IQ and race

[Anonymous No.9375285]

What do evolutionary biologists, neuroscientists and other related subfields think of IQ tests as an accurate measurement of intellectual capacity?

Is there any reason to believe that human ethnic groups evolved genetically to have different average intellectual capacities?

[Anonymous No.9375294]

>>9375285
IQ doesn't mean shit.

[7 No.9375300]

>>9375285

My IQ is probably around 100. I've rarely met another person as perceptive to meta-physics as me, it's not magic....just physics.

Inherit Intuition>Learned Labor

[Anonymous No.9375305]

Not-OP but I fucking hate IQ posts so I won't create another one.

What do Gaussians say about the relative percentage of IQ geniuses?

Say we have two populations whose IQ distribution is a Gaussian, both with variance 1, but blue people have mean 90 while red people have mean 100.
If a genius is someone whose IQ>G, then how does (% blue G's)/(% red G's) behave? Say, eg for G=150. And 160? etc.

[Anonymous No.9375369]

>>9375305
>I fucking hate IQ posts

why

[Anonymous No.9375383]

>>9375285
There will never, ever, be an einstein with an IQ of <100.

Therefore

>>9375294
>>9375300
>>9375305

Are factually wrong.

Read pic related.

[Anonymous No.9375390]

Oh look, its this thread. AGAIN.

The same thread we've had everyday for the past 10 years.

And Oh look! The same replies, AGAIN, the same ones we've had everyday FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS

Sage, Report and hide.

[Anonymous No.9375410]

>What do evolutionary biologists, neuroscientists and other related subfields think of IQ tests as an accurate measurement of intellectual capacity?

It varies and despite the belief that scientists are often objective, it will normally be a combination of what they've read, how high their IQ is, how intelligent they believe they are and with race, how they see other races and their relationship with people of other races. This is often applicable to both sides people who see and don't see racial differences.

tl;dr: People and scientists think they're none emotional, they are they're likely to mix in their logic and education in with personal emotions.

Also this >>9375390 guy has a point.

[Anonymous No.9375464]

>>9375305
So I did the math and... If IQ was represented by the Gaussian exp(-t^2). If blacks have an average IQ of 0 and whites of 1/8. Let E(t) be the percentage of blacks with IQ>t. We note E(2)=0.23%, let's pick 2 as the minimum IQ for geniuses.

How many geniuses do blacks have? E(2)=0.23% How many geniuses do whites have? E(2+1/8)= 0.13% About double. So difference of 1/8 in IQ creating double the geniuses. Double is pretty small. I don't know. Someone smart help me out please.


Note: I define E(t)=(erf(-t+c)+1)/2. Or some shit like that. I don't know.

>>9375383
>Are factually wrong.
I didn't assert shit, and yet I'm factually wrong. If you're going to kill yourself please don't leave it for tomorrow.

>>9375369
They tend to be boring. Btw do you know what race realists mean by regression to the mean? Do they mean that the IQ of two white geniuses will tend to regress to average IQ of whites? Because this seems wrong. Because I don't see the utility of the correct non-fallacious regression to the mean, to race realists.

[Anonymous No.9375513]

>>9375464
What I said was factually true therefore any diverging opinions are not based on fact>false.

[Anonymous No.9375525]

>>9375285
Blacks and Abos are in average retarded, Asians are pretty smart

[Anonymous No.9375535]

>>9375513
I didn't offer a diverging opinion.

[Anonymous No.9375540]

>>9375525
Mexicans bring down the average IQ of hispanics by a looot. Also the fact that only 53% percent of hispanics are white and only 0.4% are asians.
(Spanish-British-American Here)

[Anonymous No.9375606]

>>9375540
What are your sources for these claims

[Anonymous No.9376329]

Hmmm, I suspect that IQ only makes a large difference when the IQ is 75 or lower. 80 to 120 can all function the same. Can't say anything about above 120 IQ people, because I've probably only ever met one person who I would consider genius. So that's too small a sample size to draw my rookie generalization.

Thoughts on this /sci/ckos?

