/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9802658
Dont engage with /pol/niggers. /thread

>>9802663
But their ideas keep growing and they are gaining legitimacy.

We need to destroy them with actual science or we will just look like idiots.

>>9802668
I dont need to do anything. Fuck off back to /pol/ if they intrigue you so much.

The indicator of intelligence is IQ, not brain size. Unfortunately for the /pol/ack...

>>9802668
just educate yourself if you really wanna know
they seem to have actual studies so who am I to argue

>>9802670
Imagine actually being this angry over nothing.

>>9802658
>How do I explain to/pol/tards that this doesn't mean blacks are genetically stupider, even though brain size correlates with intelligence in humans?
>I have no answer to this and they keep btfoing me on this subject.

So let me get this straight. Even though you know you are wrong, you want some incorrect info/disinfo to make your already incorrect belief somehow right, even though you know it will always be wrong.

>/pol/ was right, the post.

>>9802671
How the fuck would this image trigger /pol/ at all?
They agree with this.

Also brain size correlates with intelligence. There must be an actual fucking explanation for this

>>9802658
It would imply women are less intelligent than men, but /pol/ would be happy about that.

the only thing that has changed in the last three million years of human evolution has been the volume of the brain case

everything else stayed the same

not only does head size matter when it comes to INTELLIGENCE, it is quite literally the only feature that separates us from homo erectus

Asians and Europeans having large brain cases than negros and thus being more intelligent...well lets be honest, it's self evident and obvious

>>9802680
Fuck off you delusional nazi fuck

>>9802683
>Jews in the first place without an asterisk

>>9802658
this would be the best way but it requires knowing what a normal distribution curve is so therefore 99% of people wont understand.

>>9802688
>Asians and Europeans having large brain cases than negros and thus being more intelligent...well lets be honest, it's self evident and obvious

No it's not.

>>9802683
>There must be an actual fucking explanation for this
It's easy if anyone actually had any education on statistics.

Some people are born with serious brain diseases, get a small brain, and suffer from very low IQ. Wah-lah. You have a correlation. But it doesn't mean a healthy smaller brain has a lower IQ.

>>9802688
hydrocephalics may have the biggest domes of all but are actually mentally inhibited
go figure

>>9802700
>u-uh severely disfigured people suffering from disease prove you wrong, take that!
lol really? get a grip, my man
>>9802695
are you doubting that africans have smaller brain volumes on average than whites and Asians? or are you that doubting that africans are less intelligent on average than whites or asians? because you're demonstrably wrong, by a country mile, on both counts.

>>9802693
/pol/ literally agrees jews are smarter than whites

>>9802698
No, they've done studies with thousands of people and slightly smaller brain size results in lower IQ virtually every time.

>>9802706
>No, they've done studies with thousands of people and slightly smaller brain size results in lower IQ virtually every time.
And why are the brains smaller? Link the studies, I'll show you how they all conclude environmental factors.

run along brainlets, /sci/ has understood the importance of the phenotype for a very long time now.

>>9802710
>variation in human skull size between various disparate populations ("races") is environmental, and environmental only
"no"

>>9802710
>environmental factors.
It doesn't matter what they conclude, all you have to know is that brain size is correlated with intelligence.

>>9802714
Nah, but the environmental factors are at play and cause the correlations.

Shorter populations will always have smaller brains. A shorter white population will have a smaller brain that a taker white population. There are genetic factors there. But not necessarily having to do with development of intelligence.

>>9802719
Lol. Ok.

>>9802722
>that a taker
Should be
>than a taller

>>9802722
>There are genetic factors there. But not necessarily having to do with development of intelligence.
these genetic factors have EVERYTHING to do with the development of intelligence, my man

and before you link to boas, don't even bother, he was shown to have fudged his numbers. his entire hypothesis of cranial plasticity is bunk. cranial volume is almost entirely genetic, and correlated with intelligence.

just cope.

>>9802722
Then why do blacks have lower IQ even when controlling for environmental variables?
Explain yourself.

>>9802658
1. Inuits have the largest brains.
2. Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans.

What is even more damning for you is that the difference is regionalized, it is in the frontal lobe, responsible for logic and abstract thought.

Why the fuck is pol trying to shit up this board.

>>9802727
Just FYI, it's kind of impossible to control for all environmental variables, and no study has been able to.

But there may be genetics involved in intelligence development, sure. But I haven't seen those causing a difference in brain size, especially compared to the environmental influence. Brain size is a terrible metric to use to evaluate innate intelligence.

>>9802722
Why are you egalitarians such fucking retards?
Think about what you are implying.

Races separated for 10s of thousands of years that evolved under wildly different environments somehow have the exact same level of intelligence and behavior?

Holy shit the delusion.

tfw phenotype

>>9802727
>IQ
You mean that thing concocted by psychologists to diagnose mental disorders?

>>9802730
The part of Inuit brain that is the biggest is the part for spatial navigation.

That's why their brains are bigger.

>>9802691
>delusional
Sorry unless I'm mistaken, I read OP's post as

>Blacks have smaller brains on average.
>that this doesn't mean blacks are genetically stupider
>even though brain size correlates with intelligence in humans?
>I have no answer to this and they keep btfoing me on this subject.

I literally cannot even paraphrase it any more simply than what is already there. I don't even have to admit this is what I believe, OP has laid this out like a classical bait post and maybe he doesn't even realize it.

>>9802668
>But their ideas keep growing and they are gaining legitimacy.
>We need to destroy them with actual science or we will just look like idiots.

The argument is completely based on observations and the scientific method, all science can do is further prove /pol/ right on the subject. This is the part where politics and the goverment steps in to help you guys out by taking your science and turning it into the incoherent cluster fuck that it is now. Girls are now boys, diversity is strength even though race is supposedly isn'y supposed to exist, and any proof that opposes these ideas is not actually proof, but "conspiracy".

>>9802740
PLEASE stop embarrassing yourself anon

IQ tests are G loaded
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

>>9802738
Look at this triggered snowflake. Is your brain okay? Nobody claimed any of the things you're saying were claimed.

>>9802737
>. Brain size is a terrible metric to use to evaluate innate intelligence.
it is only a "terrible metric" when comparing brain size between animals of wildly different size and physiology

when you narrow it down it to comparison of specimens of similar size and physiology, the benefits of a larger brain became readily apparent and a quite intuitive explanation for obvious differences in intelligence

>>9802748
Okay buddy. Let's ditch IQ tests and just use brain size then...

>>9802741
eskimos were renown for their off the charts memories when they first started getting integrated into public school systems

>>9802737

Pick your piece of evidence:

>Whites have a greater brain size to body mass ratio
>Whites have significantly higher IQ scores
>Whites have significantly more advanced nations across the globe and have for all of history (largely because Europeans and Asians were the only ones keeping history to begin with)

I don't know where you get your delusion from. Literally what do you have to say that would support the assertion that "we are the exact same cognitively".

