/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9623862
That chart is racist

>>9623862
I don't like that objective data

>>9623862
Who says it's genetic?

>>9623878
How is it objective when it discriminates against blacks?

>>9623880
To some degree genetics do determine IQ. Making sure everyone has a baseline would either make the IQ differences shrink or would mean it can be eliminated as a major factor. Either way it would make it a non issue.

>>9623862
Hard. But statistical variation in IQ is already quite levelled out. Except on /sci/ of course where the IQ is minimum 6 sd above the mean...

Here is the problem

IQ is not genetic, and the reason why blacks have lower IQ's is due to growing up in environments which don't promote intelligence and white people growing up in environments that do.

The studies implying IQ is genetic are false and IQ isn't that accurate to begin with.

>>9624043
>IQ is not genetic

>>9624057
>he doesn't know the difference between g and IQ
Still wrong anon.

>>9624057
>Eugenetics if finally possible in your life time

>>9624066
g is the first principal component of IQ.

They are not "different things". The problem with you is that you are a 'tard who doesn't know you are a 'tard.

>>9623883
Genetics are already not a major factor in average IQ. Social influence heavily outweighs genetic potential when we're not talking about the outlier ends of the curve

>>9624132
>first principal component
hahahahaha no dumbass. Economic status is by far the largest predictor of IQ

>>9623892
>

>>9624170
Look up IQ in Asia over time. High when China was poor as fuck. The rise in Asian economies didn't also cause a rise in IQ.

>>9624181
Relative economic status within a specific society is not equivalent to absolute economic status. It's a predictor within a society not between different ones

>>9624188
Yes, because low IQ parents are poor relative to the rest of society.

>>9623862
Brainlet here, wouldn't this come down to A. Discovering what alleles contribute to expected intelligence (after defining intelligence) B. Showing that those alleles are represented in human haplogroups? Otherwise it would be difficult to separate social and cultural factors from genetic factors. Because let's say for arguments sake a certain population has consistent IQ outcomes distinct from another population. If the populations are internally homogenous but distinct from each other both genetically and culturaly how do you determine which is the culprit? And then if you isolate people from each and put them in the other, how do you account for what affect the new culture has on them (self fulfilling prophecy, people conditioned to act as they are expected to by members of a culture). Note that I'm not claiming sociology is an actual science.

>>9624190
idiot, they're low IQ *because* they're poor

>>9624215
Why are they poor?

>>9624215
If IQ predicts economic outcome strongly, how would the distribution of IQ by economic division look?

>>9623862
isn't a big factor of IQ based on culture, rather than genetics or race?

>>9624224
No

>>9624225
ok

>>9624224
No, because IQ is calibrated to 100 by culture

>>9624215
>>9624224
IQ has a heritability of 0.74, which is on-par with something like height.

>>9624224
Yes.
>>9624227
Within a given society there are multiple culture subsets which is what he's talking about

>>9624231
>economic status is also heritable

>>9624234
So you are saying that IQ is actually not heritable, like height is? Your claim flies in the face of modern psychology, by the way.

>>9624244
No the point is it's not as large a factor as you think because genetic predisposition to IQ can easily be circumvented just by studying alone. You'd have to be a literal retard to not be capable of reaching a 120 IQ (what constitutes 120IQ in the present day, since IQ is adjusted to the mean anyway), the problem is people don't put in the effort.

>>9624257
Show me this study on increasing IQ

>>9623862
Wasn’t there some adoption study that found that the race of their parents was a better predictor of IQ than the kids own race, suggesting that it’s also a cultural issue, even though genetics also play a role in intelligence.
It may be similar to how ethnically identical North Koreans and South Koreans have such different heights due to differences in nutrition.

>>9624263
What he doesn't understand is that the IQ *ceiling* is determined genetically. Certainly, an uneducated, feral twin will have a lesser IQ than their nourished, educated counterpart. But, given the same circumstances, they will typically have a similar IQ.

>>9624272
If you could find that I would love to read it.

>>9624284
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
When I look at the actual results, there are clear differences between having two biological white or black parents; the researchers’ interpretation simply took the politically correct path of saying that “it is implausible that it is due to genetics, some unknown reason x must be causing it”.
Gotta love cognitive dissonance

of course IQ is genetic, all it does is allows you to logically come to conclusions faster and or make it easier to solve complex things by having your brain use association to make it simpler and easier for you. that's pretty much it, although everything , math, science, philosophy is all based on logic and it's application that's why >>9624043
being a brainlet can't use his IQ to conclude it's genetic. that's why it takes an outlier like a newton to discover these things because it's their use of their high IQ to come to logical conclusions on complex topics .

>>9623862
Well first you need to separate the blacks and whites, Jews and middle easterners and Mediterranean People usually have higher iqs than any other race

>>9623862
>ypipo average: ~100
>blapipo average: ~85
>standard deviation is 15
Conclusion: /pol/ is full of it

>>9624370
>>9623862
Also OP your pic related is made up

I think we just have to admit IQ is genetic and race realists had a point.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

>>9624257
IQ is dropping worldwide. Even Flynn had to admit it recently.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289617302787

>>9624397
Article is nothing about IQ
>What makes Dr. Watson’s and Mr. Wade’s statements so insidious is that they start with the accurate observation that many academics are implausibly denying the possibility of average genetic differences among human populations, and then end with a claim — backed by no evidence — that they know what those differences are and that they correspond to racist stereotypes. They use the reluctance of the academic community to openly discuss these fraught issues to provide rhetorical cover for hateful ideas and old racist canards.
>This is why knowledgeable scientists must speak out. If we abstain [...] We leave a vacuum that gets filled by pseudoscience, an outcome that is far worse than anything we could achieve by talking openly.