[Anonymous No.9376330]

>>9375285
>What do evolutionary biologists, neuroscientists and other related subfields think of IQ tests as an accurate measurement of intellectual capacity?
They think IQ is a valid and accurate metric to measure intelligence.

Then you have reddit crossposters who spout inanities like "IQ tests only measure how well you do on IQ tests!!11!" while quoting the huffington post as their source.

[Anonymous No.9376504]

>another pseudoscience thread
Hmm...?

[Anonymous No.9376508]

>>9376504
how is it a pseudoscience thread?

[Anonymous No.9376530]

>>9375464
Your math is so obviously wrong...why would you calculate E(2+1/8) for whites? If you're representing black with the standard normal distribution, and assume no difference in variance, then blacks have probability 0.03 of being geniuses, and whites have probability 0.04. Of course that's not actually how it works in real life, the gap is much larger, but I digress.

>>9375305
The limit of (% blue G's)/(% red G's) as G tends to infinity is 0, assuming red has the higher mean and same normal distributions otherwise.

[Anonymous No.9376535]

>>9376329
The difference between someone with 80 IQ and 120 IQ is pretty massive. So is the difference between 100 and 80, or 120 and 100. I suppose it depends on how you define "function the same".

[Anonymous No.9376543]

>>9376329

i dunno, people with an IQ of 90 can be pretty fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.9376557]

>another IQ thread

[Anonymous No.9376931]

>>9375285
Why do these studies always discern between different Asian and Jewish ethnicities, yet all gentile Europeans are lumped together? English with Irish, northern Italian with southern, all into one group. And why is variance never reported?

[Anonymous No.9376971]

>>9376931
euroean piporu rook or the same to us

[Anonymous No.9376982]

>>9375285
It's absurd. Read the literature on biological individuality. Quantifiable measures like IQ are entirely insufficient to capture anything close to the quality of intelligence. Biological determinism doesn't have much to do with differences in intelligence when talking about populations. Individuals vary widely and are biologically determined, though excluding extreme outliers like "genius" and cognitively disabled persons, development plays a larger role than genetic determinism in an individuals intelligence. Furthermore what does intelligence equate to in life? I have met plenty of very intelligent people who are absolutely worthless, lazy, unscrupulous, and undiscerning.The difference between intelligence and wisdom is huge. There are other qualities just as desirable as intelligence like empathy and outgoingness, diligence, humility, moral integrity, openness to experience, and creativity.
This is what I have to say as a philosopher of biology, ecologist and world traveler.
To stress my point, populations are not individuals.

[Anonymous No.9377738]

>>9375285
> What do evolutionary biologists, neuroscientists and other related subfields think of IQ tests as an accurate measurement of intellectual capacity?
The IQ test explains a fair amount of variance in both academic performance and career outcomes. Unsurprising since work for which demand and supply meet at a high salary point depends on specialized academic training. Being good at things like rotating objects and making analogies underlies good performance on lots of technical tasks.
> Is there any reason to believe that human ethnic groups evolved genetically to have different average intellectual capacities?
Quite possibly, especially if you (falsely) assume it's possible to control for things like stereotype threat, epigenetics, and socioeconomic status.

But despite what poltards say, there's very little reason to assume ethnicity makes a categorical difference in the kind of work you can do or the sort of citizen you can be, otherwise you'd expect there to be eg literally no black CEOs, university professors, or research scientists. I'd be okay with getting rid of affirmative action like Berkeley has, but policies targeting race because of IQ differences in groups are the respite of racists who for the most part have themselves contributed nothing substantive to advancing society.

[Anonymous No.9378896]

>>9375285
>evolved different
Yes. That's why Amerindians are superior to europeans. How is this hard to get?

[Anonymous No.9378949]

>>9377738
>affirmative action like Berkeley

How under the rock are you? Berkeley hasn't done AA in years! Infact if it was a person it could post here cuz it's 20 years old.

[Anonymous No.9378953]

>>9378949
If the law was a person I mean

[Anonymous No.9379104]

>>9375285
>Is there any reason to believe that human ethnic groups evolved genetically to have different average intellectual capacities?
Let's run a tought experiment.

