/sci/ - Science & Math

he didn't because there is good reason to believe at least part of the difference in average IQ between different races is due to genes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16867211
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1992-34580-001

Man i really like sam harris

>>9681468
I like how he keeps saying bullshit despita having negative IQ

>>9681483
Except race nor iq are science. Race and iq are pseudoscience, sorry.

Joe Rogan AGREES with Sam on RACE and IQ!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r_E0bXF54U&feature=youtu.be

>>9683484
Is this how you cope with black people who bullied/bully you at school? Serious question. No rational human being would care so much about something which doesn't matter and would only have negative social consequences. Except with regards to eugenics fantasies which are doomed to fail due to them having strong foundations of bullshit.

>>9683152
>intelligence doesn't exist
>race doesn't exist
Kek

>>9683493

not him and i didn't watch the video, but it does matter. there exist very real performance disparities between races, and i'm tired of being blamed for them and taken for a ride.

at some point you must acknowlege that performance disparities are a product of genetic differences and not white oppression.

>>9683518
Literally nobody would ever talk about them if you people would just shut the fuck up.

>>9683518
No one actually disputes that on a physical level, the problem comes when the subject turns to intelligence, which in our society is essentially equivalent to how much you're worth. People with low IQ are looked down on and have far lower job prospects no matter what other qualities they bring to the table, and thus the controversy comes from how much IQ and race are correlated, not necessarily how genes and race are correlated. Even then, there is a load of variety that these genes afford going beyond race, and humans as a whole have less genetic diversity between them than most other species.

>>9683518
cont.

it's unfair to whites to keep blaming them for things that aren't their fault. you must at least agree with this. the objective reality is that african americans are far better off and have far higher standards of living than africans living in africa. what are your grievances, what do you want?

>>9683525
This is mostly on a cultural and economic level, of course.

>>9683526
The question here is, do Africans living in Africa feel that way?

>>9683525

browbeating whites with social manipulation and debasing white culture is not an acceptable solution to this problem.

>>9683494
>iq is intelligence
Pseudoscience lovers are out of control today...
>race
Race definition literally claims that appearance judgements affects the categorizations, implying that phenotype defines genotype. Which is false. That's why "race" has no scientific rigor. Pseudoscience.

>>9683534

wouldn't know. most of them don't have internet access.

>>9683541
I never said anything about what was and wasn't an acceptable solution. I only put forward why things are the way they are.

>>9683554

and i never claimed you did. but that appears to be the direction things are going.

so please, for the love of god, find another scapegoat or admit these problems have a genetic basis.

>>9683562
The problem comes from the fact that every time this notion comes up, the most popular solution that seems to come up is some form of eugenics or discrimination against perceived lower IQ races. Understandably, there is not a whole lot of social momentum behind this, so other avenues are going to have to be at play.

>>9683546
I'll bite. Explain in certain terms how IQ amounts to pseudoscience.

>>9683569
Nobody in this thread but *you* brought up eugenics. Are you sure you're describing the position of others, and not your own?

If IQ = real then Eugenics, Eugenics = bad, therefore IQ =/= real.

Besides, even if there is no IQ there are actual racists that want to get rid of others purely on the way they look: IQ disparity isn't even a necessary condition.

>>9683569
> so other avenues are going to have to be at play.

in that case, you cannot claim the moral high ground. do not speak to me like i'm the reincarnation of hitler just because i resent being a scapegoat.

>>9683518
>>9683526
Holy shit you're an autistic broken record. Same exact posts from the other thread with the same "cont." shit.

I've already told you how you're full of shit in the other thread and then you stopped responding. I guess you have to try again here.

>>9683595

and i've already told you that i don't want to be on the butt end of your social experiment. this is asinine.

you can't keep blaming economic, social and academic disparities on white oppression because it's

1) utter bullshit
2) will never solve the problem

blacks will always be behind because they're at a genetic disadvantage, not because whites are too hard on them. if they always blame whitey, they'll always have a culture of victimhood and whites will always have a culture of guilt, and this bizarre social codependence will continue indefinitely.

For the hundredth time, this is not science. And I assume you already know that it isn't math either.

>>9683603

it's "social science", and i'm not the one making these threads

>>9683603
see
>>9683570

>>9683606
Yeah, it's social """""""""science"""""""""""

>>9683611
not an argument. see >>9683570

Sam Harris is an idiot. Seriously. Doesn't understand compatibilism. Uses naturalistic fallacy to support utilitarianism.

I seriously doubt he has anything valuable to say.

>>9683601
>you can't keep blaming economic, social and academic disparities on white oppression
I don't. I think your autism gets in the way of comprehending things.

>1) utter bullshit
You deny recent recent historical oppression? And indisputable ongoing inequalities?
>2) will never solve the problem
Wonderful, so now oppression is justified??

>>9683612
I'm not him, retard. Are you so much of a pussy that you cannot stand multiple disagreeing with you?

>>9683617
>You deny recent recent historical oppression? And indisputable ongoing inequalities?

i dispute oppression, not inequalities.

let me ask you, what do you want? what are whites doing to oppress you that we can work on?

>>9683618
Did I imply you were the same person?

>>9683623
Even so don't act like you're entitled to having your question answered, especially when I'm not even the one you asked it to.

>>9683576
I wasn’t even talking about how I felt, I was talking about how a lot of other people have perceived the matter in the past. More importantly, why did you feel that I was treating you like Hitler for saying that people commonly associate race and iq with some form of eugenics? I didn’t even say eugenics were bad, just implied that there was a perception of such.

>>9683629
Also, at no point did I ever claim that I was more morally sound than anyone. If anything, I probably have less moral fiber than a lot of people.

>>9683627
Did I not just repose the question to you as well, then? Obviously you're not obligated to respond to anything here, but if you think it's pseudoscience you should be able to explain why. If you can't or don't want to, that's fine.

>>9683629
>a lot of other people
Who?
>i didn't even say eugenics were bad
Yikes.

>>9683575
I only brought it up to describe a common perception that I’ve seen. At no point did I imply that anyone else here shared those views, unless I did it unintentionally.

>>9683620
>i dispute oppression, not inequalities.
You dispute Jim Crow, the war on drugs, and redlining?

It's not just inequalities. It's racially unfair inequalities. When these persist while the VAST majority of people in power (politicians, judges, etc) are disproportionately white, then it takes the form of oppression, because the interest/effort for correcting these racial injustices are diminished.

>let me ask you, what do you want? what are whites doing to oppress you that we can work on?
Let's work on criminal justice. Let's work on issuing equal sentences for equal crime/criminal background rather than skin color. Let's hold judges accountable for racially inconsistent sentencing.