>If scientists can be confident of anything, it is that whatever we currently believe about the genetic nature of differences among populations is most likely wrong. For example, my laboratory discovered in 2016, based on our sequencing of ancient human genomes, that “whites” are not derived from a population that existed from time immemorial, as some people believe. Instead, “whites” represent a mixture of four ancient populations that lived 10,000 years ago and were each as different from one another as Europeans and East Asians are today.

>How do we accommodate the biological differences between men and women? I think the answer is obvious: We should both recognize that genetic differences between males and females exist and we should accord each sex the same freedoms and opportunities regardless of those differences.
>It is clear from the inequities that persist between women and men in our society that fulfilling these aspirations in practice is a challenge. Yet conceptually it is straightforward. And if this is the case with men and women, then it is surely the case with whatever differences we may find among human populations, the great majority of which will be far less profound.

>>9624412
>>9624412
I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”

>>9624418
That's exactly what the whole article is about. Race is one grouping to estimate gene pools. Not the only one or best one.

>>9624412
>>9624418
TLDR: The author was smart enough to cover his ass with paragraphs and sentences prefacing all of his real points. The people with a strong SJW or libtard bias will ignore the real meat of his article.

This one sentence is the entire message of the article, "But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”"


He gave you enough outs so you could ignore it and see what your bias wanted to see it and not attack him too much.

>>9624429
Yes, if you want to know who has 125+ IQ the best way isn't race. It's an IQ test.

The thing is you will notice a trend about which race representations make up that 125+ IQ group.

>>9623862
Why are so many in denial about genetics and IQ? It doesn't have to be such a taboo. I thought Science stands up for truth, not feelings?

I may not add up to those with better genetics, but that doesn't mean I can't make the best of what I have. I do believe social issues should be guided by a clear understanding of what probably outcomes are.

If I'm low IQ, then it would be a waste of the public resources to send my low income/low IQ self to expensive education. It would be even worse if I lived somewhere where I had to take out 10's of thousands of dollars to do it because someone "hopes" I can buck the trend of my genetic dice roll. I would be a wage slave for decades to pay it all back. How would that be helpful to me?

Fucking nobody answered what OP asked.


the science to change the genome already exists (CRISPR) so the only thing to do is to find out the specific genes that determine a high intelligence.
it wouldn't take more than 3 years.
but of course no government would allow it.

>>9624440
Science does stand for truth. The problem is racists always try to co-op genetic studies for their agenda and everyone else who knows that using genetics to judge people is shitty doesn't want to study it as a result.

What is the point to proving racial differences in IQ? We're going to just give an entire racial group less rights so we can feel good about ourselves? It's too much of a hassle to study it for the sake of knowledge because people keep trying to use the research for racist agendas

where is the racial skew data on how hard people try during the IQ test?

>>9624478
>Science does stand for truth
>but my beliefs come first
You people are starting to sound like creationists.

>>9624478
It really upsets me because people will use it to explain economic differences or to talk about immigration policy

We should just blame white people and get revenge for slavery.

What's the problem here, IQ ( genetic or not) generally speaks for itself in terms of a persons growth throughout life and in the form of credentials (ignoring unlucky accidents and other low IQs holding them back) so unless this revelation is used to discriminate against blacks(1) what's the conclusive take away here
>Footnotes
>1: if a white and a black apply for the same job with the same credentials who gets the job
>if the black from a poor background managed to get to the level of the white wouldn't they imply higher IQ
>INB4 affirmative action, luck, etc
Point is that it's an unusable statistic

>>9624440
When people try to tie genetics to race it falls apart because race is literally meaningless to study directly as it's not informative about which genes are relevant.

Say that gene X is responsible for some respective trait. Xa is beneficial to humans and Xb is the unhelpful version of the gene. If we were studying race for this trait we've learnt nothing about the gene itself. All we've learnt is gene Xa comes up more frequently in population A then it does in population B. Both populations are capable of having this trait but some historical social influence tens of thousands of years ago resulted in a divergence of how often which version appears.

Here is where we get people who like to try and use this as an excuse to justify bias towards entire groups of people when we don't know which individuals have the gene and which don't. People also try to form racial policy based on plain genetics too which is equally fucking stupid because we know epigenetics can have huge influences on this sort of thing also.

On top of that formation of policy based on genetics is stupid because it removes the idea of personal choice from the equation - things like education should be based on actual real-world performance not genetic basis. No matter how genetically predisposed you are to being a genius you're not passing a difficult entrance exam if you've never studied a day in your life. By the time we've reached the later stages of education where genetics start to have more of an influence (no matter how stupid you are anyone can do the early years of education) things like work ethic have already started to separate out populations. That's why we have entrance exams because it weeds out the net sum of all influences based on actual performance as opposed to accepting people based off of IQ.

>>9623862
thats a bullshit chart lol

>>9624537
Jim Crow had nothing to do with economic differences.
The war on drugs had nothing to do with economic differences.
Redlining had nothing to do with economic differences.
Lead exposure had nothing to do with economic differences.
Implicit bias has nothing to do with economic differences.

It's 100% genetic dammit, rrreeeeee

>>9624170
You've got the causality around wrong way you idiot. IQ is by far the largest predictor of success, which leads to improved socioeconomic status.

>>9624550
If it was those policies we would see clear "equaling" out of outcomes afterwards.

