Is There Any Group of Words More Retarded In the English Language...

[Anonymous No.10933342]

Then "All Men are Created Eqaul'?

[Anonymous No.10933359]

>>10933342
>>>/pol/
>>>/r9k/
>>>wizchan.org
>>>cripplechan.ree

[Anonymous No.10933362]

>>10933342
Than

Guess we know where you are on the Y axis

[Anonymous No.10933366]

>>10933359
It isnt a political question.
Its a scientific one
IS there any group of words more objectively retarded then "all men are created equal"
>>10933362
Yeah you se anon
You're probably superior to me
WE
ARE
NOT
EQUAL!

[Anonymous No.10933422]

>>10933359
>>>/lgbt/
>>>/reddit/
>>>/blackcocklovers/

[Anonymous No.10933427]

>>10933342
Why do poor whites outperform poor asians?

[Anonymous No.10933434]

>>10933427
azns grouped together indiscriminately

[Anonymous No.10933435]

I don't know, but searching for a dumber arrangement of words is computationally very expensive.

[Anonymous No.10933436]

>>10933427
by what metric?
Im fiarly sure you arent going to find any country with an equal median income to an asian where the asian one doesnt have a lower crime rate and a higher standard of living.

[Anonymous No.10933442]

>>10933427
The fact that unlike black or hispanic people, most asian people that emigrate into the USA are screened and selected for which usually tends to favor high IQ immigrants. The relationship between IQ and SAT scores are well known. To what extend this translates into actual intelligence is another one. Also East Asian immigrants are known for investing much time into education and they generally work hard. South Asians with their lower IQ and overall poorer work ethics compared with East Asians perform worse at SAT scores. SAT scores also correlate with income.

[Anonymous No.10933443]

>>10933434
So the poor ones are seagooks/pakis then?
>>10933436
i was talking about OP's image.

[Anonymous No.10933446]

>>10933443
ohhh
hmm
i dont know.
It is a strange metric.
Also stranger that asian SAT scores shoot up so high after that and completely out perform whites (even tho it can be assumed they would be held down by the same "instiotnional oppression" all non-whites supposedly are.

[Anonymous No.10933449]

>>10933443
probably SE asians and oceania not Pakis, South Asians I think at the time were still classified as caucasoid by US gov until they agitate for special POC status for gibs. You see this fairly frequently where people attempt to point to like Korean orphans of peasants and SE asian boat people as below the white average as if that implies east asian iq scores are somehow inflated as a whole.

[Anonymous No.10933452]

>>10933446
>Also stranger that asian SAT scores shoot up so high after that and completely out perform whites
I was just asking a question, chill out.
>even tho it can be assumed they would be held down by the same "instiotnional oppression" all non-whites supposedly are.
I can't tell if you are being serious or not.

[Anonymous No.10933460]

MRIs taken of brain sizes, suggest Caucasians have bigger brains than blacks. This sample size is kinda small though. I have a feeling that conducted a large-scale study of brain size in relation to race would raise some ire from the egalitarian establishment zeitgest, hence why Western scientists avoid it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964318/

On a side note, does anybody have studies from Chinese biologists regarding the differences of cognitive ability by phenotype?

[Anonymous No.10933462]

MRIs taken of brain sizes suggest Caucasians have bigger brains than blacks. This sample size is kinda small though. I have a feeling that conducting a large-scale study of brain size in relation to race would raise some ire from the egalitarian establishment zeitgest; hence why Western scientists avoid it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964318/

On a side note, does anybody have studies from Chinese biologists regarding the differences of cognitive ability by phenotype?

[Anonymous No.10933463]

>>10933442
>le, most asian people that emigrate into the USA are screened and selected for which usually tends to favor high IQ immigrants.
But hispanic immigrants arent?
> The relationship between IQ and SAT scores are well known. To what extend this translates into actual intelligence is another one.
lol.
Why does it always lefties get you so god damn salty when someone proposes a test to discover intelligence and then that intelligence is found to not be equal across the races?
Like you just admitted IQ test adequately predict SAT scores.
Which is more likely,
1 that both of these things dont actually require high intelligence to succeed at?
or
2 That both tests are "completely random" and dont measure intelligence at all.
Well i suppose you would never be able to know hu?
since you could just keep moving the god damn goal post to say "well THIS isnt intelligence because intelligence might be able to be more adequately measured by Y"
bullshit.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then its a fucking duck
If IQ has results that correlate with people in higher and lower complexity jobs then it IS intelligence
whether or not you like it or not
whether or not you wish it was so or not
whether or not gives with your fucking God of equality.

[Anonymous No.10933466]

>>10933452
>I can't tell if you are being serious or not.
why wouldnt i be?

[Anonymous No.10933476]

>>10933362

[Anonymous No.10933488]

>>10933452
Look-up the "Chinese Exclusion Act". Pretty sure that discriminated against chinks.

[Anonymous No.10933493]

>>10933463
>Why does it always lefties
I'm not a leftist.
>Like you just admitted IQ test adequately predict SAT scores.
It's not a matter of admitting. It's what the stats give.
>Which is more likely, that both of these things dont actually require high intelligence to succeed at
Neither SAT tests nor IQ tests correlate perfectly with g-loadedness which I assume is equal to your definition of intelligence. It's well known that one can train people to perform specifically better at IQ tests without that meaning that intelligence actually increased.
>since you could just keep moving the god damn goal post to say "well THIS isnt intelligence because intelligence might be able to be more adequately measured by Y"
bullshit.
You can also shift the definition of intelligence in such a way as to reinforce your already established world view.
>If IQ has results that correlate with people in higher and lower complexity jobs then it IS intelligence
The relationship with that is in fact quite weak. There is huge variation within the same profession but significantly less between them. IQ correlates with job performance with roughly r = 0.5 which is significant but hardly exact.