Let's fix gerrymandering so that black people have a chance to be represented fairly.

>>9683629
>you feel that I was treating you like Hitler

sorry, not you specifically, but in general you WILL be seen as a racist if you take issue with the "white oppression" narrative or diversity shilling.

>>9683629
>just implied that there was a perception of such.

if that's what you meant, then i'm confused. if eugenics and discrimination would still be socially unacceptable without white guilt, then why scapegoat whites in the first place?

>>9683546
cheverud's conjecture. only complete brainlets think that there is no connection between genotype and phenotype.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/03/30/291062

>>9683633
This is mostly annecdoctal stuff from conversations I’ve observed and participated in both in and outside the web, but yeah, the average person tends to associate race and iq with some inevitable form of discrimination or otherwise.

And yeah, I know what I said, I was just trying to demonstrate that I was being as neutral as possible.

>>9683636
And let's work on being less criminal, than those points are basically moot.

>>9683637
Because whites and western ideology are currently the most culturally dominant forces in the world. That’s it. Not necessarily very fair or right, but that’s how it seems to work from what I’ve seen.

>>9683601
Caribbean blacks in the UK don't have a gap in gcse result achievement scores compared to whites though, ones from west africa are the second best group behind east asians. gcse scores scale pretty well to iq scores I've never seen an IQ fag deal with this without hand-waving. There is also the fact that black US women do pretty well at school and have earnings roughly equivalent to white women, the difference is with men primarily.

>>9683636
>Let's work on criminal justice. Let's work on issuing equal sentences for equal crime/criminal background rather than skin color. Let's hold judges accountable for racially inconsistent sentencing.

here you have a point. in fact, one of my paranoid conspiracy theories is that the war on drugs and unduly long prison sentences ARE in fact a form of eugenics. but blacks tend to be more fertile than whites, especially in recent years. what happens when the worst of society (black and white alike) out-breed higher-functioning members for several generations? doesn't that seem dysgenic? do you think that's sustainable?

>>9683652
>Caribbean blacks in the UK

very biased sample.

>>9683634
>>9683640
Okay, whether this is the response from one person or more, this sounds like something you're making up off the top of your head and passing off as a general impression. Maybe it isn't something you're making up, but it certainly seems that way.

So, I'll put this to you again: how do you know this isn't just you projecting *your* thoughts onto this "average person" construct you're suggesting exists? Can you point me to anything concrete?

>>9681468
I don't think he got BTFO, but he did lose it in the sense that he was unable to understand how serious the consequences of saying something that blacks are less intelligent than whites is, especially in a country like the US with its history. Sam is too concerned with being a hyperationalist and fails to see the bigger picture. The other guy was annoying as hell, but he had some good points.

Why does /sci/ have a nigger hate thread everyday now?

>>9683670
You push down an air balloon in one area and the air rushes to another area. End Lysenkoism and it will re-balance.

>>9683650
>Because whites and western ideology are currently the most culturally dominant forces in the world. That’s it. Not necessarily very fair or right, but that’s how it seems to work from what I’ve seen.

so you're scapegoating whites because you feel they don't deserve what they've achieved? that's pretty fucked up.

>>9683653
>what happens when the worst of society (black and white alike) out-breed higher-functioning members for several generations? doesn't that seem dysgenic? do you think that's sustainable?
Doesn't matter. You can't do forced eugenics in a free country. The dumb white people deserve just as many rights as the elite, so the same applies to all races. Even if you did, like you said, it doesn't have to be racially-based. Make it based on IQ across the board. But, the Flynn effect is still present in lower members of society, so there is hope. The United States is still the strongest nation on Earth and doesn't seem to be going anywhere despite the scare-mongering you see on /pol/. I'll believe it when I see it (real, hard evidence), and when I see it I'll still be against forced eugenics.

>>9683652
>Caribbean blacks in the UK don't have a gap in gcse result achievement scores compared to whites though
That is easily explained by the fact that only the richest and most skilled Caribbean blacks have the opportunity to emigrate to the UK.

>>9683676
Look up EA and IQ GWAS. What do you notice about all of the studies? If you assume, since I will allow for skeptical views, that embryo selection or some engineering process can increase intelligence soon: Do you think the fact no one will do a black intelligence GWAS matters?

>>9683652
What are you actually arguing against here? Your premises are:

>Caribbean blacks in the UK have gcse scores comparable to whites

>west africans are the second best group behind east asians

> gcse scores scale pretty well to iq scores

So what are you saying? Rather, what are you saying the claims of "IQ fags" are? It seems you're granting the validity of IQ as a predictor of GCSE score, and by extension that West African and Caribbean UK blacks have higher IQs than the population mean.

Just because some racist will says "every single black person is stupid because this number is smaller than that number", proving they don't understand IQ or Statistics, doesn't mean IQ has no predictive power.

>>9683676
>But, the Flynn effect is still present in lower members of society, so there is hope.
Raising the average IQ by a few points, and then stagnating, is of little use to disadvantaged groups. How much utility does a minimal increase in average IQ -from 85 to, say, 89 - bring for members of said group? "None" is the answer..

The IQ gap in nations has a strong correlation with education. The more people in a nation have access to quality schools, the higher average IQ the nation will have. And IQ tests were originally created for schools. So how do you know race isn't the factor here?

>>9683676
>The United States is still the strongest nation on Earth

US's largest IQ competitors post Nazi: Communist Russia, Communist China, burned out and destroyed western Europe.

In the 80's USA was worried about the rise of Japan, a small country with low natural resources that was destroyed and occupied by USA.

>>9683687
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-east-asian-exception-to-socio-economic-iq-influences/

IQ of China vs GDP per capita of Mexico

>>9681468
Aggressive behavior is also STRONGLY heritable!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKHi-Dg_7QM

The IQ gap in nations has a strong correlation with education. The more people in a nation have access to quality schools, the higher average IQ the nation will have. And IQ tests were originally created for schools. So how do you know this isn't caused by a factor other than racial genetics?

>>9683676
>Doesn't matter. You can't do forced eugenics in a free country.

you can't enact dysgenic policies either. you can't let the worst outbreed the best while expecting education, healthcare, public services, etc. to be provided for that growing population of people who can't sustain the standard of living they demand.

>>9683695
so's having a small cock l0l

>>9683697
This is a dishonest post.

>So how do you know this isn't caused by a factor other than racial genetics?

the level of absolute truth is never necessary.

How do we know God isn't completely controlling everything related to IQ?

What we have are large statistical examples across a multitude of environments. If it was environmental, we can control environment, and in the competition between nations and communities people would create ideal environments to create high IQ students.