And yes, East Asians beat whites in some metrics. Maybe they are mentally superior? Who gives a shit. If that's the way nature is it's the way nature is.

>>9802749
why wouldn't you?

>Why would having a larger organ directly responsible for thought and intelligence indicate that you are more intelligent?

>>9802752
>support the assertion that "we are the exact same cognitively".
Never claimed.

Whites have larger brains than Asians. Scandinavians have larger brains than Spaniards. It doesn't really make a difference.

>>9802755
Because it's not accurate. Women would be significantly dumber than men (inb4theyare)

>>9802747
>UMAD XD
Lmao look at your coping mechanism.
You know I'm right so try to put this back on me.
Answer the question:

How can races separated for 10s of thousands of years that evolved under wildly different environments somehow have the exact same level of intelligence and behavior?
This is unironically what you people are saying.

>>9802768
>Whites have larger brains than Asians
No, Asians have slightly larger brains than whites you fucking retard.

That guy is still right.

>>9802769
>This is unironically what you people are saying.
Holy shit lol where???

>>9802768
>Because it's not accurate. Women would be significantly dumber than men (inb4theyare)
are they not? realistically? let's be honest with ourselves here.

Gee anon, you sure convinced me. Guess we should just kill all the niggers then huh?

>>9802768
>Women would be significantly dumber than men
What lol?
Are you denying that fact women are on average less intelligent than men?

>>9802781
Why would we do that?
I just want a white ethnostate.

looks about right to me

>>9802768

>Whites have larger brains than Asians

No they don't.

>Women would be significantly dumber than men

It's about the ratio. They are also smaller than men. Body mass to brain size ratio has been accepted as a valid (but not wholly deterministic) factor in animal intelligence.

>>9802774
>im going to pretend that our position isn't that all races are equal in cognitive ability
Why are you lying in front of everybody?

>>9802781

How about something more practical, like ending affirmative action and non quota based immigration, actually anti-white and destructive policy

>>9802784
Oh shut the fuck up fag. You want a “scientific” excuse to take agency away from other human beings. That’s not happening, no matter what evidence you present. If you think otherwise you are delusional.

>>9802744
>OP has laid this out like a classical bait post
Have you not realized it's bait? Boy, you must be dense.

>>9802790
>dat japan
shamefur display

>>9802800
>You want a “scientific” excuse to take agency away from other human beings.
Nah kid, I just want a homeland for my people. I don't know why this is SOOOOOO much to ask. Holy shit.

>>9802688
>head size is literally the only feature that separates us from homo erectus

>>9802802
Pretty sure that map is flawed

>>9802806
well it's true

homo erectus are indistinguishable from homo sapiens from the neck down

>>9802797
AA protects veterans and the disabled as well as minorities. It’s not just for brown people.

>>9802741
So they're more intelligent then.

>>9802803
Which would mean displacing millions of people who aren’t white or even people who aren’t white “enough”. I challenge you to present to me a clear cut genetic definition of “your people”.

>>9802809
>yfw the term "anatomically modern humans" refers to cranial capacity and cranial morphology and literally nothing else

>>9802810

Obviously I am referring to race-based action that penalizes achieving races like whites and asians while propping up others on the pretense of "an unfair environment" when it can be explained merely by a genetic disparity

It's racist policy in of itself. But "good racism" according to you hypocritical tits

>>9802738
Cry moar

>>9802796
>I was wrong.

>>9802821
> No argument

AHAHAHAHA

>>9802784
>a white ethnostate
lol is this the fantasy every /pol/ neckbeard indulges in?

>>9802825
So you are a racial realist now?
Why are you lying in front of everybody?

>>9802817
three million years..

three millions year to double average cranial capacity from 850 cm3 to the modern day average of let's say 1350 cm3

with the neanderthals of course taking the crown for the most cranial capacity of 1,600 cm3

evolution is overwhelmingly slow, famalam tbqh

>>9802831
That image is cringe.
A white ethnostate is a perfectly sensible idea.

Japan has a Japanese ethnostate, why can't we have our own?

>>9802833
>I was wrong. I'm going to make shit up now.

>>9802836
>That image is cringe.
You're right, /pol/tards are cringe.

>>9802835
we need to start breeding for the phenotype more aggressively senpai

>>9802836
Are you implying that Japan being ethnically homogenous makes it good or is a good thing?

>>9802837
>I'm still lying to everybody
Lol you just admitted you were a racial realist.
The absolute state of you.

>>9802835

You can't dictate a timeframe because conditions change. It was 3 million years of gradual change in a fairly similar environment. The human population of the past 100,000 years grew exponentially, went through serious bottlenecks, and traveled to inhabit odd stretches of the planet and adapt to them. It changes the acceleration of divergent evolution. Look at how quickly we can turn wolves into hamburger sized chihuahuas with some concerted effort.

Once humans separated from the normal flow of species and began navigating and colonizing the globe things changed very quickly.

>>9802836
well Japan doesn't take immigrants so it's stays ethnically Japanese
Same thing with Cuba but they're not a masterrace and they're commies
Howboutdah?

>>9802833
>>9802836
>>9802845
>Lol you just admitted you were a racial realist.
Lads, this is what /pol/ does to your brain.

>>9802668
who fucking cares bro

just do you and keep on working hard

>>9802836
Rigorously define “we”. Point to a DNA sequence that unequivocally says “yup, this person is white”. Before you go setting up an ethnostate you better be sure your ass can get in.

>>9802846
true, true, evolution is just as often violent and revolutionary as it is gradual, i must admit i often forget myself.

>>9802849
To be fair I watched a series of JF & Alt-Hyp debates and those arguing against race realism were stammering and unable to make a case against it.

>>9802849
>get BTFO
>pretend you didn't get BTFO

>>9802855
>get BTFO
Explain.

>>9802853

There is no case against it. Everything we know about the nature of evolution supports it, every quantifiable metric we have supports it (the only argument against that is "our methods are imperfect", not an argument as that stands for most science), all observable qualifiable evidence would support it.

It is white empathy that overrides the senses and logic and refuses to accept a truth that can seem "mean" or "immoral" on the surface level. But we have killed God in the West and we are going to return to this question because we have lost the only higher spiritual order of inherent human equality.

Does Russia count as a white ethnostate? It's fairly homogeneous as far as I know. Why doesn't /pol/and invade Russia?

>>9802862
russia is fairly heterogeneous in terms of ethnicity senpai, and in raw numbers has more muslims within her borders than the entirety of western europe. in terms of demography it's only slightly better off than the usa in terms of having an absolute "white" majority.

