/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6312840
never because black people

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

>>6312854
das racis

I wish OP had gotten better schooling.

(Intelligencer has a substantial genetic component; it is surely not true that "intelligence is genetic".)

>>6312888
substantial as in at least 80%, possibly more

>>6312888
I went to school with 50% minorities, they held us back so I was extremely bored in school.. big waste of time

>>6312889
The usual number given is around .5. Where are you getting .8 from?

>>6312890
"Others are stupid because of their genes (nature). I am stupid because of environmental influences (nurture)."

No, son. It's your genes. You're genetically stupid.

>>6312891
where do you get .5 muh feels?

>>6312895
please define stupid

> when we will start seriously discussing this
Never. Because libtards will start flooding this thread and accuse everyone for being a raycist bigot.

>>6312905
It's you. You ARE stupid.

>>6312901
Hum Genet (2009)
Genetic foundations of human intelligence Ian J. Deary W. Johnson L. M. Houlihan

It's basically been clear from when intelligence tests began (around the turn of the 20th century) that intelligence was heritable.

Certainly since the last few decades all the evidence has pointed one way.

What's so terrible about this is that the supposedly science-loving West has been so anti-science when discussing intelligence and heritability. It's embarrassing.

Just watch, though, as the "progressives" act like the latest results are actually novel and unexpected, as opposed to simply confirming what most true scientists already knew.

It's heritable to a degree but epigenetics also factors in.

>/pol/ invasion

>The Spectator is a weekly British conservative
>generally supportive of the Conservative Party

Funny how retards accuse the opposition of being "radical progressives" while this is also political trash.

This is not science, it's politics now go back to /pol/.

Actual science says that intelligence correlates around .5 with your parents, showing both a strong genetic and environmental component.

>>6312934
>>6312941

> intelligence
> politics

Keep 4chan clean. Report reddit posters.

>>6312941
/pol/ is convinced of some liberal conspiracy trying to keep the knowledge that IQ has approx. .5 heritability secret.

What they actually think science says: "niggers are dumb, whites are smart". What science says: well, as a stochastic tendencies, certain patterns develop which we can estimate numeric... hey, why are you all snoring?

>Faces will fall, there’ll be talk of eugenics, perhaps a sudden burst of inexplicable fury. This I know because I’ve felt it myself.

The second paragraph is some of the most stupid and defendant text I've read in a while. The comment section is also very interesting and speaks volumes about the clientele of this paper

>>6312951
>>6312953
>>6312941
>>6312934

Hey there, /pol/ here. Just calm down there reddit, stop panicking whenever you're faced with facts. It's cute you're trying to misguide people as always, but /pol/ is very aware of the lack of education and social support in where the majority of black people live. This doesn't change the fact that the outcome is a statistical decrease in intelligence in racial demographics. Unfortunately your 'feels' aren't enough to change facts.

> /pol/ is convinced of some liberal conspiracy
We're not the one who thinks IQ tests are the evil plans of racist white men trying to oppress black people. We had such nice threads about intelligence on /sci/ years ago before you flood into every thread and accuse people of racism. It's not our fault if facts don't fit your worldviews. But these accusations only make you a subject of ridicule.

We wish black people could get better education, we wish media stopped iconizing 'the cool black thug who isn't afraid of committing crimes' and started to influence black people in a good way.

So stop insisting for being the problem, and start fixing it.

>>6312984
keep /pol/ on /pol/, its a rule

>>6313001
ironic, since reddit isn't even allowed on 4chan, yet you still post

>>6312984
you have my internetz kind sir and my admiration.

>>6312984
>muh pseudoscience

gb2>>>/pol/

On /sci/ we accept facts and it is a well known fact that all people are of equal intelligence. IQ is wrong and you know it.

I don't think intelligence is a quantifiable thing. Real life is not like D&D, your son is not going to inherit all 9 of your intelligence points.

>>6313066 I never give away my internets I need them to pornography fap folders get boring because >>6312325 also his post was not that good anyhow

>keeping my nets for myself

>>6312984
IQ tests are fucking bullshit and you know. Intelligence can't be measured like that, just because someone does not meet a paper's expectation of smart doesn't mean they are not. A child in Africa will get a 50 on an IQ test but be able to make a radio out of sticks and radio wire.