If such a thing had the impact blank slates might imagine why do we not see these high IQ environments everywhere creating endless einsteins?

The fact is, without altering genetics, we have little control over IQ. We have already given a wide access to education and the basics of avoiding malnutrition. Past that it hardly effects things to change environment.

>>9683667
Do you really think he doesn't understand the potential consequences argument? Really? That doesn't seem very likely, it's a very apparent elephant in the room.

Instead, his entire position is a counterpoint to that argument. He understands 'the consequences' but says the consequences of not discussing these things honestly and in good-faith are worse.

That's his claim, whether you agree with him or not is what you want to argue, but don't waste time saying he doesn't understand something so simple. He clearly does.

>>9683688
And the US did just fine, even full of negroes. Meanwhile the USSR was 100% white. And Nazi Germany was far from the glorified paradise you imagine. Plus they killed the highest IQ population....

>>9683682
Can't predict the future. If you can improve cognition in the embryo, it will naturally affect the rich first. The poor whites will be a lower class of human right there with the blacks. However, we should try to avoid that.

>>9683687
>The IQ gap in nations has a strong correlation with education.
Wrong. A high average IQ is a precursor for a well-functioning educational system. School doesn´t make you smarter - it merely serves as a motivator to delwe deeper into certain subjects.
>And IQ tests were originally created for schools.
IQ-tests were created to weed out the literal retards, who had no use for schooling, from public education.

They were first used on the grey masses in World War 2 by the military. The most able were granted officer ranks and duties, while the less able were steered to cannon-fodder infantry regiments. After the war, this practice continued and spread to law enforcement, demanding enterprise (banking, law) and academia in the form of more or less thinly veiled IQ-tests (ASVAB, GRE, LSAT, SAT, ACT etc.).

The State recognizes IQ in its search for the public servants of the future, while prestigious corporations do the same - what the average pleb thinks of IQ is of little consequence to the way society is built up.

>>9683708
USA at the height of power relative to the world, and during those times you talk about was segregated, sexist, and 85%+ white.

>>9683709
This. This post might make you uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean this post is wrong.

>>9683708
>Can't predict the future
Intelligence is a simulator-like function that does precisely that. Why do you think you have imagination?

The point is we can interpolate and understand what will happen with a BLACK IQ GWAS. That's why no one has done it. The lysenkoism is forcing the only actual studies to be only on white/asians to avoid lysenko lynches

>>9683712
85% white. And USSR was 100%. And now we are ~60% white. Looks like we still haven't fallen. Maybe we will be okay? Like I said, I'll believe it when I see it.

You can't argue "We don't have the evidence"

While the funding and ability to create evidence is withheld.

There are a multitude of GWAS on IQ. None for Black IQ. Until the censorship and wall is dropped you can't in good faith argue "no evidence" unless you also mention there should be funding for black IQ gwas and genebanks for blacks.

>>9683723
>GWAS

what's that?

>>9683721

>>9683726
You should be asking yourself why you are debating in this thread if you don't know. Also why you can't use google.

>>9683729

excuse me for being a layman, but i have grievances with the "diversity" narrative too

>>9683706
Knowing the consequences and understanding them are two different things.
>but says the consequences of not discussing these things honestly and in good-faith are worse.
That's what he doesn't understand. There's no discussing that blacks are intellectually inferior than whites in good faith. Maybe if everyone in America was Sam Harris, but that's not the case. We're probably some 150 years from being able to talk about these things rationally. There's just no way the pros (which are still very blurry to me) would outweigh the cons of such a deeply controversial information.

>School doesn´t make you smarter - it merely serves as a motivator to delwe deeper into certain subjects.

School gives you the ability to take IQ tests. How would someone who never learned mathematics in school be able to find patterns in a sequence of numbers? How would someone who has never read much literature be able to quickly unravel scrambled words or find similarities between different words?

>>9683738
>How would someone who never learned mathematics in school be able to find patterns in a sequence of numbers?
They wouldn´t, which is why Raven´s Progressive Matrices was created.
>How would someone who has never read much literature be able to quickly unravel scrambled words or find similarities between different words?
The verbal portions of IQ-tests generally include only words in common use in order to avoid the issue that you pointed out.

>>9683744
cont.
Furthermore, the scientific consensus on the claimed bias of IQ-tests is that no such bias exists. Only the delusional leftist continues to cling onto such illogical (what are men of science to gain from making biased tests?) and false beliefs.

>>9683677
That isn't true though, it's not like US immigration, they were mostly drawn from the provincial working class/lower middle class, educated people had opportunities and good living standards at home and they were invited over to plug gaps in working class labour (post office, transport, etc). Same goes for irish, mexican/etc and italian immigrants to the US rather than modern legal US immigration.

>>9683731
and as someone with invisible disabilities, it's all too apparent that "social justice" is most often demanded and afforded when it makes the involved benefactors look good.

>>9683727
Other countries doing good doesn't imply us doing bad. Look at pure GDP.

>>9683748
The arguments against are outdated, separated from the last 30 years of science, and mostly bullshit.

The people who do such arguments are not interested in science or truth in the least. The "IQ is prejudice", "It's SES", etc are all not supported in the scientific community based on data and results. They are not arguing in good faith and will not follow up in a meaningful way.

They are simply saying their own personal excuses, in their "IF / Then" internal loops whenever they think about the problem they just short circuit to these OUTS. So "Iq and Race" -> "IQ is racist" and then they don't have to contemplate it.

What you are seeing is their internal delusions and not a legitimate argument you need to compete with. The people posting it will not argue in good faith.

>>9683768
You are infantile intellectually. I see no point in continuing. It would take me far too long to explain such points on trajectories of societies related to intelligence. You likely have no understanding or intellectual curiosity as evidenced by not understanding or searching for such predictive powers or functions.

I would have to explain from scratch to a closed-minded idiot so I can't continue this topic with you.

If you want to see some of the in-depth arguments to begin educating yourself on the counter-argument see https://www.amazon.com/Hive-Mind-Your-Nations-Matters/dp/150360067X

>>9683683
I am arguing against the spectrum of lynn/murry/harris to /pol/ types who think that the lower IQ score of US blacks stem from them being 'genetically inferior' in this regard. Perhaps I should have specified more clearly instead of using a broad brush 'iq fag' lablel. To me, the existence of several European populations of people with similar genetic heritage but in a different social/economic system would seem to cast major doubt on this idea and I think it is an obvious culture wars counter to sjws more than an objective position.

iq and gcse/test performance both seem to have a decent scale to job achievement iirc, even if they are not catching 'true intelligence' but school/community engagement, stable family life or something else, they seem linked to consequences for wider society at least in modern developed ones. But imo heritability and/or genetics is different from the 'race and iq debate'.

