/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12596386]

>Here's your Great Filter, bro.

[Anonymous No.12596397]

>>12596386
>you're just lazy

[Anonymous No.12596398]

>>12596386
Source?

[Anonymous No.12596430]

>>12596397
that's because there was less total wealth back then

[Anonymous No.12596432]

>>12596397
>Data for bottom 40% in France is extrapolated given a single data point

[Anonymous No.12596447]

>>12596432
>Data for bottom 40% in France is extrapolated given a single data point
Silence, pleb, this is how science is done.

[Anonymous No.12596459]

>>12596432
Imagine being that french peasant who was used for the extrapolation. He is probably feeling important in his grave now.

[Anonymous No.12596728]

>>12596447
Imagine genuinely thinking you are so right about this you make that picture. Fucking cringe

[Anonymous No.12596793]

>>12596386

IQ is always 100 per definition whoever made this graph has 0 idea what it means. Discarded.

[Anonymous No.12596839]

>>12596793
It's adjusted per yearly birth cohort. Guess which way it has been adjusted from cohort to cohort.

[Anonymous No.12596841]

>>12596793
you can take the average score of people in developed countries and compare them to other countries.

[Anonymous No.12596945]

>>12596447
Based pic

[Anonymous No.12597073]

>>12596386
>africa balloons in population
>average IQ drops
what a surprise...

[Anonymous No.12597082]

>>12597073
Who woulda thunk?

[Anonymous No.12597083]

>>12596386
IQ is subjective.

It's variation can easily be traced to environmental factors.

[Anonymous No.12597088]

>>12596728
not an argument

[Anonymous No.12597090]

>>12596397
If wealth inequality was a problem most of the world wouldn't have it.

[Anonymous No.12597120]

>>12596447
>my idolatry is more wholesome than your idolatry!!!!!
faggot

[Anonymous No.12597125]

>>12597073
w*sterners (esp b*ll g*tes) are responsible

[Anonymous No.12597166]

>>12597125
Just a business man increasing his user base.

[Anonymous No.12597244]

>>12596793
brainlet.

[Anonymous No.12598119]

>>12596386
There will be a filter this century, just as there has been since mankind's dawn

[Anonymous No.12598138]

>>12596397
>wealth naturally organizes itself in a power law
Duh

[Anonymous No.12598496]

>>12596386

That's a nice graph you got there. It would be a shame if somebody asked you to provide a source...

[Anonymous No.12598646]

>>12596386
They clamp, vaccinate, halogenate, and chemtrail.

[Anonymous No.12599004]

>>12598496
real life

[Anonymous No.12599012]

>he hasn't heard of the flyn effect
back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.12599046]

>>12599012
Taken from the wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

"Some studies have found the gains of the Flynn effect to be particularly concentrated at the lower end of the distribution. Teasdale and Owen (1989), for example, found the effect primarily reduced the number of low-end scores, resulting in an increased number of moderately high scores, with no increase in very high scores.[15] In another study, two large samples of Spanish children were assessed with a 30-year gap. Comparison of the IQ distributions indicated that the mean IQ scores on the test had increased by 9.7 points (the Flynn effect), the gains were concentrated in the lower half of the distribution and negligible in the top half, and the gains gradually decreased as the IQ of the individuals increased.[16] Some studies have found a reverse Flynn effect with declining scores for those with high IQ."

What are some possible mechanisms for this bringing up the lower end?

-Improved nutrition, nonlocal food production, access to off season and more kinds of food
Nutrition, iodine in particular, aided neurodevelopment and reduced the impact of teratogens, infection, etc. As shipping increased regions with poor soil had better access to nutritious food. See eg the Appalachian regions during and after WW2.

-Improved sanitation, refrigeration
Reduced maternal and early childhood immune activation. Vaccination was a demonstrable failure however which spread disease, neurologically damaged, and infected many children.

-Improved medical knowledge
Despite clamping and other stupidity, improvements were mad eina reas like Rh factor incompatibility. eg It has been estimated that in the previous few centuries, in some regions like Ireland, Rh positive children of Rh negative mothers constituted a relatively high percentage of the mentally retarded or otherwise institutionalized.

There is no indication the population has been improved. It's mostly just organizational synergy.

[Anonymous No.12599066]

>>12599046
if iq scores in a given race can change over a period a decades than it could not definitively be stated that race, rather than environment, is responsible for intelligence (as measured by iq). flyn isn't just seen in spics btw, for anyone who didn't read the whole article. It was found in white populations too. also, if you look at the factors you yourself brought up, Africans do not have any of those things (eg refrigeratuon, medicine, ect).

[Anonymous No.12599098]

>>12599066
Could be the collective unconscious I suppose. People who are genetically similar synchronize by some subtle means, even over great distances. Therefore as a race learns and improves, the others all improve as well, globally.

[Anonymous No.12599109]

>>12596386
You are missing the slight increase ~20 years after leaded fuel was banned.

[Anonymous No.12599112]

>>12599098
I'm not sure what you're getting at here

[Anonymous No.12599148]

>>12597083
IQ is 80% genetically heritable and 20% childhood nurturing.

[Anonymous No.12599196]

>>12599148
and this post is 100% wrong

[Anonymous No.12599253]

[Anonymous No.12599269]

>>12597090
>>12596397
the lowest in the past also held more power because of their property, rights to land, self-employment, and labour importance to society. the difference is everything becomes ever more centralised and 99% of people ever more powerless.

[Anonymous No.12599277]

>>12596447
yet the scientific consensus is that the biological notion of race as traditionally define has no basis.

[Anonymous No.12599281]

>>12599253
Anon cmon. The flynn effect is quite obviously hiding a polygenic decrease in intelligence. Once gains in human health levels off, the polygenic decreases in intellectual ability will keep going down, resulting in a decrease in g ability across the board. We've already seen such decreases, I don't know where you got your data, but other results indicate we've stagnated or gone down in developed countries.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearman%27s_hypothesis#Jensen_effect
What matters is the g loading of the test, that's the most genetically heritable part of the test, it's far far more predictive of success, even compared to IQ. We've seen a net loss in g across the board since the 1940s, despite changes in phenotypical IQ.

[Anonymous No.12599285]

>>12599277
I'd that why whites and black get equally sunburned and have equal cases of sickle cell anemia?