Meanwhile Asians who also faced prejudiced laws and environments are now making more than whites in America. While the black wealth gap between them and whites has increased.

Not to mention the entire continent of Africa's HDI. Nigeria used to have similar to GDP per capita as China and now look at the difference.

>>9624552
The fact that you're so sure the causality is that way around is frankly concerning for such a well-studied subject. It's like you don't understand how nepotism works at all

>>9624557
Yeah bro. It was like a million years ago lol. And everyone knows reparations were paid in massive amounts to put everyone on even footing lol

lol

>>9624558
Save your conspiracy theories for pol. Smart people earn more money than stupid people, it's pretty easy to understand.

>>9624557
Did Nigeria crash or did China boom or both, and why?

>>9624557
The wealth gap increased for all poor people anon and has been increasing since before black people even had equal rights let alone equal social treatment. Black people started out disproportionately poor so of course the wealth gap between poor and rich affects them more you idiot

>>9624565
Look up education spending in Baltimore and most inner cities. The amount of resources that goes to blacks is very high.

>>9624568
But...you're the one talking like /pol/ you idiot. You're literally ignoring the fact that higher economic status leads to better education

>>9624574
The irony is that the money spent on education in america is a fucking joke and doesn't provide them with a proper education nor fix some of the social issues which keep people trapped in cyclical poverty

>>9624576
what does that have to do with IQ?

>>9624583
You realise that people with a better education test higher for IQ right?

>>9624579
yep, the education system should be re-routed to genetic programs to fix the underlying cause of inferiority.

>>9624589
What's the cause?

Some people are clearly desperate for everyone to be equal and for any differences to be only social problems that can be overcome. It’s ridiculous but well intentioned and yet I am sickened by your desire to remove the inherent diversity from humanity. I just wish that you could be left alone with your comforting beliefs, but you tend to form groups and try to force your beliefs on others. You already killed millions in Eastern Europe and China, will you ever have enough blood?

>>9624591
>inb4 race
>inb4 completely ignoring the fact that the same genes are present in races it's the distribution that is different
>inb4 doesn't realise genetic screening for IVF is already an easily achievable solution
>inb4 doesn't realise that if poor people can't afford the screening technology the gap will widen even more

>>9624586
what is the ratio of extra thousands of dollars to additional IQ points on test score? I bet it's pretty insignificant. You're arguing as though being brought up working class would drop someones IQ from 150 to 95.

>>9624595
Inherent diversity is a meme. True equality only comes from choice, not genetic predisposition

The problem is we don't even know all of the genes and what they do. There are at last several hundred, maybe thousand.

Another thing OP doesn't understand is that the model of nature vs nurture is a flawed and outdated model. A child could be born with all the best genetics for intelligence, but if they are born in Africa or in an isolated Amazonian tribe they will never do anything with it. Another main problem is that your genes do not determine your occupation or how to develop as a person over time. Human civilization has marched on for thousands of years of progress, but that isn't due to genetics. It's due to the fact that we're social animals and we can share in progress.

Given that there are less than 20,000 SNPs any two people will only differ by about 4,000 base pairs the entire idea that black shave worse genetics for intelligence is impossible. Most of the genetic differentiation between population are in the immune system, which makes evolutionary sense.

>>9624595
It's okay if it's fixed by environment.
If it's fixable by genetics we can't learn that or implement it.

>>9624610
see this thread
>>9624238

>>9624614
That thread has no information I already don't know nor anything that refutes what I said.

>>9624613
When genetically screened embryos becomes popular prepare for a gigantic gap between economic classes as those who can't afford to ensure the smart genes go into their baby get fucked over.

>>9624617
>The problem is we don't even know all of the genes and what they do. There are at last several hundred, maybe thousand.
We are identifying them at exponential rate, up to 538 in the last big publishing, from 0 just years ago.

The rest of your post is just too stupid to bother. It's demotivating to see such stupid logic

>why does IQ matter
>A 150 IQ child could get ran over at age 10 and contribute less to science than a 110 IQ person that doesn't die


Your logic is just inherently flawed. Showing a low IQ. Meaning no argument would work on you since you can't think logically to begin with.

>>9624625
>flawed arguments are indicative of low IQ
I knew /pol/ was basically 50 IQ!

>>9624625
>You're wrong because you're stupid!

>>9624625
Those 538 we have found only explain a fraction of IQ variation. Let's say there's 1500 genes that contribution to intelligence. If intelligence follows the general pattern of human variation, which it statistically will for such a large number of genes, then 85% or more of the variation will be shared by all populations already.

You also fail to see major problems in the concept of "editing" people. Even if we know all of the SNPs, we don't know what they all do. That research alone would take infinitely longer than simply sequencing and genome and correlating some SNPs.

>>9624625
>Showing a low IQ
As much as an individual’s experience is not normally statistically relevant; that has not actually been my experience with people that latch onto politically charged positions. The emotion trap is waiting to be sprung in all of us, avoiding it requires constant effort.

>>9624631
The argument was pointless on inspection

I can come up with infinite situations for IQ not mattering. It's not about specific situations being possible or not.

>150 IQ 5 year old
>gets shot in the head

Guess IQ doesnt matter because look, a 150 IQ kid didn't amount to much.

Someone putting forth such a stupid and low IQ argument is not worth arguing with. In my posts I'm talking to the people reading it with some semblance of logical thinking. Who already know your argument is garbage.

>>9624634
>the variation will be shared

God you are dumb. The things we have in common are what a separate a human mind from a dog mind, not variation between us you fucking incompetent thinker.