>>9802843
It's absolutely a good thing.
Inb4 muh low birth rate nonsense

>>9802784
>I just want a white ethnostate.
Yeah wouldn't that be great!!!!

>>9802862
/pol/ can’t tell you who is white and who isn’t

>>9802866
Yes it would
Extremely low rates of crime.

High living standards.

Enjoy your delusions though

>>9802867
Dna tests can easily do this

>>9802835
>>9802790
>Global group means range: 1,085–1,581 cm3 (66.2–96.5 cu in)
>Homo erectus: 1,092.9 cm3 (66.69 cu in)

kek homo erectus still dwells among us in the current year

>>9802870
Oh yeah? What is the white gene?

>>9802873
It's many genes/SNPs, all which can be tested.

>>9802866

Now post Massachusetts or New Hampshire or Minnesota

>>9802876
So how many do you need to be considered white?

>>9802873

It is a combination of genes that acts as a unique identifier. This is how 23andme can figure out your genetic makeup and origin.

>>9802871
woah...

>>9802880
Let me guess, your combination is where you arbitrarily draw the line at white, right?

>>9802880
23andme gives you back ethnicities
Like 42% Chinese or something

>>9802879
Why do you keep asking dumb questions?

>>9802883

No, I'm sure I have some sub saharan African in me, or Jew or something. I'm effectively white at 90+% at least.

That's just arguing over details. On a macro level it is easy to see who is white and who isn't.

I'm not the guy arguing for drastic racial measures btw, just to get rid of the destructive ones, like mass immigration from 3rd world countries and affirmative action. I think that is a fair enough proposition.

>>9802886
You want to make a white ethnostate you are going to need a clear cut definition of who is and who isn’t white. The definition is arbitrary and you can’t actually come up with one based in science.

>>9802889
>I unironically don't know what dna tests are

>>9802888
>On a macro level it is easy to see who is white and who isn't

That’s pretty unscientific.

>>9802889
If you're an person who via ancestry belongs wholly to the indigenous peoples of European Christendom + diaspora you are white. This isn't difficult at all, famalam.

>>9802889
It's doable, they just have to decide which ethnicities are considered white and anyone that isn't some combination of those ethnicities is mixed and not allowed in
not that I'm encouraging this
I mean you guys already got Brexit, Trump, Russia is already mostly white. What else could you want?

>>9802892
>I don't have an answer

>>9802895
Virtually nobody meets that definition.

>>9802888
>That's just arguing over details.
>On a macro level it is easy to see who is white and who isn't.
Now that's what I like to call science!

>>9802894

There is nothing remotely scientific about current policy, why are you getting buttmad because no one has a specific plan set out for categorizing white and non-white? You could simply make the criteria national and it would achieve its goal on a broad scale. There is no such thing as perfect national policy because there are so many variables.

The U.S. used to have quotas on shitty countries, and that immigration system produced our greatest heyday. I just want strict controls again and realism, not this suicidal strategy of letting people flood in and fate deciding if we crumble or not.

>>9802899
maybe in muttland people don't

>>9802896
>they

Yeah, that’s the problem.

>>9802898
Dna tests

>>9802907
Elaborate.

>>9802902
This thread is literally about categorizing white and non-white. Seems to me before you all go enacting policy to set those darkies straight, you should figure out who is and isn’t part of your little club.

>>9802908
>>9802900

Classic deflection techniques. It's already been stated that we have ways of accurately judging your ethnic makeup through DNA testing. So what would be the cutoff? That would be up for society to decide. Could be 90% European, could be 95% Northern European, could be 80% European, it doesn't matter, and isn't pertinent.

But it looks like you have already mentally conceded there is a cognitive difference in races, so good for you. Enjoy your spin off topic, hope it brings you internal peace.

>>9802911

See >>9802912

An easy answer: the criteria the geneticists who determined brain size differences used. You can find that in the description of their methodology in the studies posted. Hope that clears up your confusion

This thread fucking sucks fuck every single one of you

>>9802912
Based

>>9802680
>Blacks have lower IQ, therefore I hate them.
>Jews have higher, IQ therefor I hat then.
/pol/ logic everyone.

As a centrist observer in these discussions it seems like there is some solid evidence posted by the /pol/tards and I have read many of the posted studies which are quite credible and instead of responding with scientific studies to prove it wrong the other group just insults them and posts memes. I'm not saying /pol/tards aren't guilty of this too, because they demonstrably are, yet the lack of evidence on the other side is pretty indicative of the truth of the matter.

>>9802912
Wouldn't it be up to white people to decide who is white?
I guess it doesn't even need to be exact. As long as you look white is good enough. I mean what's Japan's criteria right now?
What you really need is an island, like Cuba or Japan. So maybe take Iceland or Greenland.

>>9802843
yes and yes, what is so mindblowing about this? the most multicultural states are prone to all kinds of divisive bullshit

>>9802912
>That would be up for society to decide.
>I don't know the answer.

>>9802912
>posing the “to what end?” question is deflecting

Okay

>society to decide
You mean the society composed of non-whites?

>it doesnt matter
Absolutely does matter because of wildly variant genetics can be.

>>9802920
Finally someone with some sanity.

>>9802919
Why would we hate any of these groups?
So you hate your next door neighbor because you don't want them inside your home?

Brainlet.

>>9802658
>>9802688
>>9802704
Neanderthals had larger brains than humans. What's your point?

>>9802801
>Have you not realized it's bait?
I have, which is why I chose the words.

>Boy, you must be dense.
>still responding

>>9802920
>the lack of evidence on the other side is pretty indicative of the truth of the matter

>>9802871
>Global group means range: 1,085–1,581 cm3 (66.2–96.5 cu in)
hol up

some extant populations have almost 50% more mean cranial capacity than other extant populations in the world right now?

wtf i'm a race realist now

>>9802940
>I have

>>9802916
And you think you’d meet that definition?

>>9802931
Most of society doesn't want the "ethnostate" fantasy /pol/ proposes, so why don't you establish your utopia elsewhere? Wonder what kinds of people it'll attract... I'm sure it'll be a great nation.

>>9802943

Australian Abbos should make you a race realist. They hardened my perspective on the matter. No amount of the typical liberal "wrenches" in realist arguments can account for the physiological and behavioral disparity there.

>>9802946

Probably. It is going to be very broad as they don't usually delve into specific subcategories. "White" as European. The one drop rule bullshit is a divide and conquer tactic anyway.

>>9802931
That’s a false analogy. These people are not inside your house, they have been granted rights and privileges in accordance with the rule of law. To take that away without due process is criminal.

