.

statistics are pretty damn clear.

>>6106181
But those are are cognitive scientists and geneticists.

>>6106184
authors*

>>6106160
>>6106123

>Regression to the mean.

is probably the ultimate reason to hereditarian model needs to be reworked entirely.

if this were the case, there wouldn't be any race differences in the first place.

all humans would regress toward the same intelligence when the average IQ of a given lineage were taken regardless of the race.

plus, if culture alone is able to boost the IQ of an otherwise black child above that of whites and even jews, the phenomenon of regression to the mean breaks any explanation that values hereditary influences over all others in developing a child's IQ.

I accepted the fact race exists a LONG time ago and I don't even go to /pol/.

It's time for real science to become accepted.

Come on liberals, you're so close to reality, just take that one more step.

>>6105163
>YOU ACCEPT RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN IQ SO THAT MEANS YOU HATE ALL BLACK PEOPLE

Are you 12 years old?

African brains and white brains are structured differently and they have different instincts.

This should have already been accepted in science.

>>6106178
>Noam Chomsky
>Stephen J Gould

This is bait.

Also Gould was a fraudster and liar.

>>6106212
Why point it out if you don't have an racist agenda?
And that image
>Obama
>Democratically elected president
>Dictator
LOL

>>6106184
They are in other words not experts in the field.

>>6106222
>Why point it out if you don't have an racist agenda?
Define "racist". You know it doesn't even mean anything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttguCMBy1Jw
It's like saying "heretic".

>why point it out
Because these scientific facts need to be brought to light and ignorant emotional people like yourself need to have your retarded worldview's shattered.

Also:
>defending obama

Fuck lol you people truly are brainwashed.
See pic.

>>6106210
But i enjoy liberalism.

>>6106188
Persistent selection pressure can quite obviously change the population mean. Have you ever heard of... selective breeding? Yeah, that's how it works. Regression only slows it down, it does not stop it.

>>6106231
You enjoy poverty and having no rights?
You hate science?

>>6106172
Whatever Binet's original intentions, nothing about the usefulness for testing on other things follows from that.

>>6106171
You do realize that the Bell Curve data are in the public domain right? Anyone can, and indeed have done, replicate the findings at will.

Here's the national data in deciles.

>>6106234
What?

>>6106237
Exactly what I said.

That's what modern "liberalism" is, a police state.

>>6106210

Saying race exists is like saying families exist.

Of course race exists to some degree as ancestry. You're intentionally oversimplifying our opposition to your model.

Human diaspora is ~50k - 30k yr old over the Earth.

That means major diaspora lineages are at least 1000 generations old if not much older.

The way we have drawn lines to delineate races over centuries is entirely a sociopolitical construct. We can draw the line at any point in our ancestry. Why not discriminate descendants of Bantu vs descendants of Yoruba people?

We can easily discriminate 100s of races in the modern world today, or we can view each person as an individual. Neither are more or less scientifically objective than the way we currently define race. Some may be much more meritocratic in fact than these ideas of race imparted to us by the Victorian nobility.

I simply don't accept that race discrimination is the most meritocratic way of doing things, and I believe most people in favor of using race denominations as the basis for discrimination are driven primary by racial nationalist ideology and only consider cherry-picked data as a means for furthering their political agenda and not for the betterment of society in the conception of most people.

>>6106238
ya whatever ya fuckin nerd

why dont you gb2 /pol/ and fling shit around about your red pills

>statistically, the IQ gap has shown an overall decrease between african americans and white americans.
>recent studies have found a net black advantage in educational attainment when controlling for socioeconomic and academic characteristics

http://aer.sagepub.com/content/50/5/895.abstract

explain this, /pol/.

>>6106240
There are countless fallacies(Lewontin's Fallacy is the most glaring one I see) in your post and I don't have time to debunk them all.

Watch this short video, it will answer your questions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHDWlnah3b0

I'm sure you will find it very informative.

>>6106174
I checked the HDI data. Change is legit.

http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/ZAF.html

>>6106243
>when controlling for socioeconomic and academic characteristics
Seems legit.

>>6106244
Why do you retards love the NSA and patriot act so much?
Why are you corporate fascists?