Take 1 million of proto-humans with an IQ of 75. They evolved in an environment without harsh wheather, with food plentiful throughout the year and with only a few poisonous plants and big predators to worry about. They don't need to be very ingenious or technological to survive, just band together to scare off big predators and to kill big preys, learn how to light fire and create stone utensils, and they're golden.

Keep half of them (population A) in that same environment.

Put the other half (population B) in a much harsher environment, with 4 months of winter where food is pretty much absent, thereby forcing the population to learn how to exploit their environment to produce much more food than naturally, how to store the surplus for the winter, how to create shelters and clothes capable of protecting them from the sub zero cold, how to create tools to cultivate the soil efficiently enough, how to cooperate in order to survive, etc. And of course they too have to worry about poisonous plants and large predators.

After 500 generations, which result will we observe?
>1) Both populations still have the same intelligence.
>2) Population A's intelligence stayed the same, population B's increased as an reaction to their unforgiving environment.

[Anonymous No.9379134]

>>9379104
Racist

[Anonymous No.9379153]

>>9379134
good argument

[Anonymous No.9379160]

>>9379134
>>>/pol/
fag

[Anonymous No.9379406]

Could you imagine living in a country with a average iq of 59. That would mean that people with iq under 40 wouldn't be too uncommon

[Anonymous No.9379435]

>>9379406
Do you ever meet people in public and they seem like they're generally unaware of their surroundings? Like you run into them at the grocery store and the look on their face is "where is eggs" and there's no other thought in their head.

That's what I imagine that to be like except also at the doctor's office.

[Anonymous No.9379444]

>>9379435

absent mindedness isn't necessarily a sign of low-intelligence.

>>9379406

makes you wonder why first-world africans score higher. probably a combination of nutrition, schooling, white admixture and fudged numbers.

given that it's such a divisive topic, i imagine the numbers are very fudged.

[Anonymous No.9379463]

>>9379406

but it's an interesting question. an iq of <60 is considered a severe disability in most first-world countries. how can we pretend that racial differences in intelligence are mostly environmental?

[Anonymous No.9379474]

If an Ashkenazi Jew baby and an Aboriginal Australian baby were raised by the same parents under the exact same controllable circumstances up to the age of 18 would they be of similar intelligence?

[Anonymous No.9379476]

>>9379444
I'm talking super absent mindedness, like when they appear to not even be real people. Does no one else feel like some people aren't even self aware?

[Anonymous No.9379478]

>>9379474
Why not?

[Anonymous No.9379483]

>>9379478
I don't know I'm legitimately asking, I'm unfamiliar how strong the consensus is on genetics and intelligence.

[Anonymous No.9379488]

>>9379476
>like when they appear to not even be real people

some people are less expressive than others.

[Anonymous No.9379492]

>>9379474
Probabilistically? No.

[Anonymous No.9379495]

>>9379476
>they ignore me so they aren't real people
lol

[Anonymous No.9379501]

>>9379406
I’ve lived in a country with an IQ below 70, they acted the same way people do in America. Lmao, they aren’t absent
minded at all.

Those tests are pointless considering that almost all the black people I know in STEM are African, can you explain why Africans are some of the most educated people in this country (America)?

[Anonymous No.9379508]

>>9379444
Are you fucking retarded? White admixture doesn’t account for the boost in intelligence, it’s all based on environmental factors.

[Anonymous No.9379536]

>>9379508

citation needed. it's likely a combination. any population will probably score somewhat higher in a better environment, that makes perfect sense.

however, can/will a given population maintain the environment that allows them to score higher in the first place? a race's average IQ as measured in their place of origin is also telling.

[Anonymous No.9379690]

>>9379435
Why would someone look for eggs at the doctor's office?

[Anonymous No.9379730]

>>9375285
iq doesnt matter. only what you do matters.
if a retard wins a nobel prize, is he a retard?

[Anonymous No.9379737]

>>9379444
>Makes you wonder why first-world Africans score higher.
Malnutrition causes low iq and the lowest countries 50% of the population is starving and if you have a iq of 70 you wont be able to immigrate to a first world country.

[Anonymous No.9379744]

>>9379474
No, from adopted twin studies we can tell that iq is about 70-80% heritable.