>>9624636
The point is you are pretending that a 100% deterministic version of IQ is all that matters, and no other factors are important.

Sam Harris just wrote a new article on race and IQ differences:
https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/978766308643778560

https://samharris.org/ezra-klein-editor-chief/

>>9624639
Or you are using strawman examples.

No one is arguing someone with amazing genetics that grew up feral with major brain injuries is going to turn out rich.

>>9624646
>is going to turn out rich.
Typical American mind, All that matters is money.

>>9624642
>article literally states at the start that it hasn't been determined how much genes has an effect vs how much environment does
We've literally learned nothing then

>>9624649
Money and wealth is an abstract universal measure for resources

>IQ is correlated with being left-wing
>All the people trying to make IQ threads are right-wing
>Logically we should be listening to the people with higher IQ since it's the be-all end-all
Pack it up, thread over. IQ has determined that we should all be radical left-wingers now according to /pol/

>>9624659
No, it's not. The Earth has always had the same amount of resources. Humans just learn to use them better and make new things. Gold would have been useless to a caveman.

>>9624662
The right wing people only make IQ threads because they're part of a "team." You'll notice they always try to take credit for other people's work. Things like racism appeal to people who feel rejected for being dumb. They feel accepted simply because of their skin color. For many of them their only accomplishment in life is being white.

>>9623862
IQ differences exist. Jut assholes here and elsewhere constantly misinterpret them for their own purposes or think that it's completely unchangeable over the years in populations as development happens.

Nothing off with saying "X has a higher IQ then Y" but hwen you are taking that info and screwing around with it into something that is vaguely related to the original statment but altered for your needs ishwere it becomes an issue.

Especial when you use it to justify differential treatment based off condemning the lower group to a worse quality of life/worse treatment at societal/state level or fucking them in the ass.

>>9624669
>spam "we wuz kangz" memes to mock the three black people trying to take credit for ancient egypt
>completely unaware of they themselves doing the same thing when they claim credit for all the things white people ever did

>>9624674
Most people, including ones on /sci/ and /pol/ don't even acknowledge IQ is just a statistical assessment. They don't even realize your score on any given IQ test can changed based on your mood, hunger, etc. They want to believe IQ is some innate and unchanging metric like a stat on a D&D character sheet.

>>9624674
Winrar over here

>>9624677
Yeah, it has no predictive value at all. Excellent point.

>>9624686
Predictive value doesn't mean it's not flawed

>>9624666
85-95 IQ

>>9624669
strawman, ignores scientific validity and extensive study of g.

>>9624674
using it to justify trends in outcomes is valid. A high IQ society becoming wealth while a low IQ country is poor isn't because of treatment. It's because of one society consistently making better decisions.

>>9624690
>best predictive function we have
>but... it's not perfect!

It's only flawed because you strawman someone as using it in a stupid way. Yes there are 90 IQ millionaires. It's still the best predictive function we have.

>>9624649
In part money is a measure of societal worth. To pretend that it isn't important is manifestly incorrect. In a simplistic model it is therefore a good indicator of success.

You can't solve a problem, except incidentally or by accident, until you know the cause of it. This thread reads like a thread of climate change deniers.

>>9624695
It's not the best predictive function we have at all. Standardised testing and school grades are far more predictive because they measure actual performance

>>9624696
Skills are more important than any amount of money. There is no correlation between the two. Most wealth is inherited.

>>9624695
Predictive of what, exactly? The problem is not qith the flaws in IQ itself. The problem is how most people interpret IQ.

>>9624694
>using it to justify trends in outcomes is valid. A high IQ society becoming wealth while a low IQ country is poor isn't because of treatment. It's because of one society consistently making better decisions.

Reich said it best:
>What makes Dr. Watson’s and Mr. Wade’s statements so insidious is that they start with the accurate observation that many academics are implausibly denying the possibility of average genetic differences among human populations, and then end with a claim — backed by no evidence — that they know what those differences are and that they correspond to racist stereotypes. They use the reluctance of the academic community to openly discuss these fraught issues to provide rhetorical cover for hateful ideas and old racist canards.

>>9624699
All proxies for IQ

>>9624524
>You people are starting to sound like creationists.

This is why they are called liberal creationists.

>>9624702
I didn't even mention race moron. The example was an abstract experiment between two societies differing in IQ but nothing else. If we have two groups of people with different IQs but equivalent otherwise and let them loose in USA we would see the higher IQ group tend to make more money and end up in better environments.

"Genes appear to be 50 to 80 percent of the story, people don't want to hear this, and they certainly don't want to hear that aver iq differs across races and ethnic groups. Now for better or worse, these are all facts. In fact there is almost nothing in psychological science for which there is more evidence than these claims, about iq, about the validity for testing for it, about its importance in the real world, about it's heritability and about it's differential expression in different populations. Again this is what a dispassionate look at decades of research suggests." -Sam Harris

>>9624700
This is communist propaganda. Skills, competence, hard work are rewarded in western society.

>>9624715
>50 to 80 percent of the story
Hah no. We haven't even begun to understand how environment influences the epigenetic side of things

>>9624718
>Skills, competence, hard work are rewarded in western society.

>>9624720
The sign of a delusional retard. What definition of epigenetics are you using? There are multiple and some are literally equivalent to phenotype.

>>9624721
It's true. Capitalism is a meritocracy. Having a hard time reconciling that fact with the reality you're a fucking failure? Maybe you're not as smart as you think you are?

>No, no, no, it has to be society that's wrong! Under communism I'd be a philosopher king, thats an economic system that would recognize my true value to society!

