/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8528385
How do you go from
>X group of people has a lower average IQ
to
>Actually, slavery was very good, blacks deserve to be forcibly disenfranchised and purged from American society

/pol/ hated nonwhites already and IQ data are simply more evidence they use to justify pre-existing hatred.

you dont argue with them

there are millions of hicks too with sub 90 iqs because they were born into poverty and had shit education growing up

/pol/ also is dumb as fuck thinking iq even matters

give me the person with a 100 iq but who has a 4.0 and studies daily over the 190 iq'd genius who doesnt try at all and gets c's

>>8528385
>i know you all call the /pol/ people racist etc or say that they are not being scientific, but it is possible i guess (nothing that really stops it happening) so what would you say?
>i can imagine a world where blacks have lower IQs so i'll use that to affect my decisions in a world where its been empirically verified that they don't

retarded question

>>8528385
Imagine…
Imagine for a moment that creationists ran the government, academia, and the media. Now, if you’ve ever argued with creationists, you know that no matter what you say, no matter what you show them, you simply can not get them to accept the incontrovertible evidence for evolution. Rather, they insist that the world was literally created in six days by God as recited in Genesis in the Bible, and will twist the facts so as to favor this belief.

ark-encounter1-730x411They are known for bringing lawsuits and appealing to their political leaders to silence anyone that dares utters the facts about evolution and exposes their children to such blasphemy. They even have their own parallel “creation science” nonsense, displayed in places like their Noah’s Ark museum.

james-watson-010But even better, since these people run society, anyone that breaks the official dogma and speaks the truth of evolution can lose their job – indeed be blacklisted so they never work in their profession again – be publicly shamed and harassed in mass media, and subject to witch hunts.

Now imagine that these people in fact actually do run society, only instead of denying evolution completely, they deny that it applies to humans, especially within the last 50,000 years…
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/

liberal reactions are just ad hominems

>>8528431
>wordpress

didn't click lol

shove watson up your ass

>>8528433
>ad hominems

You didn't click, and you don't deserve to click. Knowledge is forbidden for you because you are a bitch and a coward.

In the future, someone will kill you for being anti-scientific. The pro-Science Inquisition will burn you like the bitch you are.

And the kids will laugh at you.

Now keep praying to Mecca, bitch.

I wouldn't waste my time, most people don't have a fucking clue about how statistics and averages work, especially when it involves population genetics.

>>8528433
>>>8528431

>>8528442
So do actual geneticists take random HBD bloggers seriously? Where did said bloggers earn their PhDs?

>>8528385
> what would you say to the /pol/ people if it was found out now that blacks had genetically inferior IQ to whites
I would change nothing.
Biology is a shitty softscience
Psychology doesn't even qualify as a soft science, but is a humanity.
Psychometrics is shit upon even in psychology.
So you're litterally pulling up the shit of the shit of the shit, and calling it useful.
Pathetic.

> How would you combat /pol/?
delete /pol/
ban ips whoever posted on /pol/
actually moderate the other boards and aggressively ban people who post /pol/ shit

>>8528401
but it means for every hick with a 70 iq thers more blacks so... no argument.

>>8528431
irrelevant. make a shorter, more understandable, more readable response please

>>8528485

dude i am OP and im saying now, if you say that, you literally don't understand science and you don't understand the concept of validity. You are shit.

How is it possible for Tao to have an IQ of 230? By the IQ scale and that solid number -- not some guess or "estimate" on the test -- he is the smartest person to have ever lived on the top of this planet so far.

>>8528385
Prejudice is scientific
IQ variance between populations is scientific, really it's unfortunate that liberals don't just accept this, just like they can accept that people are different colours, weights, heights etc etc etc

>>8528626
'no'

black people are like 15% of the population

liberals are faggots i hope they all move to canada or australia

I would tend towards not arguing with /pol/. Many people on /pol/ have some dissonant need to hate people who aren't white, so they would become extremely protective of another point of argument they've attempted to add to their arsenal.

Then again, I'm in a bit of a unique position which would cause me to not necessarily be able to identify with the reality of such results. You see, I'm black. By 22, I held undergraduate and graduate degrees in a STEM field from a prestigious university, I had published a paper solving an open problem in my field, and I worked in a position paying in the top 5% of the general pay range for my field. Whether at work or in school, I never felt as though I was being outpaced by anybody, white, black, Asian, or otherwise, and, compared to everybody else, I did as well or better in nearly all cases. Simultaneously, though, I've never met a black person who I felt was below me, and I've never felt as though I was more intelligent than anybody else. Sometimes I see people (black and white) who aren't so well to do, but the glaring issue to me seems to be upbringing and priorities more so than some sort of inherent inferiority. As such, my own subjective experience has not shown any truth to the statement that blacks are any less intelligent to whites.

>>8528713

IQ variance within population is scientific as well, no? Blacks also objectively have a higher variance in IQ than whites, despite being a smaller racial group.

Perhaps it could be of note to sample the upper tail of the IQ range for blacks to determine whether there is, perhaps, a dominating ethnic subgroup of blacks causing greater variance in the positive direction. In general, it would be interesting to compare the IQ distribution of the subgroups contributing to the different ranges of the overall IQ distribution of blacks (low, middle, high) to see how the individual distributions among these groups compare (a) amongst themselves and (b) against the white IQ distribution.

Viewing the distributions of subgroups would be valuable because it would be important to explore the cause of the greater variance in IQ among blacks. If the cause is environmental or social, then we could experiment with changing those factors to see how the distribution is changed. If the cause is genetic, then this would be evidence that black DNA is more 'elastic' than white DNA with respect to variability in intellect; in the case of CRISPR, this would point to an opportunity to use gene editing to create vastly more intelligent people by taking advantage to the greater elasticity of black 'IQ genes.'

>>8528816

Of course, in the latter case, I'm not sure about how /pol/ would feel about the prospect of blacks being edited to be potentially more intelligent than whites on average. It honestly seems to me that /pol/ becomes offended at even the prospect of blacks being objectively 'superior' in any way to whites, even in the hypothetical situation of an opportunity for advancement in genetic research.

There's always going to be humans who are low IQ, making note of that fact that certain groups are less intelligent than others isn't necessarily warranted when you consider the unquantifiable network of groups and people there are on this planet.

That isn't to say that I'm against profiling, but I'd only be for intelligent profiling, and race is too general to efficiently classify people in the majority of cases, though obviously it depends on the circumstance and resources available to you.

>>8528638
That's because you're a /pol/tard who doesn't know any better.
Become a practicing, publishing scientist in a real non-meme field (like psychology) and we can talk.
Until then, you're just another pleb cluttering up this board.

>>8528392
But I don't want to hate them. I just want to make sure that it becomes common knowledge.

>>8529268
Africa consists of the biggest human genetic variety, it's not a stretch to say the smartest man on earth is probably some random black guy in Africa.

>>8528802
>I had published a paper solving an open problem in my field

You just have no fucking idea how envious I am right now.

>>8528401
>/pol/ also is dumb as fuck thinking iq even matters
>give me the person with a 100 iq but who has a 4.0 and studies daily over the 190 iq'd genius who doesnt try at all and gets c's

Not a very common occurrence, I think. With similiar levels of effort, the guy with the higher IQ will generally do better/make more money. Pic related

>>8529494

To be honest, it's not as rewarding as you would think. I'm certainly happy that I did it, but my time at the conference simply showed me that academia isn't for me (which is a good thing to discover sooner rather than later).

There's always something bigger and something better you can attempt to solve; it becomes tiring laboring after recognition which essentially amounts to nothing at the end of the day.

>>8529551
You've at least achieved something in your life. I'll probably never get to know how that feels.

(I don't want to blame you of anything or make you feel bad, I'm just venting.)

>>8529573

You don't need to be a genius if you want to solve an open problem. All I did was work for a large(r) company one summer as an intern on a company-sponsored research project. When picking my specific topic, I just asked my boss if he was aware of any fundamental open problems in the area, and then I worked on them. One of them turned into a paper.

All you have to do is find the problems, work on them, and then show what you come up with to somebody.

If /pol/ cared about the superior breeding further and the overall IQ rising, they'd be cool with purging the low IQ INDIVIDUALS (not groups, because you take their geniuses with them in doing so) in order to fix the US. There is nothing morally wrong with this if it's done through a policy that restricts breeding through sterilization or reduction in welfare programs and doesn't involve killing living persons.

However, a substantial proportion of the /pol/ population is made up of stormfags and inbreds who are themselves low IQ, so the only way they could ever feel accomplished is to piggyback off the achievements of those with the same skin colour as they'll never have their own.

>>8528385
Even if blacks on average have lower IQ than other races, IQ follows a bell curve distribution. There are still millions of black people with above average IQs, so it's both foolish and unethical to arbitrarily bar all black people them from advancement in society because of their race alone.

>>8528401
>because they were born into poverty and had shit education
Then explain american urban youth aka nigglets? Why do they keep scoring bad grades even though they have the same education?

>>8530462
>only a few percent of blacks are capable to function properly in society
>it would be unethical to block them from society
Would it? I say we would be happier without sub 100 iq subhumans

>>8530462

Barring is unreasonable, sure

but what about what we have today? Artificial measures to further them (diversity quotas, affirmative action, grant/scholarship money) based off of the possibly incorrect assumption that they are really as smart (collectively) as whites, oftentimes slighting more qualified candidates?

Seems unfair and counter-intuitive

>>8528802
>As such, my own subjective experience has not shown any truth to the statement that blacks are any less intelligent to whites
funny how you list all those laurels to try and point out how smart you are, yet are too stupid to understand anecdotal evidence.
whether you measure by iq, school performance, or whatever you reasonably want, blacks do worse. significantly worse in fact. Your personal experience means nothing in the face of statistics, and you should know this.

>>8528802
What is your field? Ethnic studies? :^)

>>8528802

Then you should know how normal distributions work and how irrelevant the fact that you are smart and capable is in a very general discussion

>Ashkenazi Jew average IQ of 113

>make up around 50% of academia, but only 2-3% of the general population

>nobel prizes all day long

That would be a little awkward for /pol/.

>>8530483
Only the smartest found way out of Auschwitz ;^)

>>8530472

Not him but affirmative action when it concerns minorities was put in place originally because the government couldn't trust most colleges into giving them a fair shot in the first place regardless of their qualifications.

The quotas, grant money etc came well after the fact when colleges became concerned with looking appealing to the collective masses.

First and foremost affirmative action for college was a trust issue not an intelligence issue in the beginning.

>>8530483

>>8530510
You don't believe that even yourself. Affirmatieve action is becouse gibs me dat attitude' amongst minorities.


And if they are so good, then how come they can go in with worse SAT score?

>>8530510

The modern defense of it is that it is "balancing out" demographics that "should exist" rather than the outcome that reality determined

this leads to things like very underqualified blacks getting into med school and obtaining an MD, which is crazy to me

So I don't like either statement, that anyone should be barred or favored based off of it

>>8528385
>what would you say to the /pol/ people
gtfo

I would say nothing. So what if blacks are dumber? What would you even do about it, other than maybe lax affirmative action a bit?

Black IQ isn't totally indicative of ability. Blacks are bad at deferring gratification, so will do worse on IQ tests even if they are isointelligent.

Furthermore, blacks like to operate in the real world, and do difficult tasks based on the reward they'll garner from it. Taking an IQ test is rewardless, and is quite literally nerd masturbation.

Race "realists" also like to pretend that IQ tests can't be gamed. They can, it's really easy. Someone who takes a few IQ tests will absolutely "develop" a higher IQ.

tldr; blacks are probably dumber, but not by as much as racists think, and racists are just as emotional in their biases as leftists are, if not moreso.