[Anonymous No.9379749]

>>9379730
Make sure to call me when certified retard wins the nobel prize so I can suck your dick

[Anonymous No.9379758]

>>9379737

low iq causes malnutrition. how do you starve in the garden of eden that is africa?

[Anonymous No.9379791]

>>9379406
Isn't by definition the average always 100?

[Anonymous No.9379832]

>>9379791
It is relative to the subset you choose, and if you combine different countries and normalize that distribution, not every country will be 100

[Anonymous No.9379838]

>>9379104
definition of post hoc desu

[Anonymous No.9379867]

>>9379501
>Lmao, they aren’t absent minded at all.
Good, because nobody every claimed that IQ measured absent-mindedness.
>>9379737
>if you have a iq of 70 you wont be able to immigrate to a first world country
Maybe this was true fifty years ago? Not sure.

[Anonymous No.9379977]

>>9379838
Yeah it's obvious who knows jackshit about either environments.

[Anonymous No.9379982]

>>9379536
>can/will a given population maintain the environment that allows them to score higher in the first place?

Yeah because it's self sustaining.

[Anonymous No.9379999]

>>9375285
Yes Op's graph is true. The important aspect to realize is that a higher group average for IQ is not justification for ethnic cleansing, nor does it justify racism.

Realize that there is a greater overlap in IQ between individuals within groups, than their is between the groups themselves.

[Anonymous No.9380026]

>>9375294
yes it does, brainlet
>>9375300
you haven’t even read Spinoza or Aristotle, you don’t understand the most basic concepts of philosophy. you type like a 100 iq person. fake knowledge, and not even being well versed in it, does not make you intelligent. can you do work with your understandings? does it make you physically healthier, more attractive, fitter, do you perform tasks faster? nope. so fake and gay and schizo.
>>9375464
the average iq of blacks globally is 80, the average iq of whites globally is 105, that’s a difference of 25 points, or 24% which would imply blacks are significantly less intelligent than whytes. you’re also assuming even distribution of high and low end intelligence, which is a mistake. as black populations also have significantly more low end iq members and whytes have an unusual number of high iq members relative to their size. black population is higher than whyte and so on. very stupid for a maths nigger
>>9375410
it doesn’t vary the science is already settled
>>9375606
he’s just making things up spaniards avwrage iq is like 93. they are one of the dumbest european races
>>9376329
80-120 function the same, no this is wrong and indicates you don’t understand g or what it measures and are yourself low iq
>>9376931
because of genetic relation idiot, irish are closer related to spaniards and french than they are jews and jews are genetically distinct from other semites and they are measuring east asian iq not asiatic iq. idiot
>>9376982
>t. low iq angry STEMnigger who doesn’t want his pet spics and blacks to get upset
>>9377738
>pivote to ethnicity, ignores the genetic factor of ethnicity which implies genetic influence on intelligence
>niggers with 90 iq are just as intelligent as chinks with 135 iq and can do the same work
>if he had to choose between 3 whyte physicists with 150 iq’s and 3 niggers with 100 iq’s he’d pick them at random because his heart bleeds red, white and blue and knows no skin color

[Anonymous No.9380103]

>>9379999
>there is a greater overlap in IQ between individuals within groups, than their is between the groups themselves.
I've read and re-read this post but I can't tell exactly what you're trying to say. Maybe that a bell-curve centered towards the left still has some individual members towards the right? But that is true for any bell-curve and it is beside the point.

[Anonymous No.9380166]

Why do people lie to themselves about how important IQ is?

[Anonymous No.9380203]

>>9380166
>that graph
What is the X-axis supposed to represent? Is it the percentage of people with THAT EXACT IQ who said "yes" when asked if they were atheist? And if so, why is this not a histogram?

[Anonymous No.9380221]

>>9380203
Not xir but i assume its country averages which is why it doesn't go above 108, which i think is the average for hong kong

[Anonymous No.9380236]

>>9380166
Or since it fails the 'horizontal line test' at y=64, I'm guessing it's some kind of scatterplot, and the '% atheist' are scores for each indivual computed in some way?

Maybe the dots represent countries, plotted at (% of population who are atheists, avg IQ)?

