[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 135 KB, 1600x1200, james_r_flynn.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10770040 No.10770040 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

this man BTFOs mensa underachievers and /pol/tard racial IQ troglodytes. because according to IQ tests, you are probably a GENIUS compared to your grandparents' generation, because IQ tests are BS

>If increasing literacy were really explaining a number of seemingly different IQ trends, then you would expect to see a few things. ... If all these predictions hold up, there would be support for the notion that secular IQ gains and race differences are not different phenomena but have a common origin in literacy.
>To test these predictions, Marks looked at samples representative of whole populations (rather than individuals), and used ecological methods to calculate statistical associations between IQ and literacy rates across different countries. Were Marks' findings consistent with the predictions?
>Strikingly, yes. He found that the higher the literacy rate of a population, the higher that population's mean IQ, and the higher that population's mean IQ, the higher the literacy rate of that population. When literacy rates declined, mean IQ also declined. Marks also found evidence for unequal improvements across the entire IQ spectrum: the greatest effects of increased literacy rates were on those in the lower half of the IQ distribution. Interestingly, he also found that both the Flynn Effect and racial/national IQ differences showed the largest effects of literacy on verbal tests of intelligence, with the perceptual tests of intelligence showing no consistent pattern.

tl;dr: IQ is a fucking meme

>> No.10770044 [DELETED] 
File: 53 KB, 458x480, 1368217110377.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

> IQ is a fucking meme

>> No.10770045

>reading makes you smarter
real shit????

>> No.10770060

how are brainlets like you still around?
the Flynn effect peaked years ago for the most developed nations, it's basically a training effect on test taking ability,

The Woodley effect is the Flynn effect's unpleasant big brother with a baseball bat saying we ought to be stopping dysgenic selection.

>> No.10770068

Damn, the very first sentence in that pic is a straight up lie (so are the 2nd and 3rd). It doesn't even explain the premise properly. Stop spreading propaganda.

>> No.10770083

>hurr durr dysgenic selection
the point is not that actual intelligence goes up or down with time; rather, the point is that IQ tests are for sure a broken metric that don't really measure anything, it's more like a standardized test for whatever psychologist professors sitting in their offices think is real science, when in reality they are completely scientifically and statistically innumerate.

back to >>>/pol/

>> No.10770091

no they do measure something because they produce a consistent distribution and correlate fairly well to performance in cognitively challenging tasks.

>> No.10770105

It's basically BMI for your brain. It only provides correlations.

>> No.10770127

except the flynn effect shows it drifts dramatically over time, like 1-2 standard deviations per generation. so whatever it is you think it measures must be changing significantly at a generational level. and for sure "innate intelligence" / "g-factor" (i.e. bullshit words psychologists made up without any scientific basis) don't drift that rapidly with time. it for sure measures some meme crap, you know like some people are real good at sudoku but that doesn't mean they aren't fucking retarded at real life

>> No.10770131
File: 97 KB, 881x816, brainlets.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>IQ isn't a me--

>> No.10770142


>> No.10770153

zomg 53 minutes? tl;dr?

i skipped through and most of what i found was about "muh sex differences" and not what i was expecting for this thread (flynn effect/bell curve 'muh racial IQ' shit)

>> No.10770156

Flynn effect is dead and was built on sketchy understanding of IQ anyway

>> No.10770166
File: 636 KB, 1754x1364, serces.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

sauce? do you have a source for that? sources? you still have not provided a source. i am still waiting for a source? do you have a source?

>> No.10770168

yeah sorry wrong link, didn't copy properly.

>> No.10770187

and you don't post the correct link, to amend your fucked up post? are you drunk or something?

>> No.10770193
File: 119 KB, 583x482, 1548672444364.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>another IQ thread

>> No.10770223
File: 126 KB, 809x405, just some science.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

why is science so controversial if there is no link between race, income, gender and IQ then why should there be a problem with validating that hypothesis. some people say race is pseudoscience if thats true than research should reflect that.

It seems like all the remaining scientists who would dare to research this sacred area, are being hunted down by SJW "scientists". even nobel laureates like Francis crick aren't safe from these, lunatics who want to disrupt the scientific process.

>> No.10770238


Because people are afraid that it would justify discriminatory policies or other aspects.

Because normies can't differentiate in their heads between X and Y are not the same with X and Y both have the same rights.

Because most normies would gladly use any deficiency on your part to subjugate you and the only thing stopping them is either a rifle in your hands telling them to fuck off, or the sheer lack of concentrated political power to enforce it.

>> No.10770256

Most normies can’t even watch a science documentary without sleeping, how would they be able to read just 5 articles from Richard Lynn?

The whole idea is that scientists and other academics will leave earth and build a colony on the moon.

>> No.10770258

I got really high right now see you tomorrow

>> No.10770267


That's just it.

They don't have to internalize any information. They can just smoke a bowl watching blue planet and repost memes from le black science man and clap becaise they kinda watched something similar one time and they totally loved it.

A normie doesn't have to read pages of the the bell curve. They can just get the cliff notes of "black people are disproportionately retarded" and the rest writes itself bases entirely on their proximity, feelings, and convenience.

>> No.10770268

the fact is that race and “IQ” are what humanities majors think amounts to science, but unfortunately they are objectively just memes. psychologists are crappy scientists and so are their tests. the whole thing is an exercise in how to do bad science. just disregard all psychologist shit and their /pol/ tier “results”

>> No.10770279

how are race and IQ memes?

>> No.10770282

Is the IQ of /sci/ the highest or the lowest on 4chan/nel?

>> No.10770286

neither are well defined scientifically. IQ is based on some tests that consist of questions that are basically brain teasers that psychologists saw and went “oh shit only smart guys like us can solve that” so it’s entirely subjective and/or some cultural judgement

>> No.10770290


Completely average, but it has the largest difference between self report and reality.

>> No.10770295


>muh cultural meme

IQ has been paired down to account for cultural or other differences. It is effectively pattern recognition with increasing complexity on a time scale.

>> No.10770296

then explain the flynn effect, einstein

>> No.10770298
File: 69 KB, 645x1000, 1548611362210.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Yes and the more you run the faster you will get. People are still people who are naturally fast runners and people who are naturally slow runners..

>> No.10770300

The parts of the test that the Flynn effect contributes to are the least G-loaded. Flynn himself stated this. Flynn effect is basically measuring the fact that the IQ test is imperfect. In fact, by looking at reaction times from the 1800's compared to now, G has been decreasing over time. We've been losing 2 IQ points per decade since the Victorian era, but imperfect IQ measuring has been hiding it with the Flynn effect.
See Baron Michael Woodley's paper on it

>> No.10770302

>and /pol/tard racial IQ troglodytes.
Opinion discarded

>> No.10770305

have fun with this thread on the superior australian empire

>> No.10770313

>hurr durr i can write a test that measures objective running ability
yeah duh victorian europeans were fucking GENIUSES. that’s why they collected dead butterflies and loved taxidermy. such genius stuff
oh yeah racial IQ is top-tier for intellectuals. good luck in grad school anon

>> No.10770332

If at this stage of your reading you believe this then I'm afraid you have so much more to learn
at the very least read lynn's work or the rushto jenson paper

>> No.10770343

can you tl;dr it for me?

i find that, usually, reading psychology papers is a complete waste of time, since they typically have no conception of science and make lots of basic statistics errors

BTW a lot of poltard trolls come here and criticize science on sort-of methodological grounds, but then they go and cite psychologists, who have infintely worse methodological standards than those of the physicists that the /pol/tards are trying to troll (god knows why)

>> No.10770352

the jenson & rushton paper has weathered many storms unscathed, even the charles murray bell curve data has been checked many times.
if you want a TL:DR read the abstract and skim through the rest

>> No.10770361

i read a few sentences and it looks like typical psychology crap. do you have an argument of your own?

>> No.10770375

that you don't know what you're talking about

>> No.10770384

maybe you “know” your psychology, but it’s bullshit. want to talk about how seratonin causes depression? or how mutilating genitalia cures your magic “gender dysphoria” syndrome? or how “attention deficit disorder” is to be treated with amphetamine?

your whole field is a meme

>> No.10770399

not my field but IQ is literally the most heavily data backed study they have

>> No.10770413

backed by “tests” consisting of brainteaser questions that a bunch of boomer psychbros free-associated in their offices like this:
“oh fuck that question is a real head scratcher, only smartguys like us could figure that out; it has like some leet hexagons, put it on the test”

>> No.10770435

if said tests are culturally standardised for a test group you will still get a fair distribution reflecting the G factor

>> No.10770442

What do you think Raven's progressive Matrices are?

>> No.10770446

they aren't.
and "g factor" is nonscientific. it is some hypothesized entity that exists only to exist as some unmeasurable thing that psychologists believe in despite it being in principle unmeasurable. a clear example of how psychologists are not really scientists

>> No.10770447

No, these things are literally just made up. Yes, we're performing measurements, but we only have a peripheral understanding of what is actually ending up measured.