>>6106178
>Stephen J Gould

Oh my word… there idiocy of some people. Stephen J. Gould was confirmed to be a FRAUD and a LIAR.

https://menghusblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/stephen-jay-gould-myth-and-fraud/

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001071

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/06/did_stephen_jay_gould_fudge_hi.html

Almost all these politically correct fools are liars and scam artists. Stephen J. Gould was a brazen liar who believed that it was OK to lie and fudge numbers for "the greater good" and "fighting racism".

>>6106243
>statistically, the IQ gap has shown an overall decrease between african americans and white americans.

Inter-breeding between whites and blacks produce higher scores for blacks, because the way blacks are counted, they include whoever has black ancestry. It is not uncommon to find people who claim to be black, but have >50% european genes.

>recent studies have found a net black advantage in educational attainment when controlling for socioeconomic and academic characteristics

Affirmative action.

>>6106252
where is the picture on the right from?
Is it from a liberal country?

I LOVE the fact that we have SO much data and facts on our side and it makes liberals so mad.

>>6106256
Why call me an idiot?

Geez, if you dont like him dont read his books. I gave you multiple authors for a reason.

>>6106240
It is earlier than that.

>Genetic studies and fossil evidence show that archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 150,000 years ago,[2] that members of one branch of Homo sapiens left Africa by between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago, and that over time these humans replaced earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus.[3] The date of the earliest successful "out of Africa" migration (earliest migrants with living descendants) has generally been placed at 60,000 years ago as suggested by genetics, although migration out of the continent may have taken place as early as 125,000 years ago according to Arabian archaeology finds of tools in the region.[4] A 2013 paper reported that a previously unknown lineage had been found, which pushed the estimated date for the most recent common ancestor (Y-MRCA) back to 338,000 years ago.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans

The divisions are NOT arbitrary. They are forced by the data. Only the number of groups is (almost) arbitrary (cannot exceed the number of humans). You can think of it as asking how many islands there are and changing the minimum size required. Decreasing the minimum size will increase the number of islands, but always in the same order. The structure is forced by the data. Only the zoom-level is arbitrary.

>>6106258
>where is the picture on the right from?
UK

>>6106260
Not the guy you were arguing with, but the guy just debunked probably the strongest author in your pathetic list.
Also
>chomsky
lel

You lose.

>>6106259
Facts about what?

>>6106263
>Facts about what?
Racial differences in the brain.

>>6106262
Nah i wouldnt really consider gould the strongest author maybe the most popular though. I believe inequality by design is a very good refutation to bell curve.

You should give it a try.

Ingsoc is the ideal society

>>6106265
Well? What are the facts.

>>6106260
None of them are experts in the field, and most of them are hardcore leftists who consider themselves a fire brigade fighting a culture fight. Who do you think are most interested in science? People who are openly Marxist or something who is as apolitical as Arthur Jensen?

I don't understand this leftist need to deny science. It is certainly possible to be leftist and a race realist, there is no contradiction. But it does involve acknowledging that one cannot make everybody equal, because people between siblings, between families and between races are not equal in socially valued characteristics.

If one really wants to make everybody equal, one would rush to find the genes for g, and then to produce the technology required for embryo selection. When that is done, one can lobby the state to sponsor the use of such technology for dull people. In this way, one is actually helping the dull people have smarter children.

In theory, one could indeed make everybody equally smart, if there was tight control over such technology, but it would require a more authoritarian police state than we already have...

>>6106266
>I believe inequality by design is a very good refutation to bell curve.
But the man is a confirmed fraud and a liar. Most of what he wrote was debunked or found to be a lie. Why would anyone want to read him?

Do you actually want to debate here or are you going to keep ignoring what we say and shitposting?

You're a secular creationist. Why do you hate science?

>>6106260

chomsky? some leftist linguists whose universal grammar theory was debunked and whose foray into other fields has been an absolute bust?

gould? a proven liar who wrote a book trying to debunk The Bell Curve by using falsified data that fit his anti-racist views?

try harder, anon. you lose. truth wins again.

>>6106269
In this thread.

>>6106272
>It is certainly possible to be leftist and a race realist
I SERIOUSLY doubt that.

>>6106281

I score central-left somehow, but I'm raciss.

I just like my people better than the rest.

