to the "IQ and race" problem

[Anonymous No.10579215]

Is it me, or do white people seem to use far more filler words on average than other races?

[Anonymous No.10579227]

>>10579215
Can you provide a correlation between filler words and intelligence?

[Anonymous No.10579230]

>>10579215
it's just you.
don't be a racist, it's a low iq position to have

[Anonymous No.10579238]

>another IQ thread

[Anonymous No.10579243]

>>10579230
Irrelevant article.
Likely confuses correlation with causation, or gets the direction of causality wrong.
My IQ is high.

[Anonymous No.10579254]

>>10579227
I suppose it is quite obvious, don't you think?

[Anonymous No.10579257]

>>10579243
>wah argument bad

[Anonymous No.10579265]

>>10579257
In most "high IQ" circles being racist means losing your job, carrer, life, etc. Of course you learn to keep your mouth shut whatever your actual beliefs are.

[Anonymous No.10579283]

>>10579227
I think the term "verbal intelligence" would lose all its meaning if it didn't.

>>10579257
And maybe you could actually answer the question.

[Anonymous No.10579293]

>>10579243
>likely confuses
>likely
translation: you're making a snap judgment about the paper based on an abstract you find uncomfortable or non-PC.
stop being allergic to reading, actually look at the article (at least skim it) and then tell us what it actually does instead of what it "likely" does
making sweeping claims based on snap judgments is clearly indicative of lower ability to think critically.

>gets the direction of causality wrong
this would be arguing that lower iq results from (as opposed to causes) a particular belief. clearly that doesn't even make sense. but even if it did, it wouldn't help your cause at all

>>10579265
>revealing yourself as a brainlet among a circle of high IQ people makes that circle of people reject you
as it should.
to say "all white people do X" is racism and therefore a sign of lower cognitive ability.

[Anonymous No.10579294]

can somebody start making an /iqg/ IQ general here? apparently IQ posters don’t realize it deserves to go in /sqt/ so maybe it would help

[Anonymous No.10579318]

>>10579293
Ad hominem is not an argument.

>as it should

Why?

>to say "all white people do X" is racism

I said on average.


>and therefore a sign of lower cognitive ability.

Logic. Where did it go?

[Anonymous No.10579328]

>>10579318
Telling you to actually read the article before passing a snap judgment about its contents isn't ad hominem.

>Why?
You don't understand why high IQ achievers don't want to be saddled with idiocy in their places of work?

>I said on average.
Oh, an average? So that means you have some data to average. Please show it.

>Logic. Where did it go?
You can't recognize it when you see it? Read the papers, learn the facts, then come back. Or go back to /pol/ and just stay there.

[Anonymous No.10579335]

>another IQ thread...

[Anonymous No.10579358]

>>10579328
>Telling you to actually read the article before passing a snap judgment about its contents isn't ad hominem.

Posting the article at all is ad hominem.

>You don't understand why high IQ achievers don't want to be saddled with idiocy in their places of work?

You are not making sense.

>You can't recognize it when you see it? Read the papers, learn the facts, then come back.

The papers have nothing to do with what I asked.

>Or go back to /pol/ and just stay there.

I hoped /sci/ would provide some more interesting replies than "OP is a faggot". I guess I was wrong.

[Anonymous No.10579403]

>>10579215
Actually black academics use by far the highest frequency of useless verbiage when attempting to grasp abstract concepts, black intellectuals like cornel west and literally any harvard educated black social scientist are some of the clearest victims of this. Even among blacks this kind of diction is mocked in shows like the Boondocks. Jews are a close second but they are capable of real salience even when they are prolix.

[Anonymous No.10579448]

>>10579403
Michael Dyson would be another perfect example
I don't like Jordan Peterson but in his debate with himself and Stephen Fry against Dyson and some other, Dyson shows that you can just talk a lot of shit, throw a lot of dust in the air and ultimately move a point nowhere at all, but look smart while doing it.