[Anonymous No.9380312]

>>9380026
typical poltard, heavy on rhetoric and assertion, low on content

[Anonymous No.9380399]

>>9380166
Source?

[Anonymous No.9380531]

>>9380166
This only measures up to 110, that is just slightly above average. Also, post the source

[Anonymous No.9380538]

>>9375285
They don't though. Evolutionary biologists especially give no shits. It's practically impossible to give an IQ test to any other animal.

Some do think of them as valid, but any IQ test you make in your mom's basement with pen and paper to measure your idea of "intelligence" is just as valid as any other one.

[Anonymous No.9380540]

>>9375300
>My IQ is 100 and I'm WAY more retarded than the average person
This poster is good proof against IQ.

[Anonymous No.9380562]

IQ is pseudoscience, races aren't real

t. neurobiologist who took population genetics as an undergrad

[Anonymous No.9380563]

>>9379501
I'd assume the average IQ of people flying overseas is higher than the average IQ of people not flying overseas. There is no scientific reason to draw dividing lines based on melanin content or face structure though, since they're obviously sliding scales.

[Anonymous No.9380574]

>>9375294
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.9380592]

>>9379758
I have a couple of problems with this point. There have been famines in fairly high IQ countries before, does that mean that the average IQ dropped beforehand? This also assumes that Africa is a fertile land, which is not true, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.

[Anonymous No.9380608]

>>9375285
>images with transparent background that should be white

[Anonymous No.9380610]

>>9379474
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

[Anonymous No.9380630]

>>9380610
http://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/5/1/1/htm

[Anonymous No.9381531]

Unfortunately, IQ is not as accurate as other sciences and lacks a scientific basis. That would put IQ in the pseudoscientific category.

The use of "race" is outdated. Also, it's not based on science and the new taxonomy classification methods. That would put "race" in the pseudoscience category too.

No wonder there are people trying to shill for this kind of "knowledge", for political or ideological reasons. First they try to convince you about "harmless" """"science"""", then the "conclusion" would be killing the "inferior" or just discrimination of the less "favoured". To be fair, this is not the case either. As these topics are pseudoscience, they will only convince people who lack scientific knowledge or people who share a similar political or ideological stance.

[Anonymous No.9381538]

>>9381531
>Unfortunately, IQ is not as accurate as other sciences and lacks a scientific basis.
What makes IQ testing unscientific? Do you have facts to back up this claim?

>The use of "race" is outdated.
How so? Nowadays you can determine a person's race with a cotton swab of his spit.

Seems to me that you're disregarding science because it disagrees with your egalitarian worldview...

[Anonymous No.9381550]

>>9381538
>do you have facts
IQ doesn't have scientific facts. The burden of proof is on people who claim IQ is a scientific fact. Which it isn't. Thus making it not science AKA pseudoscience.

>nowadays you can determine
The ethnic group term is more accurate as it categorizes groups according to their genes. Race is a inherited categorization whose judgements are influenced by appearance. This situation makes them imply that apparent phenotype determines genotype, which is false. Thus making it not science AKA pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.9381561]

>>9381550
>IQ doesn't have scientific facts
It has plenty of evidence behind it. In fact an entire field of psychology is devoted to studying intelligence and designing IQ tests to measure it (psychometrics). If you're curious here's a bit of light reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychometrics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

Now your turn, I want to know what exactly your criticisms about IQ testing are.

>The ethnic group term is more accurate as it categorizes groups according to their genes
Ethnic group is race + culture, i.e. the norwegians and the swedes are different ethnic groups (despite being racially identical). The most scientific term I suppose would be "human population cluster" but at this point I think it's pedantic and the substitute "race" works perfectly fine.

> Race is a inherited categorization whose judgements are influenced by appearance
It's true that racial classifications predate genetic testing, but what you fail to mention is that racial classifications, with very minor exceptions (like the negritos), completely overlap with the human population clusters obtained through genetic analysis.

>This situation makes them imply that apparent phenotype determines genotype, which is false
There is obviously a great overlap. I challenge you to find a sub saharan ethnic group which is phenotypically northern european...