[Anonymous No.10933501]

>>10933493
>It's well known that one can train people to perform specifically better at IQ tests without that meaning that intelligence actually increased.
If you've trained someone to do an IQ test their intelligence would inherently have to have increased since they would then have knowledge and skills they did not previously have.
>You can also shift the definition of intelligence in such a way as to reinforce your already established world view.
haha True.
But im not the one calling people whos trying to censor people who diagree with me.
Frankly i enjoy talking to people who disagree with me.
It gives opportunities to show how much their beliefs are built on sand.
>The relationship with that is in fact quite weak. There is huge variation within the same profession but significantly less between them. IQ correlates with job performance with roughly r = 0.5 which is significant but hardly exact.
okay buddy.
A fucking point 0.5 is not " quite weak" by any stretch of the imagination in the social sciences.
there are very few physiological tests i know of that predict outcome that
and for a person whos claiming such knowledge on the subject
you should know that.

[Anonymous No.10933520]

>>10933501
>If you've trained someone to do an IQ test their intelligence would inherently have to have increased since they would then have knowledge and skills they did not previously have.
Intelligence doesn't equal knowledge.
>But im not the one calling people whos trying to censor people who diagree with me.
This isn't about politics. I'm aware of the attitude most people have when it comes to IQ and its relationship to success and especially to race but I'm not discussing that.
>A fucking point 0.5 is not " quite weak" by any stretch of the imagination in the social sciences.
One could argue that this relationship is caused by the IQ tests themselves because they might be catered to people who are already able to follow instructions and also perform them in the first place. Now, how is performance different from intelligence, you may ask. After all, following instructions doesn't require much insight or intelligence in the first place. You will counterargue and I will happy to hear your argument.
>there are very few physiological tests i know of that predict outcome
Yes and even then the IQ turns out to be a surprisingly bad predictor. Compare Indian murder rates which ought to be much higher according to IQ statistics.

[Anonymous No.10933525]

I agree some races are inferior.

For example white people. While people of european descent have middling intelligence they lack foresight and mental discipline. They are also emotionally soft and weak. This is why they will die. 中国万歳

[Anonymous No.10933526]

>>10933342

When that was written the founding fathers considered blacks as property not men :)

[Anonymous No.10933531]

>>10933525
Cope.

[Anonymous No.10933533]

>>10933526
Pretty much every recorded culture had slaves and treated them legally as property. Animals nowadays are property.

The only question is whether slaves were property out of necessity or out of wicked human nature but then again. We're one step above the chimpanzees. This step then also happens to be a very small one.

[Anonymous No.10933537]

>>10933531
Wow it's almost as though China has only been a developed country for a few decades and is still very far behind western nations. At least it's not stagnant.

[Anonymous No.10933538]

>>10933520
>>10933520
>>10933520
>Intelligence doesn't equal knowledge.
says who?
>. After all, following instructions doesn't require much insight or intelligence in the first place
Again
Says fucking who?
the ability to recieve infomration and act in concordiance with it is the bedrock of intelligence.
or

[Anonymous No.10933540]

>>10933342
>science & math

[Anonymous No.10933546]

>>10933538
>says who?
The definitions of the words you fucking actual retard. If they meant the same thing all babies would be literal retards like you instead of temporary retards.

[Anonymous No.10933549]

>>10933531

Every document is a citable document, so the adjective is superfluous.

[Anonymous No.10933552]

>>10933538
>Intelligence doesn't equal knowledge.
says who?
This is literally the distinction between fluid and crystallized intelligence and if we're talking about IQ, we mean fluid intelligence and not crystallized intelligence which consists of already learnt things and experiences. IQ doesn't measure crystallized intelligence and should be in theory completely independent of it.
>>the ability to recieve infomration and act in concordiance with it is the bedrock of intelligence.
The bedrock of intelligence (according to IQ) is to recognize patters and extrapolate them to yield general rules. That's literally the definition given by psychologists.
Even robots can process information and act accordingly. This means nothing.

[Anonymous No.10933555]

>>10933342

The real interesting possibility suggested by the OP's picture: imagine being a rich Asian family and having a kid who only got 1075/1600 on the SAT, lol!

t. white 1460/1600 from family in middling income range on that chart

[Anonymous No.10933569]

>>10933555
Did you take the test in 1995? If not it's a meaningless comparison they've made the test easier almost every year since it was created because racism or something.

[Anonymous No.10933655]

>>10933537
Are you serious? Chinese papers are a joke. A JOKE.

[Anonymous No.10933670]

>>10933342
Another retarded race-bait post.
Fuck off

[Anonymous No.10933677]

>>10933670
but can you provide some data that makes the OP argument invalid?

[Anonymous No.10933684]

>another racial iq thread

[Anonymous No.10933694]

>>10933342
It's completely true that they're not, however this does not imply that it is due to some sort of inherent limitation(s) of a set of organisms grouped by the US census.

[Anonymous No.10933710]

>>10933549
Compare the number of citations per paper of the research being produced by western countries and china then.
https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php

[Anonymous No.10933715]

>>10933710
>citations/self-citations ~ .5
Man, why are China and America so trash?