Perfect example of somebody with 110 IQ being smart enough to use the big words, but not being able to move a discussion anywhere at all. It was fucking painful.
Einstein said it best when if you can't explain something simply, you don't understand it well enough.

It's verbiage like this that makes me just disrespect the entire field of sociology, since it's about 5% actual useful stuff, and 95% pseuds who want the paper that calls them an intellectual, without making any positive contributions to wider knowledge.

This is no idle insult either, since others going as far back as the Sokal affair have found these people just talk total bullshit and if you do it back to them, they think you're a genius and fucking publish it.

A lot of your success in those fields seems to be decided by your innate characteristics and who you can appeal to, rather than objectively measurable information.

[Anonymous No.10579450]

>>10579403
This.

[Anonymous No.10579592]

>>10579215
What the fuck is a filler word. It sounds like a subjective term.

[Anonymous No.10579595]

>white people
>race

pick one, retard. a Swede != an american. a sweden != a finn actually. just as two whiteskinned examples

[Anonymous No.10579598]

>>10579238
>As if intelligence differences among human populations isn't one of the most important (and taboo) topics of our time, especially considering viable eugenics is just around the corner.

[Anonymous No.10579607]

>>10579335
Əh shət, hərət wə gə əgəən

[Anonymous No.10579614]

>>10579215
wha u tryna say nigga?

[Anonymous No.10579616]

>>10579358
>posting an article is ad-hominem
This board has autism.

[Anonymous No.10579617]

>>10579215
Maybe Americans do. I've always found it cringey. Mostly talking about American academics btw.

[Anonymous No.10579623]

>>10579215
ƏMƏRƏCƏN ƏNGLƏSH

[Anonymous No.10579637]

>>10579403
https://youtu.be/ST6kj9OEYf0 @24:30 and anytime else this simp speaks

[Anonymous No.10579639]

>>10579215
It's you, and everybody in this thread is dumb, because nobody mentions that on average, bodies of text between spoken languages demonstrate similar levels of compressibility.

[Anonymous No.10579640]

>>10579448
Shit, nevermind you beat me to it.

[Anonymous No.10579645]

>>10579595
You could very easily say the same of the ethnic groups of Africa or Asia, yet they are typically seen as races. What is even more unusual is that countries like Britain see the Chinese and Indians both as being Asians.

[Anonymous No.10579782]

>>10579230
I can't believe I ever thought I would see this happen when the thing that was supposed to happen needs to get another way before the last time I saw this I knew there would be no way I could feel as if there was a choice in never having said that we can no longer forget what they were doing about it last time.

Now this.....

[Anonymous No.10579844]

>>10579403
>cornel west

From what I watched he seems to use none, or almost none. He uses far too many big words though, I think you mean that filler words means big words, but it in fact means words like uh, um etc.
>>10579448
>>10579450
>>10579640

same

>>10579592
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-filler-word-1690859

>>10579616
Did you look at what he posted? It's just a bit more elaborate way of saying "if you believe this, you're a retard".

>>10579639
I don't think that more filler words would make language more compressible. And I guess that the compressibility is tested on written sources and nobody writes with filler words.

[Anonymous No.10580542]

>>10579358
>Posting the article at all is ad hominem.
>The papers have nothing to do with what I asked.
But they do. You see, you started the OP with
>Is it me, ... ?
And the answer is yes. It's you.
If you do have some data on the rate of "filler words" usage by race, please, present it now.

>You are not making sense.
It's just a simple fact: smart people don't like to work with retards. Sorry if that fact doesn't make sense to you, but facts don't care about your feelings.

[Anonymous No.10580556]

>>10579782

[Anonymous No.10580559]

>>10579230
When are non-racists going to genocide racists for being racially inferior?

[Anonymous No.10580569]

>>10580559
Genocide is a tactic of low IQ racists, my dumb friend. Big brains are too busy exploiting you for financial and political gain to want to kill you off.

[Anonymous No.10580580]

>>10579238
Muh man! Long time fan anon. Keep doing gods work.