>>9624721
So people with higher degrees, people that have a proven body of work, people that work longer hours; these are not people that generally get paid more?

>>9624710
That's what we were discussing the whole time, but whatever. It doesn't have to be race, it can be any population groups. We keep going in circles.

>If we have two groups of people with different IQs but equivalent otherwise and let them loose in USA we would see the higher IQ group tend to make more money and end up in better environments.

I'm not disputing this at all. Please let that sink in. Please.

Now, why were the IQs different in the first place? Were conditions kept perfectly equal before you separated the groups? There are all sorts of factors at play. Yet you act like it's because everyone involved was born with their hard-wired IQ.

>>9624727
>capitalism is a meritocracy
No
Nobody understands what a meritocracy is
A true meritocracy would have everyone raised in the exact same way in an artificial environment completely detached from the family unit, separate from the outside world and without children ever knowing what jobs pay more so as to eliminate the uneven social influences upon the individual child.

I've even read smut that had a better understanding of this than you tards

>>9624728
The communist thinks it's all luck. They think if they had been in Bill Gates place back in 1975 then they'd be the one worth billions. They need to think this to reconcile the idea they're in the top 1% of the population in intelligence and yet can't seem to figure out how to do anything but work unskilled wageslave level jobs. Bill Gates was taking classes he wasn't enrolled in for fun at Harvard and worked his ass off to make connections at IBM and get his software packaged with their computers but the liberal mind thinks "All luck! Just in the right place at the right time! Anyone could've done that!" because they only see the results of his work.

>>9624728
You realize that the poorest people work the most right?

>>9624694
> A high IQ society becoming wealth while a low IQ country is poor isn't because of treatment. It's because of one society consistently making better decisions.

You statement implies that those societies were high IQ at the start or that they don't make bad decisions.

>>9624731
I can very well argue 50-80% of IQ is hard-wired and that is the common accepted scientific view of it. There is also the fact that the environment is also decided by IQ, which high IQ people generally moving up economically, including black.

>>9624733
Yes, yes, I know all the standard rhetoric. It's "social influences" that led to you being such a failure. Not the fact you're just average with serious dunning kruger. If society was truly a meritocracy why doesn't it recognize your obvious genius? Far easier to say that society isn't a meritocracy than face the reality of of your mediocrity.

>>9624736
>work = merit
???
Do you actually think this?

>>9624740
If society was a true meritocracy your fucking IQ-income correlation charts would be an exact line you retard

>>9624738
>high IQ people generally moving up economically

Heavily depends on the society. If you lived in place where the government discriminated against you thus capping your "growth potential" or areas where nepotism reigns then no exactly.

>>9624727
>The only two choices are capitalism and communism!

>>9624738
Latest estimates actually put it at 20-50%

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.104

>>9624743
This raises a separate philosophical debate
Should we praise a person who scored 100% on their quiz with zero effort the same amount as the person who put in hours of study? Same outcome but one clearly didn't have to do anything and we'd be praising them just for existing which isn't much to brag about

>>9624745
>IQ is merit
???

>>9624747
>areas where nepotism reigns
mfw /pol/ can't deny the influence of nepotism while also claiming the jews have a little illuminati circle of nepotism

>>9624751
Too stupid to reply to. You misinterpreted what you linked.

20% of the 50% heritability of intelligence

20 of the 50%

not 20% to 50%

Also 50% is the very low bar for variation from genetics. When we actually start altering genetics that % will actually grow to consume more and more of the total

>>9624738
>commonly accepted scientific view
sauce or gtfo

>>9624760
Nope, wrong. When genetic altering happens presumably the population would become uniform and IQ would then only be diverging between individuals due to social differences

This is of course assuming everyone gets access to the technology

>>9624736
You realize that if you have a minimum wage job and work for 12 hours you get paid less than the person who worked 14 right?

>>9624760
Oh yeah my bad, only discovered the paper recently and am tired. The heritability is predicted to be 50%, and is 20% confirmed.

>>9624762
A quick Google aid be easier....

>>9624769
Google search*... Goddam

>>9624765
There is no end point it reaches. It will continue to get better over time. Keep in mind I generally meant during the transitional phase before 100% of babies are born with it.

Also of those babies the genetic selection or editing would vary. In general though it will mean the genetic factors become even more important.

>>9623862
>this entire thread
IQ is the old shit why aren't we talking about how being tall makes your wages go up? The data is there and the we know that the causal relationship is (mumble mumble something something) MANLETS BTFO.

>>9624776
Indeed. Numerous studies have shown statistically significant correlations between height and IQ, even when controlling for socioeconomics and education. The correlation exists in both the developed and developing world and persists across age groups. Height has been shown to be a good predictor of IQ.

>Birth weight showed no association with childhood IQ. However, height at age 9 years was a significant predictor of childhood IQ after adjusting for socioeconomic status
https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fije%2Fdyi038

Dutch twin study find there are genes that can affect both height and IQ at the same time:
>In adulthood, a correlation was found between height and FSIQ in young adulthood and between height and VIQ in middle age. All correlations could be ascribed to genetic factors influencing both height and IQ.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17081263/

Environment plays a role, but not entirely:
>A major part of the height–intelligence correlation was due to correlated shared environments (59% of the phenotypic height–intelligence correlation), but statistically significant effects of correlated genes and nonshared environments were also found (respectively 35% and 6% of the phenotypic correlation).
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/resolving-the-genetic-and-environmental-sources-of-the-correlation-between-height-and-intelligence-a-study-of-nearly-2600-norwegian-male-twin-pairs/E94845B008B83DDAF63B6112969D0AFF

>>9624735
Bill Gates isn't unique though. That's like saying just because "Generic Kenyan long distance athlete" runner who would have gotten gold didn't run due to illness that means no one else could get gold or beat his hypothetical run time.