>> No.10770449

look up neurobiological correlates g factor, genetics g factor, and neurobiology intelligence

>> No.10770456

>hurr durr we solved intelligence through biology and genetics
you wish. i am no bio expert or genetics expert, but i am fairly sure that anybody who says they can sequence a genome and use that to predict intelligence is a complete pseud

>> No.10770458

the physical tests that correlate strongly with IQ fascinate me
discerning sounds, hues, weights, or measuring working memory and reaction time amongst various others
these were invented and tested before IQ tests were even a thing and so pure they're unnaffected by any "Flynn effect"

>> No.10770461

that seems like an irrelevant argument like the genes for height

>> No.10770466

what are you even arguing any more?

i wish i could offer you some straws for you to grasp at bro

>> No.10770467

Why don’t you look at the literature suggested and think about it for a while before making strong claims from ignorance.

>> No.10770470

why don't you tl;dr it for me, or make an argument of your own?

or are just going to "i posted some article that i didn't read but i claim it makes me right nonetheless" like a real /pol/boss?

>> No.10770471

you could have finished reading the jenson paper by now anon

>> No.10770480

I was trying to draw a parallel between the multitude of genes that influence height and those that influence cognitive ability

>> No.10770486

because I don’t care about you lol

one time offer to go read some interesting papers and have a chance to le epically own the opps, expires the moment your balls recede up into your belly

>> No.10770488

well conflating height with intelligence in the genetic sense is naiive. i am sure there are many many more (several orders of magnitude) genes that contribute to intelligence than that which contribute to height.

it’s like comparing the look of a person’s face to their shoe size

>> No.10770491

haha good argument, back to /reddit/

>> No.10770496

you said >>10770488 >>10770470 >>10770466 >>10770456 without any shame

>> No.10770497

88% of the genome apparently effects the brain in some way or other.

>> No.10770502

and your argument is... ?

>> No.10770505

regarding the brain and the genome I felt it was a fascinating anecdote

>> No.10770510

i don’t think any genetic analysis that is currently feasible can make any meaningful predictions of intelligence

>> No.10770513

I don’t think someone who doesn’t know anything about genetics or genetics research can say anything meaningful about genetics

>> No.10770514


>> No.10770516

I don't think /pol/ should replicate arguments they heard in other threads in hopes that it wasn't bait to further map the brainlet population.

>> No.10770517

prove it, psychtard

>> No.10770525

every unit of culture is a meme you dumb fuck.

>> No.10770531

>the electroweak coupling constant being equal to is 137.03599908 is a social construct

>> No.10770601


I guess you didn't major at all?

>> No.10770603

the study of quantitative traits and developmental, behavioral biology isn't psychology you drooling nigger

>> No.10770605

>This is the best IQ denialists can do.

>> No.10770609

IQ is correlated with positive life outcomes, including longevity, wealth, and educational achievement. Explain that.

>> No.10770612

OK /sci/ I've been awake two days now
anyone know a usable free IQ test i can use to see ho bad sleepdebt fucks my thinking skils?

>> No.10770623

>The Woodley effect is the Flynn effect's unpleasant big brother with a baseball bat saying we ought to be stopping dysgenic selection.

It's most likely nutrient defficiencies - manganese, magnesium - impossible to measure its status in the body, so nobody cares about it, copper - got called toxic because a few people got mildly nauseated after drinking tea from an old copper teapot; the amounts in animal feed is limited by law because the optimal concentration of copper would make the manure contaminated with heavy metal according to the bizarre values set by law. Also too much iron, calcium and likely zinc. And whatever nutrients we do not know yet. We are getting royally fucked by our food habits.

>> No.10770627

falling iq in northern european states with the best diets on Earth isn't explainable with this hypothesis, seems more likely its dysgenic breeding patterns

>> No.10770629

or immigration

>> No.10770634

usually only drawing from exclusively native populations or elite groups


seen in khartoum, brazil (if remembering correctly), iceland, norway, uk etc.

While immigrants are certainly lowering national iq the subpopulations experiencing reverse flynn effect should not be experiencing regression like this given living standards haven't dropped appreciably in the West for wealthy families (where the effect is most pronounced).

>> No.10770644

conjugal visits should be banned for all prisoners

>> No.10770674

>the best diets on Earth
All that applies to them as well.

>> No.10770679

in the studies done on these northern european populations they control for immigrants, essentially for non-whites, reverse flynn effect is happening among white european populations. It wouldn't make any sense at all if this weren't the case considering the inverted fertility of urbanized populations

fisher talked about this in the 1930's well before the phenomena had been observed in the way it has now. galton, spencer and malthus thought the exact same thing

>> No.10770688

I mean the issues with food apply to northern countries as well.

>> No.10770693

haha, this pic, so much this pic!


>> No.10770697

Especially the copper. I got a copper cup and drink from it regularly, beucause the time seems to be speeding up and I suffer lapses of perception when I don't. (I grew a habit of licking copper coins, which is how I found out)

>> No.10770712

The flynn effect is entirely caused by the fact that people started reading more. However now with the advent of video culture people read less. (i dont mean books or anything, just symbols in general)

>> No.10770914

Except not really

>> No.10770917 [DELETED] 
File: 18 KB, 678x103, osfhGTt.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Look like guess Flynn disagrees, OP

>> No.10770920

>environment plays some role
>therefore environment is the only factor

Brainlet detected. There is no positive evidence that racial IQ gaps are solely due to environment, and Flynn effect does not change this fact.

>> No.10770981

>n-not all racists!

>> No.10770991

nah uh OP
I found an obscure village where the opposite of the Flynn Effect is true so hah

>> No.10771015

>cherry picking a few smart racists
most racists are dumb though

>> No.10771027

Or maybie smart racists realise that being overtly racist will face negative consequenses socially?

>> No.10771034


>> No.10771047

dumb racist

>> No.10771054
File: 567 KB, 757x874, hCeazOu.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>dumb racist

>> No.10771056

that's right; intelligence is the one trait of mammals that isn't influenced by genetics. you can inherit a predisposition to addiction, you can inherit a predisposition to psychosis, you can inherit a predisposition to diabetes or multiple sclerosis or cancers, but intelligence is magically given out by the white privilege fairy, who also happens to hate all non-human animals

>> No.10771063

nobody looks at racists and says "there goes a scientist, a philosopher, a good upstanding member of society"

>> No.10771067
File: 13 KB, 850x648, 5ThVCxW.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Majority of scientists are racists

>> No.10771073

>acknowledging differences means you're racist
racism is treating people differently based only on their race.

>> No.10771074

>out of context data

>> No.10771075

no one looks at third-worlders and etc. etc.

>> No.10771076

Flynn effect is not happening anymore in the first world, good job citing outdated science.

>> No.10771077

as long as you apply that protection to paleskins too, then we're all in agreement

>> No.10771079
File: 46 KB, 803x366, ETSsbZq.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Almost correct

>> No.10771080

No, it's believing there are differences in abilities between races.

>> No.10771081

One of the questions of the study that found that racisrs have lower IQ was whether or not you believe that blacks are less intelligent.

>> No.10771083

The G-factor hypothesis is non falsifiable in nature, which means its not scientific

>> No.10771088

How is it not falsifiable?

>> No.10771094

Construct an experiment where you could test for its existence

>> No.10771096

Tests whether there is a correlation between different subtests of an IQ test. If there is none, there is no g

>> No.10771099

How would you avoid confirmation holism in such tests?

>> No.10771100

It's not a meme for racist pos like you and your fellow /Pol/ dwellers.

>> No.10771101

That is, how can you ensure these tests dont support correlation in an ad hoc manner.

>> No.10771105

All studies that support G-factor are conducted in a positivist manner, and are therefore scientifically dubious

>> No.10771106

ayo hol up

>> No.10771107

I don't see how testing correlations would be ad hoc

>> No.10771110
File: 2.15 MB, 2500x1875, abramovic_johnofgod.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

here's my source

>> No.10771111

Autistic people are not capable of prejudice and it's what makes them socially incapable, as you never get enough information to function in society without relying on prejudice.

>> No.10771113

Not relying on prejudice makes you autistic, as you never get enough information to function in society without relying on prejudice.

>> No.10771116

>gather data from tests
>they do not correlate
>add stipulations and control
>they correlate

>> No.10771118

I suppose they are looking at the iq issue from the wrong perspective.

Did you knew that pigs are labeled as smarter than dogs?

That happens because pigs sense of smell is better, iq is directly related the information processing being language smart means you are good at processing audible information that also means you are good at music apreciation.

Being visually smart means you are also good at art apreciation and so on, if they stopped with the one iq meassure to fit them all and did dedicated tests things would be a lot different.

>> No.10771119

The pic is retarded.

>> No.10771120
File: 12 KB, 1113x180, samefag.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.10771121

don't like a claim? demand a study
don't like the results? declare the entire subject non-falsifiable
premise make you uncomfortable? use your disproportionate privilege and power to turn everyone you disagree with into a pariah
intelligent youth stamping on your skull? play dead and they may lose interest

>> No.10771123

Wow that sentence turned all fucked up, Broca's area is doing shitty today.