>>6313076
tis multifactorial you can train a chickun to play knots and crosses but some retards still cant get it does not mean chickun is smarter than retard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HU5YxRzKQw

>>6313089

>IQ tests are fucking bullshit

IQ tests are not bullshit. They aren't the final measurment of intelligence but they give a pretty good estimate. A child in africa would never be given an IQ test in the first place, IQ tests are designed for civilized countries. And black people in western societies met all the criteria to be able to do IQ tests. And they still have less results then white people.

But it is less about race and more about them being poor. Poor people are less intelligent, it's simple as that. And black people are mostly poor everywhere in the west.

>>6313089
> IQ tests are white mans tool to keep black man down.
You dropped your tinfoil hat there.

>>6313076
>I don't think intelligence is a quantifiable thing

Exactly.

That's why, if we were about to have a major surgery, and the nurse came in, and said "Would you like the operation to be done by the doctor with an IQ of 150, or the one with an IQ of 80?"

We'd all say "Either, it doesnt matter, because intelligence isnt quantifiable, so their IQ is irrelevant"

>>6313089
So is it a giant coincidence that the smartest man in the history like Einstein, Kasparov and the brand new teen genius Jacob barnett had top IQs ?

>>6313089
should i show you back to reddit or you can just GTFO all by yourself

It's funny how white people never bitch about how asians and jews have much bigger IQs then them, but suddenly it's raycism and bigotry and muh feels when it's about black peoples IQs.

>>6313120

and how black never stop pointing out how they are physically superior and dominate sports on a physical level

>>6313007
>reddit
What are you talking about? I'm only enforcing the rules, now please stop shitposting /sci/, we will never agree with you.

>>6313120
I don't know if OP is right, average parents have above avg. intelligent kids all the time (i.e. Jacob barnett) but asians aren't necessarily smarter...it is culture conditioning if anything. Nixon really wanted to bring China up from the dark ages otherwise they were still riding horse s, squatting and cooking in streets (still do) and have wretched sanitation practices.
Sure they may have been ingenious and invented gun powder and perhaps the first algebra but every civiliation has its moments. Jews, well, they may be a bit smarter but here again they fucking push and push their kids to be professionals, it is like engrained into them.

>>6313115
except he is right
iq tests are crap
not complete bullshit but crap
there is a lot of criticism to them, you can google if you are interested

>>6312891
The number usually given is a estimate based of combined child and adult samples. People who want a low number use the child samples, people who want the more interesting number pick the adult samples. Heritability increases linearly to adulthood where it is about 0.85 in western samples, and this is with 2 methodological drawbacks: 1) not correcting for measurement error, 2) not using the latent factor but using the theoretically uninteresting IQ aggregate.

>Just watch, though, as the "progressives" act like the latest results are actually novel and unexpected, as opposed to simply confirming what most true scientists already knew.

It won't continue forever. Right now they can hide with criticism of adoption and twin studies, and these studies are not perfect, but they are pretty good. However, modern studies can estimate heritability from identity by descent or GWAS. No need for any assumptions. No more places to hide.

>>6312941
It's an interview with one of the top researchers in the field.

>>6313076
>>6313089
>>6313112 (ironic tho)

If only we had decades of data about this, oh wait, we do!

Data like these are complete coincidences right?

>>6313409
There are plenty of studies of northeast Asians outside Asia, and they do well too. There are even some cross-racial adoption studies with similar results. It's not culture.

>>6313414
A lot of criticism, yes. A lot of good criticism, no.

>>6312840

Never because heritable intelligence means races being superior and racial superiority leads to racial warfare.

I acknowledge the differences between the race, but keep quiet so that society can function while blacks get all the affirmative actions spots taken from asians & whites for "diversity".

>>6313109

>A child in africa would never be given an IQ test in the first place, IQ tests are designed for civilized countries.

A child in africa wouldn't be given one because 7 times out of 10 they would be malnurished and make for a bad tester.

>And black people in western societies met all the criteria to be able to do IQ tests. And they still have less results then white people.

Yeah because slavery didn't select for high intelligence you retard. The whole point was to get able "bodied" manual labor not able "minded" mental labor. Had colonist went into africa and said "lets find the most intelligent blacks and enslave them instead" given a few centuries later they would probably match whites if not be slightly higher because you would have bottlenecked them to a particular trait their native environment rarely selected for.

>>6312840
>thinking evolution is genetic
>thinking human speciation works that fast
>being this retarded and out of touch in 2014

>>6312984
>travels back in time a few hundred years and performs IQ tests.
>compares tests to modern results
Holy shit, people are evolving fast. They're practically a separate species now. The difference between races is tiny in comparison.