>>6106275
Chomsky is so fucking embarrassing.

It's hilarious he thinks he's an anarchist and pathetic college kids actually believe him.

>>6106286
Don't worry, you're learn economics soon enough and then you'll be fully right wing.
Probably some sort of libertarian white nationalist bro.

>>6104766
memory/attentiveness/motivation is much more important than iq in academia
Hence all of these faggots abusing adderall and modafinil.
Doesn't boost IQ...just focus and memory..

>>6106266
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_by_Design:_Cracking_the_Bell_Curve_Myth

It starts out by making a straw man about ideological basis.

I can also see that it repeats the Goddard myth, at least the Wikipedia page does.

And it tries to use SES to explain differences, i.e. sociologist's fallacy. Besides, shared environment does not have effects on adult IQ, so that hypothesis obviously does not work. Jensen proved it wrong in the 70s.

>>6106306
Don't forget Lewontin's Fallacy.

:)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627312005843

This proves that IQ testing is far too limited.

checkmate racists

>>6106275
if there isn't any solid genetic evidence to scientifically explain the IQ gap, then your motivations are obviously not for advocating some standard of truth, but instead confirming your personal biases. whether that has to do with preconceptions inflicted upon you by your parents, or some other factor, i can't say with certainty. but it's definitely not truth.

>>6106294
i don't understand the propensity /pol/ has to act like it's winning arguments more than it is actually trying to win them.

if your arguments are intelligent and fact-based, they should be able to speak for themselves without all the smug masturbatory 'u-mad-bro' posts and platitudinous quote images vomited in between the chunks of conjecture.

>>6106323
>ignores the countless data in this thread
>posts irrelevant fact and strawman argument

>c-c-check m-uhate raciss

>>6106327
>they should be able to speak for themselves
Are they not?

>>6106327
I can't see any point in trying to 'win' arguments anyways.

The whole in discussion is to persuade not insult and go on an incessant childish tirade.

>>6106325
>if there isn't any solid genetic evidence to scientifically explain the IQ gap
Except there is, see: this entire thread and the numerous facts and articles posted inside.

>>6106328
How exactly is this irrelevant? It disproves 'g' all together.

The stuff in this thread is not based on brain imaging, but just on IQ test scores.

What i posted is irrefutable fact.

>>6106336
>It disproves 'g' all together.
No, it doesn't.

and IQ is only one of the many variables we posted about ITT

Brain scans of africans vs whites show clear differences. Blacks have smaller brains than whites.

>>6106341
I dont care about that because thats off topic.

I came into the thread to post evidence that proves that there isn’t a single scale along which people’s intelligence varies.

This claim is based, in part, on an enormous sample of behavioral data collected online, and, in part, on data from brain scans.

>>6106343
>I came into the thread to post evidence that proves that there isn’t a single scale along which people’s intelligence varies.

Good for you.

You are aware that all of us agree with that statement anyway right?

>>6106351
Not the shitposters from /pol/ at the very least.

>>6106355
>Not the shitposters from /pol/ at the very least.
Um, no, they agree with that statement as well.

You secular creationists really have nothing.

Sigh. Just came into the thread. Sometimes I wish these discussions could be more civil. I lean over toward the racialist side of the argument, and I'm not white (half pacific islander, half white). I'm to the right on the issue, but I'm willing to have my mind changed, it doesn't really worry me one way or another. If it's proven that blacks have lower IQ's on average due to genetics, I would find that discovery fascinating rather than politically disturbing- it could shed light on the selective pressures driving the expansion of human intelligence. Why does it have to be ideaological? Why can't, as another poster here mentioned, one be both leftist and race realist (I hate that term btw).

>>6106343
>I came into the thread to post evidence that proves that there isn’t a single scale along which people’s intelligence varies.

talk about being completely delusional and blue-pilled to the max.

>>6106240
>I believe most people in favor of using race denominations as the basis for discrimination are driven primary by racial nationalist ideology and only consider cherry-picked data as a means for furthering their political agenda

I'm half islander half white, so I couldn't possibly be part of any race nationalist movement, and I think there may be merit in some of the arguments in academia regarding the possibly genetic causes of the various racial IQ gaps.

>>6106343

this has to be the most troll bait post in this thread. nice job.

ps: move to Detroit and live there for a week.