[Anonymous No.10580661]

>>10579230
>Personality Psychology

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.10581105]

>>10579230
There are low IQ racists (I don't like blacks, oh and now I'm seeing evidence that justifies my racism post-hoc!) and high IQ racists (Here is evidence of undesirable traits being higher among black people, therefore I dislike blacks)

[Anonymous No.10581314]

>>10580542
You think you are smart because you can make more conclusions from the same amount of data than other people, but the problem is that your conclusions do not make sense. You think completely backwards, you decided on a conclusion and change the data to fit that.

[Anonymous No.10581408]

>>10580542
You think you are smart because you can make more conclusions from the same amount of data than other people, but the problem is that your conclusions do not make sense. You think completely backwards, you decided on a conclusion and change the data to fit that. Let me dissect your argument:

Only stupid people believe there are differences between races.

Anybody who provides arguments or data suggesting otherwise is also necessarily stupid, and therefore doesn't belong to groups of smart people, like scientists.

We know of no evidence that differences between races exist, therefore if you believe it, you must be stupid.


In no part of this argument any data come into question, the argument is believed on the sole basis that only stupid people believe it, so anybody who argues otherwise must be rejected as stupid. This makes the position unfalsifiable, since anybody who attempts to falsify it get rejected as stupid.
Q.E.D: You are not smart, you have mental ilness.

[Anonymous No.10581432]

>>10580542
You think you are smart because you can make more conclusions from the same amount of data than other people, but the problem is that your conclusions do not make sense. You think completely backwards, you decided on a conclusion and change the data to fit that. Let me dissect your argument:

Only stupid people believe there are differences between races.

Anybody who provides arguments or data suggesting otherwise is also necessarily stupid, and therefore doesn't belong to groups of smart people, like scientists.

We know of no evidence that differences between races exist, therefore if you believe it, you must be stupid.


In no part of this argument any data come into question, the argument is believed on the sole basis that only stupid people don't believe it, so anybody who argues otherwise must be rejected as stupid. This makes the position unfalsifiable, since anybody who attempts to falsify it get rejected as stupid.
Q.E.D: You are not smart, you have mental ilness.

[Anonymous No.10582050]

>>10581432
>Only stupid people believe there are differences between races.
Strawman
Knowing the differences between races is not the same as racial prejudice.
The former is justified by valid, relevant data. The latter isn't.
You are guilty of the latter. Therefore, you are stupid.

>Anybody who provides arguments or data suggesting otherwise is also necessarily stupid
Strawman
Where is your data?
That's right, you haven't provided any. Therefore, you are stupid.

All you have to do to prove me wrong is show your data. Well?

[Anonymous No.10582095]

>>10581105
>high IQ racists (Here is evidence of undesirable traits being higher among black people, therefore I dislike blacks)
That's sensible, as long as you are able to properly evaluate that evidence. The undesirable trait must be causally linked to the property by which you discriminate.
So it's valid to say "I don't like dark skin, so I don't like blacks" or "I don't like wide noses and big butts, so I don't like blacks"
If you were to say "I don't like violent criminals, so I don't like blacks" you would be ignoring the vast majority of statistics that show that being black is not predictive of criminality, and thus you would fall into the umbrella of overly reductionist low IQ racists.

[Anonymous No.10582118]

>>10579844
Blacks have even more of those in their speech than whites though, significantly more useless meaningless utterances breaking up their speech.

[Treks No.10582139]

>>10582118
choo talkin bout deyonte

[Anonymous No.10582992]

>>10579230
So? This is the average, and judging an entire group of people based off the average or their attributes is the same thing liberals accuse conservatives of doing. Jokes on you because Racism is far more diverse than you think, there are millions if ways to be racist and they're not equally dangerous. Take for example my Racism, I don't like most black people but Black Christians that are first or second generation immigrants from Africa are ok, and Oromos aren't real Ethiopians. Generally I'm racist, but is the person is a Christian, I'm less distrustful of them. I'm also more or less racist to people based on how they act, talk, dress etc. The problem with most racism isn't too much discrimination, it's too little discrimination. You can't just consider a person's race you, have to take all information you know about them into account. A black man who is family man all his life is to be treated differently than a known black rapist. Though the biggest issue is with racism is mostly that you don't get to know a person well enough because of premeditated judgement calls, but that severe loss has to be weighed against the risk of being robbed, raped, or murdered, so it's not an easy answer.