[Anonymous No.12599291]

>>12599253
>>12599281
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289603000138?casa_token=LZ5YLODLbNsAAAAA:RZA0b6W7cJcFSz3BfUxDrC4AnoxReCa2IM4dLF3PFObsM16LaZDyfCp5CSwHq3Rhl-jeEBpqxW8
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886913000056?casa_token=NZzR44XHa2AAAAAA:P_hQ57nuj8gb60A3zLxE961sc4qyZyMb-ZwB8PqU_9NWtMM-rcFrwtGU3YS8zcaSXIsdwuQFZa0

[Anonymous No.12599292]

>>12599281
what a retard. the whole point of iq is for it to be the best test to measure g because it is g loaded. or what test would you use, a perfectly g loaded harry potter hat?

[Anonymous No.12599298]

>>12599285
Grouping people is obviously not scientifically wrong or totally useless, but the now death scientific definitions of race tried to explain the developments of human societies based on these notions. Now show how is that those traits relate to the general history of those populations.

[Anonymous No.12599320]

>>12599292
Not all parts of IQ tests are equally g loaded. If there's a large increase in the scores of portions with lower g loading, with negative or neutral changes in high g loaded portions, then that's indicative of environmental gains in IQ with little or negative changes in genetic IQ ability.

That's of course, exactly what we've been seeing. The environmental increases can't continue forever, and evidence indicates it already topped off a few decades ago, but the higher g loaded portion's scores have still been going down.

[Anonymous No.12599325]

>>12599298
your paragraph is very poorly worded, so much so that I don't know what you are asking, but I'll say this- if you look back 1,500 years European 'civilization' was a joke compared to China and arabia. Clearly that changed. Foxes were domesticated in 80 years, so perhaps in the time from 1,500 years ago to 1300s Europeans became smarter. that doesn't mean it can't happen to blacks, it just means it didn't happen yet. also I never tried to explain 'the developments of human societies' just how they are today

[Anonymous No.12599330]

>>12599320
so what we need is a test with only high g loaded questions and give them to blacks and whites. But this is only if what you say is true. I don't know where you got your info from and I haven't heard it before.

[Anonymous No.12599332]

>>12599325
You're willing to wait around for a couple thousand years when Africans are more intelligent?

[Anonymous No.12599338]

>>12599332
or we (bill gates) could speed up the process by weeding the bad ones

[Anonymous No.12599340]

>>12599330
>so what we need is a test with only high g loaded questions and give them to blacks and whites.
Yes, we've done that, but the results weren't "politically correct" enough, so according to mainstream science "Spearman's hypothesis" is still officially recognized as just a "hypothesis".

[Anonymous No.12599341]

>>12599325
>Bs speculation about European society
>Thinks I'm debating his retarded view formed by watching epic alt right youtuber faggots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts#Early_modern_period
I'm talking about these ideas which were at some point highly accepted by the scientific community, but even them didn't made such bullshit claim about European societies to the Chinese or "Arabs" whatever you mean. Take this in, you are so fucking uniformed you are not even able to understand what were the core ideas in the development of the taxonomy of race in human in the 17th-20th century, and that has been completely abandoned.

[Anonymous No.12599352]

>>12599340
can you link to such a test, the results by race, and what makes it more g loaded than iq tests? otherwise I'd suspect that they would use it on iq tests already.

[Anonymous No.12599370]

if a poor moronic loser drop-out failure like me can score 128, IQ doesn't mean shit

[Anonymous No.12599381]

>>12599341
I'll just quote what you wrote again so you can see just how stupid it is

Grouping people is obviously not scientifically wrong or totally useless, but the now death scientific definitions of race tried to explain the developments of human societies based on these notions. Now show how is that those traits relate to the general history of those populations.
since you literally wrote word soup in this paragraph I had to guess what you meant. It also has nothing to do with your original statement, which was
>the scientific consensus is that the biological notion of race as traditionally define has no basis.
unless you were talking about this psudo science in your Wikipedia article, which bears no relevance to >>12596447 (who you wrote that in response to) who is talking about Watson and crick, who discovered dna, which is not pdudo science. neither are subspecies, which both blacks and whites are an example of, under most definitions. since the original post was talking about actual science it is disingenuous to bring up psudo science. as for what I said about Europeans, Chinese, and Arabs, it's just a random theory, and I only said it because your post made no sense, as I have explained above, and I had no idea what you were talking about.

[Anonymous No.12599384]

>>12599066
They can change, irish immigrants to the US used to have lower scores. In fact in 1984 the difference between protestant and catholic people in Ireland itself was as large as black and white in the US.

[Anonymous No.12599386]

The slight differences between human genomes cluster by geography at many scales and genomes from any
given location will most likely be similar (to be expected).

The most important part is that
selection may sometimes create genetic differences between populations but largely the differences are caused by RANDOM DRIFT. These arbitrary changes in genes have little to no effect on people’s biology or behavior.

[Anonymous No.12599393]

>>12599384
that's my whole point. Link to the Protestant/Catholic study btw?

[Anonymous No.12599421]

>>12599352
You'll have to read a few of Jensen's books, it's not technically """mainstream""" science, but it's held up to scrutiny and his methods are still being used in modern studies. I recommend "The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability", he outlines everything you need to know.
>otherwise I'd suspect that they would use it on iq tests already.
You suspect wrong. In general g loadings between races aren't touched with a 10 foot pole by researchers, are you some kind of stupid?

[DONT MIND ME STARTING A RENAIS(...) No.12599422]

https://pastebin.com/rL02eWyq


https://pastebin.com/Gx7H9Y8t

https://mega.nz/file/kagnGKiB#SLKksUTqj7_4-0WhSuXcK9rmxco-8pwhU1CzDKB9xh8

[Anonymous No.12599460]

>>12599421
>you'll have to read this quack's theories that were rejected by the rest of academia
ok
>In general g loadings between races

who said between races? if there is this magical test that measures g better than iq tests, which apparently Jensen only has access to, we would use that test instead of iq tests all together, as the whole point of iq tests are to measure g. as that has not happened, and as you are basically just telling me to read some random rejected guys work, I can assume that these tests are not actually any more g loaded than Iq tests. Also, even for questions on iq tests that are not g loaded, it wouldn't make sense that 3 yo children have gotten better at the less g loaded questions on iq tests by such a large amount over time. based on the lack of evidence (beside 'read this guy's books lol') I don't think I can accept your position that children have gotten multiple standards of deviations better at only low g loaded questions on iq tests at age 3 without studying (or even with studying but no 3 yo studies for iq tests) yet do worse on high g loaded questions. It doesn't make any sense.