>> No.10771125

>screencapped an addendum by the same person
damn gottem

>> No.10771126

I noticed. Can't delete it anymore though.

>> No.10771127

Those subtests correlate without any additional controls

>> No.10771135

>theory makes prediction of correlative skills in information processing and more
>some evidence shows it is correlative
>this now supports the entire theory
Did you know that thank to gravitational lensing, we know that GR is right 100% in all applied cases?

>> No.10771138

But I don't think for the reasons they believe.

They assume dumber because that's how they are generalizing morons, but society has it's ways for making traits for visible even at a testing level.

That way many skills that are basic for society (like being able to walk down the street and say hi to people) that aren't being tested as iq traits but damn they make you look way less retarded, are willfully ignored.

>> No.10771208

/pol/'s sacrosanct bovine.

>> No.10771212


>> No.10771227

pulling the cart before the horse, none of this disproves that IQ is highly genetically heritable. The latter additions a about verbal IQ being the most effected is what you would expect based on G-factor analysis.

How can this man have a reputation despite using such poor reasoning, even a layman can see that the conclusion does not follow

>> No.10771368
File: 18 KB, 677x103, oVFVvbc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

To be fair to Flynn, he knows that flynn effect mean shit regarding the racial IQ gap. It's retards like OP who say
"flynn effect exists therefore IQ is debunked"

>> No.10771437


>> No.10771465
File: 91 KB, 986x414, Woodley-effect.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>this man BTFOs mensa underachievers and /pol/tard racial IQ troglodytes.
And Woodley BTFOs Flynn.


>> No.10771488

It gets even worse if we consider the resource exhaustion problem.

>> No.10771507

racial IQ gaps persist despite increases due to Flynn effect

>> No.10771905

did scores on culture fair iq test increased over the years or the whole flyn effect is just caused by people thinking in more abstract terms while doing WAIS...

>> No.10773127

Flynn effect has basically vanished in the most dewveloped counttries

>> No.10773178


While I agree the gaps aren't soley environmental it cannot be ignored that Iodine deficiency/consumption alone can equate to a -12/+8 IQ point loss or gain during prenatal/early childhood nutrition.


It also can't be ignored that high cortisol levels brought by external stress can cause low/very low birth weight, behavior changes and lower IQ by 5 points in babies during pregnancy.


These two factors alone can result in a 17 IQ point total loss or a 8 point gain.

>> No.10774348

Most of the worlds IQ will reach a point where the gap is negligible once countries start to reach a more developed state and improvements OT healthcare. Hell the (select) East Asian vs "white" gap is not even htat big.

>> No.10774369

and maternal and pre-natal healthcare, daycare, schools that can pick out gifted kids and provide other kids with issues like dyslexia a way to tackle their problem. Then there's the biggest issue of language.

You see in many places they love to dick suck European languages. So much that they enact linguistic polices that make no sense and lead to worse educational outcomes. In many African states they don't use native languages at all, the minute you enter school you are dropped right into English or French. With no gradual bilingual or gradual shift so those kids have to tackle topics in a language they don't know how to speak and use terms they don't know in their mother tongue. Thus you have pupils who are shit at say Swahili AND English who can't perform well in either.

>> No.10774415
File: 117 KB, 1024x658, 1560960950825.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.10774421
File: 5 KB, 159x159, 1490295424161.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>I don't know the context of this quote.

>> No.10774546


>> No.10774562

See >>10771368

>> No.10774997

>Thomas Bouchard (1979)
Studied Identital twins, same genes, but separated at birth. Most ended up in the same middle-class families, and ended up having similar IQ. In the few cases where the separated twins were put into differing social classes and education levels, there were huge disparities in IQ - in one case a 20 point gap; in another, 29 points (the difference between dullness and superior intelligence).

>Moving from individuals to populations

>Flynn Effect
IQ has changed dramatically, projecting back 100 years, yet people have not changed genetically since then. Some populations are more exposed to abstract logic than others, which is why their average IQ scores differ. Thus any difference was environmental.

Among Kenyan children, a rise of 26.3 points in 14 years between 1984 and 1998 due to nutrition, health, and parental literacy improvements.

>Ashkenazi Jews super-intelligence
>They have also scored below average - it hasn't been as dominating as Pinker-bro thinks.
The first two decades of the 20'th century routinely showed Ashkenazi Jews in America scoring below average. American Soldier IQ tests during WWI found Nordics scoring well above Jews. Carl Brigham, Princeton professor, "our figures would rather tend to disprove the popular belief that the Jew is highly intelligent." In WWII, the IQ was above average.

Among the rest of the jewish (as well as the chinese and blacks).
Jewish older generation IQ: 92.8 Younger generation: 101.3
Chinese: 97 in 1948 and 109.6 in 1990.
The gap between white and black Americans narrowed by 5.5 points between 1972 and 2002.
There cannot be any genetic explanation in a generation or two for this.

Craig Venter, American biologist who led the private effort to decode the human genome, "There is no basis in scientific fact or in the human genetic code for the notion that race will be predictive of intelligence."

>> No.10775024

>with the perceptual tests of intelligence showing no consistent pattern.


>> No.10775044

Education polices are big tl:dr.

>> No.10775049

thank you, anon. good post, unironically.

>> No.10775052

>Among Kenyan children, a rise of 26.3 points in 14 years between 1984 and 1998 due to nutrition, health, and parental literacy improvements.

For Kenya I'd like to say something about the history of it. It was only in 1963 that Kenya began a campaign for free primary education after independence in 1963. Before that primary education was not free at all.

>> No.10775062
File: 189 KB, 1510x1032, intelligence_NFC.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

All people stereotype and make snap judgments, smart or not.

The difference is intelligent people are aware of the limitations of this kind of reasoning; they don't buy stereotypes based on hearsay or insufficient evidence, and they don't overuse them.
For example an intelligent person can rationally stereotype an Indian as a curry-eater since an overwhelming majority of Indians eat curry on a regular basis. But he won't stereotype a black as a violent criminal since <0.1% of blacks have violent crime convictions (according to BJS statistics).

>> No.10775185

The response is that it's not purely environmental, and they would be right.
it ends up being a rather old (and useless) debate between nature vs nurture.
however that still doesn't lead to race to be predictive of intelligence.
it's basically a dead-end idea which is why no-one studies it.
Besides, it's not like anyone (white or black or whatever) has any control over who they were born as, anyway. So it's all pointless.

>> No.10775547

How do you quantify racism?

>> No.10775562


>it's pointless to try and figure out why there are more nobel laureates named Albert than there are women

>it's pointless to study and find out why no subsaharan country has gone full Wakanda despite being given independence with 1st world infrastructure and a plethora of natural wealth.

>it's pointless to study how Japan was able to bounce back from WW2 abject poverty despite no real natural resources and steel so shit they had to fold katanas 1 billion times.

Because evolution stops at the neck.

>> No.10775588 [DELETED] 

Niggers will never be smart.

>> No.10775589


>"There is no basis in scientific fact or in the human genetic code for the notion that race will be predictive of intelligence."

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>> No.10775595
File: 9 KB, 199x253, numalenoooo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>evolution and biology stop at the neck for humans because hurt feelings

>> No.10775605

>"There is no basis in scientific fact or in the human genetic code for the notion that race will be predictive of intelligence."
that's quite a deceptive little phrase since all proper debates are about average intelligences and distribution curves for a population not individuaks

>> No.10775654

and individuals are what consists a population.

>> No.10775657

You don't know anything about history anon. You are the low IQ mong. read more about the shit you spew out and comeback.

>> No.10775659

Did you even read his post before you spout buzzwords.

>> No.10775668

we could go into a population and pull out an individual what then is the probability that this random individual has an iq score or any other variable trait of a specified value?

>> No.10775937

You don't. It's a meaningless concept.

>> No.10775955


>hurr durr verbal ability is correlated to being able to fucking read
>implying this says anything about progressive matrices
>implying this says anything about reaction tests


>> No.10775975

2012 study of 100,000

>> No.10776159
File: 133 KB, 1024x683, BF5C1B81-284E-4935-8E09-424F32164310.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.10776329

brainlet detected, post discarded. stay triggered.

>> No.10776342


it was revealed to me in a dream. go look shit up yourself this is 4chan im not writiing you an essay cunt lol

>> No.10776356

Give one (1) example of a woman with a technical PhD or IQ above 120 whose baby has substance dependence.

>> No.10776379

and then it's inevitable the conspiracy theorists come out.
there has GOT to be some "master plan" going on, when in reality it's just individuals choosing who they want to interact with.
there is no master plan.
individuals operate with intent; the society operates irrationally.
you cannot socially engineer society into your idealized worldview; there will always be dissenters.

>> No.10776394

why did you quote the second one?

what conspiracy are you even talking about?