[Anonymous No.10584774]

>>10582992
>This is the average, and judging an entire group of people based off the average or their attributes
Yes. On average, racists such as you have lower cognitive ability.

>Generally I'm racist, but is the person is a Christian, I'm less distrustful of them. I'm also more or less racist to people based on how they act, talk, dress etc. The problem with most racism isn't too much discrimination, it's too little discrimination.
followed by
>You can't just consider a person's race you, have to take all information you know about them into account.
You can't even see how inconsistently and randomly your thoughts shift from moment to moment. Like a lower lifeform.

>A black man who is family man all his life is to be treated differently than a known black rapist.
You could have left "black" out of the sentence and it would have been equally correct. Interesting.

[Anonymous No.10586231]

>>10582050
>>Only stupid people believe there are differences between races.
>Strawman
>Knowing the differences between races is not the same as racial prejudice.
>The former is justified by valid, relevant data. The latter isn't.
>You are guilty of the latter. Therefore, you are stupid.

No I am not. I noted what seems to me an observable difference between the races and asked if anybody doesn't know of some actual data. It's you who is attacking a strawman the whole time.

[Anonymous No.10586240]

>>10579243
>"There is a correlation"
>HURR DURR HE CONFUSES CORRELATION WITH CAUSATION

[Anonymous No.10586249]

>>10584774
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29400417

[Anonymous No.10586259]

>>10586240
Can you stop talking like a retard? What would cause wtihes to speak with more dysfluencies than everybody else? Or do you mean that speaking with dysfluencies makes your skin produce less melanin?

[Anonymous No.10586377]

>>10586249
Just when the thread was getting beyond boring with just one coping anon trying to argue purely via rhetoric and fallacy, finally, a real post.
Thank you. It's a very interesting paper. I'd like to see more study in this direction.

To solidify the link between race and language will require at least one more study.
Here's the logic. We have strong evidence the brain physically restructures itself in response to the tasks it is presented.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2901267-X
The posterior hippocampi of average-IQ adult subjects who passed the difficult Knowledge exam for London taxicab drivers showed significant enlargement as opposed to before they began studying for it. The posterior hippocampus is associated with memory and spatial navigation, both of which are strongly correlated with g. Similar effects not observed in the control group or in those who failed. Pic related.
This was actually a repeat experiment with a larger sample size (n=88), i.e. the results are predictable and reproducible. And this was in subjects who were already fully grown (age 30+), so typical brain development had already run its course.

(1/2)

[Anonymous No.10586397]

>>10579328
>preliminary
>hypothesis
>may be
>some evidence
>though weak

What a sad journal. Let's be real, only retards would give away their DNA anyway.

Really makes you think.

[Anonymous No.10586413]

>>10579230
So you're saying political ideology and by relation IQ are based on genes. So what you're saying is IQ is genetically grounded and not based on nurture. Interesting theory you racist.

[Anonymous No.10586426]

>>10579215

Occum's Razor.

I can't find the study, but linguistically, there is a relationship between grammar, vocabulary, accent, the size of the population using the language, and density of the geography of the population.

So English has simple grammar and complex vocabulary with a wide variety of pronunciations because of the way it developed and that the British spread English around the world. As you move down the manifold, the smaller the population, the more dense, the fewer people who speak the language, the less variance in pronunciation, the fewer words, BUT the more complex grammar.

As for the story of brain development, you are putting the cart before the horse in a world without horses. You have an a priori conclusion that a brain that can handle more words defines the condition of a complex brain. But if it is only defined as complex because of the complex language, than any differentiation will be attributed to that and will define complex.