>>8530518

>You don't believe that even yourself. Affirmatieve action is becouse gibs me dat attitude' amongst minorities.

Anon you literally have historical documentation showing rejection of minority students by a number of colleges decades ago.

Yeah, maybe now it's about entitlement bullshit but back then it wasn't because they literally had no culture of "entitlement" to fall back on.

>And if they are so good, then how come they can go in with worse SAT score?

Because you're focusing on averages here. The upper percentile more than qualify.

Again at this point in time it's more an image issue with colleges right now. Which is why when you go in for grad programs just having a high GPA and score won't cut it anymore because they got that shit in the bag.

>>8528450

>HBD bloggers

Razib Khan is pretty based.

Most of the others are complete shit, ranging from full on stormfag, to ancient aliens, to baseless speculation.

>>8528392
The data speaks for itself. If you are a legitimate scientist then that is all you need. Colouring it with social and political bias is a mistake. >Right when liberals do it
>wrong when everyone else does it.
This is why your ideology is dying.

>>8529443
Eh yeah, it probably is though. The average IQ of Africans is 70, which means that there are also many people there with IQs of 50. Gorillas can achieve similar results.

>>8530526

>The modern defense of it is that it is "balancing out" demographics that "should exist" rather than the outcome that reality determined

Well as obtuse as it appears the logic is theoretically sound due to how the economy that exist right now functions. Where you can borrow, sell and buy "debt" that tangibly doesn't exist.

>this leads to things like very underqualified blacks getting into med school and obtaining an MD, which is crazy to me

Yeah, it is crazy I won't argue with you on that.

>>8530559

>Gorillas can achieve similar results.

This is why nobody take you seriously, lol. You keep injecting emotional unscientific hyperbole in order to fuel your emotional superiority complex.

If race realists just said "blacks have lower IQs, and there is likely a strong genetic basis that contributes to this", and the movement wasn't a 97% stormfag circlejerk, people might actually not hate you that much.

However it is, so they do.

>>8529496
Your pic isn't related to your statement at all retard.

The only thing /pol/ has taught me is that jews and asians are the superior race.

>>8528802
yeah well I'm a head chef at wendy's making $300k/year and I think you're a fag

>>8528385
>what would you say to the /pol/ people if it was found out now that blacks had genetically inferior IQ to whites
> so what would you say? How would you combat /pol/?
What's the point then if they were right?

>>8528385
>if it was found out now that blacks had genetically inferior IQ to whites

What would you say to The New Black Panthern Party if it was found out that white people are in fact a soulless species that lost their melanin (ie, soul) and try to fill the void with violence (2 world wars), slavery, and tech worship instead of caring for the mother-Earth ?

>>8530559
>he thinks he is the superior arian ubermensch

lol retard, you're just loser expressing its deep inherent hate in a chinese forum.

>Colouring it with social and political bias is a mistake

also you're a moron if you think that some slightly different iq points between two ethnics groups should should justify slavery. go back to /pol/ you don't belong here kiddo

>>8528385
>How would you combat /pol/?

By feeding them so much disinformation they'll have to become more skeptical and look shit up before they spew their nonsense. It has happened before.

>>8528385
>statistics
>muhbologists
>race IQ
"Ghost hacked humans (i.e. red pilled) are so pathetic, and this poor bastard has been hacked pretty badly."

>>8530553
Note that he has a PhD. This is not a feature of other HBD bloggers.

>>8530559
How about a more extreme version of this worldview: if 15 IQ points and some behavior differences imply subhuman status, given the fact that a small smart fraction of humanity does all the work anyway, why not just purge all /pol/acks too? They are under 130 IQ.

>>8528385
/sci/ never denies the intellectual difference averages between different races.

Nice try tho

>>8531462
/sci/ is not one person

>g.
the fuck is a g you retard, is it "psychology" or "psychometrics" or some shit
does "g" include """""""""""""""verbal"""""""""""""" IQ too, because that's the most environemntal shit you can imagine
>but iq correlates
yeah which way is the arrow going => , <= or <=> ?? is it in the womb, is it genes if so which genes and what proteins do they code for and which brain function do the proteins, which alleles bla bla, theres only 1 (not made up) gene accounting for over 1% iq DIFFERENCE significance i've seen posted and it was again just a fucking correlation

why are the fucking mexicans black tier if they are mostly euro + asian(amerindians came to america 10k years ago), why were the irish and are the balkans still lagging, why are palestinians who are genetically the same as ashk. jews not controlling all the banks(https://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Nebel-HG-00-IPArabs.pdf)), why do women who have the same IQs are lagging, why do indians with their 80 iq have an ok country with a space program and nukes, despite being insanely multicultural, were colonized and all kinds of other bullshit
to reach your comfy conclusion about IQ being the end all be all you've had to make a dozen assumptions one after the other, probabilities of the assumptions multiplying on top of one another (look at the equation at this page if you don't know it or understand it then fuck off it's used in CS and math and physics not psychometry(https://www.scq.ubc.ca/the-murphys-law-equation/))
have you asked yourself why mainstream science hasn't said yes to the race war yet, no it's not le ((((jews)))) - they have good scientific reasons, maybe you ought to respect that - if they asked you about memes you'd be the expert

your shit is full of holes, you just don't know enough science or have enough skepticism to see the holes

pic related
WHITE POWER amirite, but no, muh creativity, super scientific and measurable because history started 400 years ago you see

>>8531423
?

>>8531501
nice copypasta faggot keep denying white superiority you fucking shill

>>8530468
Same education? Are you kidding me? Education goes outside just the school you're enrolled into. It begins so early. Having parents that read to you at home, good day-care, etc. all help. Shit education goes beyond just the highschool you attend.

If you have a black kid raised in a middle class home and they go to a school with other kids raised in similar environments, s/he will get similar results. The socioeconomic environment at school and at home matters more than anything.

>>8528401
>you don't argue with /pol/
firstly, /pol/ isn't one person. secondly, race realism is scientifically justified. there are clear differences between whites and blacks that point out the (obvious) truth that blacks indeed are inferior. you can keep blaming the failures of the black community on socioeconomic factors as much as you like, but the truth is that even if given the same socioeconomic circumstances, blacks will still underperform.

>>8531554
>blacks and whites will perform the same if given the same socioeconomic context
this is a blatant lie. statistics and experiments (e.g. the transracial adoption experiment) prove the opposite. in all honesty, everything you need to do in order to see black inferiority is to open your eyes, but even if healthy reasoning isn't enough for you, empirical evidence unquestionably proves the inferiority of the black race.

>>8531547
>im so edgin
>le ebig whitey supremacy

>>8531582
>>8531569
>blacks vs whites
There is more than two races.

if you remove, verbal iq, which you should, because it's environmental, it doesn't have to do with real mathematical intellect or pattern recognition - the gap between Asians and the rest widens.

You cannot deny it, even with AA fucking them, they still are vastly overrepresented in (top) universities, math classes and science in general.

>inb4 not creative
They have been creative for thousands of years, history isn't just the last 400 years.

>>8531547
>if it's pasta it must be false, waaah, waaah

>>8531602
your argument is irrelevant. I was discussing whites and blacks, not whites and asians.

>>8531620
>I was discussing whites and blacks, not whites and asians.
I wonder why.

>>8531639
a brilliant insinuation! obviously i'm a frustrated basement dweller who posts on /pol/, right?

i care exclusively about the truth. the leftist pseudo-science and anti-intellectualism makes me ill.

Statistics doesn't lie. /pol/ is always right

>>8528431
>libruls say that evolution hasn't caused a significant heritable difference in one trait (intelligence) in the past 50,000 years among anatomically modern humans, a slow-breeding, long-lived, and highly intelligent species that (over most of the time period studied) lived in tribal groups and cared for the weak and infirm.
>that's saying that evolution didn't happen at all over that timespan!
of COURSE evolution operated on humans over that interval. that's why sub-Saharan Africans and Polynesians have dark skin and flat noses (for UV protection and easy breathing) while Northern Europeans and Sioux have paler skin and long noses (more Vitamin D and protection against cold air). it's just that the assumption that evolution MUST HAVE CAUSED DIVERGENCE IN THIS PARTICULAR TRAIT OF INTEREST is faulty.
Would you assume that between two species of perch isolated for thousands of years, one would have become better at getting oxygen out of the water than the other? unless one was trapped in a stagnant lake with poor circulation; it's extremely unlikely, because water-breathing is so central to the mode of life of most fish that it's highly conserved. similarly, intelligence is key to the mode of life of (ancestral but anatomically modern) humans; the ability to hunt and work as a group, the ability to cook food, the ability to make tools, all of those depend on intelligence. and despite moving to different climates, that reliance on intelligence remained central to all known races of humanity. it's unrealistic to assume that intelligence would be selected for in Greece but not in Angola or vice versa.
if you really understand evolutionary biology, you know that evolution doesn't necessarily mean dramatic change. organisms only change insofar as their environment pushes them to.

>liberal reactions are just ad hominems
ironically, that's an ad hom itself. rather than respond to counterarguments, you dismiss them by referencing the identity of the speaker.

>>8531657
Using your logic, Asians are the master race and whites should be subservient to them.

>>8528385

Thread's too long and I'm not going to bother reading it, but I have the correct answer.

The cause is likely epigenetic, since intergenerational trauma affects gene expression in offspring.

In other words, the crimes of history are still carved into the genomes of the living.

To put it another way, being a slave makes your great-great-grandchildren dumber.

To rephrase that, white people created this problem.

>>8533443

>The cause is likely epigenetic, since intergenerational trauma affects gene expression in offspring.

I can't believe people fell for this lie. Explain the mechanism for how this happens in a logical way. Especially when such information is "cleared" multiple times during reproduction.

>>8533443
>>8533448
Let me put it another way

If I rip off a baby's arm. That is classified as something epigenetic. It's a very vague thing and all the "intergenerational trauma studies" are basically bullshit as are pretty much every specific gene study.

There is a lot of bullshit in the field.

What's the point of threads like this?
What's the point of making it publicly known white's have higher IQ's?
Does it make you feel smarter about yourself?
Does it make you feel less insecure?
You know, no matter what your IQ is, or how smart you think you are, you are just as worthless as everyone else who isn't a published scientist with vast knowledge on a field. Since you browse /pol/ im willing to bet you are even more retarded than an average white person. Probably why you feel the need to feel smarter than blacks.

>>8528385
Even if it were genetically proven that blacks lacked brain genes, it wouldn't change anything. The IQ data is far and beyond proof of their inferiority. Every possible rebuttal has a well-researched answer in favor of the theory. At this point denying that blacks are mentally inferior is like being a Creationist.

Yet the mainstream still doesn't accept it. So what may I ask would any further evidence do to change their minds?

>>8528392
Slavery was a massive mistake. Niggers would NEVER have come to white countries otherwise.

>>8528385
Yes I fucking knew. /pol/ was right. Praise Kek.

Ps: nobody in 4chan is unironically liberal.

>>8533255

>>8531602
I bet if you separated out the "Pacific" from the Asians, and further separated the junglegooks, the gap would be ridiculous.

>>8533555
>What's the point of making it publicly known white's have higher IQ's?

Because it's the truth?

What's the point of making it publicly known the Earth is round? GTFO nigger.

>>8528385
>How would you combat /pol/?