>> No.10776411

ever since the dawn of time, chicken littles have come out to say society is doomed. here is this reductive metric which shows how society is doomed.
if we don't turn back, if we don't push for some idealized worldview of social organization and happiness and rainbows (i, the high priest on the mountain, have all the answers btw), we are all doomed.
every. single. time. without fail, they have been wrong.
They will always BE wrong, because there will always be people who dissent against society. People who want to do things differently than the rest of the crowd.

>> No.10776616

Why did you quote the third one, do you have literally zero reading comprehension?

>> No.10777008


Claiming the Flynn Effect disproves the biological basis of intelligence differences is like claiming that the fact that humans are taller now than 100 years ago disproves the biological basis for height difference between sexes.

This is sci, you know how to read. Start with Plomins Behavioral Genetics textbook, stop this pathetic ideological war against proper research.

>> No.10777072

Just going to leave something here


>> No.10777083

Germans literally bred them to be super smart by killing all the ones dumb enough to stay.

>> No.10777095

>IQ has changed dramatically, projecting back 100 years, yet people have not changed genetically since then. Some populations are more exposed to abstract logic than others, which is why their average IQ scores differ. Thus any difference was environmental.

Not a chance. Its like with height, people are considerably taller on average than 100 years ago, but the difference stays. North Europeans are still taller than south Europeans. East Asians are shorter than Europeans with any kind of nutrition. And no matter the amount of milk and honey you give a Pygmy when hes young, he will never be tall. Same with other highly heritable traits like intelligence.

>> No.10777218
File: 383 KB, 1418x982, iq_drug.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>I demand anecdotal evidence so I can apply "no true Scotsman"
Better yet, here's a study (pic related).
Given that IQ is heritable, we can infer that the parents of children with high IQ should themselves tend towards higher IQ.
Do you have a causal explanation for why what you claim should be true?

>> No.10777237

gas the high IQ people

>> No.10777252

No they haven't look at the fall of rome and all the other civilisational catastrophes people were calling out how their behavior would bring them ruin

>> No.10777298

all of those failures caused by people trying to create an idealized world in their heads, of which everyone forcefully had to placate to those fake authority figures on high.
the fall of rome was due to a massive mismanagement of their economic structure, because "the high priests" were price fixing. enough so that barbarians from the north (which where significantly less technologically advanced) could easily take over the country.

you cannot control society. there will always be dissenters. utopias always fail.

>> No.10777346

>you can inherit a predisposition to psychosis, you can inherit a predisposition to diabetes or multiple sclerosis or cancers
No proof of any of this.

>> No.10777360
File: 53 KB, 458x480, 1368217110377.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>this picture was deleted
Sad to see that the science board refuses to acknowledge empirical evidence because it's not "politically correct"

>> No.10777368

bullshit is not free speech

>> No.10777372

breast cancer?

>> No.10777384
File: 144 KB, 680x517, private platform.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>trusting the government and tech elites to know what's bullshit and what isn't with absolute certainty and never become corrupt
This is what leftists actually believe

>> No.10777389

this data exists whether you like it or not.

>> No.10777391

Can’t be reasoned with, people do actually believe this even though you are of course being flamboyant for the sake of emotionalist social signaling and stymieing interest in the topic

If increased susceptibility to disease were not heritable and likely to be transmitted transgenerationally from parent to offspring then disease resistances would not persist outside the environment conducive to the adaptation even in newborn individuals begotten by individuals from those environments. But, they do and we can observe this in basically all metazoan life so you’re just lying.

>> No.10777393

bullshit isn't data.

play by the rules. If ISIS can't have free speech, then nazis can't either

>> No.10777406

It isn't just racism, but a lot of other things that involve quick judgements based on superficial features. If you don't do it, you get lost, since nobody will give you the information you are supposed to see on others. e.g. normal children learn to spot who is potential leader or who is to be trusted based on their facial features, something that autistic people can not learn

>> No.10777935

Fuck you, this image is not science. The very first three sentences are all lies. It's pure propaganda.

>> No.10778385

>drug use is positvely correlated with wealth
>wealth is positvely correlated with IQ
>IQ and drugs are correlated


>> No.10778765


Lol you can brute force a PhD easy.

>> No.10778769

iq is not science anon, iq is pseudoscience. This has been known for a while already.

>> No.10778775

>East Asians are shorter than Europeans with any kind of nutrition. And no matter the amount of milk and honey you give a Pygmy when hes young, he will never be tall. Same with other highly heritable traits like intelligence.

Anon the east Asian diet is radical different from a western one. Also FYI pygmies don't exist in a society where resources and safety are plentiful like say Switzerland. Not saying they will be giants but we haven't seen an Pygmy in a developed environment and environment is one if the many things one inherits from our parents.

>> No.10778776

No you cannot, and the fact that you thinks so betrays that you have no idea how dumb an average, or sub-average, person is.

>> No.10778779

IQ is one of the most rigorous and reproducible concepts in psychology and adjacent fields. If it is pseudoscience, then everything softer than biology is pseudoscience.

>> No.10778781

yet the gap is barely closing

>> No.10779296

The nazi's were idiots.

>Historical evolution in intelligence: "less intelligent individuals and tribes would have died out due to harsh environmental conditions, leaving as survivors the more intelligent"
Often times, "more intelligent" is synonymous with "white people" with these arguments.

Anthropology says no.
Agriculture, towns, and alphabets first emerged in Mesopotamia, a region not known for environmental stresses. There is ample scientific evidence of modern intelligence in prehistoric sub-saharan africa. Christopher Henshilwood argues that these Africans were intelligent, creative people.
This pushes back the date when modern thinking was developing.
Evolutionary process in environmental climates has nothing to do with the evolution of intelligence.

>> No.10779299

bullshit is free speech.
it's just bullshit.

>> No.10779303

>If ISIS can't have free speech, then nazis can't either
arguing over the relevancy of racial science is not advocacy of violence.
get your head out of your goddamn ass.

>> No.10779311

>iq is pseudoscience
IQ is not pseudoscience - it's used all the time to measure things.
Race science is pseudoscience.

>> No.10779576
File: 28 KB, 499x481, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Race science is pseudoscience.

>> No.10779597

>Meme graph

>The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study examined the IQ test scores of 130 black or interracial children adopted by advantaged white families. The aim of the study was to determine the contribution of environmental and genetic factors to the poor performance of black children on IQ tests as compared to white children. The initial study was published in 1976[1] by Sandra Scarr and Richard A. Weinberg. A follow-up study was published in 1992[2] by Richard Weinberg, Sandra Scarr and Irwin D. Waldman. Another related study investigating social adjustment in a subsample of the adopted black children was published in 1996. The study found that "(a) putative genetic racial differences do not account for a major portion of the IQ performance difference between racial groups, and (b) black and interracial children reared in the culture of the tests and the schools perform as well as other adopted children in similar families."

>Waldman, Weinberg, and Scarr: "We think that it is exceedingly implausible that these differences are either entirely genetically based or entirely environmentally based. The true causes of racial-group differences in IQ, or in any other characteristic, are likely to be too complex to be captured by locating them on a single hereditarianism-environmentalism dimension."

Basically, like all of these fucking dumbass studies, it's too overtly reductive. Big surprise.
i.e. see >>10775185

Jesus christ /pol/tards are dumb, they don't even go to what the fuck was even cited.

Yes. It's pseudoscience.

>> No.10779604

yeah, the authors of the minnesota study also said some other time that they don’t have much faith in it and caution against using their results, iirc

typical /pol/ method of only looking for stuff that supports their crap biases and disregarding context or any other relevant info

>> No.10779622

keep in mind, studies like these also show we cannot use iq measurements to see whether or not equality is "working" by putting people into "optimal" environmental situations, like many on the left believe.

These studies are too reductive to be used - period.

>> No.10779625

i.e. racial science is pseudoscience, no matter how you interpret it.

>> No.10779628

some of it is pseudoscience,
the fact that there are identifiable racial differences based on gene clustering is fairly well accepted

>> No.10779630

agreed. i just did some googling and found some interesting commentary on the twins study:


>> No.10779631

Don't think you should read into IQ tests desu the skills they test are all skills you can train to become better at. It doesn't test your biological intelligence.

>> No.10779658

>there are identifiable racial differences based on gene clustering is fairly well accepted

The problem is you're confusing simple structures vs complex structures.
It's perfectly clear that there are going to be people of different color, predispositions to diseases, and simple things like lactose tolerance. These are all simple structures of single gene mutations which can spread easily among any population.

However complex structures, like the brain, involve a multi-complex network of thousands of genes, which most likely takes 100 millennia to evolve appreciably.

>> No.10779855

>Plomins Behavioral Genetics textbook
where might I find a pdf copy of this?

>> No.10779885
File: 8 KB, 588x409, 1549556129578.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

based rageposter

>> No.10779891
File: 303 KB, 659x582, human genetic diversity - 3D PCA.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>However complex structures, like the brain, involve a multi-complex network of thousands of genes, which most likely takes 100 millennia to evolve appreciably.