The problem for white nationalists is that non-whites even if they closed the borders to immigrants and ended diversity quotas they can't just deport all the non-whites already in their countries. Most of them are naturalized citizens. So the only thing they can do is set up shop somewhere else or something. Unless you are gonna start kicking people out based on ethnicity.

>>9802942
You people STILL have no argument.

You just proved that guy right.

>>9802942
So you attack me for presenting my observations and lump me in with their group because you don't like what I have to say?

>>9802953
My home and homeland are the same thing just on a wider scale.

>>9802951
And what happens when your kid or your grand kid don’t meet the definition? Tough shit eh?

>>9802963
>My home and homeland are the same thing just on a wider scale.
Lmao. In your dreams, pal.

You don't "own" your homeland. That's a narcissistic fantasy of yours. In reality, you probably own very little.

>>9802969

What exactly are you implying? I'm not a white nationalist. I want people to stop being fucking retarded and acting like all immigrants have the same economic potential or benefit when making policy considerations.

>>9802802
Brain size correlates with body height.

>>9802978
It's not that easy to immigrate. You usually have to prove you're a worthy candidate do you not? They only take you in without that stuff if you're a refugee and then you're not supposed stay forever, it's temporary. So it all works out.

>>9802984
It's cute you think these """"refugees""" are temporary.

>>9802995
They're supposed to be, once Syria stabilizes they're supposed to go home
right? A refugee citizenship isnt a full citizenship

>>9803000
oh my sweet summer child...

>>9803000
Mate the amount of """refugees""" coming into europe is far in excess of the entire syrian population, ergo they are not all syrians or refugees. Let's say the war ends and they don't want to go home? what then?

>>9802920
>>9802958
>>9802960
samefag

>>9803005
...deport them?

>>9803014

>>9802920
>>9802960

No shit that's me you imbecile, I am not the middle guy though.

>>9802978
That is clearly not the same as categorizing billions of people based on genetic make-up and dictating public policy Gattaca style.

>>9803017
Ah so we can mass deport people then?

>>9803021
Yeah of they're illegals, like if they over stay
but it's impossible to do that en masse

>>9803021
Please don't. They know that I am a faggot they'll kill me. I can't cover my HIV medicine by myself too.

>>9802972
> you don't own your homeland
Yes, counties are owned by their citizens.

In democracies anyway.

>>9802981
No it doesn't

>>9802658

Hey, /pol/tard representative here.

Brain size is correlated with intelligence at about .4 on a regression line. Now, due to different parts of the brain requiring various propositions of volume for their functions, and the fact that the races differ in terms of the selective pressures for different parts of the brain, this means that the correlation between brain size and intelligence is not equal between the races, but it is a good metric, all else being equal.

http://www.cogprints.org/1369/3/IQTAN2.pdf

However, brain size is a weak argument all round, and is a relatively weak estimation of intelligence. What is a better argument, however, is comparing White and Black performance on g-loaded subtests of IQ.

G-loaded means general intelligence loaded. General intelligence is the broad intelligence which governs all actions to an extent, from tying your shoes to solving long division, and the more of your brain a problem tests, the more g-loaded it is. Similarly, the more environmentally effected a problem is, like tying your shoes or driving a car, where virtually everyone can accomplish these tasks, the less g-loaded they are, because they are a poor predictor for general aptitude in intelligence.

Therefore, if when a test was completely g-loaded Blacks scored the same as Whites, and on a completely non g-loaded test they scored twice the 15-point IQ gap, we could say that the Black-White 15 point IQ gap is completely a product of environement and not of genes. HOWEVER, this is not the case, and the lower relative Black performance in less g-loaded subtests of IQ tests implies that the Black-White IQ gap is about 75% to 80% a product of genes.

This is to say, if Blacks and Whites were raised in a compound with White living standards, they would have a ~13 point IQ gap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3y2SDpIEhE&t=17s

>inb4 >>>/pol/

>>9803060
Make more videos debunking other leftist youtubers, Ryan.

>>9803069

You've brought me a hearty laugh, but I am just an admirer.

>>9802658
Weak bait

>>9802658
Your stat is skewed, the studies don't take into account that less African babies are born by c-section, so more of them get their heads squeezed down a size at birth, thus leading to the smaller average cranial capacity.

>>9803088
c section rates are through the roof throughout Europe and Asia because the craniums of infants are becoming unmanageably large

>>9803088

No, this is wrong, the hips of European women are larger than that of African women.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028960200137X

>>9803092

What I mean by this is that this shows that the skulls of White babies have been larger historically, which has lead to a selective pressure on White women to have larger hips.

>>9803060
>*cricket noises*

Really the evidence is so overwhelming that the only way to debunk the gap is to point to a flaw in the IQ test system. This is anecdote admittedly, but having personally done several IQ tests and talking to others who have done them, I would agree these tests are generally a good measure for intelligence. I really have not found a convincing argument to debunk them, often specific ones with dumb questions are cherrypicked for criticism, but these do not represent the vast majority of tests.

of course head case size correlates to intelligence

Did you really think the PHENOTYPE memes were just a silly joke?

Youre just experiencing cognitive dissonance

>>9803092
I was just shitposting anyways.

The real reason African skulls are smaller is the way their hair grows, it weighs less than Caucasian or Oriental hair and so they don't have ~3 ounces of hair pulling outwards on their skull their whole lives. You got a study for that hot shot?

>>9803094

Yeah, I don't have the studies on hand (every man is only so autistic), but the correlation between subjectively perceived intelligence and IQ is nothing to scoff at.


>>9803100

Sometimes it's hard to tell.

>>9802768
>inb4theyare
they are though? on average

asians have smaller brains on average (smaller heads), but higher iq

>>9802758
So you want whales and elephants to rule the world?

>>9802851
How about we start with repealing the Immigration Act of 1965? We need to put back caps per country.

>>9802741
And the part of Amerindians having demonstrated a higher development rate than europeans:
>europeans
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to solutrean:10000 years (30000BC-20000BC)
>from aurignacian-antelian to start of crop development: 9000 years(30000BC-21000BC)
>from start of crop development to neolithic revolution: 10500 years (21000BC-10500BC)
>from neolithic revolution to earliest use of copper: 5500 years (10500BC-5000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to earliest use of tin bronze: 6700 years (10500BC-3800BC)

>Amerindians:
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to clovis: 5500 years (16000BC-10500BC)
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to the start of crop development: 5000 years (16000BC-11000BC)
>from start of crop development to neolithic revolution: 7000 years (11000BC-4000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to copper: 3000 years (4000BC-1000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to earliest use of tin bronze: 4700 years (4000BC-700 AD)


-"2003a. Tiwanaku Period (Middle Horizon) bronze metallurgy in the lake Titicaca basin: A preliminary assessment. En Tiwanaku and its hinterland, T 2. A. Kolata, (Ed.), pp. 404-434. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D. C."
-"1997. El bronce arsenical y el Horizonte Medio. En Arqueología, antropología e historia en los Andes: Homenaje a María Rostworowski, R. Varón y J. Flores E. (Eds.), pp. 153-186. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, Lima."
-"https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317346941_Ancient_metalworking_in_South_America_A_3000-year-old_copper_mask_from_the_Argentinian_Andes";
-"Historia de América Andina: Las sociedades aborígenes"
-"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02859340";
-"http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141923";
-"http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1873/";
-"https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoamericano";
-"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluefish_Caves";
Therefore Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans.