>pseudoscience
I don't think you know what that term means. Pseudoscience is not following the scientific method, not necessarily arriving at erroneous or incorrect conclusions using the scientific method. I wouldn't say that the fact physicists believed in ether at the end of the 19th century meant there were all pseudoscientists. Also, whatever the criticisms you might vehiculate towards IQ testing, psychometrics still follows the scientific method and is a peer reviewed field. It is science.

[Anonymous No.9381567]

>>9381561
>plenty of evidence
Intelligence isn't even defined.
Intelligence implied definition isn't observed, its mechanisms.
Intelligence circumstancial influences aren't accurately defined.
In other words, not science.
>ethnic group
Right, ethnic group categorizes more than just genes, yet it considers them first. The genes of certain populations aren't well studied, thus the lack of accuracy.
>race with few
>i challenge
As it implies observed phenotypes determines genotype, it's not science.
>i don't think
As it tries to be called "science" and it's not, it's pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.9381570]

>>9381567
>Intelligence isn't even defined.
It is defined (or rather quantified) through the g factor. Did you even bother to read the links I posted?

>Intelligence implied definition isn't observed, its mechanisms.
I don't even understand this sentence.

>Intelligence circumstancial influences aren't accurately defined.
Do you mean environmental influences? The influence of the environment on intelligence is fairly well established. Again, you should read the links I posted.

>In other words, not science.
Just because you're wholly ignorant of the subject doesn't make it "not science". You're like a flat earther saying that all the astronomical evidence for the earth being a sphere is "not science".

>Right, ethnic group categorizes more than just genes, yet it considers them first
Of course not, ethnic groups predate genetic testing too.

>As it implies observed phenotypes determines genotype, it's not science.
No, they overlap. There's a distinction. For instance "whites" used to be categorized together based on their way they look. And genetic analyses have indeed shown that there exists a human population cluster for people who originate geographically from Europe (i.e. those who were defined as white).

With the exceptions of some relic populations who were hard to classify (like negritos, who used to be lumped with africans, although dna tests show that they are actually closer to asians), the standard "caucasoid, negroid, mongoloid, australoid" racial classification is wholly in line with what genetics tells us.

>As it tries to be called "science" and it's not, it's pseudoscience.
I think I understand... pseudoscience is whatever science you don't like.

[Anonymous No.9381578]

>>9375294
>>9376982
>>9380538
>>9380562
>>9381531
>>9381550
>>9381567

[Anonymous No.9381588]

>>9381570
>it's defined
>The definition of intelligence is controversial.[6] Some groups of psychologists have suggested the following definitions:
Well, let's imply it's defined. Intelligence implied definition isn't observed, its mechanisms. This means that the mechanisms of intelligence aren't directly observed, thus only correlations which aren't causation mechanisms can be observed. Thus making IQ not science. AKA pseudoscience.

>influence of environment is stablished
If intelligence isn't even defined and its implied mechanisms aren't observed, how can these people think that implying the circumstance influences is scientific?
>just because
Already refuted. Not science.
>ethnic groups predate genetics testing
Unlike races, ethnic groups are categorized using primarily genes. "Race" is influenced by appearance judgement, implying apparent phenotype defines genotype. Thus making it not science, AKA pseudoscience.
>no
Yes. All "race" modern definitions conserve such part of appearance bias. Implication of phenotype defining genotype is not scientific. Pseudoscience.
>i understand
Yes. Scientific rigor is something pseudoscience supporters don't like. Sad!

[Anonymous No.9381594]

>>9381578
>read a book
How does this prove that pseudoscientific race and IQ are science topics?
Not science. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.9381597]

>>9380026
/pol/ is strong in this one

[Anonymous No.9381601]

>>9380026
See.>>9381531
IQ and race aren't science.

Try again, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9381602]

>>9380166
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E91bGT9BjYk

[Anonymous No.9381629]

>>9381601
IQ is the most scientific thing to ever come out of psychology, altho you probably think psychology isn't science anyways(like most of /sci/)

[Anonymous No.9381645]

>>9375285
People who deny IQ and psychology as a whole are likely those that want to keep their precious
niggers from feeling inferior to the rest of the population. Posting this is really good bait though,
you attract both the left and right to fight over this shit and present their evidence in the most
biased way possible. Good job.