IQ and intelligence is not everything. By /pol/'s own logic then everyone should submit into anyone who's smarter than them, and it has been shown with mild statistical significance that Asians, Ashkenazi Jews, and Atheists for example tend to score better on IQ then the regular white trash Americans. Jews win Nobel prize in physics, chemistry, and biology disproportionately compared to other races.

What matters is as Peter Singer said it, equal consideration of interest. People of all race have more of less the same basic, human interest with respect to pursuit of happiness, avoiding pain etc.

>>8533589
>US have 200 million in population
>Germany have 40

what's the deal with this graph?

>>8530471
>I say we would be happier without sub 100 iq subhumans
Why not get of the sub-100 IQ parts of every demographic then?

>>8533589
It's obviously faked/inaccurate. Try again.

>>8528762
This applies worldwide not only to america, dumb american liberal.

>>8530510
Anyone who supports affirmative action is an anti scientific anti logic retard who deserves to be publicly hanged.

>>8530468
In my city a lot of blacks live in the urbs. Schools in the urbs are way shittier than schools in the suburbs. I'm sure there is some data that can reinforce that more blacks live in urban areas than in suburban areas. And I think more data can reinforce the fact that most urban areas are predominantly black.

I lived in the suburbs and the valedictorian or my HS was black. I think two of the top tens (not percent) in my HS class were black. My school was probably 18ish% black. So I think blacks (or any other race) that go to good schools are just as inclined to perform well as their peers. Right now, I think there are two or so blacks in my class of 50ish graduating BcS for chem eng next year.

I think the problem lies in blacks that live in the underdeveloped or disadvantaged areas feel the need to remain in this socioeconomic class, in the same way that whites that live out in the country feel the need to remain in the same socioeconomic class. The fact that urban areas recieve more attention from the public AND the fact that urban areas are more heavily populated also adds to the fact that people interpret it this way.

This is not to say I disregard all possibility or different races being genetically less intelligent than other races. This needs to be further studied before we conclude anything. We are all physically and physiologically different after all.

t. non-white

>>8530471
>>8533648

>Be happier without sub-100

Then I guess that means you'll never be happy right? Because the moment you remove them the averages instantly change to correct for scaling and more than likely you will fall in it.

>>8533690

So you're including the Chinese too right? Because despite /sci/ and /pol/ circlejerk hatred for affirmative action in the U.S. China does the exact same shit with native non-Han Chinese.

>>8531412
No one in /pol/ advocates for slavery though. Most of those retards are white nationalists. Hyperbole like that only feeds their victim narrative.

Hello, /pol/ack here. In in a unique position since I'm Arab and this might affect my view on this since undoubtedly /pol/ would try to apply this to me, but I would say, that there are just some things that you shouldn't recognize and put into practice, it is completely immoral and unethical. Also I'm sure that people know this, but just pointing it out, is that generalizations such as this are only "racist" and "bad" if you employ this on a personal scale with a person, as in you see a smart black but you still call him stupid just because he's black. Generalizations based off true data, although technically racist, is fine. Although not when applied to things that could lead to an uprising of supremacy. Unless it's Arab supremacy. Fuck Germans and Iranians. Also fuck the Kurds, if Islam is pulling down Iraq, you're fucking coming with us.

>>8533977
>So you're including the Chinese too right? Because despite /sci/ and /pol/ circlejerk hatred for affirmative action in the U.S. China does the exact same shit with native non-Han Chinese.

Yeah sure? why do you think this somehow is supposed to change my mind

>>8531501
Here from /pol/ to answer your questions
>why are mexicans black tier if they are mostly euro + asian(amerindians came to america 10k years ago)
The "asian" DNA in amerindians did not undergo any long period of civilization (they were really just starting out when we entered the region), so forces of civilization did not provide selection pressure for higher IQ and self-control that we see in civilized races.
>why were the irish and are the balkans still lagging
The Irish, having a pleasant climate thanks to their island status and west coast location, never experienced selection pressure for planning ahead and long term survival through brutal winters, like the interior continent. The Balkans were destroyed by multicultural tensions.
>why are palestinians who are genetically the same as ashk. jews not controlling all the banks
The answer lies in recent selection pressure for Ashkenazi Jews (who happen to be genetically closest to Italians, not Palestinians). Looking through genealogical records, I believe it was Nicholas Wade who determined that Ashkenazi merchants and bankers tended to have 3 kids on average, while non merchants tended to have 2 kids on average. We see this recent evolution in the form of recessive genes that create neurological diseases, that when paired with more functioning genes cause an increase in IQ. Namely, tay-sachs, where sufferers are often reported to be incredibly intelligent, and which occurs almost exclusively in Jews.
>why do women who have the same IQs are lagging
because they don't have the massive motor complexes that men do to visualize concepts. Male spatial IQ is much greater than female.
>indians with their 80 iq have an ok country with a space program and nukes, despite being insanely multicultural, were colonized and all kinds of other bullshit
Ok IQ, ok country. They also had selection pressure under civilization for at least 2000 years.

>>8531554
What you are looking for, sir, is the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. They did exactly what you proposed, you should check and see if the results are what you said they would be.

>>8533863
Would you agree that the various races have different psychology? I.E., Asians tend to save more, blacks less; blacks tend to be better dancers, whites not so much; whites tend towards visual arts, other races not so much; whites like camping and fishing, other races not as much?

>>8533977
>China does the exact same shit with native non-Han Chinese.
Good lord why? That's pretty fucking retarded, and I would imagine the chinese would be smarter than that, but I suppose communism is one hell of a drug.

>>8530575
so much this

>>8529496
There are lots of lazy geniuses and hard-working idiots.

I was convinced I was the former for the first 20 years of my life, but when I realized that wasn't true I decided to at least be the latter. I think I'm just a better person now regardless, because the hard worker actually ends up knowing useful shit and has the capacity to contribute to society, building new shit or making medical discoveries.

The lazy intelligent person will work at Gamestop.

>>8528392

Yah, I don't why we should mistreat people based on their IQ number either.

>>8534013
>Here from /pol/
Oh, okay.
>The "asian" DNA in amerindians did not undergo any long period of civilization
yeah, beacuse europeans did undergo any long period of civilization in the DNA during the dark ages, sure sure, they were all selecting for IQ back then - no proof, just speculation

4 seasons continental climate (yes, that includes winter) is the easiest climate for crops and agriculture, europe has the best soil (black and brown) for crops, guess what north america has very similar climate, they had cities, trade and a civilization on par with dark ages europe
400 years is not enough for "DNA TO UNDERGO CIVILIZATION"
>motor complexes
very specific there, hmm - "complexes"
oh oh, so it's not all about IQ then, woah

you didn't answer all the questions, you addressed a part of them and those answers are just speculative and unsubstantiated by real genetics - anthropology guesswork
NO genetics mentioned, not a single gene

Nicholas Wade is a guy that writes whatever will make him more money no matter what - example: god GENE

you need to have more skepticism, i used to believe IQ was the answer until I started learning neuroanatomy, genetics and human biology

Hmm, how come science doesn't apply when muh racism comes to play? You understand that some africans has as equal intelligence as a baboon?

>>8535199

There are also some extraordinarily unintelligent whites. While we're pointing out the obvious about statistics, there are blacks out there who are more intelligent than virtually the entire body of living white people.

To honestly answer your question, a person who devotes his education and career to a STEM field will unavoidably begin to drift away from collectivist ideologies. To the scientist, the manifested ability of the self (and, to some extent, your peers) is the deciding factor in your ability to make progress and find success.

Concerns about which race is justified in talking down to other races are counted among the concerns of individuals who are too incapable and too dull to achieve anything of note themselves. Such people are the ones who are either too intellectually lacking to contribute anything of value or the ones too lazy to do put in the work required, and so they cling to whimsical ideas, one of which being the mistaken thought that having something in common with a successful individual will in some way excuse your own degeneracy.

Sadly, to those of us who do contribute (even to those who contribute while black), these people exhibit the sort of flawed existence which exists beyond all borders of race, religion, creed, and mental disability.

>tl;dr, to scientists, science always applies. The difficulty stems from the fact that minds (namely the ones that frequent /pol/) are sometimes too handicapped to understand what this entails.

>>8535251
Bla bla. Do you understand that making a wall of text doesn't make it more true?

>>8528392

Nobody makes that conclusion, so nice strawman. But if you think blacks having an IQ that is 1 sd lower than whites on average has no policy implications on a global level, you're naive.

>>8535272

I apologize for unfairly making the assumption that you were capable of reading.

... or perhaps my mistake was in assuming you had enough of an attention span to pay attention to something with less than a 3:8 word-picture ratio?

In any case, I gave you a relatively simple tl;dr. You should try to read it. I know it's hard, and I know it's asking a lot, but it would do you wonders to get some practice reading something more than short, angry sentence fragments accompanied by Windows Paint illustrations featuring poorly drawn depictions of black erections near white women.

>>8528385
I would laugh in your face because IQ tests are a joke, and furthermore there's no way to accurately define "black" or test large groups.

>>8528385
Collectivism is a cancerous ideology and a population group having a certain tendency is no justification for discrimination against its individuals or sending them to extermination camps.

>>8535304
>>8535307
Boo hoo. Truth hurts? The science is settled, and seems that your race didn't qualify.

>>8535303

I must apologize again! 3-8 picture-word ratio*

Would it be too ambitious of me to hope that you're evolved enough to catch this mistake?

>>8535310

You're right. The science is settled, and your short bus was too slow to finish the race.

>>8535310
>Boo hoo.

>>8535310
>>>/pol/

>>8535320

Looks like Asians have the bragging rights, having this--uh--600/800 math SAT score?

>>8535320
I'm a finn. Half-asian half-white masterrace :D
140 IQ+

mad?
>>8535325
>>>somalichan

>>8535320
Are whites getting dumber, or are Asians superhuman? What happened there?

Banking on whites getting dumber

>>8535374
Only the most intelligent asians come to US.

>>8532478
>similarly, intelligence is key to the mode of life of (ancestral but anatomically modern) humans; the ability to hunt and work as a group, the ability to cook food, the ability to make tools, all of those depend on intelligence. and despite moving to different climates, that reliance on intelligence remained central to all known races of humanity. it's unrealistic to assume that intelligence would be selected for in Greece but not in Angola or vice versa.
Intelligence is essential to chimpanzees, but they were unable to keep up with their homo cousins

>>8532478
Additionally, intelligence is more important in colder areas where you have to plan for the seasons or die.

>>8528431
It's not even 50k

neanderthals diverged 700k years ago and most modern humans have significant portions of their dna

>>8535374
There are a lot of stupid white people who bring the average down

I just don't like black people, baby. Why do I gotta come up with reasons to justify it to anybody?

If you have someone's DNA that means you are Grand -Grand...Grand-child of them. Neanderthals didn't die. They racemixed. WE are the neanderthals.

>>8535472
>Chinks can't even make a fucking escalator without killing anyone
Those numbers are inflated due to the government lying constantly and encouraging cheating on standardized tests

>>8528401
>>>8528401
Give me someone who follows orders and fills out paperwork correctly over someone with actual intelligence, the post

>>8535534
Probably. They also have an advantage in math because their words for numbers have fewer syllables, so they can store more numbers in short term memory.

>>8528392
This is the obvious answer

>>8528385
>genetic IQ
>100+ replies
Mods please ban me and set me free

>>8535609
What's wrong schlomo?

Worried that the goyim are thinking for themselves? Maybe you should up the flouride dose in our water.

>>8535636
Yes, the proud white race being done in by a bunch of jews and asians. I'm starting to feel like whites really aren't the "superior" race.

>>8530474
And your statistics mean nothing in the face of personal experience. It goes both ways.