Yet if you a priori defined a complex brain as one that can live in, let's say a hunter gatherer society, then those differences in the brain of teh hunter gather from the linguistically defined brain would now then be considered more advanced.

That's why in real science we use control groups of statistically independent sources corrected for population density.

[Anonymous No.10586427]

>>10586377
(2/2)
There's also some evidence (fMRI differences) related to youth who received early music training, but anyways you get the idea.
You can probably guess where this is going now.

The 45 Han Chinese from which Tang et. al developed their connectomes are all Chinese speakers.
>About 59 normal right‐handed Chinese male volunteers, without a history of any neurological, psychiatric, or medical illness, were recruited from the local community through the research center for sectional and imaging anatomy at Shandong University Cheeloo College of Medicine.

The 45 caucasian connectomes are drawn from a large pool of samples developed by the WU-Minn Human Connectome Project...
>About 45 gender and education‐level (15.53±1.06 years) matched right‐handed normal Caucasian (age=25.87±2.20 years) subjects were selected from the Human Connectome Project (HCP) datasets (Van Essen et al., 2012). The demographic features for the two groups are presented in Table 1.

...and they all come from Missouri. English speakers.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.041
>Our primary participant pool comes from healthy individuals born in Missouri to families that include twins, based on data from the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services Bureau of Vital Records.

Then it's possible that the language, and not the race, is the major cause of brain connectome differences. To rule that out, we'd need to consider the connectomes from "Han Chinese" raised in Missouri (The WU-Minn project claims its sample is cross-sectional, so maybe they already have some samples), and/or the connectomes of "Caucasians" raised in China, to see if these brain differences continue to persist across racial lines.
Pretty exciting stuff with enormous implications whatever the result.

Got any more stuff like this?

[Anonymous No.10586472]

>>10586426
You misunderstood what I'm asking about, filler words have nothing to do with bigger vocabulary. (Unless you mean that higher vocabulary = more filler words)

>>10586377
Why did the second group fail though? Sure, it is influenced by training, but still within the limits of what the genes allow. (A gorilla surely wouldn't learn it no matter how hard you tried)

>Got any more stuff like this?

They had to recalibrate the MRI (or something) because chinese brains are too different: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20152910

[Anonymous No.10586486]

This >>10586426

applies to you >>10586426

Chinese has a small vocabulary but simple grammar and little accent variation. According to the model, that means it is spoken by a lot of people who were densely populated, but not spread out and isolated.

Juxtapose English which is spoken by a large population that is spread out.

The control group in something like this is a nightmare. It should have been from a larger population, and taken from a larger geographic region and should have included many languages as the control.

[Anonymous No.10586494]

>>10586413
>So you're saying political ideology and by relation IQ are based on genes.
You've got it backwards. IQ is the thing based on genes (as any /pol/ will agree), and political ideology is based to a large extent on IQ.

>So what you're saying is IQ is genetically grounded
Yes, but not along racial lines.

[Anonymous No.10586510]

>>10586413
>>10586494
They do. DRD4 gene - carriers of the 2 repeat allele are significantly more interdependent oriented, while those carrying the 7r are significantly more independent. 4r are average.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24747168

(They ddi group 2R and 7R and claim the difference is culture, I guess to make it more easily published. But 7R only occurs in Europeans and never in Asians and 2R is common in Asians and very rare in Europeans, which makes it a strong likehood the gene dictates the culture and not the other way round.)

[Anonymous No.10587147]

>>10586510
>(They ddi group 2R and 7R and claim the difference is culture, I guess to make it more easily published.
not what the article says m8.
for starters, they had noncarriers in both groups

>But 7R only occurs in Europeans and never in Asians and 2R is common in Asians and very rare in Europeans
source?

[Anonymous No.10587153]

>>10586472
>Why did the second group fail though?
Doesn't matter. Maybe they didn't study. Maybe they were just stupid. The point is that the second group DID fail, meaning they didn't learn the material. And showed no corresponding brain structure changes, just like the control group.