>>6106334
>not realizing /pol/ is full of autist

>>6106374
isnt red-pilled just another word for antisemitism /pol/ like to use?

>>6106397
Yep, same as "Race-realist"

>>6106397
no, red-pill is a system or cognitive bias combined with paranoia.
see, we start with an absurdly paranoid conclusion we wish to reach, usually taken directly from a prevailing conspiracy theory.
It's not our fault that conspiracy theories are generally anti-Semitic, that has a lot to do with the history of Christianity and Judaism in ancient Europe.
So anyways, we begin with the conclusion, and use quote mining, argument from authority, ad populums, and confirmation bias to produce an eclectic apophenia.

it's a simple propaganda technique, and most of the people that fall for it are programmed by religion and society to a certain frightened credulity.

it's pretty effective, and people learn to beg for it.

>>6106400
That's quite a remark from a person that had his creationist ideology utterly destroyed ITT.

>>6106408
Sounds entertaining.

>>6106400
What would you describe me as? I've often found people don't know what to think when they encounter a biracial like myself who stormfags and polfags would describe as "race realists".

>>6106382
>>6106372
(This is me).

>>6106418
A victim.

>>6106335
please link me to exactly what post/article states what genes are different in what ways that show that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites.

>>6106422
Victim is a bit of a strong term don't you think? It's not going to profoundly effect me if the data comes in and I'm wrong. Even though I'm from a race that scores lower on IQ tests on average, I also won't be terribly upset if I'm right. The IQ question is not really relevant to me when I'm interacting with my melanesian half of the family, there part of me and it pretty much doesnt come up. Does this sound like victimhood to you?

>>6106424
>FIND THE GENES HURRDURRR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwZQCf2rfZs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aaF0-pKPDI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG_kWNxCWrY

>>6106424
https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/10/you-dont-need-genes-for-genetics/

>>6106434
>>6106436
[citation fail]

>>6106438
>[citation fail]
You're hilariously pathetic.

The Sub-Saharan African - White gap is actually 2 standard deviations. The African Am. - White gap is 1 standard deviation.

Of course it's easy to accept it, it's proven data. The only real question is the significance of the gap and the heritability of it.
>>6104824

It's true that given only the fact of the high heritability of IQ(which is not within family lines but within the American population), it does not follow that the heritability of the racial gap is high as well. But, given regression to racial IQ means, the persistence of racial differences globally, transracial adoption studies in which racial differences persist, and various environmental explanations being destroyed(stereotype threat & racism).

Height is not more heritable than IQ. Both are around 60-80% heritable.

>>6106441
Nah, I'm not the guy asking for the link, and I didn't read or watch whatever you posted.

I just note that if you cited youtube and blogs and discover magazine in college you'd get your ass handed to you.

so you haven't been to college, and certainly haven't been reading science.

you should work on that and come back later.

>>6106451
>and I didn't read or watch whatever you posted.
You should.

>I just note that if you cited youtube and blogs and discover magazine
There's links to hard data/studies in my links.
Don't be so lazy.

>>6106451
The youtube videos in question featured one youtube user who made citations; a guy known as fringeelements who likes to debate skeptical heretic. Admittedly, the guy got destroyed in a live debate with another youtube user, skeptical heretic. In all fairness, fringeelements actually emailed the researchers involved in the field and asked them point blank whether or not it was necessary to find the genes themselves in heritability studies, so the video is worth watching. I'll put this to you- do you believe heritability studies impossible before the invention of DNA sequencing technologies and bioinformatics that allowed us to find individual genes?

>>6106457
I skipped it because anyone naïve enough to assign complex behaviors solely to either nature OR nurture isn't bright enough to understand what they're talking about.

so if one agrees with my views, I don't need to watch because I don't require the confirmation of others.

if one disagrees I don't want to watch because I hate listening to stupid people.

>>6106445
This post of mine is the only pertinent post in this thread. I would like someone to respond to it.

>>6106139
Let's say that the top speed of the average race horse is 100.

Now lets take a male horse with a top speed of 130 and a female horse with a top speed of 130.
These are exceptionally fast horses.