[Anonymous No.9381749]

>>9381601
Who are you calling a brainlet if you insist you can't even quantity intelligence?

Dat cognitive dissonance.

[Anonymous No.9381921]

>>9379867
Even now the people coming are around 80

[Anonymous No.9382363]

IQ is allways dependent on the population. It is made to have 100 as average, each standard deviation up or down are defined as 15 IQ points greater or less. Because of this, according to the USA I have a 115-120 IQ, while in my own country I have 110-115 accoding to the multiple tests I took.

IQ is a tool that can be used to describe a part of a population, or rank a individual's inteligence in one specific domain. (For example, social inteligence IS a form of inteligence, and is not measured by IQ)

[Anonymous No.9383935]

bump

[Anonymous No.9383959]

>>9383935
kys

[Anonymous No.9383979]

>>9381749
Simple. If IQ is science, you are a brainlet.

As IQ is pseudoscience, you may be a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9383981]

>>9381645
Except IQ is not science. It's up to you if you believe IQ is right.

Don't call it science if it's not science. That's all.

IQ and race don't exist.

[Anonymous No.9384010]

>>9383981
IQ is a measurement for the cognitive abilities of a human being, you're simply wrong on this. Shut the fuck up and go back to >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.9384026]

>>9384010
Already refuted.

IQ is pseudosceince. Try again, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9385142]

Societal influences and what-not may influence an individuals performance

[Anonymous No.9385350]

>>9384026
How did you refute it?

[Anonymous No.9385371]

>>9380026
>the average iq of whites globally is 105
lmao
delusional

glad to be a chink so I can continue to BTFO whites in my classes

[Anonymous No.9385920]

>>9375285
The problem with IQ is that it can be increased by up to 15 points through education. So it isn't selectively testing inherent intelligence. IQ differences of less than 15 could be the result of education dedication or temperament.

[Anonymous No.9385922]

>>9385920
>The problem with IQ is that it can be increased by up to 15 points through education
Absolutely false.

[Anonymous No.9386277]

>>9385350
By pointing out it's not science.

Try again, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9386284]

>>9385371
You can thank the white man for creating these maths tho. Asian contries suck.

[Anonymous No.9386287]

>>9386284
It was created by middle eastern and pajeets.
Still caucasian though

[Anonymous No.9386292]

>>9386284
>math is created
>still lower iq
Brainlet detected.

[Anonymous No.9386293]

>>9386277
How did you point out that it is not science?

[Anonymous No.9386294]

>>9386292
>Curves and irrational numbers actually exist in an universe with a Planck length unit
>something can actually ever be created
according to that logic

low verbal IQ Asian detected
t. jew

[Anonymous No.9386295]

>>9386293
By mentioning there is literally no content that proves its scientific rigor validity.

Try again, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9386297]

>>9386294
>keeps forcing "math is created"
>still lower iq
Brainlets...

[Anonymous No.9386301]

>>9386297
>keeps forcing "something is ever created" meme
>still low verbal IQ
Asians ...

[Anonymous No.9386303]

>>9385920
>The problem with IQ is that it can be increased by up to 15 points through education. So it isn't selectively testing inherent intelligence.

Yes, but IQ tests are normally done on teenagers who have usually all had the same number of years of compulsory education.

So if black teenagers in america have an IQ gap 15 points lower on average from white teenagers in america, that is very unlikely to be explained entirely by white americans on average having dramatically more or better schooling.
Especially when trans-racial adoption studies show the same 15 point IQ gap between black and white adoptees who were adopted and raised in similar environments .
pic related and source
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a2d7/85edd7aa61b7ba51355053cc61d8b924fe35.pdf

[Anonymous No.9386304]

>>9386301
>copycat text's format from a higher iq being
>still lower iq
Aaaaaand this is the last post you will get, brainlet. Have fun with your low iq.

[Anonymous No.9386306]

>>9386303
>teenagers have spent the same time studying
Nope.

[Anonymous No.9386317]

>>9386304
>uses argument of others copying him to justify his claims of superiority
>Asian
>fails to adress/understand points

[Anonymous No.9386345]

>>9386303
This is self-explanatory.