How is this hard to get?

>>9803121
Why are natives all low IQ drunks that don't accomplish shit then?

>>9803127
>why-then?
There is no "then". Amerindian higher development rate is a historical fact.

Deal with it, mandrill.

>>9802698
Don’t intentionally be stupid just so you can think you’re better than everyone for saying “blacks aren’t dumb because brain size has nothing to do with IQ” brain size has everything to do with intelligence.

>>9803242
>no proof found
Guess we got another charlatan over here.

>>9802658
Based on my previous interactions with pol the 'research' they are citing probably has methodical flaws or they simply misinterpret the results.

>>9803418
>they are citing probably has methodical flaws
If this were true, Kraut would have been able to point out these flaws with his discord full of "academics" yet he wasn't able to and got btfo.

You people are wrong, deal with it.

>>9803157
>Amerindian higher development rate
They could only go so far because of their genetics.

>>9803422
>Science is decided by who can BTFO others the most

>>9803426
I mean, he did have countless science minded people on his side yet he couldn't pull it off.

You people are still wrong, race is real.

>>9803422
>Kraut
Is that an expert with a good understanding of how research is conducted?
Because if the answer is no that doesn't say much.

>>9802683
it has a 0.4 correlation iirc but it correlates much better with visual-spacial IQ. Inuits have the largest brain size and the highest visual spacial IQ, probably due to them needing to be able to navigate in the snow without many landmarks.

>>9802919
Projection. No one said anything about hating them for being inferior, friend. Not very progressive of you to make such cruel remarks.

>>9802658
Where are all the Asian and Jewish 100m sprinters and marathon runners?

Genetics vary with ethnicity. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

>>9803486
FUCK YOU NAZI

>>9803431
The consensus is that race is a social construct.

>>9802658

I don't think the /pol/ hive mind thinks that smaller brains = less intelligent

>>9802706

Females have smaller brains but are smarter than men. How do you explain that?

>>9803518
>The consensus is that race is a social construct.
I know.
This is false and scientifically inaccurate.

>>9802658
>actually LARPing as the strawman
Been a rough week for you eh Cletus?

>>9803520
>Females have smaller brains but are smarter than men.

>>9803524
>I can't disprove him so I'll call him a redneck
Why do you people hate science so much?

>>9803520
>one SD lower and less spread
>not being a brainlet
Choose one sugarcunt.

>>9803486
This, can’t we just get over the fact races are different? And yes, that means blacks are less intelligent but physically more adept. No one has a problem saying how great they are at running or boxing, but don’t dare say they aren’t good at math or you’re a Nazi.

Opposite is true, if you learnt this to be the case, you would immediately disagree that larger brains equal higher intelligence.

I would say sage and report, but /sci/ is a fucking lowbrow shithole anyway. Keep this stupid shit up if you want.

>>9803669
>This, can’t we just get over the fact races are different?
Becuase BNW and muh slippery slopes

>>9803676

>Less brain = more intelligence

Now my neurons are firing. Thank you for your input

>>9802984

The U.S. passed the Immigration Act in 1965 reversing earlier policy that restricted immigration from shitty countries. It is having a depressing effect on our society (look at modern PISA scores) and we need to revert to our previous pragmatic approach.

It is tough to immigrate here from a nice country because we take in so many shitters

>>9803768
Our PISA scores are brought down by the people living in squalor for generations. Immigrants are not part of that group. Immigrants of color succeed at a way higher rate than natives of color.

>>9803758
Blacks have larger heads on average was my point. This was the statement you made, I said the opposite was true.

>falling for obvious bait
Gotta love /sci/

> Although racially mixed children are culturally black in America, and are almost always raised by black parents in black communities, this is not true everywhere. Klans Eyferth studied the illegitimate children of black and white soldiers stationed in Germany as part of the army of occupation after World War II. All these children were raised by their German mothers. There was considerable prejudice against blacks in Germany at the time, and any child of a German mother who looked black was also presumed to be illegitimate, which carried additional stigma. But mixed-race German children did not attend predominantly black schools, live in black neighborhoods, or (presumably) have predominantly black (or mixed-race) friends. When Eyferth gave these children a German version of the Wechsler IQ test, children with black fathers and white fathers had almost identical scores.

>>9803836
black soldiers who scored high enough on iq tests to not automatically disqualify themselves from the US army in the 1940s are not a representative sample of blacks as a whole

>>9803860
i think the lowest bar for an army job is 85 iq right now

>>9802919
>Taking someones input on a subject matter
>Don't add any contribution to it and instead mention completely unrelated topics and put words into someones mouth
No logic everyone.

>>9802671
>the only Jews tested were the same Jews that ran the experiment

>>9802712
B I G B R A I N

>>9802658
>I have no answer to this and they keep btfoing me on this subject.
So your belief that blacks and whites are of equal intelligence is based entirely on faith?

>>9803424
They could go to the higher development state compared to europeans.

Time to get replaced, subhuman.

>>9803669
Because people who are intelligence tend to be regarded more highly and treated with more respect in society than people who aren’t, and thus indications that certainty races aren’t intelligence generate higher levels of insecurity and by extension antagonism?

nigs dum lol

>>9802658
Africans have less brain volume in general not just smaller brains, it means they dont have the same number of neurons as asians and whites. Blacks also have defective frontal lobes compared to asians and whites, these defective frontal lobes are the source of their animal behavior.

>>9802714
[math] \mathbb{BIG} [/math]
[math] \mathcal{ARYAN} [/math]
[math] \mathbb{BRAIN} [/math]

>>9802658
"Blacks" aren't one group. There is a lot of genetic diversity within, and some of their ethnic groups can usually achieve good results, like the Igbo, or the Yoruba peoples.
I definitely believe in human differences, but /pol/tards only like to hear what favors them.

>>9803669
>physically more adept

Anon Black Americans are notably less healthy then most other American demographics.

>>9803060
>>9803094
Since racism is associated with low general intelligence [1], does this mean /pol/tards must be exterminated?