Sure, they pass on their fast genes to their offspring, but they don't necessarily pass on the SPECIFIC COMBINATIONS OF GENES that make them so excellent. Their offspring are most likely going to be above average, maybe around 115. But they will, on average, not be quire as good as their parents.

>>6106462
>do you believe heritability studies impossible before the invention of DNA sequencing technologies and bioinformatics that allowed us to find individual genes?
again, I'm not the guy you're arguing with.
I don't care.

I just pointed out the weakness of your citation skills.

>>6106465
>I skipped it because anyone naïve enough to assign complex behaviors solely to either nature OR nurture

Yeah the guy in the video doesn't believe that at all.

You didn't watch the video because it exposes your retarded fallacies quite easily.

You're absolutely retarded, I think we're done here.

>>6106149
Hunter and Schmidt would disagree with you.

When other factors are controlled for, IQ is a great predictor of job performance

Look up "the validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology"

>>6106465
Nobody is claiming tht intelligence is determined solely by nature. You've got your head too far up your ass, having a holier-than-thou attitude based on your strawman of hereditarians.

>>6106445
>But, given regression to racial IQ means

Regression to the mean is a counter-point to the hereditarian explanation.

If a high-IQ family can have a low-IQ child and vice versa then that should rightly be an anomaly for the hereditarian model to explain.

If everyone regressed to the mean of their ancestry, and if no human population has a monopoly on any genotype, then how does the hereditarian model explain the evolution of differences in genetic IQ?

If regression to the mean were at all a reliable phenomena, then all humans would be regressing to the SAME mean.

The best explanation we have for regression to the mean is that the hereditarian model cannot account for the phenomenon.

If people can be born with a set of polygenic traits that predispose toward a mean IQ of 80 yet somehow end up performing multiple standard deviations above what their supposed hereditary influences can account for, then non-hereditary influences can be a much stronger factor in determining IQ, strong enough that the current IQ gap between demographics can be masked entirely by environmental influences.

Racialists rely on regression to the mean to counter the claim that people of a given set of competences should be treated the same regardless of their race by claiming their children will perform closer to the mean of their race. But they have done so without recognition that such an observation is fundamentally at odds with the hereditarian model.

>>6106472
I didn't post the set of videos. They are not my citations. There are 3 individuals posting atm, yourself, a race realist, and me (I'm the islander guy).

>>6106473
>it exposes your retarded fallacies quite easily.
I just stopped in from /an/ to see if there were any geology threads on /sci/ today.

I haven't argued racism with a stormfag since /new/ was a thing and I'm sure as hell not reading your turd of a thread.

but carry on.

>>6106188
You're misunderstanding regression to the mean

The black population regresses to the black population mean.
The white population regresses to the white population mean.
Just because the black population is a subset of the human population doesn't mean they regress to the human mean
The human population regresses to the human population mean.

>>6106434
Oi Ryan m8 u r 1 fkn cheeky kunt m8 Im comin to NCal and im gonna fk u up m8 mark my fkn words knt

>>6106480
I'm a racialist, but this is a smart post. I think it's mistaken, but quite astute. It goes to the heart of the issue

>If regression to the mean were at all a reliable phenomena, then all humans would be regressing to the SAME mean.

If there is no such thing as race, which I believe is fundamentally the lynch pin of the debate, then this is true. If race is real, than yes, regression toward the mean would be different for different races. Btw, are you the same guy as
>>6104871

I can't get over how many people in this thread, despite looking at a shit load of statistics, can claim "no you're wrong because racism, the statistics clearly are skewed because it's racist to think *one race* > *another race*"
Like what the fuck
I think the only way you people would accept statistics as completely fair, unbiased, and accurate is if they completely agreed with your feelings about "racism."
How accurate do you think your feelings are in the field of statistics, really
You're ignoring all kinds of support for OP's claim because you want him to be wrong

>>6106480
towards, not to.

>>6106486

You're simply restating the phenomenon; I don't disagree that such a phenomenon exists.

However this is obviously incompatible with the racialist claims regarding the superiority hierarchy of some demographics in inheriting IQ.

>>6106424
>>6106438
>citation fail
It wasn't meant as a 'citation'
It was meant as an explanation of a point

The point was that you do not need to point to specific genes to infer that the differences in traits are caused genetically
The videos talk about various ways of inferring heritability without pointing to specific genes

>>6106472
They weren't "citations"

Your weird presumption that all materials linked are meant as authoritative appeals hints that you view citations as valid due to authority - you have a very authoritative view of knowledge

>>6106501
How is it incompatible?