Single genes tend to vary in more or less clinal manner. It is exactly when taking into account hundreds of genes and more, when clustering clearly appears. Hence polygenic or omnigenic traits like intelligence is where human genetic clustering is likely especially relevant.

>> No.10779916

The Nazis own tests show Germans with average IQ at around 100, compared to Ashkenazis with average of 115.

Also, just because one twin study shows that class also has plays a role, doesn't mean that it isn't in some part genetic.

>> No.10779943

>These studies are too reductive to be used - period.
>i.e. racial science is pseudoscience, no matter how you interpret it.

Yes there is absolutely no room for nuance in this matter. Good god you're dumb

>> No.10779960

>to test these predictions, the parameters were changed entirely to obtain the results desired.

I fucking wish I could be one of these hacks and get paid for shitting out social "science" (((research))). Yeah IQ is bullshit. Anecdotally I can say everyone I knew at high school who knew or at least claimed to know their IQ ended up working some meme office or brand management job for slightly above median salary and slipped into literal whoseville on the social map.

>> No.10779988
File: 464 KB, 817x460, 1547868752026.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>>Waldman, Weinberg, and Scarr: "We think that it is exceedingly implausible that these differences are either entirely genetically based or entirely environmentally based. The true causes of racial-group differences in IQ, or in any other characteristic, are likely to be too complex to be captured by locating them on a single hereditarianism-environmentalism dimension."
Of course they're not going to say these differences are because of race, if they claimed that "these differences might be because of race" (let alone saying it's likely because of race) their lifes would get would completely ruined, see James Watson for example.

Intelligence varying across races is the only explanation of these results.

>> No.10779996

>It is exactly when taking into account hundreds of genes and more, when clustering clearly appears.
Our "starting point", mitochondrial Eve, lived around 200,000 years ago. Since this is recent (evolutionarily speaking), human beings share a remarkably high proportion of their genes compared to other mammals. For example, chimpanzee's that live in central africa has significantly more genetic variation than does the entire human race.
Geneticists have long claimed that all human beings, regardless of race, share about 99 per cent of their functional genes. And this suggests that, despite obvious differences in how members of different races look, race is only skin deep.
>The Nazis own tests show Germans with average IQ at around 100, compared to Ashkenazis with average of 115.
see >>10774997

>Yes there is absolutely no room for nuance in this matter.
Nuance is precisely what I'M arguing for, dumb dumb.
You're not going to get it from evaluating IQ of races like we live in a goddamn RPG with a natural stat calculator.

>> No.10780016

>resorting to passing statements which are inherently cannot be falsified.
congratulations, you've just split your mom's spaghetti.

>> No.10781226

Wait. Does this unironically end the current debate?

>> No.10781291

Why is IQ even this important? I know tons of people with a "high IQ" who are not even doing well in life lol

>> No.10781316

why would there only be one type of intelligence? there's recognition of patterns and there's aptitude for learning and retaining information. IQ tests only measure half of the equation.

>> No.10781318

couple of reasons
1) sci is obsessed with intelligence
2) people keep trying to deny the genetic contribution to intelligence and claiming that all racial groups are equal

>> No.10781321

Clamping reduces IQ.

>> No.10781326

average IQ is very important in determining the character of society

>> No.10781333

>reading makes you smarter
I know for a fact this is false.


>> No.10781339

Because high IQ is not enough for being smart. It's more important to tell were there is not a pattern, spotting a pattern where there is one is useless if you also spot patterns where none exists. Memory can also make a massive difference.

>> No.10781509

>people keep trying to deny the genetic contribution to intelligence and claiming that all racial groups are equal
This never happened. It only happened in your mind.

>> No.10781922

>see >>10774997
what? That's the guy I'm responding to. And I'm talking about IQ tests done in Germany by the Nazi Regime. Not USA post-WWII.

Also to add, the reason for this discrepancy is likely the result of the professional opportunities of Jews in Germany. They weren't allowed to be in agriculture or most other artisanal professions, so they gravitated towards banking, media and science. This led to the more intelligent Jews having more children, as they had the economic prerequisites for both having them and preventing death at young ages.

>> No.10781927

>hehe, clampschizo strikes again

>> No.10781966
File: 80 KB, 750x669, 1561357716526.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas.
Unlike arguments directed at low IQ individuals, showing cause and effect and usually extrapolating this to larger social arena for policy, this is purely an ad hominem attack. If you are going to call me an underachiever, then I won't contribute to society at all, ever, my entire life. You can pay my welfare for the rest of your pathetic existence, while I sit back with my big brain, which could have been used for garnering greatness to oil the gears sustaining society, I will use it, purely for myself. And I will not be in the wrong at all, as why should I, someone with an IQ of 159, help prop up a rotten system that advantages midwits such as yourself, yet allocates nothing to the few who could have made a difference from the start. Bon voyage, midwit and midwit society, your ship has sailed and without competent operators such as myself, it will inevitably crash. And when it does, you'll get no help from me. I will be sitting on the sidelines, and when things get rough, I will still be sitting there. When you ask for my help, I will still be sitting. Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of midwits, and hast eaten of the tree of dysgenics and medocrity: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.

>> No.10781978
File: 71 KB, 482x323, maths.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

is math tests results a meme too?

>> No.10781981

cope-y pasta

>> No.10782017

do you really believe 19th century American farmers had an IQ of 85?

>> No.10782147

Libgen? Duh.

>> No.10782254

>Also to add, the reason for this discrepancy is likely the result of the professional opportunities of Jews in Germany. [Due to anti-antisemitism] they [were forced into] banking etc.
>This led to the more intelligent Jews having more children, as they had the economic prerequisites for both having them and preventing death at young ages.
I mean this statement is illogical, because they didn't have any economic prerequisites - they were poor and lived in isolated German ghettos. Which is the reason WHY they had so many kids. You increase the opportunity cost of having kids (i.e. become more productive), you will see fewer kids. If you decrease the opportunity cost of having kids (i.e. become less productive), you will see more kids. This is why rich families tend to have relatively less kids than poor families.
And it's been also said that the rapid "evolution" was possible because they were forbidden to marry outside of the Jewish community - which leads to the "don't cross-breed" /pol/ meme.
The claim was also made as a factor behind the disproportionate prevalence in Ashkenazi Jews of genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs and Gaucher’s, which Pinker-bro et. all claimed were a byproduct of natural selection for higher intelligence.
Those carrying the gene variants, or alleles, for these diseases were said to be smarter than the rest.

DNA research by other scientists has shown that Ashkenazi Jews are far less genetically isolated than Pinker-bro's paper argued.
On the claims that Ashkenazi diseases were caused by rapid natural selection, further research has shown that they were caused by a random mutation.
There is no evidence that those carrying the gene variants for these diseases are any more or less intelligent than the rest of the community.
>There is no "intelligence" gene.
There are no isolated genes which are tied to intelligence. The system is too complex. There are no neatly packaged intelligence genes.

>> No.10782275

if I remember correctly the jewish tendency to only breed within their community was somewhat weaker among german jewish population than it was further towards the east due to social and economic reasons

>> No.10782451

First of all they weren't poor, the Ashkenazi population was often wealthy in Germany. Second, the "rich families have less kids than poor" is only true today. Because mortality among children was very high, poor people had comparatively less children than rich and middle class. That is a recent development.

And as for the "Ashkenazi genetical purity/there is a single intelligence gene" thing, that's not part of my argument.

>> No.10782457


>> No.10782469

Idmen gar toi panth os eni Troie

>> No.10784240

>The response is that it's not purely environmental

Wrong, there is nothing environmental about intelligence, its mostly genetics. Genetics is the framework, and you're denying the role of genetics so you can continue to preach your environmental determinism. You just don't flat out say that environment determines 100% of intelligence, but that's what your saying.

good job you IQ denying fuckwad. First sentence and you are already in disagreement with the majority of scientists. I mean, just listen to yourself. Genetics are responsible for 100% of the brain structure that facilitates cognition, behavior and personality. We KNOW that's true for animals, yet here you are saying, that all those genes are meaingless, and intelligence is some unquantifiable and magical dust

>it ends up being a rather old (and useless) debate between nature vs nurture.

There is no such thing as nature vs nurture. Its a non-existent dividing line that, again, modern research on the field doesn't preach. Let me demonstrate it with an easy example. Reading books to your child increases their verbal IQ, the problem, is that the environment that causes this, is because a person with certain genetic traits CHOOSES to create this environment for their child. So you cannot separate this "environmental effect" from genetics. Likewise, there is also the Wilson effect, the heritability of IQ increases with age. And one reason for this, is that as a person ages, the environment they choose becomes a reflection of the genetics that drives them to make such choices. It's like how you can force a child to read, and he may become a better reader, but he'll drop the book the moment the pressure is gone.

>doesn't lead to race to be predictive of intelligence.

Wrong shithead, you can literally chose ANY type of population, and using averages, make predictions of intelligence. This is what IQ and race deniers don't get. I don't need race to prove black people are less intelligent.