Like if the fact that two different men far as fuck from each other back in an age with very little methods to communicate across vast distances with no contact with each other both came up with the exact same idea (Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz). We have multiple instances of discoveries being made at the same time in science. Srinivasa Ramanujan came up with a lot of stuff independently all by himself. Bill Gates is not exceptional in the One in 10 million kind of way and I think that American tendency to mythologies rich men is the reason why he's so played up.

>>9624786
He's not unique, but he wouldn't have been able to capitalize on the opportunity he had if he was your average dumbshit liberal capitalism hater. There are billion dollar ideas that have yet to be implemented. Everyone THINKS they could've been Bill Gates, or Elon Musk, or Zuckerberg, orJeff Bezos, or any other guy who has become insanely wealthy by creating a company if they only had the idea first. Well? In the next 5 years there is a good chance someone will create a business that becomes yet another billion dollar company. It could be you, if you're as smart and talented as you think you are why aren't you working towards it right now?

The simple truth is everyone thinks they could've done x after x is done, but they're all talk and no action and even if they were placed back in time they couldn't execute x because they're painfully mediocre people with zero work ethic or inspiration. They're worker drones who sell their labor to people with better ideas and that's all they'll ever be.

>>9624802
>but he wouldn't have been able to capitalize on the opportunity he had if he was your average dumbshit liberal capitalism hater.

But I can draw up from the ever increasing poll of people who fit his niche or close to it.If Microsoft wasn't a thing something else would have popped up or someone else could have done his role more or less the same.

We aren't talking about mediocre people anon stop deviating into that lien of thought. What I am saying is that if it wasn't him it could have been anyone else.

>>9624802
Yo Bill Gates is a hardcore liberal lol

>>9623881
Facts != Discrimination

>>9624735

Not that anon but there is merit to the "right place, right time" belief. History has shown multiple times that brilliant men in the past have failed to achieve their goals because not all of the "pieces" such as technology, economy and social atmosphere weren't alligned properly during their life time. Meanwhile years later individuals who pick up where they left off make necessary tweaks and are thrust into the lime light as geniuses when they only contributed 5-10% of the ground work.

>>9624814
How is that relevant?

>>9624812
>If Microsoft wasn't a thing something else would have popped up or someone else could have done his role more or less the same.
This is horseshit and exactly the type of psychological self deception people use to make themselves feel better about their inadequacies. Just because you're replaceable doesn't mean the world would be exactly the same if Microsoft wasn't created. If Gates wasn't born computing today would be entirely different than it is. It doesn't mean that someone else would identified the opportunity and we'd all be using BicroMoft Doors.

>>9624846
I don't think anyone denies that there are many people who couldn't live up to their potential because they were born in the wrong place at the wrong time. But claiming that every historical event was predestined to happen due to material conditions (which is basically marxism) is really stupid. There are so many counter examples.

For instance, do marxists think it was "inevitable" that a 7th century arabian merchant would create a religion which would convert half the globe and change the culture of the middle east forever?

>>9624865

Not him but Gates wasn't the inventor of the microprocessor, that was Federico Faggin and Masatoshi Shima who were the real game changers. Gates despite his importance is actually interchangeable since the major players (MITS and IBM) who helped brought Microsoft to prominence in the first place were already established. We were already set to get the computers we have today by them. Gates contribution is more towards consumer side than general computing.

>>9624915
>Faggin

>>9624908

>do marxists think it was "inevitable" that a 7th century arabian merchant would create a religion which would convert half the globe and change the culture of the middle east forever?

I can't say what the Marxists belief is on the subject. But I can tell you that there religions that easily predate it and would have spread in it's place instead had it not existed due to the fact that the vehicles for wide spread conversion such as trading and military invasions existed.

The real question should be if the content within said religion would have been the same. Which I'm not really sure if it would have.

>>9624938
>and would have spread in it's place
Sounds like a load of conjecture.

>>9624941

Are we going to pretend there wasn't a number of other religions back in 7th century and before?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_pre-Islamic_Arabia

>>9623862
Seems accurate

>>9625024
None of them ever expanded from Spain to western China...

>>9625028

Because Islam existed, the point is if Islam was absent one of the other religions would have spread instead. Probably one of the Iranian religions since a couple of them did reach parts of India and China with limited success.

>>9624915
That doesn't change anything though? I said computing would be entirely different, and it would be

>>9624908
>For instance, do marxists think it was "inevitable" that a 7th century arabian merchant would create a religion which would convert half the globe and change the culture of the middle east forever?

We had Jesus do that like 660 years before that

>>9625060
It would be but it's interchangeable. Earlier said that anyone but Bill Gates would not have gotten rich. He's been shown how that is pretty off.

>>9625060

Exactly how would computing be different? Remember microprocessing was already set before Gates. And the major contribution Gates provided was on the consumer side specifically with Windows OS. But it was not the only OS in town with Unix predating it.

>>9625079
You don't think the OS with a 90% marketshare never existing would've shaken things up? Without the anti-competitive practices Microsoft employed to stamp out competition? You think everything would've been the same and the market wouldn't have become fragmented?

>>9624043
>IQ is not genetic

>>9625094

Apple predates Microsoft anon, they could have easily assumed that said role. Which technically they did until Microsoft got the jump on them with a cheaper OS.