>>6106494
I don't know who exactly you're talking to, but it's fairly clear to me that the statistics are unconvincing to fit the claims of hereditarians by standards of any hard science.

If we had an analogous patchwork of statistics in any hard science, the consensus of the scientific community would be "inconclusive".

It is only here that racialists and non-racialists seem to stick to let their intuition do most of the thinking.

>>6106509
I have a masters in geology, I debunk journal articles as a matter of habit. If you post some I can probably tell you what's wrong with them.

that would distract from the current HS level shitfest though.

I ignore citations from youtube, cartoon network, and whatever else he listed. that's just silly.

>>6106480
I uh..do you know what regression to the mean is?

>Race is a social construct and has no biological basis whatsoever, therefore it does not exist.

How could that possibly true?
I mean it's a really nice thing to think that everyone's the same and the outside doesn't matter and whatever, but how could anyone think that there's no such thing as race?
If race was socially constructed, is it also a social construct that black people produce black offspring (or offspring of a combined skin-tone)? Isn't there a gene that codes for skin color? Isn't it passed on during reproduction? The genes that code for extremely curly black hair, wider noses, bigger lips, etc, are those just social constructs? Why would genes that in some way affect the capacity for learning in an individual be off limits?

Should we assume that the differences between a beagle and a pitbull are socially constructed? Why can we conclude that pitbulls are naturally more aggressive than beagles due to the number of pitbull attacks, but we can't conclude that blacks are more aggressive than whites due to the amount of violent crimes they commit?

>>6106511
If hereditary influence can demonstrably be masked entirely by environmental influence in many cases, enough to eclipse the demographic gap in IQ test performance, then that calls into question enitrely our estimations for the genetic IQ of any given demographic.

>>6106514
good for you

he wasn't linking the videos as an authoritative appeal

he was linking them due to the explanations contained within them

>tl;dw for the videos
you don't need to point to specific genes for heritability estimates
there are other methods of inferring heritability
the idea that you need to point to specific genes to show that genes cause differences in some traits is ridiculous and people only ever really apply it to race and IQ

>>6104814
>thinks race of the scientist is an important factor in an experiment
who is the racist here?

>>6106523
he responded to a request for links to studies with a list of videos.

defend that all you like, he's a fucking moron.

>>6106521
>by environmental influence
you don't understand regression to the mean
it isn't necessarily due to environmental influence

This should explain it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpmlqtnrec8

>>6106519
>If race was socially constructed, is it also a social construct that black people produce black offspring (or offspring of a combined skin-tone)? Isn't there a gene that codes for skin color? Isn't it passed on during reproduction? The genes that code for extremely curly black hair, wider noses, bigger lips, etc, are those just social constructs? Why would genes that in some way affect the capacity for learning in an individual be off limits?

Your mistaken due to observer bias. Along the entire spectrum of traits that characterize any given human, the vast majority will be exactly the same between any two humans. In fact, the few differences we instinctively focus upon are on the whole the minority of traits.

Corgis may be smaller than dobermans but by observing a few differences it is still not correct to extrapolate that all traits must be significantly different. Indeed, any two dogs are very much similar genetically.

>>6106525
he responded to it by linking to videos that explained how his demands were a complete red herring

>>6106525
That's because he was trying to argue that the request wasn't valid in this context. I don't think you could really point to a research paper to point that out. If he'd just typed out a transcript you wouldn't even be here right now.

>>6106533
>asked for scientific studies
>delivered youtube videos

I don't care what was in the videos, the idiot can't follow simple instructions.

science doesn't happen on youtube.

>>6106480
Just like how regression to the mean in height disproves that height is heritable? Or how every human trait experiences regression to the mean?

You don't understand what regression to the mean is.

>>6106480
>If people can be born with a set of polygenic traits that predispose toward a mean IQ of 80 yet somehow end up performing multiple standard deviations above what their supposed hereditary influences can account for, then non-hereditary influences can be a much stronger factor in determining IQ, strong enough that the current IQ gap between demographics can be masked entirely by environmental influences.