For example, what does the phrase "blacks do significantly worse" refer to? It's when you compare the entirety of one population to another. But we don't mingle with entire populations, only a small fraction which is highly subject to other factors. Even if the average black person does "significantly worse" than the average white person, what about the average black scientist to the average white scientist? The black Alaskan to the white Alaskan? Every individual's social circle carves out non-random chunks of the population, making the populate statistic the least useful in our lived experiences.

Yes, I know the phrase "lived experience" has quite a history. But it is true: we do not live in our statistics, we live in our experiences. The statistic is not wrong; it is irrelevant. For the vast majority of situations, there are more useful sets of information available than a generalized correlation between IQ and skin color. Location, clothing, facial expressions, these contextual cues allow for a much more accurate assessment of a given situation. The population statistic should only be used if there's absolutely no other information that can be gleaned about the individual other than their skin color.

Still, I'm not >>8528802, and I didn't deny what you've written, so it might appear I've rambled against nothing. But I think I'm aiming at the heart of the issue, because while what you said may be true, most people aren't satisfied with simply observing this fact. They want to know how to apply it. Just like OP, they ask, "what do I do, now knowing the average black is dumber than the average white?" And the answer to the question of how to handle the racist truth is, "most of the time, nothing", because it's a useless statistic that serves no purpose to an individual's life except to fulfill intellectual curiosities to the tune of 300k starting.

>>8535644
>"what do I do, now knowing the average black is dumber than the average white?" And the answer to the question of how to handle the racist truth is, "most of the time, nothing", because it's a useless statistic that serves no purpose to an individual's life except to fulfill intellectual curiosities to the tune of 300k starting.
Stop affirmative action and unskilled immigration.

>>8535644
>The population statistic should only be used if there's absolutely no other information that can be gleaned about the individual other than their skin color.
That's not true. You should factor in all statistically significant info for best accuracy.

>>8535644

Underrated post. I actually am the quoted individual; what you say is precisely what I mean.

I understand normal distributions; I understand that I'm an anecdotal example; what I don't understand is blind generalization. In my social sphere, and in my professional and academic experience, rarely have I met a black person who does not keep up as well my peers. Though I am an exception in the overall statistical distribution encompassing all black people, I am not an exception among my racial minority within my social sphere.

The reality in which I have lived refutes the conclusion some would like to make about these statistics; thus, I do not relate to said conclusion.

>>8535660

The divide between what you say and reality is found in the conditions of statistical significance and accuracy. There is no data to support the claim that the global distribution accurately reflects the local distributions found at either extreme of the spectrum; this is evident in the fact that there is no data to support an assumption of statistical independence of the IQ distribution and other variables that interact with measures of intelligence (e.g., income, education, political affiliation, childhood factors, etc.).

A single distribution of "race and IQ" doesn't do much more than to showcase a yet unexplained phenomenon. Any serious statistical attempt to correlate race and IQ must necessarily provide data to support assumptions of independence, including (many) multi-variate distributions over (many) varied samples.

>>8528385
Every single person who denies the fact that there are legit racial differences in intelligence are doing so for ideological reason, not because they care about the truth. All of them. They go so far in their denial, that many of them start to preach gene denial.

>>8530446
No, because evidence also supports homogeneous societies. Building a first world civilization requires more then high IQ.

>>8530510
The fact that you believe that garbage is embarrassing. Only good thing affirmative action did was unintentionally give more evidence for the hereditary position.

>>8530545
>So what if blacks are dumber?

Oh, I dunno, it provides an elegant explanation for why the world is the way it is and how to maintain a first world nation. Why don't you move to Africa huh? I mean, so what if blacks are dumb? Right. Move to Africa.

>Race "realists" also like to pretend that IQ tests can't be gamed.

So you don't know a thing about intelligence research.

>tldr; blacks are probably dumber, but not by as much as racists think,

A whole standard deviation is not "tiny"

>>8530575
>This is why nobody take you seriously, lol. You keep injecting emotional unscientific hyperbole in order to fuel your emotional superiority complex. If race realists just said "blacks have lower IQs, and there is likely a strong genetic basis that contributes to this", and the movement wasn't a 97% stormfag circlejerk, people might actually not hate you that much.

Don't give me this fucking garbage. Do you realize that over 40% of intelligence researchers believe that the white-black IQ gap is about 60 to 80% genetic? Do you realize that you are claiming that the heads of the intelligence journal (which includes Rindermann, and Richard Lynn, people who have done research on race and IQ) and that a good deal of intelligence research pretty much hold the same "racial realist" interpretation? What emotional strawmanning. Race realism isn't as fringe as you think it is.

>you now realize IQ variance differs among races
This means that environmental impact may differ between races. You may be more likely to get smarter blacks by putting them in better environments, but whites are pretty much IQ locked. This means blacks have more potential and capability to become an intellectual superior regardless of their birth, it just has to be realized. A white person is pretty much locked in wherever they fall on the scale based on their parents.

Blacks are master race

>>8535644
>And your statistics mean nothing in the face of personal experience.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Doesn't change the fact that race is a better predictor then socioeconomic status when it comes to predicting your SAT score. It's almost like genes really do matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3lZe2OTBfQ

>>8535644
>For example, what does the phrase "blacks do significantly worse" refer to?

Being unable to create first world countries, unable to main first world standard of living, create unpleasant living conditions, lower educational achievements, do as well on IQ and SAT as whites or East Asians. The list goes on....

>>8535644
http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf

FINDING 7: MOST MEASURES OF THE ENVIRONMENT SHOW SIGNIFICANT GENETIC INFLUENCE

Although it might seem a peculiar thing to do, measures of the environment widely used in psychological science—such as parenting, social support, and life events can be treated as dependent measures in genetic analyses.
If they are truly measures of the environment, they should not show genetic influence. To the contrary, in 1991, Plomin and Bergeman conducted a review of the first 18 studies in which environmental measures were used as
dependent measures in genetically sensitive designs and found evidence for genetic influence for these measures of the environment. Significant genetic influence was found for objective measures such as videotaped observations of parenting

Why do measures of the environment show genetic influence? The reason appears to be that such measures do not assess the environment independent of the person. As
noted earlier, humans select, modify, and create environments correlated with their genetic behavioral propensities such as personality and psychopathology. For example, in studies of twin children, parenting has been found to reflect genetic differences in children’s characteristics such as personality
and psychopathology. Meta-analyses of parenting, the most frequently studied domain, have shown genetic influence that is driven by child characteristics as well as by parent characteristics. Shikishima, Hiraishi, Yamagata, Neiderhiser, and Ando (2012) compared parenting in Japan and Sweden and found that parenting in Japan showed more genetic influence than in Sweden, consistent with the view that parenting is more child centered in Japan than in the West.

Now take what you read in the context of what you said.

>>8535691

I care about the truth; I am not injecting ideology. I only ask to see statistics supporting the conclusion: I would like to see data which supports not only an association between race and IQ, but data which supports the claim of independence between the variables of race and other potentially confounding variables. More importantly, I would like to see data which may be used to quantify the effect of those confounding variables.

Another note: I would like the raw data, made available for raw analysis. A point commonly missed by laypeople is the fact that literally -any- distribution may be analyzed as a normal distribution, even a distribution which is not actually normal. This means that, despite the pretty normal curve you see, the data sitting behind it may have, say, multiple peaks which are not depicted, simply because the "researcher" decided to (1) measure the mean and variance and then (2) plot it as a normal curve.

>>8535691

A "whole standard deviation" only has value when the models being compared are completely specified. If distribution A has a variance of 1 and distribution B has a variance of 10, the fact that the mean of distribution B is one standard deviation (of A) below the mean of A given the larger spread of B.

>>8535691

Also, I'm just curious: what say you about recent work (http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/nisbett2012int.pdf)) showing that the IQ gap has closed by 0.33 points in the past 40 years? Given that this is slightly less than a single generation, I'm unsure how you reconcile recent developments with your conclusion that the IQ gap is purely genetic (unless you believe we've done some sort of mass selection to increase African American intelligence over the last generation).

>>8535740

My apologies: 0.33 standard deviations*** not points

>>8528385
>discussing means and standard deviations of different groups
>without mentioning statistical significance

>>8535724
You want evidence that there are NO other confounding variables?
Since the number of potential variables is infinite, your claim is unfalsifiable sinve it can only be verified by an infinite number of data points.
Why not go for the most parsimonious unfalsifiable explanation and say that God made it that way?

>>8535660
You're right. I was making the assumption that, when compared to other practical observation, that the generalized correlation would be negligible or straight up absurd. Say, imagine if blacks were on average 1 IQ dumber than whites, and it's statistically significant. How does one apply that in a normal situation? Does a white person add a 50 millisecond pause between words when talking to a black person to ensure they have a better chance of absorbing the information?

There is nothing stopping the generalized correlation from being an important factor, especially if it's the only one you have. I just find it hard to believe, if you have the time to obtain facts about the black person outside of their blackness, the specifics wouldn't completely dwarf the usefulness of the general.

>>8535648
This is true too. This is specifically why I said "For the vast majority of situations". There do exist times where people make decisions about others at the population level, such as some politicians, actuaries, and marketers. But for most people in their repetitive lives, it's not useful information.

>>8535706
A person's microcosm is their objective reality. Statistics serve no purpose if they are not useful. If the general statistic does not match an individual's lived experience, they can happily ignore them... so long as they maintain the repetition of their microcosm. (Feminists forget this part when traveling to Africa.)

>>8535716
Have a dull joke on me
>What do you get when you put a bunch of mexicans together?
>Mexico

I already believe this, so I'm not following your train of thought. Say that blacks have a "nigger gene", so you can't fix those genetic flaws that make them incompatible with society Then what do you say about the fellow on /sci/ who claims he's black? Is he lying? Does that mean No True Black become a scientist? If they can, then we're back to the point that specific lived experiences ignore general population statistics.

>>8535765
>There do exist times where people make decisions about others at the population level, such as some politicians, actuaries, and marketers. But for most people in their repetitive lives, it's not useful information.

In democracies citizens need to be educated in order to make an informed decision. So, it is useful.

>everyone on /pol/ believes the same things
k

>>8535467
>Intelligence is essential to chimpanzees, but they were unable to keep up with their homo cousins
chimpanzees and humans are separated by a huge difference in tool-using aptitude. (this was most likely sparked by a transition to a bipedal existence in open grasslands, freeing the hands for manipulation of objects, and by a more predatory existence selecting for tool use in prey capture and handling.) even early Homo had mastered fire and made relatively sophisticated stone tools (requiring significantly greater intellectual abilities), whereas Pan fears fire and uses only unworked stones and crudely worked sticks.
what such advance do you posit to explain putative differences in intelligence among races of humanity? ancestral peoples worldwide seem to have had similar levels of tool use.

>>8535472
>in colder areas where you have to plan for the seasons or die
are you familiar with the wet/dry seasonality common in the tropics? or the demands of living in subtropical desert biomes? there's HUGE amounts of planning required to survive (as a hunter-gatherer) in monsoon country.
read up on ecology before you go making shit up, ya dumb /pol/ack.

>>8535740
>Nisbett

Well, I'm not sure about that exact paper. But...
Here's my response. I don't care what Nisbett has to say since he is a hardcore environmental determinist. He is not an intelligence researcher. His environmental determinist views, which almost no intelligence researcher believes. In fact, his views are pretty fringe among the expert, although sadly, its the popular opinion held by too many people. We know that 20% of the IQ gap can be explained by socioeconomic status. The IQ gap closing by 0.33 doesn't really impress me when the IQ gap has essentially been static for 100 years. The IQ gap is 15, a 0.33 drop isn't much and it is consistent with a view that most of the IQ gap is probably genetic.