>>9683786
It's actually not. In good faith, if such people believed it true they would have created successful environmental interventions to bring up some sample community of blacks to the 100 IQ avg level.

>>9683790
I will expand upon this. At enough intelligence a person can deduce exactly what is going on why the environmental argument is incorrect. It requires intelligence and approaching it without a bias but it is apparent once you do so.

The further proof, IE black EA or IQ GWAS is simply not being done for obvious reasons.

>>9683790

yep. if it were that simple, this would have been settled decades ago.

>>9683733
>Knowing the consequences and understanding them are two different things.
Empty rhetoric.

>There's no discussing that blacks are intellectually inferior than whites in good faith.
There are two ways to interpret this statement. If you're making a claim about the future, I contest your ability to know that. If you're describing the current situation, currently, that is true. The conversation is in a domain restricted to actual racists because nobody who intends to treat it seriously is allowed to do so because of the taboo. Actual racists are allowed free reign because the only weapon against others who would inquire - calling them racist - doesn't work on actual racists. Actual racists get to set the entire tone and course of the conversation and do so uncontested. This is causing them to grow. This is bad. This is Sam's entire point, and you actually agree with it.

>Maybe if everyone in America was Sam Harris, but that's not the case. We're probably some 150 years from being able to talk about these things rationally
Speculation, based on fear. Don't care.

>There's just no way the pros (which are still very blurry to me) would outweigh the cons of such a deeply controversial information.
Controversial is a weasel word. What do you mean? Do you think the science done to gather the numbers is incorrect? Junk science? Sam is saying it is not, and we mustn't treat it as though it is. Do you mean to say 'uncomfortable' by controversial? It will make people angry? Of course it will do that, that doesn't mean it's incorrect.

>>9683794
>this would have been settled decades ago.

actually, the problem would never have existed

>>9683794
That's why I say it's such a bad faith argument. The people arguing probably know this at some level, just like a religious person is not so certain in their faith as they appear in external debate.

It would be nice if they behaved honestly during the conversation though as the fear of death which religions seeks to cure is far scarier than genetic differences among races.

>>9683661
Not really, section of the population was concentrated in working or low middle class occupations, looks pretty hand wavy to me.

>>9683802
Is it genetic or environment?

The environmental variables set consistently create a multitude of 150 IQ adults

vs

The genetic modification to make 150 IQ adults


The environmental one was theoretically possible a 100 years ago. The genetic one is just becoming available. Which do you think will have more success?

We already know these answers, but have to pretend we don't due to lysenkoism.

>>9683786
Okay, good. Now we're getting closer to a legitimate conversation. I'm not some /pol/ retard, those guys take IQ and use it to commit the Gambler's Fallacy. It doesn't lead to the predictions they want to make with it.

But

IQ does still have predictive power. Just because they use it wrong doesn't mean it's invalid. Just because it's an imperfect estimator of 'true intelligence' (whatever that actually is) doesn't mean it's a bad estimator of it. IQ doesn't even necessitate *what* produces it, so the nature/nurture argument behind its genesis is irrelevant to its applicability.

>>9683816
/pol/ is generally correct on the issue and all data backs the general statement blacks have lower IQ due to genetics.

>>9683769
Yes, exactly. These are people who are made uncomfortable by what *they* think the consequences of differing IQs is, or should be. As I wrote earlier, they seem to make an internal monologue of:

If IQ is legitimate, then negative discrimination is legitimate. Negative discrimination is illegitimate, therefore IQ is illegitimate.

The problem isn't that their premises aren't matters of fact, they're matters of feelings.

>>9683803
>It would be nice if they behaved honestly during the conversation

their objective is one of social engineering, not academic progress. even if they understand the truth of what you're saying, they will not acknowlege it.

>>9683821
Yes, generally they have the right numbers, but that doesn't mean the predictions they make deductively follow.

>>9683829
Yes of course, and the easy way out is saying designer babies and genomics advancements make it impossible to ignore now. That it was justified 10 years ago but now is the time to end it due to tech advances.

The above statements are just the social engineering way to give them an ego-protecting way out. The exact thing to avoid as it is far better to crush them.

>>9683821
>all data backs the general statement blacks have lower IQ due to genetics.
False. It is repeatedly shown to be a combination of genetics and environment, and that the 80% hereditable figure includes environmental factors.

>>9683832
We should reconvene when a 1,000,000 sample size black IQ GWAS is done and published. If such arguments are honest and based on truth then such a study will naturally be done soon.

>>9683837
>That it was justified 10 years ago but now is the time to end it due to tech advances.

well isn't it wonderful that we got to be the scapegoat all these years?

i'm starting to sound like a jew. i really do need to leave this place.

>>9683847
Look up what happens at the end of lysenkoism or "The Population Bomb" intellectual elites from the 60's. There won't be accountability, just get over it. They will morph and in 10 years be obsessed with how amazing eugenics is.

>>9683857
>There won't be accountability, just get over it.

see, this is what i meant by >>9683757

Why is everyone okay with blacks being biologically more athletic then other races but when it comes to IQ everyone turns in to an SJW?

>>9683857
>lysenkoism

also, this just looks like a spinoff of critical theory.

>>9683877
Because it's used to justify their view of an oppressive racial hierarchy that dominates and subjugates blacks and mestizo hispanics, while for some reason passing on Indians, Vietnamese, and Thais.

If your ideological or political tribe is helped by distorting truth you perpetuate it.

>>9683801
I don't mean to come off as saying the science is incorrect. I'd be very surprised if there turned out to be no differences in intelligence among races.
Controversial was a bad choice of word. A better one would have been divise. The average person is not capable of separating the information that blacks are intrinsically dumber than whites from their daily actions and decisions. An example would be an employer having to choose between a black and a white canditate. I don't think this has much to do with the fact that the information is not being discussed by rational people in a serious manner. If anything that would only lend support for people to give in to discrimination by appealing to authority. Can you make it explicit what you think discussing the issue would achieve?

>>9683912
*Divisive

Just think for a second how hard it would be. Your entire world view, social view, political view, and basically a good portion of your identity, feeling of superiority etc. Change it all.

Then on top of this admit that there was some truthful evidence to a group you view as incapable and near demonic was correct and reflective of reality.

It's not exactly a surprise what is going on. Even the most gentle social engineering to switch people like david reich in ny times is basically hate speech from hitler to them.