>>6312840
only bout 50% of that ther intelligenze stuff is genetic

>yfw /pol/ was right all along and the "progressives" have to admit through clenched teeth that intelligence in genetic
>yfw it was obvious from the start

i am smarter than my parents

>>6314595
i never met my father, and my mom only slept with him once, so it's kind up in the air.

>>6312888
>Intelligencer

Here is what I don't get.
Twins correlate about .75 but brothers (not twins) only about .45 ?

Doesn't that mean that you always get different genetic components passed down ?

>>6314595

Sexual reproduction has many benefits that cloning does not.

>>6314626
>Doesn't that mean that you always get different genetic components passed down ?

But that's the point, anon

>>6314626
>Doesn't that mean that you always get different genetic components passed down ?

Yes.....

>>6314595
>a teenager thinks he is smarter than his parents

you don't say!

>>6314487
Since you are implying that the intelligent ones were bred out, can you point some evidence that black people before discovered by white people were just as intelligent as caucasoids. Africa has the most native cereals more than any other continent or country, but yet their civilizations were shit compared to Europe and China. And keep in mind this is before the evil white came and enslaved them.

>>6314709
>>6314711
So why make a big fuss about it when it's just a random number generator in the end ?

>>6314757
>So why make a big fuss about it when it's just a random number generator in the end ?

Huh?

>>6314712
Which he quite likely is, since intelligence falls with age. Depending on his age and parents age, ofc, he might be smarter.

>>6314449
>Never because heritable intelligence means races being superior and racial superiority leads to racial warfare.

No. You are conflating within group heritability with between group heritability.

>>6314487
Blacks in the US are much smarter than those in SS Africa. About 10 points difference (85 vs. 75). Keep in mind that those in the US are 22% white too.

>>6314501
Subspeciation, yes, it does.

>>6314575
The evidence was quite plausible even in Galton's time. Try reading his book from the late 1800's. http://www.galton.org/books/hereditary-genius/index.html

>>6312840
>popular interest piece
>"And what his research shows time and time again (said my friend)"
>PI shooting shit with the journalist, spitting out numbers like "30 per cent to 40, 50, 60 — some people even say it becomes 80 per cent heritable.’
>abstract of a forthcoming paper
itt pubmed "discovers" whatever it wants to hear

>>6315258
tl;dr people won't "seriously discuss this" with you because you're not fucking researchers and you suck at reading research

try writing a fucking paper with you know twenty or thirty citations if you want to "discuss" this it will be one data point

>>6313076
No, he'll inherit 8 out of your 10 intelliegence points.

>>6314754

>Since you are implying that the intelligent ones were bred out,

Wrong I never stated the intelligent ones were bred out, I stated that,

>The whole point was to get able "bodied" manual labor not able "minded" mental labor.

Which means that colonist looked for those who either looked physically able or healthy enough for manual labor first and everything else second. So whatever they got in terms of other traits besides physical aptitude and health they got by random chance because they didn't bother to look for it

For instance just by random chance they shipped an African named Thomas Fuller (obviously named after he got to America) who was in fact a mental calculator but they never publicly investigated his ability until he was around 70 years old. He never got the chance to receive a formal education and it's unclear if he even had a chance to have family. So it is possible in that instance they did selected out a black with math prowess who could have contributed back into their genetic pool.

>their civilizations were shit compared to Europe and China.

It depends on what you mean by "shit", sure they made little progress in the sciences but in terms economics, law and general organization of a developed power they had a decent amount of societies that were apparently good enough to do constant trade with outside powers in the middle east, india and southern europe. Examples of this include Meroe of Nubia, Songhai Empire of Mali, the Ashanti Empire of Ghana and the Benin Empire of Nigeria.

>>6315240

>Blacks in the US are much smarter than those in SS Africa. About 10 points difference (85 vs. 75). Keep in mind that those in the US are 22% white too.

I'm well aware of that but you need to keep in mind that 10 point difference comes from better nutrition, selective pressure in reading/writing, admixture from both whites and/or native american indians and isolation from possible admixture from Khoisans who supposedly average a 65 IQ.

>>6315452
>I'm well aware of that but you need to keep in mind that 10 point difference comes from better nutrition, selective pressure in reading/writing, admixture from both whites and/or native american indians and isolation from possible admixture from Khoisans who supposedly average a 65 IQ.

I agree with this. I regard the difference between US africans and europeans as mostly genetic, while the one between US europeans and SSA africans as more mixed environment+genetic divide. I think this is in line with majority expert opinion in the field, even if rarely stated.