>(unless you believe we've done some sort of mass selection to increase African American intelligence over the last generation).

I fail to see how a rise in IQ via nutrition is supposed to convince me when you realize that the IQ gap has never changed. Even when both white and black IQ rose, the gap still remained the same.

>>8535765
>pointless words

Okay, that's nice, but you're wrong. Live in a world where race and IQ, and the statistics aren't good predictors of a racial group outcome and don't elegant fit in with a bunch of other evidence, and I may care.

>Say that blacks have a "nigger gene" Then what do you say about the fellow on /sci/ who claims he's black? Is he lying?

Genes don't work like that. Almost everything, especially behavior and cognition is controlled by hundreds of genes each contributing minor effects. Also, yeah, he's probably lying since this is 4chan and I have no reason to believe you. I would also doubt it since he fails to understand why being a outlier doesn't change the average.

>>8535828
No, the guy is more right, you're the dumbass here. It really is amazing, how could intelligence be selected for in Greece but not Angola, how silly how unrealistic.

>>8532478
>of COURSE evolution operated on humans over that interval.

You deniers try to pretend you accept evolutionary pressures on humans, because denying that evolution didn't influence physical traits like skin color would be too stupid even for you but somehow think cognitive and behavioral traits are too insane. Gee, I dunno why there is an assumption that evolution must have selected for intelligence. Is it because all you have to do is see what Asians, Europeans, Africans, and other racial groups have done? I'm sure even aliens would notice it if they had to make the comparison.

>ancestral peoples worldwide seem to have had similar levels of tool use.

No they didn't. Australian Aborigines are noteworthy among human population groups for having REGRESSED in regards to technological advancement. (The Tasmanian Abos pretty much lost the ability to make fires and fish when the Europeans came) We also know that South Africans in 100000 somehow invented the bow and arrow and forgot about it for another 20 000 years. Man, even early Homo had "racial differences" in tool use (look up the Movius Line). But I digress

See, you think its absurd that intelligence would be selected for in Greece but not in Angola. Except you forgot 2 major differences between Greece and Angola: Civilization and Agriculture.

We know that evolution has accelerating in the past 10 000 years. It is likely that civilization and agriculture placed HUGE selection pressures on intelligence that NEVER existed in a hunter gatherer society. In fact, civilizations and agricultural society would place a huge host of selection pressures that wouldn't exist in Angola. IQ gains in the past 10 000 years may be the result of civilization and agriculture.

>>8536022
>may
>may
>may
>may
yes it MAY
we know the skin color genes, we know eye color genes, we know about the genes there
but we don't know about the intelligence genes, we really don't aside from correlations with like 1% of an IQ difference for the most part
make feel good assumptions SOMEWHERE else
ps
when we find the genes we won't base race on a colors correlation but on who has them or not, so even then

>>8534021
Different psychology? I think it can be attributed to a cultural thing and the way the brain develops when someone is young. The household really affects the way someone develops psychologically. Same races hold on to the same ideals. I don't think it's mostly directly related to genetics.

>>8528392
How do you go from

>X group doesn't deserve to be slaves
to
>There's nothing wrong with flooding Y group's countries with non-Y's until they go extinct.
?

>>8535691

>The fact that you believe that garbage is embarrassing.

And the fact you can't come to grips that the original goal of such a mandate was exactly about trust issues is hilarious because we have evidence out the ass prove it.

Every country that has pushed for affirmative action has heavily documented evidence to show it was a distinct issue of trust that caused said mandate. Because in trying to transition into newer economies some businesses and institutions didn't want to comply with government policy and effectively had strong arm into it.

And you can't even weasel your way out of the argument by strawmanning muh "white guilt" or "liberal media" since as I brought up earlier even China (who gives absolutely zero fucks about either concepts) are doing it on their own accord. Also the Soviet Union did the same shit for the same exact reasons through Korenizatsiya in 1920's.

It's fine if you don't like affirmative action but to deny why it came to be in the first place is foolhardy and makes you look ignorant as fuck.

>tfw you were tested and estimated to have a mean IQ of 140 when you were a child
>now you're an adult and a full 10% of the country is better than you at pattern recognition so you probably barely hit 120

>>8536219
you don't really, or you do in your imaginary world

nobody is advocating to have white people taken from their houses and removed/killed
somebody is advocating that to happen to minorities though

>>8536022
>Australian Aborigines are noteworthy among human population groups for having REGRESSED in regards to technological advancement.
[citation needed]
>Movius Line
since 1948, they've found handaxes at multiple sites in China, dumbass. the Movius Line ain't real.

>2 major differences between Greece and Angola: Civilization and Agriculture
proto-Bantu people had civilization and agriculture.

>It is likely that civilization and agriculture placed HUGE selection pressures on intelligence that NEVER existed in a hunter gatherer society.
What's your basis for that claim? Successful agriculture requires yearly timekeeping and coordination, for example, but so does the (semi-)nomadic lifestyle invariably associated with hunter-gatherers. Seems like you're making shit up.

>>8533589

t. Germany

>>8535994

So, essentially, you've just said that you disagree with peer-reviewed work simply because the author has produced results that you don't like. That'd be like me rejecting all of Lynn's work because I have a problem with his results. Do you see how this works?

By the way, a 33% change in less than a generation is too significant for the original phenomenon to be purely genetic. What are you going to say if the gap reduces even more within the next 50 years? What if the gap becomes <10% of a standard deviation, essentially a single IQ point? You're grasping at straws.

>>8528401
>>8528431
>I can't come up with arguments so I don't want to argue with them at all
>let me just argue my feeling-based worldview here on /sci/ where nothing can happen to me

>>8533689
Is it fair to count blacks living in third world countries then

>>8528802
What you can personally identify with doesn't matter for humanity. The abiltiy to abstract from your personal everyday reality is what makes white people send aid down to your ancestors in Africa and what drives human progress in general.

If all are equal, then there would be no need for affirmative action. Checkmate, libturds.

>>8536138
>MAY

No, my personal hypothesis is a "MAY". You are denying the fact that blacks have a lower IQ then whites. That's a FACT. This debate won't go anywhere if you keep denying the basic facts. My little hypothesis isn't even that strange, since I'm just building on top of a neat and interesting hypothesis being tossed around by anthropologists, the self-domestication hypothesis (in the same way that humans unintentionally domesticated wolves who were tame enough to come near them, humans unintentionally domesticated themselves, because certain traits "lower aggression" were favored by other humans, and thus increased social tolerance led to growth and alterations producing craniofacial “feminization,” which itself results in a phenotypic signal of reduced aggressiveness".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awilQhCSyaA

>we don't know about the intelligence genes

http://infoproc.blogspot.ca/2016/12/genomic-prediction-of-cognitive-ability.html

>when we find the genes we won't base race on a colors correlation but on who has them or not, so even then

It will be hard to escape the notice that certain genes are absent in populations that correlate well with self-identified race. And when that happens, you will run out of excuses just because you want to cling on your political ideology.

>>8536259
>nobody is advocating to have white people taken from their houses and removed/killed

Oh, except for South Africa, and Zimbabwe. And numerous university professors, and whiteness study class. Oh, and supporting multiculturalism and diversity is also indirect support for whites getting their homes removed and killed. What do you think happens to those poor white victims who weren't able to escape "diversifying" neighbourhoods across the US and Europe. They get their homes taken, they get killed, and as the Rotherham rape scandal shows, the government won't ever care. I just love how these comments expose your hatred of white people. Love those double standards (hur it's imaginary, white people are not being oppressed, but every non-white is being oppressed, so we shouldn't care about your country!). Whites are about to become extinct in their homelands, and you wonder why people are starting to hate you.

>>8537108

>blogspot

I take it you're quite active in the science community. Have you ever met black person more intelligent than you? Do you believe at least one exists?

>>8536310
>[citation needed]

https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=technological+regression+australian+aborigines
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4128416

The Andaman Islanders also don't know how to make fires, so they are a similar case.

>since 1948, they've found handaxes at multiple sites in China, dumbass. the Movius Line ain't real.

Let me guess, you took one look at Wikipedia, saw that part on the bottom, and thought that somehow debunked the movius line. No, finding Acheulean-like handaxes in small amounts across China doesn't change the fact that there is a noticeable and stark absence of Acheulean handaxes across Asian sites, yet there are tons of examples in numerous sites in Europe, Africa, and even India.

>>8536310
>What's your basis for that claim?

The fact that agriculture and civilization places a whole vast new level of sexual selection pressures that weren't there before. Being good looking, having money, controlling property, being an effective ruler, being an effective businessman, while competing with many others doing the same thing, while experiencing massive population growth, all of these things become far more important then in hunter-gatherer. My little theory is just building on the 10 000 year explosion and the self-domestication hypothesis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acOZT240bTA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion

>>8536310
>proto-Bantu people had civilization and agriculture.

They didn't.

>>8537110
Not him, but

>Oh, except for South Africa, and Zimbabwe.
Not America, though.

>And numerous university professors, and whiteness study class. Oh, and supporting multiculturalism and diversity is also indirect support for whites getting their homes removed and killed.

[citation needed]

>>8533473
You rip off a baby's arm and otherwise do nothing to it, baby's children should be ok. If you make baby do slave labor, damage his body, selectively breed baby and his female counterparts to make optimal slave babies which aren't offered an education, rinse and repeat, follow up with finally freeing baby, but still giving the children subpar education, poor food intake by limiting what is allowed to ship to their side of town, and then top it off by introducing crack cocaine into baby's communities, it's not incredibly unlikely that along the way somewhere between it all that a large number of the female baby counterparts probably had damaged reproductive parts, which led to damaged babies, rinse and repeat while sprinkling in crack. I mean honestly it's a miracle humans that healthy children arise from the African American lower class at all.

>>8537108
>You are denying the fact that blacks have a lower IQ then whites.
nobody is denying the averages, you shouldn't deny the average of asians is higher than whites and that a black can have an IQ higher than yours

if anything, human races are based on gene frequency - think about this for a moment and realize why africans have pretty much all the genes whites have
the blog you posted has a correlation of 0.77 to 2.77 IQ points, even the author says the study of intelligence and genes is in its infancy

what you are denying though is that it's not all about IQ, twin studies find that 0.5-0.6 of the IQ gap is biological either genes or womb effect, so there's obviously other factors at play
even being FAT has higher concordance rate than IQ

you are the one justifying your politics wanting to displace the minorities by taking them from their houses, killing them, forcing them to go away etc. based on averages and generalizations

ps
yes that's what being genocided actually means, unlike white "genocide"

>>8528385
Why do these threads STILL exist? Trump won, it's over, the blacks are dumb position is the establishment now, you can stop. jesus

>>8537432
We are insecure and need to show why we need to instantly start the race war and kill all blacks and then whites, instead of starting the IQ war which would actually make sense, but that would be too "universalist" and doesn't really fit with our ideology?

Agree please.

>>8529496
While the average physics, maths, or engineering major will have an above average salary, the people in the top percentage are not a majority of those majors. Statistically Medicine and Economics majors have the greatest chance of entering the top tax bracket in the US. It's especially odd because a lot of the work STEM majors including physicists do is important, but they aren't making the most

>>8530468
>same education
not really
>>8535537
Most people doing white collar work are not above average intelligence. They are trained to do their job and just google anything. That's why outsourcing is a thing. Not every engineer got a 2000 on the SAT and has above a 126 IQ

>>8530510
Affirmative Action unironically benefits the largest demographic in the US. It isn't really that useful to minorities anymore, and besides it's not like anyone has ever entered into STEM under the notion of getting far under AA. It is more likely to hurt a student by giving them course material harder than what they're used to

>>8530483
When they first arrived in America their aptitude tests were really low, lower than Anglo Saxons. Now they're not. You can look up the anti-semitism of the creator of the SAT and the creator of old military aptitude tests.