>>9683918
>Just think for a second how hard it would be. Your entire world view, social view, political view, and basically a good portion of your identity, feeling of superiority etc. Change it all.

been there, done that.

>>9683926
>>9683926
Yeah, I'm just saying this probably results in the complete reshaping of multiple ideologies. It will take a while.

The other interesting aspect is that it seems the "liberals" still don't seem to understand the implications of genetics/biology. The low reproduction rate of actual liberals and general conservative hard wiring of many immigration groups like hispanics.

They seem to assume that a person who adopts pro-LGBT views is open minded and not simply adopting what is the prevailing set of societal values.

What I mean is the person growing up to be pro-LGBT today would have been a conservative religious person 50 years ago. The conservative/hard line brain is now unquestioned and assailing open mindedness from a vantage point of absolute moral superiority. Hence the slight change to a "inquisitorial" LGBT type of view.

This is all predictable by understanding that while successful in changing societal views the underlying "conservative" hardware of the people who used to bash gays but not bash anti-gays is the same.

The view of them as "open minded" because they hold views that had been considered open minded 30 years ago is incorrect assessment. The close-minded inclined are the pro-lgbt these days among the youth.

>>9683522
>just be quiet goy

>>9683944
>They seem to assume that a person who adopts pro-LGBT views is open minded and not simply adopting what is the prevailing set of societal values

you've hit the nail on the head, and this is what i've always sort of sensed. these people are conformists, not champions of social justice

>>9683956
Yes, but you can understand why the delusion persists. It's a nice comfy blanket to think about.

Of course it's completely predictable if you understand reality to any degree and are actually clear-minded. It's quite hilarious to see the bumbling about of humanity especially socially. I assume it is all arranged to be as entertaining and stimulating as possible to the watchers.

>>9683969

well i'm glad you're having a good time with it. unfortunately, i find it difficult to mimic social norms in the first place, so my vantage point is a bit different.

The 180 IQ boarding school. The most intellectually stimulating environment crafted by the most intelligent and careful blank slate proponents. Controlling environmental factors to create Einstein after Einstein

vs

The genetic engineering program to increase intelligence.


Seems we have an innate understanding of which is effective.

>>9683816
Yes I agree that iq seems significant in modern society and like test results does seem to scale with how people do in jobs etc and be heritable.

>>9683570
Yet iq cannot even answer the most fundamental questions:
>doesn't know what is intelligence
>doesn't define intelligence influences
>doesn't explain intelligence physical mechanism
As iq is not science and claims to be science. Iq is pseudoscience.
>>9683672
See the upper part of this post.
>>9683723
There is no science in iq.

These pseudoscience supporters are really interesting...Hmm...

>>9684102
You could say the same thing about any physical quantity or any abstraction like computer memory.

The meter does none of those things either. So the meter is pseudoscience?

>>9683546
IQ is one of the most accurate evaluations on what could boil down to "intelligence," are you basically asking us to explain what intelligence is to you? Instead, since you're dismissing it, the burden of proof is on your shoulders. The test, regarding those who examined the bell curve, inherently "can't" but is our only feasible option. It shows evidence of application of skill applied to having intelligence though, which for now is our only measure. There have been multiple different IQ tests that display this same gap. People always try to dodge it by going "well it must be the biased tests" every time instead of accepting what appears to be true from the data. There are differences between races, such as whites being good at puzzles vs. blacks being good at arithmetic, which may be culturally derived. I know with asians, they are very detail-oriented with say art because their language relies heavily on characters and imagery already. But then that begs the question, is it cultural difference, or race itself? It's dumb to sweep it under the table just to not appear racist though, it's just a test.

>>9683569
>eugenics
There are ways to improve genetic fitness other than infringing on anyones rights.
>discrimination
unfortunately understanding the genetics of intelligence does lead quickly to two policy conclusions - affirmative action is a waste of time (if the aim is to raise up a minority group) and immigration from low IQ populations is hugely damaging in the long term. Just because this is antithetical to current liberal dogma doesn't invalidate the science.

>>9684132
Wrong. Literally all science describes phenomena in the most conceivable way.

Meanwhile iq claims to measure intelligence, without defining intelligence, determining its influences and explain it as a physical mechanism. Therefore iq is not science. As iq claims to be science, without being science. Iq is pseudoscience.

These pseudoscience lovers really like to force their assumptions everywhere they go...

>>9684170
No one could explain what temperature was yet they still invented thermometers with arbitrary scales and they were incredibly useful to science.
IQ is just a way of categorising people based on their ability to perform certain tests. Ability on these tests corresponds with academic ability and career success and negatively with criminality. It is the best predictive psychological measure we have. It is highly heritable, as shown by the fact that twins reared apart have pretty much the same similarity in IQ as twins reared together. We are on the cusp of linking many more genes to high IQ, and wil be able to trace exactly what those genes do in brain development and function. What is already obvious is that it's a hugely polygenic trait.

>>9684170
Yet the meter cannot even answer the most fundamental questions:
>doesn't know what is length
>doesn't define what length is for
>doesn't explain length physical mechanism
As the meter is not science and claims to be science. the meter is pseudoscience.

---

IQ doesn't actually make that claim, it's simply a metric of a person's average ability to score on psychometrically 'complex' tasks. It's a measure. It doesn't need to 'define' any of the things you're requiring it to.

>>9684191
yeah but they redefined temperature to be more precise than it used to be as physics advanced

>>9684166
>immigration from low IQ populations is hugely damaging in the long term.
Wrong. If you only get the high-IQ individuals from those populations then their superior genetics will be passed on. Effectively doing selective breeding. And that's what we do.

>>9684217
>Wrong. If you only get the high-IQ individuals from those populations then their superior genetics will be passed on. Effectively doing selective breeding. And that's what we do.

aka brain drain, which is perhaps even worse from an ethical standpoint.

>>9684195
And we've done the same with IQ. Binet's first tests questions like "which lady is pretty?" Now they do factor analysis across different categories to find 'g', the element of intelligence that correlates across a wide range of tasks. If you're asking for a physical thing we could just 'measure', well, maybe in a few years you'll get that. They're doing larger scale brain scans (ENIGMA consortium), so rather than having n=10 for your IQ correlation study you can have n=30,000. Maybe in a few years we'll be able to tell you your IQ from a brain scan or a mouth swab.

This is the "too smart 4 u" fedora tipper argument in all its glorious essence.

>>9684102

>>9684217
>And that's what we do
I wish. Also there's regression to the mean and family reunification, see pic related.
When is Trump going to build his wall and when is Merkel going to return her million refugees?