[Anonymous No.12599468]

>>12596386
ok, average IQ is decreasing, but is the amount of high IQ people actually decreasing?

[Anonymous No.12599519]

>>12596386
>Here's your solution bro

[Anonymous No.12599577]

>>12596447
>implying there isn’t a biological basis for faggotry
>implying that race as we currently see it is not simply a generalization informed soley by physical features and not the actual genetics (aka a social structure)
>implying that climate change isn’t real
Based retard

[Anonymous No.12599590]

>>12599460
>if there is this magical test that measures g better than iq tests, which apparently Jensen only has access to
That's not what it is at all.

>the whole point of iq tests are to measure g.
That's not what Spearman's hypothesis is saying.

>based on the lack of evidence (beside 'read this guy's books lol') I don't think I can accept your position that children have gotten multiple standards of deviations better at only low g loaded questions on iq tests at age 3 without studying (or even with studying but no 3 yo studies for iq tests) yet do worse on high g loaded questions. It doesn't make any sense.
If it doesn't make any sense to you, then why not read a book to understand it? Reading is good for the brain.

Look anon, you don't need to get defensive. Besides, the "Jensen effect" wasn't even formulated by Jensen himself, it's real, read the studies, go to google scholar right now, type "Jensen effect". Jensen's method's are predicated on that g is mostly heritable, and approaches 80% heritability in adulthood. The point is to distinguish changes in environment (i.e. the 20%) from genetic effects on IQ, he's not a "quack", you're just hiding in the exact same way academics are hiding from the reality of "race" (population cluster) differences in IQ. Read the book, I'm not going to spoon-feed you this, or pirate it, a 200 page book can explain it better than I can.

[Anonymous No.12599593]

>>12599577
>>physical features and not the actual genetics
>implying that physical features are not related to actual genetics
>implying that physical features can't have highly specific correlations with specific sets of genes
Based literal retard

[Anonymous No.12599611]

>>12599593
>implying that physical features show the whole story and are 100% accurate to the genetics
>implying that groups that look similar must be genetically similar and vice versa
>implying that race was originally based on science and genetics, not “ooga booga dirty disgusting gross other tribe”
unbased retard

[Anonymous No.12599628]

>>12599611
ROFL you definitely study social sciences. i bet you find applied statistics to be challenging

[Anonymous No.12599644]

>>12599628
I’m a chemist. You are literally doing what the reddit soys do but in reverse. There are genetic differences between races, but races were not created to describe genetic differences, nor do they accurately describe all groups that have genetic differences.

[Anonymous No.12599652]

Next time do not give plethora of food to literal low IQ subhumans. It's your fault Ameritards.

[Anonymous No.12599672]

>>12599644
>i-i'm actually a chemist, not a sociologist, i-i swear!
>y-you're just being reddit!!
Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.12599682]

>>12599672
>y-you’re just a dumb libtard social science basedboy
do you have any arguments or are you just gonna keep seething?

[Anonymous No.12599688]

>>12599682
larping as a chemist, meanwhile i'm the one that's seething. alright lol

[Anonymous No.12599747]

>>12599688
Ok buddy. What I study has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments, I'm sure even you know that. I'd like you to refute what I've said.

Just for fun though, I'm taking a class on solar energy conversion right now. Ask me something about that if you don't believe I'm a chemist.

[Anonymous No.12599792]

>>12599393
Source: his coping asshole

[Anonymous No.12599933]

>>12599370
anon, you think 128 is good? lol

[Anonymous No.12599940]

>>12599933
not him
can one's IQ be raised?

[Anonymous No.12599945]

>>12599940
not when you ask questions like that

[Anonymous No.12599948]

>>12599933
>98th percentile is bad
Imagine if you called a 198cm man short

[Anonymous No.12599954]

>>12599945
i'm just curious, i know i'm a dumbdumb

[Anonymous No.12599957]

>>12596386
we are fucked

[Anonymous No.12599969]

>>12599954
IQ is just a number assigned to your intellect. You're asking if you can increase your intellect. The answer is "yes, if you work at it." Just get smarter and stop embracing that "dumbdumb" shit. It's not cute.

[Anonymous No.12600120]

>>12599370
These online iq tests don’t really work to gauge your actual iq.

[Anonymous No.12600138]

The other day I took an IQ test thats often recommended on 4chan, it gave me a score of 96IQ, but I scored really well on verbal IQ, 135. English is not my first language and is one of two foreign languages I speak fluently. I also find programming rather easy, other than math heavy problems on which I have to think long and hard. I'm still a dumbfuck right? It kind of came outta nowhere I was convinced I'd be like 120 at least

[Anonymous No.12600517]

>>12599332
You say it like a couple thousand years are significant on an evolutionary scale.
Waiting for Africans to become more intelligent is more sensible than enacting genocidal campaigns ( thus implicitly selecting for pro-genocide people, which means rather than worry about niggers "slowing down progress" everyone is certainly going to be afraid they're going to be next on the chopping block in perpetuity. )

[Anonymous No.12600670]

>>12600517
slippery slope fallacy

[Anonymous No.12601552]

>>12596447
t. bachelors degree

[Anonymous No.12601577]

There is no great filter.
There exist an upper bound on the level of technology that is possible to engineer, and it is far lower than what is required to be a space empire.
Very simple solution that agrees with all evidence.

[Anonymous No.12602179]

>>12596430
>no replies
surprised noone fell for this considering this is sci

[Anonymous No.12602187]

>>12599148
Cool?

[Anonymous No.12602290]

>>12599590
>That's not what Spearman's hypothesis is saying.
but that is what you said. I'll quote:
>We've seen a net loss in g across the board since the 1940s, despite changes in phenotypical IQ.
these changes you speak of have been an increase in IQ test performance as seen here:
>a study published in the year 2009 found that British children's average scores rose by 14 IQ points from 1942 to 2008.[2] Similar gains have been observed in many other countries in which IQ testing has long been widely used, including other Western European countries, Japan, and South Korea.[1]
now my question is:
if we are truly experiencing 'a net loss in g across the board since the 1940s', yet iq scores have gone up since that time, that means that there is a (much) better metric of measuring g than iq tests, because if not how could we know if g is declining when iq tests, which are supposed to measure g, say otherwise. and if so, why are we not using this other test that measures g better by an equivalent of at least 15 iq points? (the number 15 is obtained by the 14 point increase plus the fact that you said g is declining.) the answer is simple: you made up the fact that g is declining, and your wikipedia article did not mention g declining at all. what it did say is that the magnitude of difference between black and white intelligence tests is correlated to the g loading of test. It doesn't say g is declining. I didn't need to read a 200 page book to know that iq does not negativity measure for g, certainly not by 14 points.