Why is it that whenever these threads are posted on /sci/ the stormfags are always the ones who end up getting buttblasted and arguing with everyone? People will stop responding if you are too combative. The baiters on /his/ are much better desu

>>8537154
>http://www.jstor.org/stable/4128416
>The Andaman Islanders also don't know how to make fires, so they are a similar case.
that's the best you can do? hey look, a small population isolated on an island stopped using certain kinds of tools (that their close relatives on the mainland retained, by the way), therefore it's proof positive that their ethnic bloc was less intelligent as shown by less tool use!
I guess it must have sounded smarter in your head or something.

>finding Acheulean-like handaxes in small amounts across China doesn't change the fact
sorry, the Movius Line sensu stricto has been discredited for over a decade now. there are legitimate questions as to why the tools are less common in East Asia, but they've been found at fairly far-flung sites (too widespread to be coincidental). if there were significant differences in protohuman intelligence across geographical areas sufficient to cause differences in tool-use aptitude (i.e. that people to the east of the movius line were less intelligent), how come the east Asian population was able to make those sophisticated tools?
>http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0035804
>http://science.sciencemag.org/content/287/5458/1622
>http://www.anthropology.hawaii.edu/people/faculty/bae/pdfs/2006-norton-korean-handaxes.pdf

>>8537157
they did, brah. that's part of why the Bantu peoples were so successful and expansionistic; they could feed themselves better than a lot of the hunter-gatherers they came into contact with.

>>8537154
>whole vast new level of sexual selection pressures
so you're attributing selection for high analytical intelligence (not social intelligence) to sexual selection now? as opposed to tool use? yeah no.

>controlling property, being an effective ruler
these are important in semi-nomadic hunting/gathering societies too.
>Being good looking
holy shit, physical appearance as an indicator of overall health and vigor is part of sexual selection in pretty much all primates. you're telling me this underwent some massive expansion in settled pastoral societies as compared to hunter-gatherers? hot damn, you must be trolling.

>experiencing massive population growth
didn't happen until around 500 BCE (depending on your definition of "massive").

Delicious

>>8537125
>Have you ever met black person more intelligent than you? Do you believe at least one exists?

What kind of retarded comment is like that? Almost no one who knows that blacks are less intelligent, and that this is caused by genetics believes that all blacks are le inferior. However, you are denying the fact that blacks are genetically less intelligent, and you are denying the implications of that. That's the issue here. Stop trying to move the goalpost. You are being a IQ denier, a race denier, and a gene denier. All three.

>>8537422
>nobody is denying the averages

Yes, you are.

>you shouldn't deny the average of asians is higher than whites and that a black can have an IQ higher than yours

Asians only score 5 IQ higher then whites. Blacks are a whole standard deviation from whites. They are so low, that 25% of blacks fall under the "mentally retarded range". We can see, first hand, what the average black society looks like compared to the average white society and average East Asian society created by representative of the averages of those population groups.

>if anything, human races are based on gene frequency - think about this for a moment and realize why africans have pretty much all the genes whites have

Except intelligence genes, and aggression genes. You are once again denying the fact that races aren't equal.

>what you are denying though is that it's not all about IQ, twin studies find that 0.5-0.6 of the IQ gap is biological either genes or womb effect, so there's obviously other factors at play
even being FAT has higher concordance rate than IQ

Wrong. IQ gap is 0.8. It's mostly caused by genetics. I don't know why you decided to lie here. But you are also a gene denier.

>you are the one justifying your politics

What politics? The part where people should immediately dismiss you for spewing out bullshit?

>>8537532
It's the liberals and pocs who are buttblasted. You ditch science becouse muh feelings.

>>8537619
Small island? Australia and Tasmania weren't small islands. Technological regression that occurred among Australian Aborigines. It happened among mainland.

>therefore it's proof positive that their ethnic bloc was less intelligent as shown by less tool use!

Um...yeah? There are strong correlations with the achievements of an ethnic group and their average cognitive abilities. Genes create culture. Culture shapes genes. The products of a culture, like tools, are a reflection of genes. Denying the influences of genes will never adequately explain anything because it denies genes.

Actually, its very consistent with IQ data. We know that Australian Aborigines and the Bushmen have the lowest IQ, scoring almost 10 points lower then the already low 70 IQ of sub-Saharan Africans. They also had the lowest levels of technological achievements. Wow, amazing, even here, IQ is consistent.

>>8537619
>Movius Line sensu stricto

No one ever took a strict definition of the Movius Line seriously. That doesn't debunk the Movius line at all. Who would dismiss the concept just because they found an outlier? Who? I guess out of Africa is 100% wrong because Homo Sapiens were already out of Africa by 100000 years ago. There is still a pretty obvious lack of Acheulean handaxes across Asia in the same land where Asian Homo Erectus dwelt. And we know that Asian Homo Erectus and African Homo Erectus looked different....

Yeah, finding Achuelean-like handaxes in some tiny portion of Chinese site really proves that they could make it. Also, I would hardly call Acheulean handaxes sophisticated tools.

>>8537619
>they did, brah.

Kind of hard to be impressed when every other part of the world was doing it earlier. It even fits my worldview, Bantu successfully replaced the Bushmen and could use iron. Bantu have a higher IQ then the bushmen. 70-85 is higher then 59.

>>8538370
>Yes, you are.
No, i'm not. Lying here just shows you are very prone to lying. Stop denying the charts.

Asians score 5 higher in your dream world, it's closer to 7, since IQ isn't linear that's actually pretty big difference for an average.

Stop denying the fact that races aren't equal and that genes aren't equal. Asians are what 4% of the population and are BTFOing everybody in university enrollment. Stop denying the facts.

If we removed everybody below 140 IQ, Asians would be a majority. Just look at the tail of the distribution

When are we starting the IQ war bruh?

>>8537652
>so you're attributing selection for high analytical intelligence to sexual selection now?

Um, yes? Are you dumb enough to deny that? If tool use was all you needed for high analytical intelligence, advanced civilization should have emerged a million years earlier. But they didn't. Europeans have been doing the same shit from 30000 to 10000, then they suddenly discovered agriculture, and technological advancement skyrocketed in a way that has never happened before in human history.

>>8537652
>holy shit, physical appearance as an indicator of overall health and vigor is part of sexual selection in pretty much all primates. you're telling me this underwent some massive expansion in pastoral societies as compared to hunter-gatherers?

Um yes. Are you stupid? You just said so yourself. Physical appearance is an indicator of overall health and vigor. Civilization and Agricultural society makes it even more important then ever, and causes even greater levels of selection. Agricultural society created more health issues, lowering overall health. Humans invented class which created new boundaries for which humans get to mate with which humans. Human invented money, and now, not even being fit was good enough, because if you ended up being poor, your health would take a massive hit. Urban environments meant diseases became more common and the entire pop would not be equally affected. I mean, I can't believe you are denying this. Just look at blonde hair.

>these are important in semi-nomadic hunting/gathering societies too.

No, no they aren't. Not only can you not compare a semi-nomadic society to a hunter gatherer society. But you have to be insane if you think being a effective ruler in a civilization/state/chiefdom is equal to a h-g society.

>didn't happen until around 500 BCE

Wrong, it happened in 10000. That's why humans have evolved more in the past 10000 then the past 100000 years.

>>8538404
>>8538383
>no genes

>>8538386
So wait, you agree with me that blacks have a lower IQ and that its genetic. Good, stop arguing with me then.

>>8538410
>gene denier.

These 2 links will cause you distress.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912004047
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3c4TxciNeJZNUVaZ0VhZ3dUMkk/view

>>8538416
>Good, stop arguing with me then.
Ok, but if you agree that Asians have a lower IQ and that it's genetic. Then I will "stop".

IQ war when?

>>8538416
>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912004047
being aggressive doesn't make you less intelligent
>https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3c4TxciNeJZNUVaZ0VhZ3dUMkk/view
average IQ scores, lol I didn't know those

>>8538383
>Technological regression that occurred among Australian Aborigines. It happened among mainland.
again, [citation needed]
you provided one source that said Tasmanians stopped using certain kinds of tools for indeterminate reasons...and one link to a Google search that turned up nothing of interest.
if /pol/esmokers want to play the /sci/ game, they need to play by /sci/ rules. which means providing evidence to support their assertions.

>Genes create culture. Culture shapes genes.
this is true only at the vaguest and most general level. confirmed for never having studied population genetics.

>That doesn't debunk the Movius line at all. Who would dismiss the concept just because they found an outlier?
it's not just an "outlier" when they're showing up in significant numbers in multiple locations with plenty of distance between them. we're talking hundreds and hundreds, in China, Mongolia, and Korea at least. too many and too widespread to be any sort of accident or anomaly.
again, your claim is that some populations had the intelligence to make these kinds of tools and some didn't. and that's kinda undercut by the fact that both groups of populations made those tools.

>Kind of hard to be impressed when every other part of the world was doing it earlier.
So let's get this straight:
you said that Angolans are descended from non-agricultural peoples. when it was pointed out to you that their antecedents were indeed pastoral, you denied it (without evidence). when you were pressed on the lie, you claimed that it doesn't matter because it proves you right anyway.
nice damage control.

>Bantu have a higher IQ then the bushmen.
again, [citation needed]

>>8538404
>If tool use was all you needed for high analytical intelligence, advanced civilization should have emerged a million years earlier.
there are plenty of things that emerge long after they first COULD HAVE emerged. to give just a few examples, multicellularity, calculus, and association football.
fossil evidence indicates that practically the entire increase in brain size and complexity among early humans (responsible for the mastery of fire and stone knapping, among other things) occurred well prior to the development of agriculture and settled society. how do you square that with your ludicrous claim that "agriculture and civilization" caused humans to suddenly achieve modern intelligence through sexual selection?

>Physical appearance is an indicator of overall health and vigor. Civilization and Agricultural society makes it even more important then ever, and causes even greater levels of selection.
Wait wait wait.
You're telling me that in settled agricultural societies, where food is plentiful, physical dangers are lesser, and where food can be stored as a defense against lean times...selection for health and vigor is GREATER than in nomadic hunter-gatherer societies where falling too ill to hunt (or run from predators) is practically a death sentence. Dude, do you even read this stuff back before you post it?

>can you not compare a semi-nomadic society to a hunter gatherer society
this may come as a shock to you but hunter-gatherers tend to be semi-nomadic.

>But you have to be insane if you think being a effective ruler in a civilization/state/chiefdom is equal to a h-g society.
it's different, but the selective pressure (in terms for what's being selected for) are pretty much the same.

>>8538404
>Wrong, it happened in 10000. That's why humans have evolved more in the past 10000 then the past 100000 years.
first off, I encourage you to look at a graph of world population over time.
second, you demonstrate a fundamental ignorance of how evolution works if you think that faster population growth means that selective pressure becomes STRONGER.

>come to sci armed with your stormfront propaganda
>get shat on, because you don't understand your own posts
>call people who point to giant holes in your tales "deniers"
>make a BBC thread instead, because why not
>go back to 8gag

>>8538416
>lower IQ and that its genetic
Proof?
Where is the intelligence gen?

>>8531412
when did he mention slavery you mongoloid

>>8531666
satan speaks

Pure coincidence.