Thats actually not the argument. The IQ is not set in stone for each race, it's just an average. When a person's race has an average IQ of 80, but his IQ is 130, it's not because environmental factors swamped the genetic ones. The racialists are arguing that this individual won the genetic lottery, despite the deck being stacked against him, he inherited high IQ genes. They are not arguing that environment is at work here. I don't like starting flame wars, but I really think you've missed the point of regression toward the mean? Just because a race has an average IQ of 80 does not mean that every member of that race will have an IQ of 80 once we control for environmental factors, it means that some individuals within that population have a better complement of genes "for" IQ, even though overall these alleles occur at a lower frequency within the population.

>>6106535
>If he'd just typed out a transcript you wouldn't even be here right now.
indeed, since I merely stepped in to mock his citation of youtube.

>>6106539
and of course to report the thread.

>>6106539
Then why are you even here. You've already admitted your only point for posting in the first place was because you can't pay attention to what people are actually saying.

Just shut the fuck up and stop getting hung up over the fact he linked to youtube. Refer to Jensen & Rushton's "30 Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability".
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

>>6106546
I found the citation of youtube videos on a science board fucking hilarious.

>next lets hear what Barbi and Ken have to say about quantum entanglement....

>>6106547
I don't care about race and IQ

I think it's ironic that someone arguing that another race is less intelligent is so fucking stupid.

is he black?
because if not he may be retarded.

>>6106536
>asked for scientific studies that point to specific genes that cause difference in IQ
>responds by linking videos that contain explanations why you don't need to point to specific genes to infer heritability

>"HE DIDN'T MEET MY DEMANDS!"

>>6106532
But are those differences I mentioned, even if they're small compared to the genome as a whole, *socially constructed* , yes or no?

I don't mean that blacks and whites are radically different, but a slight difference is still a difference.

>>6106539
>>6106551
fuck son, it wasn't an authoritative citation

it was an explanation of why the other guy's demands were bullshit

>>6106554
>yeah, it's not like significant differences in IQ between races could have massive political implications!

>>6106553
they weren't my demands, nigger.
I just find it amusing that you think anything on youtube is the same as a peer refereed journal article.

you really don't have a clue, do you?

>>6106558
>I just find it amusing that you think anything on youtube is the same as a peer refereed journal article
But he doesn't. Nobody has ever suggested that. You are immensely stupid.

>>6106557
so you didn't admit that you were out of steak, you just substituted hot dogs and hoped nobody would notice?

you're an idiot, admit that you're black and have a low IQ.

>>6106558
>as a peer refereed journal article
He never said that it was

He wasn't saying "well this guy on youtube disagrees with you, therefore I am correct"

It was an explanation as to why the demands were dumb

Why is it that when people comment on Asians being smarter than everyone, no one bats an eye except maybe one or two Asians who don't like stereotypes, but when people comment on Whites being smarter than blacks, everyone has a shitfit?

>>6106561
he was asked for a journal article, he gave a youtube video instead.

>>6106567
he was asked for a journal article, he gave a youtube video instead.

citation fail.
if he wasn't black we'd never have let him into college in the first place.

>>6106568
He was asked for a journal article to prove a certain point, he used arguments in youtube videos to try and explain why the initial point they wanted proven didn't need to be proven in this argument. You just keep leaving the full story out and it's stupid.

>>6106572
he was asked for a journal article because it's superior to a youtube video.

he was asked for steak and delivered hot dogs.
he's a moron.

>>6106566
I think the problem isnt a double standard there, it's the magnitude of the difference. A 5 point difference could be environmental if we believe the results from twin studies. the 15 point gap between whites and blacks is so yawning its hard to believe at first glance it could be environmental. Just throw out the result that Jews are 15 points above whites and you will see the same hissy fit.

>>6106575
He was asked for journal articles TO PROVE A CERTAIN POINT. So he posted arguments to demonstrate why the point was invalid. Your food analogy doesn't work.

>>6106538
>The racialists are arguing that this individual won the genetic lottery, despite the deck being stacked against him, he inherited high IQ genes.

But you can't have it both ways.

We can claim the children of a given couple regress toward the human mean.

We can claim the children of a given race regress toward their racial mean.