[Anonymous No.12603604]

>>12602179
>fell for this
what do you mean? doesn't the total amount affect distribution?

[Anonymous No.12603847]

>>12600517
Well, Jews came into Europe at about 800 AD, and with some gentle nudging by Europeans gained 15IQ points to their average across just 700 years, admittedly they probably got a small boost from European admixture as well. Besides, isn't all evolution just torturing the species until it moves in the direction you want? I mean, you don't want stupid people, you kill off the stupid people, or sterilize them, that's literally the only way evolution can happen.

Waiting around for longer periods is practically just dragging out the process in an unnecessary way, those stupid people are going to have to die anyway.

[Anonymous No.12604431]

>>12596728
>>12596945
>>12597120
>>12599277
>>12599577
>>12601552
>>12599381
When I was writing this joke about extrapolation of data, I was phoneposting, and it was the only pic somewhat relevant to the topic, that I had at the time. I know that it doesn't make much sense, probably because I procured it over on /pol/. So, there is no reason to debunk it, by writing essays.

[Anonymous No.12604763]

>>12599292
IQ test intentionally includes lower g loaded subtests, because it actually makes them more useful. For example The WAIS-IV can help diagnosing Autism, ADHD, depression brain damage + a myriad of other shit, as a score profile with under-performance within the Memory and processing speed Indexes (less g loaded) indicates that the person may have a condition inhibiting performance, whist general intelligence is still unaffected. Secondly, within the same cohort, obviously the environmental impacts on intelligence (not general intelligence but FSIQ) is minimized almost entirely, because of the shared environment, therefore the differences in ability can be attributed to genetics, superficially making them more g loaded.

[Anonymous No.12604803]

>>12597083
>>12599148

How environmentally or genetically loaded performance on IQ tests differ depending who you are measuring. If you where to compare people from the same cohort, It is safe to assume their environment is mostly shared, thus the impacts of environment in predicting individual differences is then made negligible where genetics would probably make 90%+ of individual differences. If I where to introduce another person that has just woken up from a coma that he has been in since birth, and for good measure I give him brain damage with a baseball bat, then gave him an IQ test even if it was 0.8+ gloaded (the 0.2 that isn't g loaded will cuck him), His bad performance could almost entirely be attributed to environment not genetics.

General intelligence however is innate to environmental impacts, and is 86% heritable. Physical brain damage that lowers IQ test scores, is not deleterious to general intelligence (probably, this is confounded with the fact that stupid people, in regard to general intelligence get into more accidents) If brain damage does not affect g, I don’t think other environmental differences would either. (Study titled: Preservation of General Intelligence following Traumatic Brain Injury: Contributions of the Met66 Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor)

Even though IQ is 'subjective', General intelligence is not. The fact that we can't capture general intelligence perfectly is a flaw with IQ tests, not the nature of general intelligence.

[Anonymous No.12604864]

>>12597125
Nah the elites have been funnelling grain into africa for decades
Blame Kalergi's plan

[Anonymous No.12605408]

>>12604803
>If brain damage does not affect g
impossible

[Anonymous No.12606366]

>>12596397
>completely ignoring the fact that there was less of everything in 1700's France

[Anonymous No.12606489]

>>12596386
This image is moronic. IQ scores are always standardized to an mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, regardless of the underlying scores. This is why comparing current IQ scores to historical scores makes no sense.

But due to the normalization, even if your entire test population is a bunch of actual retards, the average IQ will be 100.

[Anonymous No.12606501]

>>12606489
They clamp.

[Anonymous No.12607447]

>>12605408
why?

[Anonymous No.12607462]

>>12606489
wetard

[Anonymous No.12607468]

>>12607462
>>12606489
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCckhxNXRZY

[Anonymous No.12607507]

>>12606489
maybe he means relative iq. anyway, he'll keep making these spam threads with the same image. the last one was actually pretty good. shame it got deleted earlier today

[Anonymous No.12607510]

>>12607507 (me)
just realized that was a different race-iq thread. nevermind

[Anonymous No.12607523]

>>12607447
it depends on the extent of the damage. if you are missing a part of your brain is damaged you cannot use it. this should be obvious. idk where you get the fact that brain damage does not affect g

[Anonymous No.12607833]

>>12598138
This. Wealth grows exponentially, so the distribution of wealth is also exponential. The really rich people are more like stewards of wealth.

[Anonymous No.12607840]

>>12596386
more niggers and less of everyone else, it's simple actually.

[Anonymous No.12607847]

>>12607840
average IQ of native white people and East asian people are still going down.

[Anonymous No.12607877]

>>12607847
Yes, native white people like Pedro Hernandez and Mohammed Akbar, and native east asian people like Phuc Nguyen and Pajeet Anand.

[Anonymous No.12607901]

>>12604431
>I was phoneposting
>I procured it over on /pol/.
So you plead guilty then?

[Anonymous No.12608097]

>>12607523
>it depends on the extent of the damage
you're right, >>12604803 was worded inaccurately. However it is found that the integrity of general intelligence is robustly safeguarded from deleterious environmental impacts, meanwhile non specialized components of intelligence, that are environmental sensitive, are the most vulnerable. (by specialized components of intelligence, I mean the factors that contribute to IQ score performance than isn't general intelligence, so the 0.2 of a 0.8 g loaded test.) what the current literate suggests is that brain damage caused from mal/denurishment and neurotoxins, like lead and shit, are not severe enough to affect g. And the same applies for most physical brain trauma.

> if you are missing a part of your brain is damaged you cannot use it
The association between brain size and IQ scores has a 'Flynn-like effect' (Brain size correlates with the specialized components of intelligence, as apposed to g, which is what the Flynn effect is picking up on, environmental increase in intelligence rather than a genuine increase in g), so when when you have brain atrophy and less brain (from mal/denurishment, neurotoxins and Traumatic Brain Injury) you are missing the non-g parts of your brain so to speak. Only once the brain dammage is severe enough, the integrity of g is last to be damaged.