>> No.10784250

No leftists shithead. If you're gonna deny science, you may as well deny IQ. You should also deny genetics, because leftists have a problem with the science of genetics because of the implications of inherited characteristics. Never forget that leftists developed the pseudoscience Lysenkoism and murdered a bunch of geneticists because they hate genetics.

Race science is alive and well too you dipshit, you do know that right? It just has a different name, its called population genetics and even the science of making predictions just from appearances is making a comeback, because, no shot phenotype would correlate with behavior, both are influenced by genetics! but its the descendants of all previous research on race, and may I add, provides the greatest proof for race being a valid taxonomical category.

Not that you need race to prove that racial equality is pseudoscience, black people are a legit threat to civilization because their genes cannot handle it, and that there are moral reasons to treat race differently. That's somethign the retarded left and the moronic narcissistic black poster doesn't really get, but they don't understand genetics, so they don't understand that all population genetics can make valid predictions about said population. Race is just a red herring we use on leftists to make sure they get distracted while we do our research. Once the truth gets out, the implications will be the same.

>> No.10784268
File: 143 KB, 705x329, SAT-scores-by-race-gender.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Holy shit, you don't know anything about genetics, you anti-/pol/ fucktard. In fact, if you believe
1) In racial equality pseudoscience
2) Denying that IQ has predictive validity
3) That intelligence, behavior and personality are built on a genetic framework

Then there is no reasoning with you. All of these points have been validated, and yet you far left anti-/pol/ fucks bring up your retarded politics, and think that's enough to validity your environmental determinism over genetic science. I'm not gonna listen to the people, who have murdered thousands of people thanks to this racial equality nonsense. It's even more mind bogglyingly when some of you actual admit that IQ is legit, but then say that "racial differences in IQ" is pseudoscience. Well dipshit, then how do you explain the findings of IQ that suggests there are racial differences that have been both consistent and heritable?

>There are no isolated genes which are tied to intelligence. The system is too complex. There are no neatly packaged intelligence genes.

Pure nonsense drivel that can only come from someone who doesn't even understand genetics. Well you anti /pol/ fucktards, why don't you just deny genes? I mean, what even is a gene? It's just a human social construct that we randomly assign to long segments of DNA. I mean, where does a gene for hair begin and end? HUR DUR HUR DUR

>And it's been also said that the rapid "evolution" was possible because they were forbidden to marry outside of the Jewish community - which leads to the "don't cross-breed" /pol/ meme.

This kinda highlights your inability to understand genetics. See, you realize that even if humans were near 100% genetically identical, then it would still be possible for populations of said human to show genetic differences in cognitive traits right? You do know why that would be possible right? You are aware that "genetic drift" makes it 100% impossible for populations to be genetically equal, right?

>> No.10784273

sociology isn't science sorry

>> No.10784372

What a cool and smart boy we have, oh my

>> No.10784699

Based Plomin

>> No.10784709

youtube recomended this to me, looking at his arguments objectively Lester comes off with some very valid points but to the wider audience and the guest it comes off as tired racism

>> No.10784747

Flynn effect gains are weakly correlated with g.

>> No.10784840


>> No.10784843

based, BTFO, and /thread.

>> No.10784887

What if criminals in third world countries were sterilized and then received transplants of the gonad from a High IQ donor. It could introduce the genes necessary for understanding science and math into a population where it was completely absent beforehand.

>> No.10784893

organ rejection?
and why should someone donate a testicle?

>> No.10784907

They died in a freak accident but they donated their body to the red cross because they knew that their high intelligence could benefit poor third world peoples and alleviate suffering and poverty in Africa.

>> No.10785290

right? he still doesn't get why it's psuedoscientific.
the guy he's butt-blasted about even tried to give him an out, but he went full ass-blown retarded.
he doesn't know what science even is, so he promotes scientism.
the circular logic on that /pol/ tard is incredible.

>> No.10785314
File: 34 KB, 507x417, 1522033506892.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

What's with that passive aggressive response you little bitch?

Leftists are so retarded that they actually think you can't make valid predictions from just a person genetics. Well dipshit, if that were true, how come polygenic scores are a thing, and they have been successfully implemented? You think intelligence is some impossible to quantify construct, when it's obviously just a biological output of a brain constructed by genetics and the processes that occur in it. That is why certain genetic disease will cause problems with intelligence, and why some genetic disorders, like William Syndrome, have been known to produce consistent behavioral changes, and the ONLY reason they behave differently is because of the loss of those 27 genes. That is not some super complex thing.

Let us some up far leftists stupidity:

1) The only reason why deny IQ and race and genetics, is because of your far left religion and your belief in racial equality pseudoscience. Anyone centrists, moderate, rational and sane will see there is a justifiable reason to believe there are cognitive differences between races. You force a standard on this research. Race and IQ is WAY more falsifiable then Dark Matter, but I don't see you far leftists screeching about how those "/pol/ babies support dark matter even though its not real, here are all the scientists that reject it!", because dark matter isn't heresy.
2) They don't understand genetics. The biggest proof is that they scream about the danger of the implications, yet for some reason, accept genetic principles because their too focused at people correctly saying blacks are stupid...but then they say population genetics is legit or that genetic drift or that IQ IS influenced by genetics is true. Well then if you accept that, you do realize that genetic drift means that its impossible for genetic equality to exist in population. You don't need race to prove that people from African genetics are behaviorally and cognitively unequal

>> No.10785330
File: 214 KB, 500x345, 1547163464836.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The question remains. What's a good reason why a westerner with a BSc (aka brainlet) level IQ shouldn't move to a lower IQ region of the planet and exploit the lower IQ people and fuck their women?

>> No.10785340

>exploit the lower IQ people and fuck their women?

They get scared and can't handle the environment let alone natives on par with them. That's why the only move when they move for work and a company covers expenses.

>> No.10785361
File: 600 KB, 1440x1993, 1558031482552.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

3) It's wrong to call these racial equality pseduoscientists only race and IQ deniers. They don't just deny race and IQ. They deny the very basis of genetics. That's why they get deeply uncomfortable whenever someone points out that the mainstream consensus is that intelligence is HEAVILY genetic. Not "influenced by environment", but that genetics ITSELF shapes intelligence, and it forms the genes form the framework of intelligence, not the other way around. Every single one of them has written nonsense and a compete lack of understanding of genetics. Which is why the people who think black people don't have a lower IQ, are writing the dumbest environmental determinist shit, or this complete and utter nonsense:

>There are no isolated genes which are tied to intelligence. The system is too complex. There are no neatly packaged intelligence genes.

What bullshit. I bet I can trick racial equalitarians that there is no such thing as genetics, they are uneducated on the subject. Hence why they spout Lewontin fallacy bullshit, numbers that are utterly meaningless in context, but for the uneducated, they think "wow 99% high number

Another thing that makes them retarded, is that, notice how they focus so much on race? I don't get it, aren't they afraid of the implications? You realize a world were people understand that IQ is ALL genetics and that it differs between population is true and you are just delaying the inevitable? But they focus on race, and think that pretending black people aren't real well destroy the implications. No they won't. You don't need race to prove racial differences. Why are leftists so fucking stupid that they don't understand this?

Also, genetic drift, allele frequency and fixation makes it entirely possible for populations to exhibit extreme differences in average trait even if they are genetically the same, simply out of random chance!

There. Is. No. Evidence. For. Racial. Equality.

There is evidence for racial unequality.

>> No.10785364

how do brits do so well if they're so far under the educatability index?

>> No.10785368

>There are no isolated genes which are tied to intelligence. The system is too complex. There are no neatly packaged intelligence genes.

Is right though. WAY to much factors go into intelligence in regards to "genes" and even the genes for intelligence widely vary by demographics. Using Europeans SNP's and projecting that allover the world is silly.

>> No.10785373

They have great institutions.

>There. Is. No. Evidence. For. Racial. Equality.
>There is evidence for racial unequality.

Yet we have vast demographics form one nationality in certain countries doing extremely well.

>> No.10785374
File: 10 KB, 250x250, 1547831209687.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I just read your post twice and can't understand what you are trying to say.

Who is "they"?

The question is: Why don't the 100 IQ people who get cucked by the 120+ IQ people in the West not move to a low IQ country where the IQ is <80 and slide straight into the top positions in their hierarchies?

>> No.10785380

>They get scared and can't handle the environment let alone natives on par with them. That's why the only move when they move for work and a company covers expenses.

That is the most delusional insecure brown people cope shit I've ever read. The past 2 centuries are built of high IQ races dominating and controlling the low IQ races to great benefit, and its still happening with China. Fucking white Europeans outcompeted the Abos on their harsh homeland and built a first world nation. South Africa was able to be a nuclear power, and it only did so because it successful did everything in its power to strip Africans any right to damage their society.

In fact, Central America recent history is just a bunch of American fruit company exploiting those mestizos bad governance.