>>9624595
It's okay dude, just say you don't wanna think about the welfare of other humans. We're all here to support your decision.

>>9624743
This is the part where your brain starts to tingle and hurt. You don't want to reward people for giving full effort because then you'd have a slightly less nice car. Holy shit my bad bro, that leather is so much more important than decent meals for the children of your gas station attendant.

>>9625165
The full effort of someone who flips burgers 12 hours a day every day is still worth less than a person who manages a multinational company that employs over 10,000 people. That's life. In a meritocracy merit is how much value you provide to other people, which is measured by how many of them are willing to pay the price you want for whatever product or service you produce for them.

How much your work has absolutely nothing to do with how much you're worth to society. The labor theory of value is fucking stupid. How do you value a cup of coffee? Based on it's value to you, or based on how hard someone worked to make it? If I have an exceptionally stupid but hardworking employee who takes an hour to make a coffee are you willing to pay 15 bucks for it because of the labor?

It's your brain that's tingling and hurting because you don't understand economics and you don't understand the forces that prompt people to produce all the goods and services you happily take for granted. If I create something that society deems incredibly valuable and they funnel billions to my company to produce it then yes I deserve every fucking cent

>>9625165
move to cuba

>>9623862
Haven’t read the thread, but these graphs are based on one type of IQ test
There are multiple ways to measure intelligence and nobody wants to delve deeper into it because one side is satisfied with the results they got and the other side realizes it’s ultimately pointless

There’s a reason why IQ tests fall into the same category as which character are you quizzes and mbti tests
It’s more of a novelty than something that accurately depicts a person

>>9625204
>the "multiple intelligences" meme
tell me, friend, what magical way have you discovered better than measuring g?

>Black people have 10 less IQ points
>Welp I guess we HAVE to round them all up and gas them!
>Sorry guys I'm not racist, im just a race """""realist"""""

>>9625465
We already generally know who has an IQ of under 90. It wouldn't be new information.

If the theory is "If we know someone has 90 IQ or lower we would kill them" then why haven't we already? How would some group having more or less % of people under that IQ cause a genocide to make sense?

>>9625465
It would stop all the "They commit 50% of all violent crime because they're oppressed by THE MAN" rhetoric that's been shoved down our throats for the past 20 years and honestly that would be enough for me. I'm tired of people trying to argue that blacks steal, rape and kill each other because they're not getting enough gibmedats despite the fact it's a global trend that pervades all cultures, all government systems no matter how much or how little welfare they get.

If differences between individuals are known to be due to environment and genetics , why wouldn't your null hypothesis be that differences between groups are also due to both environment and genetics?

Environmentalists have no answer for this. They want to assert that their dogma , that differences in average Iq between groups are entirely due to environment , should be taken as the null hypothesis when there is 0 reason to do that.

Someone try to justify this to me.

>>9623862
http://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection
Read this

>>9625465
>I can't argue against the opposing side's facts so I have to strawman them and imply that everyone stating this particular truth is immoral and wishes for genocide

Why are whites here so obsessed with Iq?

>>9625514
Because IQ is highly correlated with empathy, criminality and the average IQ of a population has a profound impact on the living standards of areas. If you live around people with low IQ (black areas) you're going to find theres a lot more criminal behavior, drug use and the people are generally assholes with no filter because they're too stupid to have the level of self awareness needed to moderate their behavior.

Live in a high IQ area and you'll find that it's much nicer.

Do you want your country to be like the nicest parts of the US or do you want your country to be like the worst parts of Africa? It's increasingly becoming clear that demographics are the factor, not economic status like has been previously believed. White poor people are nicer to live around than rich blacks. If we can acknowledge the reality we can fix the problem.

>>9625465
>having such a low IQ that straw-manning is the only way you can get anywhere in a debate

>>9625525
Criminality us high tied to poverty and whether one is urban or not.

>>9625525
>White poor people are nicer to live around than rich blacks.

No they aren't. Like each person is different but enter real dens of white poverty there is barely any difference between thevghetto and poor rural shithole where jobs are all gone and everyone us on something and everything fell apart.

>>9625549
>controlling for economic status, we still see that blacks commit more crime

Gee, it's almost as if there is a genetic component to this discussion.

>>9625549
why are some poor urban communities less criminal than others? the reason is IQ. See how poor east asian immigrants commit much, much less crime than blacks.

This is a pretty obvious idea with good evidence supporting it that people who have been indoctrinated by left wing dogma try their best to avoid considering

>>9625549
>No they aren't
That contradicts the statistical evidence we have.

>>9624257
Effort is a genetic predisposition.

>>9624215

The most brainlet thing I've ever read

>>9623880
Science

>>9626678
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/03/23/grammar-schools-have-virtually-no-effect-genetics-determine/

School choice doesn't even matter

>>9624043

this is false. there have been multiple studies refuting what you just stated. You can debate the moral implications but this is an absurd argument at this point.

Researchers examined the genetic differences between students who attend selective and non-selective schools, then analysed their GCSE results.
They found that children who attend grammar or private schools are more likely to do well in exams - but this is largely down to their genes, rather than their school environment.

The study, published in the journal npj Science of Learning, suggests that the type of school a child goes to has little impact on their academic achievement by the age of 16.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/03/23/grammar-schools-have-virtually-no-effect-genetics-determine/

>>9625556

Not that anon but that's a pretty interesting argument considering the fact that IQ was also supposed to also be the reason for communities being poor in the first place. Should I take your post as admittance that IQ's correlative power is weak concerning economic success? Or will you jump through hoops to deny the implications of your own post?