>when you get hit in the head, you can't choose what part of your brain damaged
no, but you body can preemptively protect particular structures

As of why? pretty much all of human history, humans have been mal/denurishment, been exposed to shit they shouldn't like lead, and bashing each others heads in. It would be evolutionary adaptable to preserve the most generally useful components of intelligence, that being g, at the expense of the more environmental and less important bits.

pic rel has high g

[Anonymous No.12608164]

>>12607877
no your Aryan race is also becoming less intelligent

[Anonymous No.12608182]

>>12602290
It went up but it's been dropping since the 90s
Google reverse flynn effect

[Anonymous No.12608236]

>>12608182
that's just an artifact of increased immigration

[Anonymous No.12608273]

>>12607877
>Phuc Nguyen and Pajeet Anand.
dont diss my niguhs phuc and pajeet like that. they wuz kangs n sheet

[Anonymous No.12608843]

>>12608236
False since the change has been documented in non-natives over decades.

[Anonymous No.12608916]

>the drake equation
>>the fermi paradox
>>>the great filter

[Anonymous No.12608964]

>>12599285
1. phenotypes is a better suited name rather than "race".
2. from what I understand, there are more genetic diversity between members of each "race" than between these populations. Yes, there are adaptations due to living in different climate such as skin tone etc, but they are not nearly as significant or go as deep as racists wants to believe.

[Anonymous No.12608993]

>>12608964
>from what I understand, there are more genetic diversity between members of each "race" than between these populations.

All races more or less have the same genes, however allele frequencies between races is what creates race differences.

When you look at only one gene at the time, there is more variation within races then between races. However when you look at multiple genes at once, the more genes you consider, the more accurately you can predict what race the individual belongs to.

When you do it with enough races and graph it, it looks like pic rel

[Anonymous No.12608995]

>>12608964
>Yes, there are adaptations due to living in different climate such as skin tone etc
"ect" includes IQ and personality differences as well.

[Anonymous No.12609005]

>>12596386
heres a better graph. ignore anything before 1950 that was just to show iq level 0.

[Anonymous No.12609007]

>>12609005
first 3 digits are you IQ

[Anonymous No.12609008]

>>12608993
there is still no point in calling it race. There are no distinct human races, only some small variations based on what location these people have lived and evolved in.

I recommend this article by a professor in biological anthropology :https://www.sapiens.org/biology/is-race-real/

"When medical professionals or researchers look for a genetic correlate to “race,” they are falling into a trap: They assume that geographic ancestry, which does indeed matter to genetics, can be conflated with race, which does not. Sure, different human populations living in distinct places may statistically have different genetic traits—such as sickle cell trait (discussed below)—but such variation is about local populations (people in a specific region), not race."

[Anonymous No.12609011]

>>12609008
I'd say there is even reason to not call it race, as you lose the baggage that you get when you use that word.

[Anonymous No.12609012]

>>12608993
>When you do it with enough races and graph it
When you do it with enough GENES*

[Anonymous No.12609029]

>>12596447
Doesn't realize Linnaean classification is absolutely shit and had to have numerous other taxa squeezed in because of how arbitrary and shit it is.
cladograms are superior in every regard.

[Anonymous No.12609034]

>>12609007
>are you IQ

[Anonymous No.12609050]

>>12609007
>first 3 digits

[Anonymous No.12609129]

>>12609008
from the article you linked

Firstly, notice how politically loaded the entire article is. halve of the links from that article is political. Also how much persuasive and 'poisoning of the well' type language is being used rather than the type of scientific vernacular you would read in a journal article, anyway.

>Race is a highly flexible way in which societies lump people into groups based on appearance that is assumed to be indicative of deeper biological or cultural connections.
Yep that's why AI Algorithms can accurately predict ethnic race based of photos.

>That’s because humans are not divisible into biological races. On top of that, human variation does not stand still. “Race groups” are impossible to define in any stable or universal way. It cannot be done based on biology—not by skin color, bone measurements, or genetics. It cannot be done culturally: Race groupings have changed over time and place throughout history.
"It cannot be done based on ... genetics ... culturally"
Funnily enough, categorizations formulated by Cultural Anthropologists, come up with the same racial clusters as >>12608993 pic rel, independently of each other.

>Science 101: If you cannot define groups consistently, then you cannot make scientific generalizations about them.
We can't consistently define Metals (and a lot of chemistry concepts), yet we still make generalization about them because it is useful to do so, and accurate predictions can be made.
Similarly no we cannot define groups consistently, but even with our flawed categorizations, we can create accurate and useful predictions based off of them.

A lot of the article is just the Lewontin's fallacy, which is just the whole "variations within vs between races" from >>12608993
Also, self reports of race is mostly accurate (around 75% so not perfect) at predicting genetic admixture.
see: Comparing genetic ancestry and self-reported race/ethnicity in a multiethnic population in New York City

[Anonymous No.12609132]

>>12609034
im 007

[Anonymous No.12609138]

>>12609050
oh i meant last oops, also that makes you a midwit ... stupid.

[Anonymous No.12609198]

>>12596447
That picture is actually retarded and it shows whoever made it and supports it has no idea what science is or who those people were.
Ask Feynman's thoughts on Maxwell and he'd probably call him a dirty capitalist/monarchist.
Ask Maxwell's thoughts on Euler and he'd call him a racist
Ask Euler's thoughts on Newton and he'd call him a religious nutjob

Every generation is going to differ slightly than the previous, yet the overall message stays the same. Newton couldn't even comprehend how the brain worked, yet now we can map out every single neuron and the electrons' paths so well that we can basically map an image to people's thoughts. Who's in the wrong here, a machine that can literally read minds or an alchemist? Yet there isn't one scientist worth their salt who would discredit Newton for his beliefs, nor do scientists ever bring up 3/4th of what's on that list on the right.

>t. someone who went to a university for 4 years, has worked in a lab for 5 and hasn't seen any of this so called activism in either environment.

[Anonymous No.12609218]

>>12596447
>Tesla on the 'serious' side
opinion discarded
and source, citation, iq and highest degree please

[Anonymous No.12609231]

>>12609129
>Yep that's why AI Algorithms can accurately predict ethnic race based of photos.
Based on it's data. If we got another group of data using different standards things would be off.

[Anonymous No.12609236]

>>12608993
Sickle Cell isn't uniform among Blacks, Indians or Mediterraneans.