>>9684229
you are talking with someone who thinks "science" is about absolute truth and not a process and system. His argument is flawed at the level of his idea of what science is. You would have to drill down deeper to that misconception rather than bring up the fact that the science on IQ is improving and expanding.

>>9684229
Yeah but I mean they redefined temperature to relate to real thermodynamics like entropy
Did they do that with IQ? Is there a mechanism?

>>9684242
above point proven here >>9684243

You can see how the low IQ monkey poster brings up mechanism and absolute understanding as it's argument. It can go in circles like this forever. Again, the flaw in the subhuman monkey poster is at a deep level not related to any argument on IQ. They don't understand what science is.

>>9684193
Except meter is a unit of the length magnitude. Are you even into empiricism?
>iq doesn't
It's literally claimed to do that, my sides. Just ctrl+F this thread and type "intelligence". Lol search for "iq" on the ncbi search bar. Iq claims to measure intelligence.
>>9684191
>no you could
Temperature is explained in the most conceivable way. This is mentioned already.

>>9684242
>what science means
The definition you are spouting is applied in social sciences where fenomena isn't even described but implied elements based on the psychology theory of the decade, are used for statistics and thrown in the archive without any kind of physical or direct fenomena explanation.

Iq is included in the social "" science "" topics and research.
>>9684246
See the upper part of this post.

>>9684274
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")[2][3]:58 is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[a]

>>9684281
Same person.

So for instance when there is criticism about psychology or other things it's usually that it doesn't adhere to basic scientific standards like being testable or being reproducible.

When you use pseudoscience to describe something that strictly adheres to all the rules of the system known as science you are just mistaken about what "science" is. Unfortunately this error is likely linked to your IQ and not fixable on your individual level.

>>9684243
Unfortunately biology, and especially psychology, is not physics. There is no 'intelligence' particle to measure. An analogy - what we are doing is putting a car on a rolling road and hitting the accelerator. This lets us come up with a concept called 'power' which no one can define yet, but allows us to compare cars of different 'power' and make predictions about which one will win a race or which one will get up a hill. One day some clever sod will work out how a car works and we will be able to predict a cars 'power' just by looking at its engine and making a few measurements of its cylinders and other components, but we're not quite there yet.
>>9684242
Yeah, I agree. It's just unfortunate that the science is becoming more and more solid but the public (and political) lags so far behind.

>>9684281
>when x does y
This is not a condition of scientific facts nor the algorythm that constitutes the scientific method.

See>>9684274

Iq still cannot do these:
>doesn't know what is intelligence
>doesn't define intelligence influences
>doesn't explain intelligence physical mechanism
So, iq is not science.
>pseudoscience
Iq claims to be science, while not being one. The obvious answer is: iq is pseudoscience.
>your
>your individual
Jesus, these pseudoscience supporters need to calm down... gee

>>9684303
Anyone who reads your flimsy arguments would most likely pushed the opposite direction.

>>9684299
>>9684246
Wtf so they haven't tried to relate the proteins of the multiple genes that suposedly relate to intelligence actually to intelligence?

>>9684318
Pseudoscience lovers tend to reject scientific rigor, though. I wonder why...hmm

>>9684321
>Iq claims to be science, while not being one
screeching monkey

>>9684320
They are literally starting to do that in the last couple of years. If you had even a cursory knowledge of the subject you'd know that.
http://www.cell.com/cell-reports/pdf/S2211-1247(17)31648-0.pdf

>>9684329
> you are x
Hmm...?

>>9684274
I... don't even know where to go with you from this point. "Except meter is a unit of the length magnitude" is literal gibberish and is a total non sequitur to my argument.

IQ measures the average performance of complex cognitive tasks. Intelligence is defined as the ability to perform cognitive tasks, though that's a weak and disputable definition. So, IQ is not seeking to measure IQ directly, intelligence would be inferred from IQ. If you don't know the difference between measurement and inference, you have absolutely no business saying what is science and what is not.

>Temperature is explained in the most conceivable way. This is mentioned already.
Gibberish. Total meaningless nonsense. And still missing the distinction between phenomena and its measure.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>9684390
>i dont know
Space components and time are innate concepts that are defined in a tautological way.
>gibberish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases
These pseudoscience lovers are out of control...
>still
Magnitude and units "example" is already explained up there ^
>you x
Hmm...
Pseudoscience lovers seem to lack some sort of intelect...

>>9684399
The theoretical explanation only came about a couple centuries after people had been measuring temperature - that's the point. That the measuring device came first is probably not a surprise, how are you supposed to study a phenomena without being able to measure it.

>>9684399
anyone reading your posts would think they are gibberish.

>>9684407
>how are you
Studying and funding research=/= claiming iq is a scientific fact.

Iq is not science, anon. Iq is pseudoscience.
>>9684412
>x is y
Hmm...?

>>9684399
Still missing the point entirely.

First, the existence of the Kinetic Theory of Gases doesn't make the phrase you wrote not-gibberish.

>Space components and time are innate concepts that are defined in a tautological way.
Second, no.

Third, the concept of Temperature and its Measurement also predates Bernouli and the Kinetic Theory of Gases, that doesn't mean Temperature as a means of measuring something was pseudoscience. If water freezes at the same exact point on the Temperature Scale repeatably, then this meets the criteria of science even if one doesn't have the faintest idea of what molecules are. Temperature, as a concept, is agnostic to these "definitions" you are trying to force on a means of measurement.

Fourth,
>Magnitude and units "example" is already explained up there ^
Ironically, still gibberish.

Lastly,
>Pseudoscience lovers seem to lack some sort of intelect...
Both ironic and not a deductively valid argument.

>>9684423
>second no
The fact that spatial concepts and time are based on concepts which are dependent on these.
>temperature
Except temperature has been explained in the most conceivable way. This has been mentioned before.
>magnitude
Still rejecting the space concept?
Pseudoscience supporters...
>not a valid argument
It was a claim based on pseudoscience lover's posts... Obviously not scientific...

Jeez, these pseudoscience lovers do lack some neurons...

>>9684439
Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself at this point.

>>9684484
>you are x
Yet iq is still not science. Iq is pseudoscience, anon.

I wonder why would people spend hours forcing pseudoscience as actual scientific facts... Is there maybe a social agenda? hmm...

>>9684484
I think it's just an extreme example of the "Science as God" people. They want science to be some bedrock of absolute truth sort of like how people view a bible. Instead of as a system and process. It's interested that even when confronted with the actual definition of science the person still acts as though science is a biblical list of truths.

>>9684497
>completely ignores the scientific method algorythm
Why can't pseudoscience lovers accept scientific rigor?

>>9684504
What part of IQ testing doesn't follow the "scientific method algorythm"? It's testable, repeatable, and falsifiable.