[1] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797611421206

>>9803039
>I represent all citizens
Delusions aside, what fraction of these citizens agree with your "ethnostate" fantasy, which you have even failed to clearly define?

>>9804141

I've always figured a national program of voluntary sterilization with small cash incentives was the best approach. Only dumbasses are going to take that deal anyway. Would be cross-racial, and yet if any race was disproportionately dumb it would still work.

>>9804537
>here's 200 bucks
>cut off your dick

>>9804538

Could be $1,000 and all it is is a little snip that doesn't affect your sex life.

Having grown up among poor and dumb people I guarantee they would leap at the opportunity and by the time they regretted it it would be too late.

>>9804545
lmao

>>9803046
it literally does retard

that's why shorter men are retarded

>>9802671
Why would this upset anyone? These accurately explain wealth distribution in meritocratic societies in multicultural societies.

>>9802938
They were smarter than the humans at the time and had better tools more suited for the type of game found in the area. They lacked size in the part of the brain responsible for social skills and had shitter vocalizations. Their group sizes were smaller and they were overrun/outbred/integrated by our ancestors. Coincidently Asians have the most Neanderthal in them out of all the modern "races". Don't get your information about ancient hominids from car insurance commercials.

>>9804648
So brain size ≠ intelligence, then...

>>9804657
I said part of the brain they still had larger brains than humans of the time m8.

>>9802658
>this doesn't mean blacks are genetically stupider, even though brain size correlates with intelligence in humans

Nigger got nothing else to brag about except their dick, why don't they ever talk about their 2-digit iq??

this post only reveals how much of a 'cesspool' chan has become... every board has been infiltrated by /pol/ and angsty white teens who think they know every thing because they watched a couple YouTube videos.

>>9803113
Not the same thing since they use mouch of it to control the body. Blacks have a smaller brain in relation to their body so it's different

>their brains are smaller
>brain size correlates with IQ
>n-no not that way
Are you retarded ?
Blacks are just genetically more stupid because their average IQ is lower.

>>9802758
Brain size doesn't predict shit. Otherwise men would be superior to women in everyway. The only thing brain size correlates with is interconnectedness of hemispheres. It's has nothing to do with IQ. Larger brains rely less on interhemispheric communication

>>9802671
much literature exists explaining the biases ingrained in the IQ test, you posting this sounds about white

>>9804914
>bias in IQ tests
If they don't wanna take the test then why don't they fuck off to where they are from and take their own IQ tests ? What a retarded argument

>>9804915
you're in the wrong thinking that intelligence can be quantified by such a simple metric. The phenotype is determined by countless genes, thus creating an unmeasurable amount of variation. get over yourself nazi scum

>>9804919
IQ still represents a good mean to compare certain skills. Just screeching "but muh crackers made IQ test racist" is retarded. We live in a western world and therefore it is standardized to the local population. If you don't wanna be judged by Western standards then don't fucking come her and complain about muh racism. Fucking Japs got it right.

>>9804921
Major emphasis on certain skills. Its also not a good metric for personal success as you seem to think, the counter examples are never ending. Regardless of race, the test is written by someone that will naturally score well

>>9804924
IQ predicts success pretty good. Can't think of another metric really. Maybe family wealth. Anyway, IQ tests have served us well and I don't see why you'd want to abolish that. Blacks just score shittier because their IQ as we define it is lower. Most Asians are the counter example to this.
People just need to stop crying about every little shit.

>>9804926
been awhile since I've seen such a feeling of self importance and major lack of thought. Hope the weather is nice in la la land

>>9804928
Ran out of bullshit arguments, m8 ?

>>9802744
op was bait

>>9802658
>blacks have smaller brains on average
>brain size correlates with intelligence
>blacks aren't stupider
???

>>9804929
No you've just chosen to not accept published fact, not my problem. Intelligence can't be quantified, as is the case with a plethora of other complex phenotypes.
>IQ tests have served us well
im coming for your shekels

>>9802783
Not a fact because it's not true
source: I'm a woman.

>>9804939

>>9804937
If you touch my shekels I am gonna call the IDF, goy.
>Inteligence can't be quanitified
It's a latent variable. It's a construct we made up to measure certain skills. Why do IQ tests always yield the same distribution ?
>published fact
How about you provide sources instead of pulling shit out of your ass. IQ tests are an established practice around here no matter how loud some autists will screech because they can't get above 100.

>>9804944
>Why do IQ tests always yield the same distribution ?
because they "test" for the same thing on the same group of people. Normal distributions will be observed for any metric across any population
>provide sources
no you? i'm not gonna dig through pubmed to win a won argument with some high schooler at 3am

>>9804948
It 12 o'clock,lad. So no proof but everyone but you is stupid. Ok.

>>9804951
never said anyone was stupid? Unless you think the lack of applicability of the IQ test somehow correlates to your personal intelligence? Why are you so quick to be offended? insecure about something? maybe....your intelligence?

>>9802671
That sample size

>>9803780
Regression to the mean, nigger.

>>9803868
>95% of africans would be rejected by the military

>>9802658
You can't really test the IQs of blacks because a lot of them get so bored during testing that they just cross any answers to get it done over quicker.

I mean yeah, they might have a lower IQ, but that's not the primarily reason for the situation of the blacks.

>>9802658
>even though brain size correlates with intelligence in humans
Does it really? Women have smaller brains by a factor of 1/3 iirc, but are as intelligent as men

>>9805048
8-13% and men and women have the same median iq
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/men-have-bigger-brains-than-women-research-reveals-9124103.html

>>9802866
>what is europe faggot

>>9804535

Firstly, no, inferiority should not mean extermination.

Two, your study was poorly conducted and doesn't support your claim.

http://wmbriggs.com/post/5118/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeLpJOWyQbI

I dislike having to rely on Ryan Faulk for these kinds of arguments, but I've referenced him because he helps to visualise the data. Your study showed a very weak (basically non existent) negative correlation of IQ with 'racism' , but showed a strong negative correlation of education and 'racism'.

Because we know that education is positively correlated with IQ, this means that the most racist people for any level of education will be the smartest of that cohort.

>>9805078

Just for reference, the effective correlation between 'g' and 'racism' was -0.01 for men and 0.02 for women. This makes the correlation about as close as you can get to 0 while still retaining a value.

>>9805048

Men have a slight edge on women on full scale IQ, however this is only due to men's more palpable edge in visual spatial subtests of full scale IQ tests.

>>9802680
go to /pol/.

>>9802683
>>9802658
false, neanderthals had larger brain capacity than humans but they still werent smarter than humans. in fact humans had many more mental features than neanderthals.