[Anonymous No.12609259]

>>12608993
>niggers are literally a different species
KEK

[Anonymous No.12609280]

>>12607901
What poster are you? What should I plead guilty for?

[Anonymous No.12609328]

>>12609198
>yet now we can map out every single neuron and the electrons' paths so well that we can basically map an image to people's thoughts.
This is not true

[Anonymous No.12609332]

>>12597083
So if I raise my dog the right way he can grow up to be a rocket scientist?

[Anonymous No.12609402]

bros...

[Anonymous No.12609416]

There's your great filter.

36-75 year old white males are holding up the economy

[Anonymous No.12609444]

>>12609402
How do you get sub 100 in an online iq test

[Anonymous No.12609492]

>>12597090
What??

[Anonymous No.12609506]

>>12596447
>agnostic

[Anonymous No.12609512]

>>12597073
as true as that is, would you say white people's IQ has dropped over the las decades? Our modern lifestyle deff makes it very plausible, can't really know since we get hordes of niggers and taconiggers every year

[Anonymous No.12609515]

>>12609444
this

[Anonymous No.12609769]

>>12608097
>Neither environmental factors hampering to growth as malnutrition combined with brain trauma, nor those augmenting to growth as a big fat legacy usually provides, have significant effect on intelligence, provided I define intelligence in mutually contradictory terms for two distinct sub-systems of it.
No marks for talent, full marks for the Dunkirk spirit.

[Anonymous No.12610298]

IQ is 100% genetic.

[Anonymous No.12610324]

>>12596447
Cringe and wrong af.
From an actual scientist.

[Anonymous No.12610325]

>>12597073
Back to pol, retard.

[Anonymous No.12610331]

>>12610324
What do you study, dilating ?

[Anonymous No.12610334]

>>12609029
>Trying to educate a shitlord about science.

[Anonymous No.12610341]

>>12610325
he's not wrong libtard

[Anonymous No.12610344]

>>12596386
I think this only applies to right-wing edgelords.
In reality land, IQs have been increasing steadily with every generation.
Google Flynn effect.

[Anonymous No.12610453]

>>12610344
The pic in OP is based on how the growing population of the third world relative to the first world causes a decline in average IQ worldwide. Flynn effect doesn't take this into account.

I think many people are misguided about the Flynn effect, and posting the picture you just posted proves that. Even conceptually it doesn't make sense, according to the picture our great grandparents would clinically be considered borderline retarded today. This obviously falls on its face.

First of all, it is important to note that the Flynn effect was not on general intelligence, but appeared to be largely the result of changing item properties over the years. There is a correlation of -.38 between score gains from the Flynn effect and g-loading. [1][2]

Secondly, the Flynn effect has stopped in the developed world in recent years[3], and in fact we have seen a reverse effect in some countries in recent years, which is in fact g-loaded. [4]

[1] https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0VDoaXaIou8a2o1ZXV1cjBsQUU/edit
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289613000226#
[3] https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.10.002
[4] https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.12.022

[Anonymous No.12610494]

>>12609008
These aren't small variations, they're small variantions in each gene across the entire genome. In a genome wide context that turns into large variation.

I've heard the "more variation within than between" argument so many times now and I can't help but think the people that say it have no idea what they're talking about. It's like saying biological sex is a meaningless category because there is more variation in height within males than between males and females.

[Anonymous No.12610593]

>>12610344
>Google Flynn effect.
wow i didn't know his death had an effect on iq

[Anonymous No.12610646]

>>12608964

[Anonymous No.12610710]

>>12610453
The pic in OP is bullshit and is unsourced.
There is a place to be an ignorant racist retard, and it is >>>pol

[Anonymous No.12610735]

>>12610646
Another racist retard.
You clearly don't understand the first thing about math or biology.
Even if you look at your own graph, you will see that there is more variation within clusters than across them.

[Anonymous No.12610749]

>>12610453
The Flynn effect is plateauing in the west, but it is still going on in Africa.
So eventually average IQ will be the same around the world.

[Anonymous No.12610784]

>>12610710
Do you have any criticisms of what I said or not?
This is the science board, not the anti-racist activism board. Present your argument or leave.

>>12610735
What conclusion do you draw from more variation within than between?

>>12610749
The Flynn effect is actually reversing in some western countries, I've already demonstrated that in the post you're replying to.

What would suggest that the Flynn effect hasn't stopped in Africa? And how would you infer from that that crossnational IQ will be equal everywhere in the future? This rests on the assumption that g is equal crossnationally which you have failed to demonstrate.

[Anonymous No.12610847]

>>12610735
As it turns out, there also appears to be more variation within dog breeds than between them. In the mind of a blank slate ideologue, this means dog breeds are meaningless categories.

https://sci-hub.se/https://science.sciencemag.org/content/304/5674/1160.abstract

[Anonymous No.12610935]

>>12608964
>go as deep as racists wants to believe.
I don't think race is the be all end all as many here do but it is a factor and predict many things with high accuracy.

[Anonymous No.12610945]

>>12608843
yes but at a lower pace of from a lower starting point. flyn will max out in american whites before it will in mexicans immigrants

[Anonymous No.12610956]

>>12599370
mensa norway only tests MR(matrix reasoning) they are many indexes of intelligence. Do not think you are sub 130 IQ because of a single test.

[Anonymous No.12610969]

>>12599940
no, it cannot be raised.

[Anonymous No.12610973]

>>12597073
>>africa balloons in population
>>average IQ drops

It is almost like there is a correlation between the two?

[Anonymous No.12610976]

>>12610956
Oh no, how awful it must be to not be above the 98th percentile!

[Anonymous No.12610985]

>>12610969
IQ can easily be raised. Just take the test twice and you will score higher. The latent variable that IQ tests aim to measure however, can not be raised.

[Anonymous No.12610999]

>>12610593
yes after his death the average iq went down 30%. it is estimated his iq was in the hundreds of millions. RIP in peace

[Anonymous No.12611003]

>>12609402
mensa norway is only accurate to test matrix reasoning of 115+, so it isn't accurate. But you are for sure <115

[Anonymous No.12611010]

>>12610784
>What would suggest that the Flynn effect hasn't stopped in Africa?
what would suggest that it did? or even that it has even taken effect in the first place to have stopped?

[Anonymous No.12611013]

>>12610985
that is the practice effect, your test score raises, but your raw ability stays the same.