>>9684527
>instead of a system and process
The process to adquire scientific truth is the scientific method. Hypothesis aren't truths.

>iq
This has been shown many times already, but I'll lend you a hand:
Yet iq cannot even answer the most fundamental questions:
>doesn't know what is intelligence
>doesn't define intelligence influences
>doesn't explain intelligence physical mechanism
As iq is not science and claims to be science. Iq is pseudoscience.

Will pseudoscience lovers finally get "redpilled"?

>>9684537
Okay. So, you just don't speak or understand English then, right? Is that the problem here?

Everything you say is nonsensical.

>>9684541
>you do "x"
>you say "y"
Literally all assumptions from past posts are addressed and answered in my post. It seems you can't accept scientific rigor.

Pseudoscience supporters...

>>9684548
No.

>>9683709
>what iq is
Not science.

>>9683152
>Except race nor iq are science. Race and iq are pseudoscience, sorry.

I guess there are millions (billions?) of people who literally and unironically believe this. Which is fine. Lots of people believe in Jesus or the tooth fairy or what have you. But Jesus and the tooth fairy don't point fingers at white males for being the source of all inequality in the world. This delusion that inequality in meritocracies is not genetic (and caused by natural selection) but is in fact a grand conspiracy of white guys is a bit of a problem. I'm not sure how to unwind this or if it ends well. I plan on putting all my net worth into gold coins and monero and hiding in a spider hole until this all plays out.

>>9683695
so the descendants of white slave masters who raped their slaves are more likely to be violent, ruthless rapists themselves?

>>9684566
>pseudoscience lovers literally showing their political agenda while rejecting scientific rigor
Hmm...

>>9683570
Than evolution and natural selection are also not science.
It’s more probable that you are religiously egalitarian

>>9683733
Actually
Should become normal speech once the boomers die off

>>9683894
Actually most race realists want separation not oppression.

>>9684657
Never seen an eurangutan willing to fuck off to europe though.

>>9684577
What would it take to convince you that you got it wrong? That being in climates with seasons created evolutionary pressure on intelligence in human populations? That season after season (for 30,000 years) the death of people bad at planning come winter left only the more adept which evolved brains.

I don't think anything could. Absolutely nothing. Even if we had a time machine and you could watch it all unfold I don't think you'd accept it.

Because no burden of proof is great enough to overcome the terror, the disgust, the existential angst, the sheer unrelenting psychological torture you would feel at the implications of such a discovery. That the worst elements of humanity were right. That tyranny and oppression are unavoidable.

There's nothing ever that could ever make you accept that.

But..... what if..... that's not the implication at all, my friend? Uh... I mean comrade. What if the implication was that you were more right about politics (and all of it!) than you ever could have dreamed! What if biological differences in cognitive ability among geographically disparate breeding populations doesn't vindicate the Nazis!? Doesn't vindicate the alt-right!? Doesn't vindicate the knuckle-dragging KKK or the bigoted sister fucking degenerates in the hills!?

What if it confirms all that you've ever suspected and MORE?? That white people are not special, they just happened to be descended from people who emigrated to a lucky location.

And the solution? WHY FULL BLOWN COMMUNISM, OF COURSE!! A grand and global scheme of taxation transferring wealth from the West to the Rest in order to pay for CRISPR gene editing and to pay for embryonic selection for the third world, to boost their IQ. Only after a one world socialist government has spent trillions upon trillions of dollars on socialized medicine for the unborn children of the global south can the random cruelties of nature be corrected in accordance with the highest aspirations of our humanist values.

>>9684662
Well that’s negotiable once race realism becomes common thought, and we are at the race table deviding up lands.
Although I think the US and Australia where conquered fair and square. Natives and Abbos had no real concept of property or written language.

>>9684673
>convince
Pseudoscience lovers showing again their political agenda and rejection of truth seeking.
>communism
>nazis
>alt right
>kkk
>bigoted
>sister fucking hills
These pseudoscience lovers have literally nothing new to talk about...
>white
No such thing.

Why are pseudoscience lovers obsessed with politics?
>>9684657
See: >>9683152

>>9684675
Except America belong to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans

>concept
Land settled and defended, land owned

The most optimal option would be replacing all europeans from America with Amerindians Don't you agree?

>>9684688
How is race realism pseudoscience?

It is something that is actually testable, no magic woo woo, and it actually conforms to evolution and natural selection. If anything, egalitarianism is more pseudoscience than race realism.

>>9684696
See:>>9683546

>>9684688
>Why are pseudoscience lovers obsessed with politics?
I took politics out of it. You're rejecting the hypothesis on the grounds that it's ideologically driven. I gave you the case for the hypothesis from the opposite ideology.

>>9684694
No not really, they were conquered. That’s what sucks when you spend to much time fighting eachother instead of working together to fight the newcomers.
White People built the United States anyway.

If we where to go back to Europe, should we tear down all our buildings and set up tents for them to have?

>>9684703
>case for the hypothesis
Iq being a non proven hypothesis is already pretty well known.
>you are doing x
I'm sorry, pseudoscience lover, iq is not science. As iq claims to be science, yet it's not, iq is pseudoscience.

Jesus Christ, pseudoscience lovers kinda entertaining...

>>9684699

Why are you denying evolution?

>>9684715
[citation needed]

>>9684712
>iq is not science
Why does it correlate with so many things?

>>9684720
>correlation=causation
Hmm...?

>>9684712
>iq is not science
Why does it predict things so well?

>>9684726
>correlation=causation
Hmm...?

>>9684719
Do you deny race?
Do you believe that we are all the same?

>>9684710

i agree "this guy" is trolling the naifs to build his audience & advertising income

If there any argument or proof that you don't need an average IQ of 90 or higher to have a well functioning culture/country currently? I haven't seen any proof of one that exists and flourishes without meeting that threshold.

>>9684734
>do you x?
See: >>9683546
>we are all the same
>difference between individuals demonstrate race
Yeah the lactose intolerant race, the high skull race, the squatting race...lol

Race is not science, sorry. Race is pseudoscience.

>>9684730
If you think something else is the cause you can control for it. And people have.

>>9684710
So you agree with european replacement?

>>9684744
>if you
Except iq correlation non-direct correlations will still need causational correlations of observable phenomena called intelligence which iq claims to measure, yet intelligence isn't even consenually defined, the influences of the so called intelligence are not described, nor the intelligence physical mechanism.

Pseudoscience lovers really need some "redpills" today...

>>9684742

And that contradicts everything that evolution and natural selection teaches. If groups are isolated from eachother for 10,000 years. It would only make sense that there would be differences that could be verified using the scientific method.