Literally shaking.

Clearly evolution only affected pigmentation.

>>8528385
what is this cuck colony doing on pol? swear to god i hope you get bullied mate

Sure, but it's due to socioeconomic factors.

Well surely it's systemic racism then!

>>8535609

>iq isn't heritable

please, just read at least half an article on the subject.

>>8528392

Yes, this.

Well, you see people of colour carry an intergenerational trauma due to the horrors of cattle slavery in the US which explains their unique challenges.

I guess the memory of slavery and oppression is propagated through the English language across the Atlantic to the fucking country of bongs, I dunno?

just fuck whitey ok

>>8539117
>>8539123
>>8539127
>>8539132
>>8539142
Where is the science?

I only see circlejerk IQ babble. -_-

>>8539153
>>8539162
>>8539171
>>8539180
>>8539192
Surely it's because your own reasons ;^)

Where is the science?

I only see sociology bullshit!

I guess that's all you got.

Many thanks xd

>>8528385
I wouldn't say anything to them.
Half of /pol/ doesn't know what an outlier is, and while evidence showing blacks have typically lower IQs is fine by me, /pol/'s next step is to then say "Thus we should eradicate all of them, regardless of individual standing and even if some are more intelligent/productive than I am because they're nonwhite" which is obviously a bit ludicrous and counterproductive.

This is the same group, mind you, that if faced with evidence Jews are genetically more intelligent than whites, don't go "Oh lmao gas whites," obviously.

Nobody should be obliged, via taxes or otherwise, to subsidize ANY people creating a net negative on society regardless of race. If there's a disproportionately large number of those people in a certain demographic, quit subsidizing them. The individuals that aren't a liability will pull through anyway.

>>8539211

IQ research is science, guess you didn't get the memo.

>>8539211

I'm not him, but the problem is that actual geneticists just are not far enough along in their understanding to have the kind of work you are asking for.

I wish there was more work in the area, because I highly suspect that there are genetic factors that influence intelligence (that don't cut cleanly along racial lines). I highly believe that the ability of the brain to learn and incorporate new ideas can be vastly different from person to person, but we simply don't realize it except in extreme cases where someone is retarded.

Also, it would be impossible to control for, since people who work really hard with these deficiencies can make up for them. So a high IQ test score does not mean that someone doesn't have a genetic deficiency hindering their intellectual ability.

Sociology/IQ studies are not worth the paper they are printed on.

>>8539117
race lines crossing eachother?
asians on top though
>>8539123
>>8539127
>>8539132
IQ gap gets wider as kids get older
makes you think huh
>>8539142
this one is very interesting, if you look carefully
>>8539147
differentiation is just differentiation at his point and it is known races have different SNP frequencies - that's what a race is
btw
neural tube patterning is just patterning
hindbrain is about balance, breathing and blood pressure etc. not intellect
>>8539153
>>8539162
>>8539171
>>8539180
>>8539207
>crime
they have a shitty victim criminal culture

btw this is YOUR data

>>8538428
>citation needed

I just gave you citations. Is this the game you are playing? Just ignore the evidence. We know you're just a leftist in denial about the role genes play. We know that your denial is purely ideological. We know that you are wrong. Is flat out lying now you're new tactic.

http://discovermagazine.com/1993/mar/tenthousandyears189
http://www.evoanth.net/2014/04/15/the-curious-case-of-the-people-who-forgot-how-to-fish/
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/08/08/why-did-the-tasmanians-stop-ea/
http://www.academia.edu/273234/14_000._On_being_alone_the_isolation_of_the_Tasmanian
http://www.academia.edu/3237528/The_loss_and_re-introduction_of_bow-and-arrow_technology_a_case_study_from_the_Northern_European_Late_Paleolithic
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Australian-Aborigines-not-use-the-bow-and-arrow
>>8538428
>if /pol/esmokers want to play the /sci/ game, they need to play by /sci/ rules. which means providing evidence to support their assertions.

Do you really think your clever leftist? No one is going to take you seriously, because by /sci/ rules, I'm already winning. You are only arguing with me because the facts go against your ideology. You have not provided a single evidence that environment is a major influence on cognitive differences and cultural differences. And trust me, you won't find any. The debate regarding nature and nurture is closed already. We don't need people like you with your race creationist, gene denying bullshit.

>this is true only at the most general level. confirmed for never having studied population genetics.

Comments like these that make me wonder if this guy even knows what he's talking about. No, its true at every level. Genes create culture, culture create genes. Happens with Orcas too.

http://phys.org/news/2016-06-orca-cultural-groups-genetically-distinct.html

You seem to be under the delusion of the "blank slate". That humans are somehow special, even though a newborn behavior is 100% genetic

>>8539268

I would like to challenge your ability to consider this topic with minimal bias.

I present to you an dark-skinned African American male with typical black African features. This individual has an IQ shown to be objectively higher than yours. How do you react?

>>8539268

He meant that you need to cite more than one thing, not a bunch of different things all citing the same fucking study. More links != more citations!

http://frihetspartiet.net/dokumenter/minnesota-transracial-adoption-study.pdf
Basically proved 40 years ago using adopted children that blacks in the same socio-economic conditions as whites perform worse.

>>8539248
>race lines crossing eachother? asians on top though

Yes.

>IQ gap gets wider as kids get older
makes you think huh

Heritable traits explains more of the variance as the individual gets older, i.e. genetic influence increases with time. Pic related for IQ.

>they have a shitty victim criminal culture

Shitty criminal culture as adopted or non-adopted, in their ancestral homelands or as a diaspora in another country. The exact opposite of East Asians in every single country. Pure coincidence.

>>8539279
>he thinks /pol/ claim that black IQ is a dirac distribution

>>8538428
>confirmed for never having studied population genetics.

The fact that you deny the influence genes have on behavior, which in turn create culture, which in turn, causes genetic changes, means you don't know anything about population genetics, or behavioral genetics. Do me a favor. Read this. http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf

Humans beings aren't special. We are biological organisms, everything about us is influenced by what programmed us, DNA. The domestication process, which we did on foxes and dogs, has occurred and can occur on humans. Why? Because our behavior is also influenced by genetics. No one is in denial that the fox become more tamer because we genetically selected for it, not because of some magical environmental effect that suddenly made the next generation of foxes more tamer. However, when it comes to human, you become hardcore environmental determinist, even though that's wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsZ11VVdP_M

>So let's get this straight:

Yeah. Here you go. Angolans were never equal to Europeans. Ever. They were never agriculturalist, and they have a lower IQ then whites.

>it's not an outlier

Yes, it is an outlier. Finding ACHEUELAN-LIKE not even Acheuelan handaxes, just things that look like them, when there is thousands of choppers in the site, only prove that these things were never in use. Wow, you founda handful of things that look like Achuelean like tools in some sites.The only guy claiming that le movius line is dead is some Chinese researcher who found them. Since Chinese researchers also support the multiregional model, they probably hate the movius line because it makes them look bad.

Oh, and for the IQ of Bushmen

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/09/03/is-there-a-black-intelligence/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188690900347X
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2007-01201-000

>>8539268
>provided a single evidence that environment is a major influence on cognitive differences and cultural differences.
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/15/4612.short
ofc environment has an effect on who you turn out to be
>by /sci/ rules, I'm already winning
yeah you sure are "winning" by calling people names
>Genes create culture, culture create genes.
very simplified
>a newborn behavior is 100% genetic
even a newborn's "manifestation" is not 100% genetic, behavior's part of that

>>8539304

It sure would seem that they believe the distribution to be normal with a mean of 80 and variance of 0. They love to focus on the mean of the black IQ distribution, but they never acknowledge the fact that the variance of the black IQ distribution is nearly twice that of the white IQ distribution.

>>8539328
Got any citation for greater black variance?

>>8538441
>there are plenty of things that emerge long after they first COULD HAVE emerged. to give just a few examples, multicellularity, calculus, and association football.

Those things aren't heritable. IQ is.

>fossil evidence indicates that practically the entire increase in brain size and complexity among early humans (responsible for the mastery of fire and stone knapping, among other things) occurred well prior to the development of agriculture and settled society. how do you square that with your ludicrous claim that "agriculture and civilization" caused humans to suddenly achieve modern intelligence through sexual selection?

Are you legitimately stupid? Seriously, I told you to read "10 000 year explosion". Stop saying shit you don't know about. I'm not saying evolution for brain size and intelligence wasn't occurring before discovering agriculture, I'm saying that agriculture led to a dramatic increase in selection for intelligence, which is why there is such a huge IQ gap between non-Africans and Africans/Abos. That's why every single agricultural society have a higher IQ then non agricultural society. That is some Stephen Jay Gould shit. You probably believe that human evolution just randomly decided to stop when homo sapiens came into existence. You believe that genes don't influence behavior. Even that is not true, because even when modern homo sapiens arose, they weren't acting any different from every other homo. So archaeologists had to create the "behavioral modern homo sapien" term to describe the moment in time, 50 000 years ago, when homo sapiens started to do things like make art.

So how do I square that off with the ludicrous ( it isn't) idea that civilization led to increases in intelligence. Well. Blacks are objective failures everywhere. Fits with what I believe. Blacks have smaller average brain size. Fits what I believe. Africans act no different from how Homo acted in a million years, while agricultural society created all this.

>>8539328
My dude.

>>8539337
>Fits with what I believe.

>The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has been testing seventeen-year-olds since 1971. From 1971 to 1996, the black-white reading gap shrank by almost one half and the math gap by almost one third.[16] Specifically, blacks scored an average of 239 points, and whites scored an average of 291 points on the NAEP reading tests in 1971. In 1990, blacks scored an average of 267, and whites scored an average of 297 points. On NAEP math tests in 1973, blacks scored an average of 270, and whites scored 310. In 1990, black average score was 289 and whites scored an average of 310 points. For Hispanics, the average NAEP math score for seventeen-year-olds in 1973 was 277 and 310 for whites. In 1990, the average score among Hispanics was 284 compared with 310 for whites.[11]

reminder hispanics are 60% euro

>>8539293
the fact that the average IQ drops with age and then stops dropping after a certain age should indicate something
i wonder what though

>>8538441
>Wait wait wait. You're telling me that in settled agricultural societies, where food is plentiful, physical dangers are lesser, and where food can be stored as a defense against lean times...selection for health and vigor is GREATER than in nomadic hunter-gatherer societies where falling too ill to hunt (or run from predators) is practically a death sentence. Dude, do you even read this stuff back before you post it?

Um, yes? Discovering agriculture was actually a human health catastrophe. Sudden jumps in malnutrition, cavities caries, teeths worn out because they weren't built to eat grain. Reduced stature. Population boom and close living which means more vulnerable to diseases. More of your children dying. In fact, you can even tell when a population became a settled agricultural society by looking at their skeleton.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618206000334
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20700/full
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro/187/
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Pietrusewsky/publication/267694746_Pietrusewsky_etal_JAust_Studies_2014/links/5457e2180cf2bccc491118d5.pdf
https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vMUxhfRImBIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=neolithic+revolution+health&ots=WXrwii8SZT&sig=dHohpCOOOJdaW32LDbeslXpmVZU#v=onepage&q=neolithic%20revolution%20health&f=false

>it's different, but the selective pressure (in terms for what's being selected for) are pretty much the same.

It's the same, in the same way getting hit with a beach ball and getting hit by a bullet is the same.

>>8539339
>>8539328
>plants a meme statement (mean 80), variance meme that nobody is claiming
>literally prepared with the chart
samefag

>>8539351
>anthropology speculation
you've posted these stories before
what about some actual genes and what proteins are different in whites and blacks and which organ is the protein expressed in, how the organ is affected

some actual science?