So yes, a westerners SHOULD take advantage of low IQ nations. Big fish in a small pond? I would advise against Africa. The genetic problems with Africans aren't even their IQ, but their aggression, their shitty behavior and their narcissism, all of which are genetic too.

>> No.10785431

then why do so many scientists from India, Iran, China move to the west for work and education. It's the brain drain you might be better off staying here in the west.

>> No.10785432

>have access to hundreds of years of information
>invent nothing
>newton invents calculus
>tesla invents induction motor
>maxwell invents his equations
>aristotle invents logic

It looks more like we'd be complete retards in comparison to people from 2500 years ago

>> No.10785438
File: 81 KB, 1200x1051, poll-europe-races-less-intelligent.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Thus, ALL race and IQ deniers are just gene deniers, and the reason they deny GENETICS is SOLELY because of their far left religion. Have these race and IQ deniers never made a post without screeching about MUH /pol/ like the insecure pissbabies they are?. I mean, you need to understand, these retards unironically believe that human personality, behavioral traits, and cognitive traits aren't just as genetics as a person's skin color and hair color. In fact, these people have a strange understanding of genetics. Apparently, genes only affect superficial physical appearance and that's it. Everything else is influenced by environmental magic, and they believe it because part of the appeal the far left religion has, is the belief that they have total control over humans because of their belief in infinite malleability. It's what communism is built on. It's why Stalin hated genetics and had it banned, and ruined Soviet genetics, and why a person like Lysenko was able to preach his bullshit and why leftists activists got angry at E.O Wilson that they attacked him for "sociobiology". There is evidence of rapid evolution in humans, population differentiation, and that all traits are genetic, so objectively, you cannot dismiss the heredetarian hypothesis other then politics

These people are dinosaurs and they will die out as the practical aspects of genetic intelligence/behavioral research comes out. But since they are zealots, they won't change. You cannot reason with them, how often has OP been attacked and BTFO for his stupid beliefs? Not enough. And he even does dumb shit like reply to his own post pretending he's another person agreeing with him

Whenever I see some dipshit screech about /pol/, I filter them. The only thing they deserve is for their head to be split on the sidewalk, or maybe be hooked up to this machine as the greatest irony.


>> No.10785468

only 2% of Sweden is brave enough to vote openly on an anonymous race poll, I don't blame them people who openly believe in genetics will be ostracized.

>> No.10785473

>Lewontin fallacy
Not an actual fallacy. Called that by people who disliked that argument which wasn't fallacious at all.
>Wilson effect
Not an actual recognized effect. A poor sport of trying to mimic the hype being Flynn effect with way less supported studies.

Are you actually a retarded spaniard?

>> No.10785492

>Wilson effect
>Not an actual recognized effect
plomin recognises it
guy literally wrote the book on behioral genetics

>> No.10785504

You are right.
This makes me want to file for neetbux.

>> No.10785511

That's the kind of thing. Flynn effect is undeniably well supported. Wilson effect is debatable and you can hardly find it under that name, while you could just link the fucking study.

>> No.10785528

So Flynn, Lewontin, Wilson and Woodley.
Any other memes I should know about for future /sci/ IQ threads?

>> No.10785543
File: 8 KB, 184x173, downs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

How far could I increase my midwit IQ through regular mental exercise? Is it even possible?

>> No.10785552

do it anyway
it'll reduce the decline in IQ you'll see from alzeimers and you can train some useful pathways

>> No.10785560

Tishkoff, for when someone attempts to deny the very existence of multiple genetic clusters in global human population (colloquially known as so-called "races")

>> No.10785621
File: 48 KB, 570x537, mad npc.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

anything else you want to whine and complain about like a little piss-baby?
you get on your soapbox and preach scientism; not science.
any more circular logic arguments you want to present, and shout "IT'S OBVIOUS! THIS OBVIOUSNESS IS CLEARLY THE END RESULT!"
You are a fucking pop-sci retard, obsessed with pop-sci retardation.

>environmental determinist
btw you keep saying this dumbass term like it means anything
you just don't fucking get it, do you? For fucks sake, study science. Not this simplistic garbage.

>> No.10785654
File: 46 KB, 550x330, class.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>wealth is positively correlated with IQ

Anyone that's ever attended fee-paying public schools can verify and tell you that you're chatting absolute shit. Further to this, anyone that attended Public Funded Grammar Schools in the past when a good proportion of children came from impoverished poor backgrounds, can also attest to your insistence that wealth = High IQ = The natural order.
You can coach anyone with enough money and time and stability to take and pass IQ tests and their variants at any time.
I gather you are an American and as such have no real idea of class.

Simply travel to London, hang out with rich wealthy Trustifarian hispters in gentrified ghetto areas and then post here and tell me they are prime example of genetic high IQ in action.

>> No.10785713

>Studies of clustering reopened a debate on the scientific reality of race, or lack thereof. In the late 1990s Harvard evolutionary geneticist Richard Lewontin stated that "no justification can be offered for continuing the biological concept of race. (...) Genetic data shows that no matter how racial groups are defined, two people from the same racial group are about as different from each other as two people from any two different racial groups. This view has been affirmed by numerous authors and the American Association of Physical Anthropologists since. A.W.F. Edwards as well as Rick Kittles and Jeffrey Long have criticized Lewontin's methodology, with Long noting that there are more similarities between humans and chimpanzees than differences, and more genetic variation within chimps and humans than between them. Edwards also charged that Lewontin made an "unjustified assault on human classification, which he deplored for social reasons". In their 2015 article, Keith Hunley, Graciela Cabana, and Jeffrey Long recalculate the apportionment of human diversity using a more complex model than Lewontin and his successors. They conclude: "In sum, we concur with Lewontin’s conclusion that Western-based racial classifications have no taxonomic significance, and we hope that this research, which takes into account our current understanding of the structure of human diversity, places his seminal finding on firmer evolutionary footing."

>> No.10785718

>Genetic clustering studies, and particularly the five-cluster result published by Rosenberg's team in 2002, have been interpreted by journalist Nicholas Wade, evolutionary biologist Armand Marie Leroi, and others as demonstrating the biological reality of race. For Leroi, "Race is merely a shorthand that enables us to speak sensibly, though with no great precision, about genetic rather than cultural or political differences." He states that, "One could sort the world's population into 10, 100, perhaps 1,000 groups", and describes Europeans, Basques, Andaman Islanders, Ibos, and Castillians each as a "race". In response to Leroi's claims, the Social Science Research Council convened a panel of experts to discuss race and genomics online. In their 2002 and 2005 papers, Rosenberg and colleagues disagree that their data implies the biological reality of race.

>In 2006, Lewontin wrote that any genetic study requires some priori concept of race or ethnicity in order to package human genetic diversity into a defined, limited number of biological groupings. Informed by genetics, zoologists have long discarded the concept of race for dividing groups of non-human animal populations within a species. Defined on varying criteria, in the same species a widely varying number of races could be distinguished. Lewontin notes that genetic testing revealed that "because so many of these races turned out to be based on only one or two genes, two animals born in the same litter could belong to different 'races'".

>> No.10785733

Income is correlated with IQ wealth is too but much more weakly

>> No.10785740

>Studies that seek to find genetic clusters are only as informative as the populations they sample. For example, Risch and Burchard relied on two or three local populations from five continents, which together were supposed to represent the entire human race. Another genetic clustering study used three sub-Saharan population groups to represent Africa; Chinese, Japanese, and Cambodian samples for East Asia; Northern European and Northern Italian samples to represent "Caucasians". Entire regions, subcontinents, and landmasses are left out of many studies. Furthermore, social geographical categories such "East Asia" and "Caucasians" were not defined. "A handful of ethnic groups to symbolize an entire continent mimic a basic tenet of racial thinking: that because races are composed of uniform individuals, anyone can represent the whole group" notes Roberts.

>> No.10785743

>King and Motulsky, in a 2002 Science article, state that "While the computer-generated findings from all of these studies offer greater insight into the genetic unity and diversity of the human species, as well as its ancient migratory history, none support dividing the species into discrete, genetically determined racial categories". Cavalli-Sforza asserts that classifying clusters as races would be a "futile exercise" because "every level of clustering would determine a different population and there is no biological reason to prefer a particular one". Bamshad, in 2004 paper published in Nature, asserts that a more accurate study of human genetic variation would use an objective sampling method, which would choose populations randomly and systematically across the world, including those populations which are characterized by historical intermingling, instead of cherry-picking population samples which fit a priori concepts of racial classification. Roberts states that "if research collected DNA samples continuously from region to region throughout the world, they would find it impossible to infer neat boundaries between large geographical groups."

>> No.10785749

anyone got something simlar to this for dogs or livestock?

>> No.10785750

I'll just leave this here.