[Anonymous No.10587565]

>>10587147
>not what the article says m8.
As I said, they grouped the two alleles together, likely to make it more publishable.

>for starters, they had noncarriers in both groups

Noncariers would be the common 4r allele homozygotes + some minor ones

>source?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8682515

>>10587153
Since one possibility is that they cannot grow more hippocampal matter due to genetic reasons, it is important.

[Anonymous No.10587570]

>>10579215
filler word is word that is connected with most word if we count up before and after word, serving as interconnector in neural network, it's quality thing.

[Anonymous No.10587583]

>>10579335

[Anonymous No.10587746]

>>10587565
>Since one possibility is that they cannot grow more hippocampal matter due to genetic reasons, it is important.
And they chose not to provide racial breakdown of the sample. Would be interesting to see more about who passed and who didn't.

>But 7R only occurs in Europeans and never in Asians and 2R is common in Asians and very rare in Europeans
More on this
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3283582/
>Among individuals lacking the 7-repeat allele, externalizing behavior was negatively correlated with IQ (mean r=−0.43; P<.001). Among individuals having at least 1 copy of the 7-repeat allele, externalizing behavior and IQ were uncorrelated (mean r=0.02; P=.45).

[Anonymous No.10588790]

>>10587746
Essentially yes. People generally turn into agression when can't meet their needs otherwise. Those with the 7r allele however believe that only mentally challenged people cooperate, and they compete all the time.

[Anonymous No.10589125]

>>10582095
>the vast majority of statistics that show that being black is not predictive of criminality

Please cite sources.

[Anonymous No.10589126]

>>10579782
Real schizo hours

[Anonymous No.10589611]

>>10589125
FBI statistics

[Anonymous No.10589641]

>>10579230
/sci/: Psychology is a psuedoscience
Also /sci/: This psychology research is accurate and reproducable

[Anonymous No.10589645]

>>10579238
>another IQ thread

another racism troll thread...

[Anonymous No.10589653]

>>10579294
>IQ posters don’t realize it deserves to go in /sqt/

To be fair, if every thread that gets started here that deserves to be in /sqt/ was actually there, we'd have a board with only one thread most of the time.

[Anonymous No.10589672]

>>10582050
>Therefore, you are stupid

There is an alternative explanation.

[Anonymous No.10589689]

/pol/ can't handle reality so they raid a 4chan board thinking that it will change anything. This threads are always so sad.

[Anonymous No.10589777]

>>10582050
Racial prejudice concerning traits shown by data to be different between races literally is justified by valid, relevant data by definition.

[Anonymous No.10590715]

>>10579215
yani

[Anonymous No.10592389]

>>10590715
laurel, and no idea how anybody could hear yani

[Anonymous No.10592707]

>>10589641
Which one do you believe?

[Anonymous No.10592737]

>>10579215
Is it just me, or should people stop making racism and IQ threads? Fuck off

[Anonymous No.10592996]

>>10589777
"Data" derived by cherrypicking or data dredging can't be considered valid, my /pol/tard friend.

[Anonymous No.10593049]

>>10579645
>Two wrongs make a right.
Nice race to the bottom mentality

[Anonymous No.10593951]

>>10588790
so this proves that iq differences can be genetic in origin and that european adhd children have an advantage over other races' adhd?
does that mean other cultures are more adhd-friendly, while europeans spergs had to adapt to survive?

[Anonymous No.10593957]

>>10579238
Based "another IQ thead" poster!

[Anonymous No.10593973]

>>10579243
>My IQ is high.
define "high"
also define "IQ"
also define "My"
also define "is"
also define "define"
also define "also"

[Anonymous No.10594030]

>>10579215
The Nigger Apocalypse is coming.

[Anonymous No.10594114]

>>10579335
>facebook meme
Kys.

[Anonymous No.10594123]

>>10594030
Fuck off /pol/. African birthrates have been declining for over four decades.

[Anonymous No.10594206]

>>10594123

[Anonymous No.10594217]

>>10594206
>Largest continent will have a lot of people

Wow mind blown.