[Anonymous No.12611022]

>>12611013
that's what he said

[Anonymous No.12611033]

>>12611022
my bad i skimmed it, im dumb dumb

[Anonymous No.12611097]

>>12611033
don't be so hard on yourself anon

[Anonymous No.12611124]

>>12611097
kk

[Anonymous No.12611166]

>>12611010
What would suggest that IQ scores have been increasing in recent years in Africa?

[Anonymous No.12611237]

>>12610453
>our great grandparents would clinically be considered borderline retarded today. This obviously falls on its face.
not really. subsaharan africans, who have not benefited from the flyn effect (yet), have an average iq of ~68 iirc.

[Anonymous No.12611264]

>>12611237
I do not see the similarity in the cognitive ability of Europeans from 1900 and Africans today. If their IQ were similar, why hasn't Africa been able to initiate an industrial revolution yet?

[Anonymous No.12611323]

>>12611264
>why hasn't Africa been able to initiate an industrial revolution yet?
Lower % of arabal land

[Anonymous No.12611355]

>>12611323
I said industrial revolution, not agricultural revolution. Also, Nigeria has roughly the same amount of arable land as France yet there are two standard deviations in IQ between them.

[Anonymous No.12611423]

>>12611237
You think the generation that had the most macro innovations per capita of all of known human history, invented the industrial revolution, and spearheaded scientific development in physics, chemistry and math had an average IQ comparable to Subsaharan Africans? In many metrics of intelligence that are more innate to environmental impacts, the Victorian era was was the most intelligence in regards to g.

[Anonymous No.12611452]

>>12609236
Okay?

[Anonymous No.12611468]

>>12610976
thank goodness im the 98%, if I was only the 97.5% i would have killed myself ages ago. It makes a big difference :)

[Anonymous No.12611508]

>>12611423
>>12611355
fine, I admit blacks are inferior (for now). I just like to think they can become smart within the next 100 years. to your point about the industrial revolution specifically, you cannot have one if everyone is working in agriculture, which can only happen if you have a surplus of food (see agricultural revolution effect in england). although truthfully, I can't see any situation were blacks improve, unless something drastic happens.
>the Victorian era was was the most intelligence in regards to g.
not necessarily true. the reason for the industrial revolution was mainly the agricultural revolution, which was the effect of just a few inventions which were not so high tech/hard to come up with. I don't think there is a great difference in g now than then in whites.

[Anonymous No.12611542]

>>12609769
>Neither environmental factors hampering to growth as malnutrition combined with brain trauma, nor those augmenting to growth as a big fat legacy usually provides, have significant effect on intelligence
I never said that, i specifically said general intelligence, which was the subject of the discussion if you scroll up in the thread.
Also I did say how deleterious environmental factors are damaging to intelligence, just not general intelligence.

>provided I define intelligence in mutually contradictory terms for two distinct sub-systems of it.
I used the current definition of general intelligence.

[Anonymous No.12611563]

If 3rd worlders were as smart as twitter and facebook say, then every black neighborhood would be a wakanda. Since it is obvious that black people, for example, are not smart (look at ANY black hood) and you start to plainly see that black people and 3rd worlders in general are inferior.

If you keep your eyes closed and believe that facebook is truthful, not only are you objectively fucken stupid, but you are also genetic trash and you MUST kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.12611583]

>>12611563
I have an IQ of 90, and having my 5th Child, seeth wite boy. If wite pepo are superior, how come y'all going extinct. Ill tell you what, white women are superior at taking BBC thats for sure.

[Anonymous No.12611590]

>>12611508
>I just like to think they can become smart within the next 100 years.
African IQ would increase as their environment got better, but it would stop around 80 IQ. Other than that I see no reason for optimism, because looking at the documented IQ of African Americans relative to whites, the gap has fluctuated very little even among the most severe environmental interventions such as the abolition of slavery and the introduction of education to African Americans. The only increase in IQ for African Americans we will see is due to admixture with other groups, which basically means making them less African.

[Anonymous No.12611600]

>>12610973
We're in for a wild ride lmao

[Anonymous No.12611602]

>>12596793
>everyone is equally intelligent by definition
Will you leftists ever try to not be retarded?

[Anonymous No.12611604]

>>12607833
>Wealth grows exponentially, so the distribution of wealth is also exponential
Eggsplain

[Anonymous No.12611619]

>>12610735
>ad hom
>ad hom
>Loki's wager
lmao

[Anonymous No.12611625]

>>12611508
>I just like to think they can become smart within the next 100 years
they're less intelligence for both genetic and environmental reasons, for any Flynn effect could be exposed to, that well will dry fast.

Also everyone globally is becoming less intelligent (in regards to g, the most genetic component of intelligence) for genetic reasons, and this has been going on since the Victorian era, hence "the Victorian era was was the most intelligence in regards to g." Look up "the Woodley effect" (decline in g) and the "co-occorence model" (decline in g, simultaneously with an environmental enrichment to intelligence, aka the Flynn effect) There's a lot of research on it. I couldn't be bothered spoon feeding it to you, that wouldn't be productive anyway.

Also pic related is how we distinguish if IQ differences are for genetic or environmental reasons between populations I typed up on an older thread if you could be bothered to read it.

[Anonymous No.12611695]

>>12611625
>There's a lot of research on it. I couldn't be bothered spoon feeding it to you, that wouldn't be productive anyway.
if it's true it's probably because smart people today go to school for 4-8 more years than stupid people (at least on average) and therefore have less children
>pic
lol did you see my response? the thread got deleted, I can't believe your the same guy.
>>/sci/thread/S12602942#p12605456
I'll just quote it here:
>this was a good read, although p1 was not needed.

jensen's method of corelated vectors does have issues. one is that it can establish spearman's corelation that the size of the black-white gap is positivly corelated to g loading but cannnot prove the gap is due to differences in g. the other is that mcv produces wierd results on other types of test. you can read more here:
https://research.vu.nl/ws/files/1751525/Lubke%20Multivariate%20Behavioral%20Research%2036(3)%202001%20u.pdf
https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.intell.2004.12.004
https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.intell.2016.11.002

[Anonymous No.12611697]

>>12611695
forgot to add '>' two the second paragraph but you get the idea

[Anonymous No.12611707]

>>12611590
iq could increase by inducing selective breeding and could be sped up multiple centuries by colonization (china) or possibly genetic modifications (bill gates??)