Intelligence
Physical capability
Testosterone levels
Aggressive behavior
Etc

>>9684756
>genetics contradict evolution and natural selection
Hwat?
These pseudoscience lovers are so entertaining... LOL!

>>9684746
No. Why should I?

>>9684754
>yet intelligence isn't even consenually defined
If you can't measure it, it isn't science.

>>9684760
It’s funny to watch you try to suppress something that is obvious.

You believe in evolution when it benefits you

http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/race-and-iq/
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/
The debate is pretty much over. There is peer reviewed (not that anyone can give actual evidence that the journal system matters) literature addressing every last grievance of the white privilege/discrimination/SES crowd.

>>9684763
>eurangutans needed more than 20 diseases to murder 90% Amerindians
>yet incan imperial army was literally invulnerable against spanish critters and influence before getting plague epidemics

>few arab, western african, chinese and mexican citizens are enough to replace all european populations without struggle

It's pretty simple to understand, I think

America belongs to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans
How is this hard to get?

>>9684764
Read the thread.
>>9684767
>x is y
>you z
Hmm...?
These pseudoscience lovers are out of control...
>>9684769
See the upper part of my post.

>>9684769
>addressing fabricated grievances with cherrypicks and personal agendas
If you think that website has credibility, you need to kys

>>9684688
You legitimately seem mentally ill. I don't mean this to disparage or attack you, just pointing out an observation as a lurker in this thread.

>>9684770
By what moral standard?

I’m making the case to white People to take pride in who they are, and have the desire to work, vote, and fight for their interest. I’m not making a moral case for land dispersment.
Once my race is inspired and ready, we will talk about who gets what territory.

>>9684774

Your just an egalitarian creationist

>>9684774
IQ is a measure. Science deals in things which can be measured. You want to focus on immeasurable things. Maybe you move to another forum like /b/ and discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

>>9684785
We don’t talk about /b/

>>9684783
>You are x
?
>>9684779
>you seem y
hmm...
>>9684785
>you want
Iq literally claims to measure intelligence. Wanna keep avoiding this fact?
See:>>9684102
I'm gonna be absent for a while, don't be so impatient pseudoscience supporters...

>>9684756
Too bad "race" is a crude approximation of your isolated population theory. Africa is a fuckhuge place with lots of natural boundaries.

>>9684791
If I had an Ethnostate somewhere else, I would gladly sacrifice those resources

>>9684781
By the most intuitive judgement of land owning, America belongs to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans
europe belongs to europeans the same as America belongs to Amerindians

If might makes "right", then you support european replacement

If civilization potential is the pinacle of humanity, then Amerindians should replace all europeans from Americas, as Amerindians have demonstrated a higher development rate than europeans

>>9684791
Yes, which is why you have Egypt, which was a powerful ancient civilization, sub Saharan Africa which really had nothing of significance

>>9684774
I read the upper part of your post but all you're saying is that we haven't defined intelligence. Even if that were true (it's not, read the FAQ I linked) it's irrelevant to the discussion, because IQ predicts life outcomes that we care about. It's a valuable psychometric even if it doesn't encapsulate "intelligence". Instead of claiming that IQ measures intelligence, you could claim that IQ measures "pink unicorn" or "success magic" and it would change nothing. You're just attempting a stopgap. Unless you're the guy criticizing the other guy for basing his worldview solely on mechanistic explanations, in which case I agree with you.

>>9684778
>giving an everloving fuck about "credibility" rather than evaluating the claims yourself
>baselessly accusing someone you disagree with of cherrypicking without giving examples
Nys

>>9684791
>Too bad "race" is a crude approximation
And this changes anything how? Yea, categories often don't perfectly map onto reality. Does a category lose all utility because its imperfect? Should biologists stop using taxonomy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

>>9684800
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_African_civilization

>>9684798
I’m not some alien doing a science experiment from my flying saucer.

I am white, and I want a my race and nation to be the might, the same way some people want their football team to be the best.
This is natural to me, and was natural to other white People prior to the 1960s.

>>9684810
That's why the first proposition was the most intuitive approach. America belongs to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans.

Don't you agree?

>>9684813
No not really, it belongs to them the same way North Africa belongs to the Romans.

Belong is arbitrary,

I don’t have to support anything, but I am Ethno centric by nature and environment

>>9684566
can I get a larger version of this image? That'd be great

>>9683493
Misconceptions about this issue, have and continue to shape economic theory today. Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me that this isn't a problem?

>>9684742
why would you refer someone to a post absent of wit or any real information?

>>9684807
Could you point out something of significance from each sub Saharan kingdom?

>>9684953
He’s a race denier,

Evolution is okay, accept when you apply it to humans, then it’s pseudoscience

>>9684957
>each
There was like hundreds dude...

>>9684966
Once you subtract the Greek, Egyptian, Arab, etc

There are a lot less

Zulus in South Africa
-No written language
-fought with primitive weapons

Ethiopia and Kush
Ghana
Mali

>>9684790
>Iq literally claims to measure intelligence
It does though? There is strong evidence that IQ is actually a very accurate measurement of someones mental capabilities. People who score higher on IQ tests do better academically, they're better at chess, sudoku and other mental activities. By what reasoning are you arguing that it doesn't accurately measure intelligence?

>>9684929
So you support european replacement, then.

So why are you still whining here?

>>9683670
this, fucking faggots i tell ya

>>9683493
This

>>9683877

>>9685669
No I don’t. Your trying to put my in some moral box, what is good for my people is good for me, what is bad for my people is bad for me. It was good for my people to conquer the US, and it’s bad for my people to be displaced, especially without a fight.

>>9681468
I think he got BTFO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2Qe8SGUX6A

>>9684742
>Yeah the lactose intolerant race, the high skull race, the squatting race...lol
This is the most retarded straw men I have ever seen.

Do animals have subspecies?

>>9683877
Because most people on the "left" think have bought into the oppression meme, anything that makes black good in comparison to whites is "good" and everything that makes whites look good in comparison to blacks becomes "evil".

>>9683894
>racial hierarchy
>dominate
>subjugate
Last time I checked these people wanted PHYSICAL SEPARATION, in other words the EXACT OPPOSITE.
You see white nationalists have learned from when they first entered the US, bringing in blacks as slaves eventually leads to having blacks around you.

These people want an *Ethnostate*, as ridiculous as that may be, it is literally the opposite of what you believe they want.

>>9684662
We Europeans already have to deal with the Muslims, please don't make us deal with something as terrible as Americans.

>>9681468
>harris

fuck off to >>>/reddit/.