[Anonymous No.10594257]

>>10594217
>Largest continent will have a lot of people

That happens to be the most stupid and violent kind of people

[Anonymous No.10594271]

>>10594257
>That happens to be the most stupid and violent kind of people

Aw, back to the edgy racism. Africa’s average IQ has been rising for decades as it develops.

[Anonymous No.10594273]

>>10594271
Evidence?

[Anonymous No.10594276]

>>10594257
No, I'm pretty sure the Irish are stuck on their island.

[Anonymous No.10594277]

>>10594271
Creationist spotted

[Anonymous No.10594618]

>>10579215
knowwutumsayin?

[Anonymous No.10594629]

>>10579215
IQ is bullshit
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

[Anonymous No.10594637]

>>10579598
>As if we had an actual way to measure intelligence

[Anonymous No.10594648]

>>10594271
>Africa's average..
Yea, thanks to the massive influx of 105+ Chinese colonists. Bug people don't buy into the egalitarian pipe dream, and they have no moral objection to genocide. African natives will be put in a petting zoo for the Chinese in a decade's time.

[Anonymous No.10594650]

[Anonymous No.10594656]

[Anonymous No.10594659]

[Anonymous No.10594663]

[Anonymous No.10594666]

[Anonymous No.10594669]

>>10594650
>>10594656
>>10594659
>>10594666
Science denialists can't meme

[Anonymous No.10594703]

>>10594030
That implies African I.Q won't change at all in the next years when they're starting to get unparalleled access to education and (most importantly) food that their ancestors didn't have access to. The same things that are promoting their populational growth are also making their I.Q higher. Read about the Flynn effect, which will only intensify in the 21st century. One recent example is the Kenyan I.Q, which has been raised more than 20 points in a small interview of time just because some famines ended or something. ( https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d824/d41d360d8660b64b44e5c0067f50725a78a4.pdf )

[Anonymous No.10594838]

>>10594273
>Evidence?

IQ increases in any country as it develops, you goofy kid.

>>10594277
Not an argument.

>>10594648
Nope. Due to increasing development.

[Anonymous No.10594845]

>>10594703
you are not smart

[Anonymous No.10595231]

>>10579238
based

[Anonymous No.10595255]

>>10579230
Yeah, cuz smart people are openly and simply racist. /s

[Anonymous No.10595307]

>>10594257
A funny story.

>A racist comes to Kenya to conduct research on whites and blacks to show the superiority of whites.

>Demands that a group of black and white children get raised completely identically

>Leaves and scraps the research when the black children turn out to be a year ahed in development.

[Anonymous No.10595617]

>>10594845
ok but you aren't either

[Anonymous No.10595678]

>>10586494
No, it isn't based on IQ but rather by experience. Humans are emotional living beings that sometimes act solely on emotion. But political ideology is an opinion formed on so many levels and it's primarily due to experience and environment. There are/were very smart racists/eugenists/right-wingers but there are also idiot ones. The fact is that you can find evidence on both opinions but at the end of the time people become more right-wing because of the fear of something or rage. (or just troll)

[Anonymous No.10595808]

>>10595307
Do you have any sort of citation for that? Look at the Minnesota Transracial adoption study, and see what happens when black & white children are adopted into similar, upper-middle class families.

[Anonymous No.10596122]

>>10594838
>due to increasing development (by the Chinese)

Ftfy

[Anonymous No.10597358]

>>10595678
>There are/were very smart racists/eugenists
of course it's on average, you can always say "not all X are like that"
in the distant past before concepts like genetics were properly understood or when people had no statistical training whatsoever you'd find a lot of smart racists, but not today
in modern times when you look at high IQ racists you're looking at the likes of Shockley, Watson, Kaczynski, etc.; i.e., dementia and/or paranoid schizophrenia

>The fact is that you can find evidence on both opinions but at the end of the time people become more right-wing because of the fear of something or rage.
people tend to get dumber with old age