>>8539346

It's a consequence of being adopted into a upper middle class with a stimulating environment. Environment plays a larger role during childhood, the genes slowly gain importance when you mature.

High IQ biological parents having their offspring raised by a crackhead would have the opposite trend.

>>8537461
>>8539279
>posts that don't fit my politics, better ignore their message
hmmm

>>8539360
>I will continue moving the goal posts until my progressive liberalism is saved

just kys

>>8538442
>first off, I encourage you to look at a graph of world population over time.

Woah okay.

Historical estimate of world population
http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/worldpop/table_history.php

Woah, would you look at that. At the dawn of agriculture there was a population explosion. Now of course, this data isn't reliable, but given that there was less then 1 million people on Earth as hunter-gather, and there was suddenly over 5 million people in 2000 years. I would call that a significant increase.

>second, you demonstrate a fundamental ignorance of how evolution works if you think that faster population growth means that selective pressure becomes STRONGER.

......

Seriously dude? You realize that population growth is associated with increasing genetic diversity thanks to all the new mutations? Population growth influences evolution.
Again, read the "10 000 year explosion".

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/05/human-hyper-evolution-have-mutations-changed-the-course-of-history.html

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/315/5818/1571

Anyway, I'm not saying that population growth caused stronger selective pressure. I'm saying that civilization did.

>>8539363
>the genes slowly gain importance when you mature.
how
are they turned off when one is young? do they have a reduced penetrance? do they switch like Hb genes? do we know which genes they are?

>>8538699
There is no such intelligence gene. All behaviors and cognitive abilities are influenced by many genes. There are clusters of genes that influence. The proof that genes, and nothing else, is primary responsible for the IQ gap is the fact that when SES is accounted for, the gap remains. If the environmentalist were correct, we should not be seeing that. Twin studies suggest genes play a role. We know genes are playing a role, we just don't know WHICH genes are causing it, but I won't be surprised if we already get an idea in the next 20 years.

>>8539380
sure showed me there, how dare i ask for genetics and actual science instead of storytelling

i'm not a progressive liberal, but you browse pol, don't you - wonder who's more objective

>>8539385

Read up on behavioural genetics. This is true for every trait that has a genetic component.

>>8539388
hmm SES can account for up to 5 points gap of IQ
IQ is not 100% heritable
intelligence is not all IQ
memory is not IQ

>>8539401
what is the molecular mechanism

>>8539279
>How do you react?

With incredulity that you really don't understand what average IQ difference means.

>>8539282
So are you being stupid on purpose, none of those links are talking about "1 study". Technological regression among Australian Aborigines is just an observation that has been made by numerous people based on archaeological evidence.

Remember, you are still denying that there are racial differences in IQ, and these differences are genetic.

>>8536378
Why not, IQ isn't book smarts

>>8529496
Grades are not salaries. A genius who doesn't do his homework will earn Cs.

>You are denying the fact that blacks have a lower IQ then whites.
from >>8537108

>>8539442
The above is false then by YOUR logic, because literally one counterexample is all you need to prove a generalization wrong - obvious stuff.

btw you just avoided his question - how do you react if jamal is smarter than you, would you treat him as your better?

>>8539340
Yeah, it does fit with the facts. Great rebuttal.

>>8539316
>when people of the same race are adopted by same racial parents with higher SES, their IQ raised by 3-4 whole points!

Well yes environment is important, but as your link demonstrates, it's not that important, which too many people think. Genes are more important. If environment was all that matter, the IQ should have increased by 10.

>>8539316
>behavior's part of that

All behavior is influenced by genetics.

>>8539316
>very simplified

But true. It's how beaver dam building behavior evolved collectively. It's how we got more intelligent.

>>8539360
>what about some actual genes

Wow, moving the goal post much? How is skeletal analysis showing declining health among agricultural population simply "anthropological stories".

See, right now. We don't know what the actual genes are, but we will. And when we do, you'll just move the goal post to say "PROVE THAT THOSE GENES HAVE THOSE EFFECT"

>>8539470
>3-4 whole points!
More than any single actual genetic evidence in this thread.
>Well yes environment is important
Aah, okay. I thought it's all genes.

>>8528392
Hatred is natural.

>>8539466
>because literally one counterexample is all you need to prove a generalization wrong

Uh no. It won't. Showing me an outlier doesn't change the fact that black average IQ is lower then whites IQ. The average IQ of American blacks is 85. You could show me a mentally retarded black with an IQ of 50 and a genius black with an IQ of 120, and that won't change the average IQ, and what the majority of black IQ range falls within. You could show me a mentally retarded white with an IQ of 70, and a white genius, and it won't change the fact that the average white IQ is 100, and that the majority of whites falls within that IQ range.

>how do you react if jamal is smarter than you, would you treat him as your better?

I would probably treat him like you.

>>8535251
>there are blacks out there who are more intelligent than virtually the entire body of living white people
The same can be said of the reverse, in orders of magnitude more despite having a similar number of people globally. Besides statistical outliers are hardly relevant.

>Concerns about which race is justified in talking down to other races are counted among the concerns of individuals who are too incapable and too dull to achieve anything of note themselves.
Who decided that? You? We're not allowed to look into something because it hurts your feelings? Why are your feelings hurt by facts? Science should not consider this for a second.

>>8539490
It is all about genes, even the environment is affected by genes. Yes, you heard. Even the environment is influenced by genes. So it's actually impossible to discuss environmental influences without talking about genes, because environment is also influenced by genes and vice versa. Again. Nobody thinks everything is 100% genes, but its far more important then you give it credit for. Read this: https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf

>>8539508
>>because literally one counterexample is all you need to prove a generalization wrong
>Uh no. It won't. Showing me an outlier doesn't change the fact that black average IQ is lower then whites IQ.
But you didn't say average in your post. Are you being forgetful or dishonest.

>I would probably treat him like you.
Oh, are you implying I am a nigger with inferior IQ. I'm so offended.

The fact that you refuse to address the question about the outliers just shows how you are politically motivated. Just admit it and be honest.

>>8539521
>But you didn't say average in your post. Are you being forgetful or dishonest.

This topic has always been about the average cognitive differences in IQ between races. You know exactly what I meant when I said black IQ. Don't play dumb.

Outliers don't make up the majority of a civilization. That's the problem.

>>8539534
Why are you avoiding this question? If Tyrone is smarter than you, will you treat him as your better/equal/inferior?

Pick one of these 3.

>>8539180
I'm not sure what to take from these graphs.

>>8539568
blacks are more criminal

>>8539539

This. Answer the question. Your ability to answer this question directly relates to our ability to judge your level of bias in your interpretation of statistics.

How would you react if you met a Jamal who was significantly more intelligent than you?

>>8539603
it's inconvenient

>>8539534

From a genetic standpoint, outliers are very relevant. If you assert that there is a genetic component to intelligence, if you could isolate the genetic component contributing to the intellect of a black genius, you could feasibly replicate it in other blacks or, at the very least, select for it.

>>8539610

Why is the existence of a black genius inconvenient for you? With a mean IQ of approximately 87 and a standard deviation of 15, we would expect there to be a small (but extant) number of African Americans alive right now with IQs in the 150-160 range.

>>8539611
>if you could isolate the genetic component contributing to the intellect of a black genius, you could feasibly replicate it in other blacks or, at the very least, select for it.
No. Not just blacks in both parts of your sentence.

The point is genius in any race is a data point to use and find the real genes, not just SNP predictors in non-coding parts, involved in actual intelligence - so we can move forward and engineer genomes, not just "select" and pretend.

>>8539534
The fact that there have been cases of extreme outliers is significant because it either means the variance is through the roof and these people cannot be adequately judged with current IQ tests, or that there are other significant factors at play besides the genetic default, especially since this outlier is produced from the same stock that is consistently producing low scores.

It's like walking into an elementary school and seeing a kid doing a complex mathematical proof on a piece of paper. It'd be one thing if you saw it one time, and you could write it off as the kid simply drawing or imitating shapes that happen to follow the pattern of a proof he saw somewhere else, or he might have gotten a hold of a piece of paper with a proof already on it somewhere and started scribbling on it. However once this happens several times, and its been that same kid producing different proofs, you have to start questioning your prior deduction that this is still just some dumb kid and that what happened earlier was a fluke. Even if on average he is not doing something of note and otherwise acts like a normal dumb snot nosed kid, the extreme variance from the mean of several observered occasions has to lead you to question what you deduced earlier as being something you can reliably fall back on. You can't fall back and call him a dumb kid after he spills his chocolate milk and makes a few errors on his multiplication worksheet, because next thing you know he might dick slap you across the face with Burnside's Lemma.

In fact the very second you assume your previous deductions are not prone to being questioned is when you've switched over into a religious dogma and that's when you're a full blown /pol/tard. You question everything and assume nothing, especially when the statistics aren't locked up.

>>8539627

Sure, if you believe that you can genome all indicators among all races simultaneously and with the same degree of difficulty.

However, since you claim vast genetic differences between the races, it is plausible to say that the difficulty between influencing genes contributing to intelligence in blacks and influencing those in whites are not the same. Plausibly, then, blacks could even be an ideal first group on which to apply these methods, should it be easier to do so with them.

>>8539235
>If I repeat this enough, it will come true, that's what my mother taught me.
>Now he will obey my orders and I will win the debate, dad!
I get it now. Science isn't like that, tho.

>>8539238
I guess so. ;^)

All this squabble by IQ circlejerkers are too much to laugh at.

Who would win?

My graphic functions made on paint.exe or my graphic funcions made on paint.exe?

GG IQ circlejerkers. We will have a comeback prepared the next time we meet!

Arrivederci!

>IQ is science

>>8539637
Race is based on frequency of alleles amongst groups. Alleles are pretty much the same, just at different frequencies in different populations.

>Sure, if you believe that you can genome all indicators among all races simultaneously and with the same degree of difficulty.
There's about 20000 actual genes that code for proteins, we can sequence it and examine it in a finite timespan, there is a finite number of interactions.

>it is plausible to say that the difficulty between influencing genes contributing to intelligence in blacks and influencing those in whites are not the same.

nah, just replace the bad gene with the good gene in both cases - simply put, what tyrosinase gene for the skin color or what eye color gene etc you pick is irrelevant to intellect

the issue here is that the left doesn't want any of this because the freqencies might end up being asian>white>black and oh that would be bad; the right is politically motivated and refuses to acknowledge that reality isn't in fact racist and doesn't support white or asian supremacy, but Smart supremacy

>>8539344
Whites BTFO

>>8539659

I don't think that /pol/ and StormFront types care for smart superiority either. Such a mindset is entirely individual and would imply the superiority of some black individuals to the virtual entirety of the white race. Such a conclusion is counteractive to their belief set and fragile, collective-based self-conscience.

>>8539626

Would somebody like to address this question?

How can the existence of individuals from an extreme edge of a distribution be inconvenient to somebody who claims to be objective about the statistics? After all, the statistics don't preclude their existence; they simply predict frequency, and, in this case, the distribution predicts objective genius among the black population at a rate high enough that multiple black geniuses should exist at any given moment.

>>8539344
>tfw mix between spaniard and inca
Whites BTFO?

>>8539486
>"PROVE THAT THOSE GENES HAVE THOSE EFFECT"
Uh, yeah ?
If you find genes and you have no idea what the fuck they do, you can't point to them and say they prove your point.

>>8538383
Out of africa is wrong tho
Peking man disproves it