The latter is the stronger statement. It is more accurate. The logical extension of this argument would be, the smaller the endogamous population we consider, the more accurately we can establish the mean their children will regress to.

So why not delineate demographics by family instead of race? That would still be more meritocratic if we wanted to select for heritable traits. There is still little merit to race categorizations in dividing individuals by IQ.

>>6106566

if you want to discuss politics please go to /pol/

virtually nobody in this thread has even singled out whites in general.

>>6106586
>No one in this thread has ever singled out whites as a whole
>Picture in the original post contains a graph literally labeling the differences in IQ between "white" and "black."

>>6106582
>The latter is the stronger statement. It is more accurate. The logical extension of this argument would be, the smaller the endogamous population we consider, the more accurately we can establish the mean their children will regress to.

True. This is why even though i disagree, I think the original post was quite astute. It may well be that we could look closer within families and come up with a more accurate mean that their children will regress to, but in the absence of parents having thousands of offspring, we can only use fuzzy racial categories. We may well find given further research, further endogamous populations than the racial ones we are currently researching with more accurate means. Shrugs. It may well end up that the smallest population we can divide to would be the racial ones we are currently researching. Needs more work, I think. I lean toward the race realist side of the argument, but it's not like we've won the day yet.

>>6106575
stop using false analogies to obfuscate

he demanded an unnecessary piece of evidence
he was met with an explanation as to why his demands were unnecessary

>>6106598
Actualy I think that there may be a further problem with what he's saying. It's analagous to the god of the gaps argument- evolution doesnt work because we dont have this transitional form. It leaves one with egg on their faces when said missing link is discovered. The second we discover a gene that exerts an effect on IQ, he's forced to concede. He might win the battle here on 4chan, but is in danger of losing the war.

Remember kids:
Common DNA Markers can Account For More than Half the Genetic Influence on Cognitive Abilities
http://m.pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/02/22/0956797612457952.full

It's unnecessary to find the genes to prove high heritability, but here you go douchebags.

>>6106603

>tfw seeing intellectual debate in terms of 'winning' and 'losing' instead of to share and exercise critical thinking

this is why some debates turn into flame wars

>>6106613

Either you misunderstand our position or you're intentionally creating a ridiculous exaggeration of what it is.

There are almost no scientists that believe genetics do not account to a significant degree of differences in cognitive ability between human.

However there's a logical leap from making the claim that there exist hereditary influences on IQ to making the claim that the hereditary influence is one's race itself.

>>6106614
It's a hot button topic and will be seen that way. It doesnt matter to me I'm biracial. But in a hundred years when they write this in history textbooks they will talk of winning or losing.

>>6106622
The hereditary influence is one's race? Nobody says that. What racial hereditarians say is that the different races genetically differ(I will murder anyone who mentions Lewontin and his fallacious argument), specifically that they differ in terms of mean IQ, and that these differences are rooted in biology.

>>6106628
it's a hot-button topic like evolution and climate change.

which is to say, not a hot-button topic at all.

just one that certain political and religious groups find controversial because science disagrees with their dogma.

>>6106685
I don't think its that cut and dry. I think the racialists are right, but we're far from conclusively proving our case.

>>6106628
>It doesnt matter to me I'm biracial

ugh, talk about getting the shaft from genetics…

>>6106710
It's not cut and dry, they're averages. Fijians have an average IQ of about 89, whites 100. so on average I should score 64.5, or 5.5 IQ points below the white mean. Well, whoopdy doo. Besides, I lucked out and got an IQ more than 2 SD's above the white mean. Statistics doesn't hold for individual cases. I score slightly higher than my white mother, my white half sister, and significantly higher than my white girlfriend.

>>6106718
Sorry, meant 94.5, finger must have grazed the wrong button.

>>6104766
you all seem to be conveniently forgetting - the jews are the true master race, in terms of intelligence, wealth, social contributions, etc...

>>6106749
I read a paper to the effect that ashkenazi jew intelligence comes at the price of an increase in certain hereditary conditions such as Tay Sachs.

http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/ashkiq.webpub.pdf

It's not conclusive yet, but it should give anyone out there who is a Jewish Supremacist some pause . . . incidentally do Jewish Supremacists even exist? Their are examples in pretty much every other race.