>>9805105

That's an interesting theoretical argument, but we can skip the middle man and just go straight to empirical data, which shows a positive relation between brain size and IQ.

http://www.cogprints.org/1369/3/IQTAN2.pdf

Also refer to my post here >>9803060, please.

>>9802658
>/pol/tard larping as his opposition
Nobody would ever claim to be BTFO'd, brainlet. Try again next time, /pol/.

>>9803094
IQ tests are known to have significant amounts of cultural bias.
Then again, if IQ is so important, why discriminate by skin color (which correlates with IQ) instead of discriminating by IQ directly?

>>9805134

>cultural bias

No, questions that are more cultural have wider racial gaps in the USA.

>Source

Well, you didn't provide one either, and if you did it would probably just be an opinion piece from a shitlib rag.

>Why discriminate on skin colour

He never mentioned discrimination. Please only respond to arguments that are actually being made.

>>9802671
IQ "average" doesn't tell the whole story, when you look at the distributions Jews and Japanese have far more geniuses than White and Koreans respectively which follow a pretty typical bell curve.

The same is played out in chess scores as well, I don't know why that is but it's quite interesting.

Why tie anything to race? There are dumb people and there are smart people.

>>9805175

By studying the relationship between race and intelligence, we can make predictions about the intelligence of a person or group of persons based on their continental or regional ancestry.

This can inform immigration policy, affirmative action laws, education laws, etc.

>>9802735
/pol/ loves talking about things that they don't understand.
Like any other group of people with "extremist" views, they also like hugboxes where they can confirm that their beliefs are the "truth" - because others share them.

>>9805184

You're a poopy buthead too

>>9805166
>No, questions that are more cultural have wider racial gaps in the USA.
I'm guessing from uses of phrases like "more cultural", you don't do too well on IQ tests yourself. Let me help you out: If an IQ test contains culturally biased questions, and these questions have wider gaps amongst people of different races, then culture clearly does skew IQ test results.
>Well, you didn't provide one either
I requested a source nowhere in the post you're responding to. I'm able to gather sources for myself, like a big boy.
>Please only respond to arguments that are actually being made.
Oh, so you're just bringing up race differences for the novelty of thinking about them? Nobody wants to actually do anything with them?

>>9805186

*butthead

The spelling's important, y'see.

>>9805179
>This can inform immigration policy, affirmative action laws, education laws, etc.
We do all of that already. Immigration is merit-based. Affirmative action is flawed, but should be wealth-based. Education should give special attention to any struggling student, regardless of race.

This can all be done without race involved.

>>9805186
>Y- you too!

>>9805179
In the US, we turn away plenty of people who try to immigrate for having diseases. Why not simply administer an IQ test as well, instead of judging all blacks based on their average?

>>9805189

Typically condescending, if you based your views off of reason and evidence and not social status you may be less bigoted.

>Culturally loaded questions

Okay, the fully loaded IQ tests, culture and numbers all intogether, creates a fifteen point IQ gap between Blacks and Whites. You give the Blacks more of the cultural tests, however, and they score closer to the Whites than they would otherwise.

Going back over my question, I got it the wrong way round, and I apologise for that, but I've now corrected my position.

>Source issue

I thought that you were going to request a source, so I was stating there and then that the onus was on you to produce one first.

>I'm able to get sources for myself

No, don't do this. If someone makes a claim, it isn't your job to find evidence for it, it is always his, without exception. Don't be a slave to niggards who expect everyone else to falsify the million and one bad ideas they have.

>You're just bringing up race differences for novelty's sake?

No, you're making assumptions. Differences in race could be argued for purely to end policies like race based affirmative action. You don't know what other people believe, so don't project arguments onto them that they haven't agreed to debate.

>>9805191

>Immigration is merit based

Kek, it isn't in your nation. You literally have a 'diversity' lottery in order to have a more diverse range of migrants. Race and IQ would clearly be relevant for that.

>Affirmative action should be wealth based

Leftists believe that race qua race is the reason why Blacks do worse than Whites. This information is important for countering that.

>More boomer nonsense

Whatever, I'm not arguing over this.

>>9805201

By the way, race qua race is important due to the phenomenon of "Regression to the Mean"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

If you important a million very tall Chinese people into your country so that you can dominate everyone else in the Olympics, those Chinese athletes are not going to produce equally tall children come the next generation.

>>9805197

You would also want to test for political views.

I am of the opinion that I would rather live in destitute poverty but still be entitled to free speech as opposed to living in first world living conditions under strict or even lenient censorship.

>>9805201

By the way, here are tests demonstrating that the Black White gap is fairly g loaded, meaning that about 70 to 80 percent of the fifteen point gap is due to genetics.

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/arthurjensen/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Educability-and-Group-Differences-1973-by-Arthur-Robert-Jensen.pdf
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0VDoaXaIou8M0VvWXB1OWw1cmc/edit?pref=2&pli=1
http://philipperushton.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/iq-race-r-k-theory-japan-inbreeding-depression-rushton-intelligence-1989.pdf
http://humanvarieties.org/2013/07/05/hollow-flynn-effect-in-two-developing-countries-and-a-further-test-of-the-debatable-black-white-genetic-differences/

I think that those were the ones.

>>9805066
>implying europe is white

>>9802859
why are you even here?

>>9805201
>You literally have a 'diversity' lottery in order to have a more diverse range of migrants.
Damn man, you really have no idea what you're talking about. Too easily triggered by the word "diversity." It's talking about a diversity of nations. It prevents immigrants from historically high-immigrant nations like Mexico and China. It encourages more immigration from nations like Norway or, god forbid, African nations.

On top of that, it is still merit-based. If we take a Nigerian, it will be a highly qualified one. That's why they come here and do so well.

So, kys or something.

>>9805107
>well-debunked publication from 1999
braindeads fuck off

>>9805197
IQ isn't a metric for intelligence
>>9805201
>fifteen point IQ gap
sampling whites from Harvard and blacks from west Baltimore. No publication outlines a population sample from the same area, purposefully skewing results.

IQ was created to reassure the insecure. If you really want to think you're better than X race because you took a test that less than 5% of the world has taken, be my guest.

>people can't tell op is a falseflagging /pol/tard
yikes, /sci/ is not intelligent at all

Why have an ethnostate at all when you can have an IQstate?

>>9805535
why have state at all when you can have feudalism

>>9803520
Lol

>>9805500
>well debunked

You got a single fact to back your baseless assertion?

OP, even if differences in cranial size exist, that doesn't mean black people can't be more intelligent than white people. There are many factors to intelligence.

Think of it this way. White men tend to have tiny dicks compared to black guys. That doesn't mean it's not possible for a white guy to satisfy a woman.

>>9805549
do you?