[Anonymous No.12611729]

>>12611697
*to, and in my last post *you're. I'm phoneposting currently if that wasn't already obvious

[Anonymous No.12611795]

>>12611695
nah i didn't

[Anonymous No.12611805]

>>12611795
well if you have time I'd love to hear what you have to say about criticisms of mcv as well as the Jensen's conclusions from mcv assuming it is reliable. doesn't have to be as long as the your other post (preferably not, actually)

[Anonymous No.12611830]

>>12611695
>one is that it can establish spearman's corelation that the size of the black-white gap is positivly corelated to g loading but cannnot prove the gap is due to differences in g.
That's true, except I believe its assumed that the gap is due to differences in g as there is no known evidence to prove otherwise, and it would simply be impossible to definitively prove differences are because g, until we have a perfectly 100% g loaded test. The fact that the Relationship is positively correlated to g loading is just indicative that it is on g nonetheless.

your response was fruitful, to bad i didn't see it the first time.

[Anonymous No.12611860]

>>12611600

The influx of Africans into Europe will start in increase to crazy high levels, millions a year.
Europe's standard of living will start to fall, crime will go up, govt welfare programs will crack then break.
By the time the natives wake up to the crisis it will be too late.

[Anonymous No.12611871]

>>12611830
yeah we can say that Jenson has a definite proof to spearman's correlation and a good proof to spearman's hypothesis (his hypothesis was what Jenson said was confirmed using mcv). there is also the question of weather mcv is a good method, but I didn't really read the full paper, just that using mcv on tests that should not result in Jenson effects did (or something like that).
you wouldn't also happen to be the anon that posted pic related in a thread recently (about a day ago?) that would really be a crazy coincidence.

[Anonymous No.12611872]

>>12611805
I don't think i have the time now unfortunatly, I'll have a look into it another time though.
imma leave, Too-da-loo

[Anonymous No.12611881]

>>12611871
>you wouldn't also happen to be the anon that posted pic related in a thread recently (about a day ago?) that would really be a crazy coincidence.
yep that was me.

[Anonymous No.12611893]

>>12596447
Based and correct af
From an actual scientist.

[Anonymous No.12611896]

>>12611881
no I don't believe it, that's nuts honestly. then again something seemed similar in your writing, which is why I asked in the first place. well, if true, I apologise for being rude earlier. have a good night

[Anonymous No.12611954]

>>12611600
Who the fuck is feeding them?

[Anonymous No.12611972]

>>12596447
>tesla
>scientist

[Anonymous No.12611979]

>>12599277
Then how can forensic anthropologists tell someones race from their bones?

[Anonymous No.12612054]

>>12611602
The definition of IQ includes that the average is 100. Prob ESL.

[Anonymous No.12612056]

>>12611979
There's often a lot of guess work. Also they use race because it's easy to say and relay the info then going really into the hardcore details.

[Anonymous No.12612064]

Real talk why are people on this site so obsessed with Africans. It's not like we are aliens or that the things that occur in every other part of the world completely dies not work in Africa. Education is growing, literacy rates are reaching higher levels AND more kids are attaining higher levels of education more then previous generations ever did.

[Anonymous No.12612067]

>>12600120
Maybe you are just smart anon. There are a lot of dumb people in this world. You're probably right, though, but for reasons you didn't mention.

[Anonymous No.12612070]

>>12612064
it's a long story. anyway I ha e a hard time believing you live in Africa. and if so why are you on this site? just asking

[Anonymous No.12612083]

>>12609402
Its okay anon. 2D girls will always be there for you.

[Anonymous No.12612103]

>>12612064
American politics and schooling.

[Anonymous No.12612108]

>>12611893
Taking a bio course in high school doesn't make you a scientist retard

[Anonymous No.12612143]

>>12609218
Tesla is one among only a handful of hyperintelligent men who have walked this Earth. He was a very common sense man. You should read some of his interviews. In the early 1920s, Tesla accurately predicted the evolution of feminism, stating that men would essentially be enslaved to women through the government, that the nuclear family would be destroyed, that single-motherhood would rise, and that culture would gradually erode as a result of rampant degeneracy.

[Anonymous No.12612173]

>>12609218
Tesla is one among only a handful of hyperintelligent men who have walked this Earth. He was a very common sense man. You should read some of his interviews. Tesla accurately predicted the evolution of feminism, stating that men would essentially be enslaved to women through the government, that the nuclear family would be destroyed, that single-motherhood would rise, and that civilization would gradually erode as a result of rampant degeneracy.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8847739-in-1924-nikola-tesla-was-asked-why-he-never-married

[Anonymous No.12612179]

>>12610341
Proof, poltard?

[Anonymous No.12612182]

>>12610973
Link the article retard. No one's going to believe you because the saw one (1) info-graph. This isn't fucking /pol/

[Anonymous No.12612190]

>>12612173
Doesn't matter. Engineer != scientist.
Only brainlets and morons who don't really understand science would put him there.

[Anonymous No.12612966]

>>12603847
evolution doesnt care about intelligence.

[Anonymous No.12612972]

>>12609138
ITs ok anon i forgive you. We all make mistakes. cheer up mate no hard feelings. here's an icecream.

[Anonymous No.12612982]

>>12609416
Great filter no, but pretty interesting. Great filter is the drop in avg IQ

[Anonymous No.12613380]

>>12612054
you just repeated yourself, retard. 100 is the reference point for a specific group of people. if you compare a second group with the first then the second group will have a lower or higher average based on their performance. you anti-IQers are so goddamn cringe with your "b-b-but muh definitions"

[Anonymous No.12613396]

>>12610325
>only pol realizes Africans are fucking stupid and couldn't get anything done in 1,000,000 years

nice cope

[Anonymous No.12613497]

>>12596386
I'm not as pessimistic, I predict that industrial society is a self-regulating system. At the moment, the decline of IQ is allowed insofar as it hasn't had drastic consequences (such as collapse of industries or infrastructure), however the minute where the burden of the low IQ threatens the industrial-capitalist machine is the minute where niggers go back to their old place of being exhibited in the primate section of the Bronx zoo.

[Anonymous No.12613512]

>>12609280
Guilty of being a retarded phoneposting /pol/ak that should get the fuck off /sci/.

[Anonymous No.12613744]

>>12613497
>sorathic Evil
>self-regulating
Stupid goyim filth.