>>9624043
>lower IQ's is due to growing up in environments
Adoption studies show that blacks adopted and grows up in white families have IQ similar to blacks that grows up in black families.

>>9625525
Criminality is good

>>9623862
This chart is bullshit isn't it?

Could someone post an actual IQ distribution chart? Preferably with more then just black or white people.

>>9624170
Im pretty sure it is the other way around, i.e. IQ determines one's economic status.

People born poor but have a higher iq, would able to pull out of there at some point.

>>9626707
The study doesn't show that at all. It doesn't compare non adopted and adopted blacks or whites adopted by blacks.

>tfw from North Africa with an avg IQ of 90~
>Tfw both parents PhDs
>Tfw IQ 130

>>9624151
>we're not talking about the outlier ends of the curve

But the average determines how much and how far "outlier" IQs get. A population of 95 IQ will not have the same amount of "random" genetic geniuses that a 115 IQ population gets.

>>9626901

It's almost as if you're an exception. Most people in the higher IQ countries don't have PhDs. Even by the standards of non-black America, your parents are exceptional.

>>9626703
Not the other but...

Here's the thing. If you have economic success, you're able to marry into better quality, and presumably higher IQ, mates. It's the way of the world.

> IQ was also supposed to also be the reason for communities being poor in the first place.

I'd say it's less IQ and more impulse control. Which oddly enough is correlated with IQ. If you look at black crime rates, you should realize how fucking little impulse control a lot of AAs have.

>>9626793

Black criminality is not good. A fictional story from my skid row days. Fictional, emphasis. In fact let's have the main character be...Brett.

I was going to write a long story about it but it'd probably be better just to give the bullet points.

1. Brett had a tent. Adopted small dog. Loved the shit out of small dog.
2. Brett had to take care of some paperwork at the welfare office. Had to leave dog at the tent.
3. Brett came back, found all his shit stolen, even the fucking tent.
4. Brett did some detective work with the aid of cigarettes which are a de facto form of currency amongst LA homeless
5. Brett found his tent. I put a big bright red sticker on it beforehand. The dumb motherfuckers didn't even take it off when they put it up.
6. Brett waited 'till night to check said tent out. Brett's stuff was there but the papers were all strewn about. They took a $20 bill I put in my main backpack "just incase".
7. I finally found the dog in a trashcan barrel. They had apparently tortured it and beat it to death.
8. Brett ended up never taking a stray dog in again. Also by coincidence the following morning, there were two motherfuckers paralyzed from the neck up.

And that's one, of many reasons, Brett will never live in a black majority neighborhood

>>9626999

neck down*

>>9626999
>If you look at black crime rates, you should realize how fucking little impulse control a lot of AAs have.

Vast majority of crimes(all types) are crimes of opportunity.

>>9626888
And the age of adoption widely varies (as well as the wealth of the adoptees) on top of maternal health during pregnancy.

>>9625561
Because less whites are poor percentage wise.

>>9627009

It's not "a crime of opportunity" when black-on-white rapes are almost 100x more common than white-on-black rapes. It's not "a crime of opportunity" when their homeless shit in the middle of the street. It's not a "crime of opportunity" when a lot of blacks will literally blame "whitey" for their condition. That stupid exact term. All my life, I made excuses for the chaos I saw around me. But in the end, my opinion is that "vibrant melanin-enriched" people have far less impulse control, even taking into account other homeless of other ethnicities.

Here's the thing. Go live in a black majority neighborhood. Just observe things. As in observe, not make excuses for.

>>9627028

In fact, let me give you a situation.

If you had to be around black homeless or asian homeless, which one would you choose? If you had to be around white homeless or black homeless, which one would you choose? If you had to be around a bunch of latino homeless or black...you get the point

It's not that the other races are paragons of virtue, it's that AAs have a far lesser upper bound of impulse control than other groups. About equal with methheads of other races.

>>9627028
>>9627043
CONT

>but my friend!

Look, I'm not homeless now and there are AAs I consider friends who I'd die for. They're intelligent and just good people in general. That doesn't negate my decision to never, ever, ever, move into a black majority neighborhood. Because most of them aren't like my friends and jesus fucking christ they have an almost sociopath inability to take responsibility.

All the things libtards say about poor whites and rednecks are the same things they think about blacks and hispanics.

wh*Te genocide is good

>>9627054
>That doesn't negate my decision to never, ever, ever, move into a black majority neighborhood.
Why not just base it on the crime rate? If the crime is low, you're good.

>>9627081
Do low crime black neighborhoods exist?

>>9624043
Black people also tend to be concentrated in the lower class compared to white people.
Lower class means lower quality schooling, lower quality of life, lower quality diet, etc.
All of which has a significant impact on intelligence.

>>9627092
There's a few. There's one by me in NYC, Jamaica Estates. I've also heard of ones in/near Beverly Hills or something.

Also look up Black Wall Street.

>>9626819

>>9627113
https://www.niche.com/places-to-live/n/jamaica-estates-new-york-city-ny/residents/
17% black...

>>9627121
Dang, wrong hood. I forgot which one it is then. One of them is though.

>>9627113
Baldwin Hills, the black Beverly Hills, with an average annual income of $157,000, has 6 times the murder rate of the America's poorest white county, Appalachian Hills, with an annual income of $19,351.

>>9627135
"The poorest" isn't a fair comparison. Compare it with the highest crime white county. I'm sure it's lower.