>>9804924
I've read it is the single most accurate predictor of success (both academic and economic) we currently have...? Also, there isn't just one "iq test." There are a variety of specialized tests that all relate with varying ratios to the "g-factor" which is somewhat of a conglomeration of aspects of intelligence. Tests like the raven test. iirc, have an extremely high % relationship to overall intelligence (the highest out of any). It's a test solely based on pattern recognition/model construction to explain and predict the patterns. It's void of any relationship to sociological/political factors and can't really be "biased." Tests like vocabulary (which have a much much lower % relationship to overall intelligence) can def be biased however- so maybe you're thinking of that?

>>9805652
I've read otherwise. Think intelligence needs to be defined in any literature addressing the topic as it so often isn't. The topic itself is very volatile. Any correlation to success can be explained by environmental factors and not genetic makeup; odds are the "high scoring" individuals would be outperformed by "low scoring" individuals in countless tests of mental performance. Any vision based test can be debunked through the existence of the blind, who without a doubt can be considered more "intelligent" than "high scoring" individuals provided an adequate study is performed. "intelligence" is regulated by hundreds if not thousands of genes that run through hundreds if not thousands of biological pathways, to say that these relationships can be explained so simply is a disgusting statement. IQ tests are rooted in insecurity

>>9805652
-a more philosophical point- but the emphasis on bias also seems to look over the precise nature of bias identification/structure. For x to be bias towards y, y may or may not have properties that that provide itself with a higher probability of obtaining x.

In the case of IQ, these properties are in reference to high economic and academic success.

So for x to be biased towards y means y may or may not already exhibit properties that ultimately provide a higher probability of success in reference to economic and academic success.

You see the problem here right? x (or those providing x) perception may be wrong or right (i)OR the perception may be inverting the initial (and real) relationship between x and y.

It isn’t enough to simply label something as bias because a particular group y finds higher predictive success.

It is circular to consider iq biases a problem to be eradicated- because these probabilities are exactly what are to be expected from those with high iq. If intelligence predicted low economic mobility and low achievement within academia, then the "bias" would be benefiting those who fit those criteria.

basically there is no bias- it's literally the unequal distribution of properties that make up intelligence (and therefor intelligence tests) that when registered under an administered test, is mistaken for bias towards a particular group.

Within the confines of measurable ability, the group differences must already exist, and/or an expectation or some sort of tabula rasa presumption not met, for there to be a perceived or ill-perceived bias.

Let's say you wanted to test people's mathematics ability between ages 14-18, but have a bias towards the success of asian men. What exactly could you permit/omit prior to testing that would substantiate your bias within the scores?

>>9805710
The test would not only test group difference but also use established metrics for obtaining the highest predictive success within mathematics (similar to the nature of IQ tests).
Say Asians perform poorly within a particular field of mathematics, whereas white students tend to show more success.-If this field is closely linked to overall predictive success within mathematics-omitting it would lower the overall predictive success for both asians AND whites.
This you might declare is exactly the issue with iq tests! But think about this for a moment. If tests were engineered this way, there’d be a large unexplained disparity between predictive success and empirical data. For by omitting a field largely predictive of overall mathematic success, one loses predictive capacity, and real life starts to oscillate far from what is to be expected. Ultimately the findings wouldn’t be supported, whether it be to re-testing, or due to other studies.
ANother point to be stressed is that asian males may still end up with the highest predictive success, despite the initial field being omitted, or after testing properly- and it is there where people still mistake bias as reason for substantiated differences. If the tests are TRULY bias, we most likely would lose predictive success, but if we don’t- then maybe the bias is truly inverted- and it is the REAL outcome you’re trying to model methodological bias on.

>>9805714
>empirical data
you're referencing case studies with less than 5k subjects? how realistic to a population of 7bil

>>9805705
>"Any correlation to success can be explained by environmental factors and not genetic makeup"
This I feel excludes the possibility of intelligence providing for more fruitful environments- and would also need to be backed up, because current neurosci lit says otherwise.
>"odds are the "high scoring" individuals would be outperformed by "low scoring" individuals in countless tests of mental performance"
I'd like a source for this and also an explanation of what it entails? Mental performance seems purposefully vague. Mental tasks vary in degree their relationship to the g-factor, so someone with a predicted 140 iq may perform poorer than someone with a 120 iq relative to some verbal quiz, but whether this dismantles general intelligence altogether seems dubious. On average that person with a higher iq would still be more likely to experience success relative to most tasks,usually academic or economic (which is all these tests are saying).
>"Any vision based test can be debunked through the existence of the blind, who without a doubt can be considered more "intelligent" than "high scoring" individuals provided an adequate study is performed"
Vision based intelligence tests can be administered in a way to allow participation of disabled. Also again, tests vary in degree their oveall relationship to g-factor.
>"to say that these relationships can be explained so simply is a disgusting statement"
I don't think anyone is saying that? All we've found is a particularly close link between g-factor-iq tests- and overall success. Research is being conducted now into the precise genetic underpins of these relationships.

>>9805535
Why should you include intelligent blacks in a state if intelligent whites VASTLY outnumber them?

>>9805514
You are missing the point, the african american IQ has been consistent since the early 1900s showing they really are retarded compared to whites or asians or west asians or native americans or central asians.

>>9805742
yes, due to minimal size and selective population sampling. Go to top universities and sample only Africans and then go to the midwest and sample only whites from towns with less than 15k population. The results would inevitably be flipped

>>9805742

So did you get beat up by a black dude or something? Why are you so angry?

>>9805742
>iq
iq is not science, anon. iq is pseudoscience.

>>9805735
>possibility of intelligence providing for more fruitful environments
This assumes an initial environment that was stimulating and exhibited preference towards intelligence. Any and all research will in someway reference the balance of nature and nurture.
>source
unbiased studies are few and far between, as the topic is not rooted in fact. True researchers focus on furthering science and not tearing down those that contribute to it.
>a particularly close link between g-factor-iq tests- and overall success
This would imply that the relationship can be explained by basic tests, which it cannot
>Research is being conducted
profound, such research has been ongoing since the start of the eugenics movement

quality avoidance of the complex genetic relationship bit, points to the fact that, as i have said previously, that such tests are rooted in insecurity and not logical/proven fact

>>9805764
/thread

no truly educated researched in any field would spend time on such a menial and inapplicable area of study.

>>9802658
Keep on dreaming about "muh white ethnostate", /pol/tard.

>>9802694
Pretty much everyone on /pol/ understands the basic idea of a normal distribution, you can just look at it and understand it.

>>9805753

>>9802671
This list is wrong

>>9803520

>>9802942
The sad thing is you did this without intending to prove his/her point.

>>9806455
Can you please stop being so racist.
Thanks.

>>9803113
We're comparing people to people, not whales to people.