>> No.10785755

>Anthropologists such as C. Loring Brace, philosophers Jonathan Kaplan and Rasmus Winther, and geneticist Joseph Graves, have argued that while it is certainly possible to find biological and genetic variation that corresponds roughly to the groupings normally defined as "continental races", this is true for almost all geographically distinct populations. The cluster structure of the genetic data is therefore dependent on the initial hypotheses of the researcher and the populations sampled. When one samples continental groups the clusters become continental; if one had chosen other sampling patterns the clustering would be different.

>Weiss and Fullerton have noted that if one sampled only Icelanders, Mayans and Maoris, three distinct clusters would form and all other populations could be described as being clinally composed of admixtures of Maori, Icelandic and Mayan genetic materials. Kaplan and Winther therefore argue that seen in this way both Lewontin and Edwards are right in their arguments. They conclude that while racial groups are characterized by different allele frequencies, this does not mean that racial classification is a natural taxonomy of the human species, because multiple other genetic patterns can be found in human populations that cross-cut racial distinctions. Moreover, the genomic data under-determines whether one wishes to see subdivisions (i.e., splitters) or a continuum (i.e., lumpers). Under Kaplan and Winther's view, racial groupings are objective social constructions (see Mills 1998 ) that have conventional biological reality only insofar as the categories are chosen and constructed for pragmatic scientific reasons.

>> No.10785780

Is this what /pol/tards actually believe?

>> No.10785863
File: 53 KB, 719x384, 1529072856459.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Not an actual fallacy. Called that by people who disliked that argument which wasn't fallacious at all.

It's a fallacy, because Lewontin was a Marxist who invented this argument to attack the "racists" but the argument is a fallacy. It's not an argument that has had ANY impact on the field of genetics. Only on anti-racists and far left sociologists. It's also a fallacy because it's a nonsensical argument that only works out of context, but with context, does not debunk the notion that race is a valid taxonomical concept. You can use this fallacy to even debunk any other "taxonomical concept", but Lewontin fallacy is only applied to race because of their politics, not of an objective scientific stance.

>Not an actual recognized effect. A poor sport of trying to mimic the hype being Flynn effect with way less supported studies

You do know that the Flynn effect was coined, not by Flynn, but by Charles Murray in the Bell Curve right? If not him, I think he popularized it. You do know that right? Don't you find it odd that the one thing from the Bell Curve the left believes is the Flynn effect, it speaks to how their politics and not reason is what drives their pseudoscience in this debate.

Anyway, yes dipshit, the Wilson Effect is real, search it.


You know, I guess its just a coincidence that IQ gets more heritable with age, and has nothing to do with the fact that intelligence is genetic. I mean, that type of phenomena is seen with numerous other genetic traits (such as how as a young child, you can have light blonde hair, but as you age, the hair gets browner, matching your parents)

Could race and IQ deniers make it more obvious that they hate the entire field of genetics? Stop pretending you don't deny genetics too. Your entire argument only makes sense if you deny aspects of genetics too.

>> No.10785877
File: 25 KB, 350x347, Tin foil hat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>it's all a conspiratorial plot
based schizo anon

>> No.10785895

>Post a retarded wojak image and uses words like "pissbaby"

Hi ChapoTrapHouse and far left retards from reddit, you are INHERENTLY human garbage.

Listen here retard. Genetics influences everything, to the point that I know that the subhumans here who deny even the possibility that your DNA, which is the reason why you even have physical form in this universe, could have a substantial impact on the brain and how it processes the universe, that this denial all stems from a personality problem caused by your genes. Trying to change you and convince you that you are wrong its pointless, just like how trying to force blacks to enjoy reading is a utterly pointless exercise and why all social programs that tried it, failed. You aren't changing them. They don't want to listen.

Every single one of you retards clearly do not understand much about genetics, yet here you are trying to lecture us about how race and IQ isn't real, when you don't even know concept likes genetic drift, or even the g-construct which makes IQ a valid thing.

The point isn't to convince you. The point is to remind anyone sane reading this, that the people who deny race and IQ LITERALLY DENY THE POSSIBILITY THAT GENETICS INFLUENCES HUMANS. There is a reason why there doesn't exists a person who denies race and IQ, but at the same time, believes that genetics influences human cognitive, behavioral and personality trait. To believe the latter, but to deny the possibility of the former will just cause serious cognitive dissonance issues. You should check out HARDTALK with Robert Plomin to see what I mean. Not a single mention of race and IQ, but the very research of genetics and intelligence makes these leftists activists uncomfortable and aggressive.

>> No.10785938

any more circular logic you want to use, kiddo? Any more pre-concieved assumptions, in order to forcefully fit the data, you want to use?

>leftists activists uncomfortable and aggressive.
all of your fucking verbal diarrhea of posts amount to, "omg i'm LITERALLY shaking rn."
you can't even have a FUCKING civil conversation because your so goddamn triggered.

>> No.10786034

You're no different from people who deny climate change or say the earth is flat

>> No.10786078

i deny all absolutes.
determinism doesn't exist.
i only accept what is most-likely the case, and work on a case-by-case, step-by-step basis until things change.
there is strong evidence that climate change is real, there is even more evidence that the earth is round.

>> No.10786315


Define race scientifically.
Define intelligence
Define wealth
Define ownership of wealth, systems and definitions.

>> No.10786347

imagine defending status quo worldviews that match every HR department on earth on an anonymous imageboard FOR FREE

>> No.10786388

>hurr durr i can write a test that measures objective running ability
uh yeah it's called a foot race you fucking retard

>> No.10786733

>a tweet says something that is sure to trigger me
>gets triggered without any external knowledge
You are hopeless.

>> No.10787262

Why was Charles Muraay so heavily criticised for the Bell Curve?
Having read the book his findings seem quite rational and the harm from ignoring his conclusions seem very detrimental.

>> No.10787312

>Roberts states that "if research collected DNA samples continuously from region to region throughout the world, they would find it impossible to infer neat boundaries between large geographical groups."

Funny, that is ezactly what happened years later, se here:


Collect genomes from hundreds of people that adequately sample global population, analyze hundreds of genetic loci instead of a handful, and you get neat clustering that quite corresponds to both geographical features and old ideas about race (tough sometimes the clusters overlap slightly).

Those denying this fact are still stuck in an era before cheap whole genome sequencing became possible. That is why they cite mostly old studies from early 2000s and earlier, like this poster. Meanwhile real science marches on.


>> No.10787314
File: 27 KB, 775x387, 1428364401808[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Define "define"

>> No.10788031

>han poor" is only true today. Because mortality among children was very high, poor people had comparatively less children than rich and middle class. That is a recent development.

Victorian England literally shits on this thesis.

>> No.10788036

Is my intellectual worth determined entirely by IQ?

>> No.10788083

>I'm not gonna listen to the people, who have murdered thousands of people thanks to this racial equality nonsense.

The lack of awareness of the absurdity and irony of this is frankly mind-boggling.
Next you'll tell me Columbus was soft and gentle and was a gud lad he didndu nuffin

>Pure nonsense drivel that can only come from someone who doesn't even understand genetics.
>Well you anti /pol/ fucktards, why don't you just deny genes? I mean, what even is a gene? It's just a human social construct that we randomly assign to long segments of DNA. I mean, where does a gene for hair begin and end? HUR DUR HUR DUR

Anon never said that you proto-Cathy Newman.
If you genuinely believe that you can:
>Define race clinically
>Define Intelligence via IQ testing
>Show a causal link between a gene that codes and correlates for a particular IQ score and racial definition and it's role in a particular environment
Then you clearly need help in comprehension and scientific discourse.
Perhaps it is your own IQ that needs testing?

Statistically, in the UK, the private school system shows categorically the influence of social environment and early years teaching along with diet as directly correlating with testing that would give an indication of yourgod like devotion to IQ.
This does not in of itself confer a test of "Intelligence." Many of these pupils that turn to adults regularly pass your IQ tests, come from wealthy backgrounds but are far from intelligent.
Case in point; look at the Brexit debate.

Again, can you cannot define tangibly race and intelligence. Neither do your extrapolations ever include anything about environment, diet, social class and social systems.
And no, I don't believe sex or genes are a "social construct" but fucking hell,interactions at all levels are indeed social constructs and influence a myriad of outcomes and opportunities and measures of what is intelligence.

>> No.10788090

Anons, why?

>> No.10788095

>Victorian England literally shits on this thesis.

19th century is indeed when the trend began to reverse, in most developed countries first.

>> No.10788098

no, but there is a strong correlation

>> No.10788242

But you can train to be better at running.

>> No.10788248

>If increasing literacy were really explaining a number of seemingly different IQ trends
what trends?

>> No.10788606

that OP is a faggot

>> No.10788632

Not in the UK it didn't and remains the case today irrespective of mitigation
Lower classes had more children including the post war baby boom

>> No.10788634

kek and based

>> No.10788654


>> No.10788656

The Flynn effect continues outside of Europe, yes this includes the US

>> No.10788740

No up until the late victorian age the richest 50% had 40% more children than the poorest 50%
look at Gregory Clark's thourough research of historical records

>> No.10790067

>ecological methods to calculate statistical associations
What is this?

>> No.10790328


Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.