[Anonymous No.9386372]

>>9386303
>le minnesota trans-racial adoption study
I love it when you people use this as your source because it shows you clearly didn't read it. It also supports the nurture argument. But keep posting it, please.

[Anonymous No.9386400]

>>9375285
Asians are the smartest and blacks are the most athletic, wh*tes are literally useless.

[Anonymous No.9386416]

>>9386372
>cares more about personal opinions of author shoved into the conclusion than actual, raw data.

[Anonymous No.9386647]

>>9386345
They didnt have equal environments (different types of adoption within the groups), this is a showcase of a reduction in environmmental differences correlating with a reduction of iq disparity.

[Anonymous No.9386927]

>>9386416
>correlations are causation
Pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.9386934]

>>9386647
The study doesn't mean anything either way, since the data
interpretation at the age from 7 to 17 is just reverting back its
mean. Pointing out methodological errors in your own posted
study is quite hilarious though.

[Anonymous No.9386946]

>>9386927
moving goal posts I see. unsurprising
>>9386647
pretty confident people will spott your lie but I'll tell you that you are wrong.
>this is a showcase of a reduction in environmmental differences correlating with a reduction of iq disparity

The claim of a reduction in racial IQ disparity is already a lie, but combined with the known fact that black children develop faster than white ones, it becomes a complete joke.

[Anonymous No.9387138]

>>9386946
>goalpost
Which has been since the beginning that IQ is not science. IQ is pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.9388419]

>>9387138
>IQ is pseudoscience
It is but it still gives you a value of some reflection of intelligence that is mostly fixed in individuals.
It's quite an useful tool.

[Anonymous No.9388429]

>>9381588

Uh, literally all of science is based upon correlation, no fundamental mechanism has ever been found for anything.

You're grasping at straws.

[Anonymous No.9389288]

>>9375294
>I don't know what G means

[Anonymous No.9389290]

This whole Kraut/althype debate on youtube totally BTFO /sci/ out on race and IQ.

Even Thunderfoot is being btfo now

[Anonymous No.9389307]

Why do black people score far lower on IQ tests even when controlling for environmental factors?

How do evolution denialists explain this?

[Anonymous No.9390016]

>>9388429
Scientific facts are "direct correlation" AKA causation facts. IQ lacks such causation facts, and it doesn't even have basis.
IQ is pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.9390041]

>>9375390
We should have these threads everyday so retards like >>9380562 and >>9381531 can be exposed and humiliated for being utter retards.

>IQ is pseudoscience.

I know you're black. But what you just said is the most dumbest thing I've heard. You couldn't make it more obvious that you don't know anything about IQ.

>Scientific facts are "direct correlation" AKA causation facts.

IQ is validiated by the g-factor. Do you know what the g-factor is? No, of couse you don't, and neither does anyone who tries to act like IQ is pseudoscience.

You motherfuckers will deny race and IQ even when its completely possible for humans to create a new biological race, increase mean average IQ scores, and watch in real time as this new population transforms an entire nation.

[Anonymous No.9390045]

>>9375390
We should have these threads everyday so retards like >>9380562 and >>9381531 can be exposed.

>>9390016
>IQ is pseudoscience.

Christ, I recognize this faggot. But what you just said is the most dumbest thing I've heard. You couldn't make it more obvious that you don't know anything about IQ.

>Scientific facts are "direct correlation" AKA causation facts.

IQ is validated by the g-factor. Do you know what the g-factor is? No, of course you don't, and neither does anyone who tries to act like IQ is pseudoscience. Yet you expect me to take any argument against IQ seriously. You motherfuckers will deny race and IQ even when its completely possible for humans to create a new biological race, increase mean average IQ scores, and watch in real time as this new population transforms an entire nation.

[Anonymous No.9390048]

>>9375383
>post pic of book ergo 3 people are wrong
tell me who is the retard here.

[Anonymous No.9390057]

>>9381538
>How so? Nowadays you can determine a person's race with a cotton swab of his spit.
Actually genetic markers of race are much more scattered than it seems, per example it is said that 1 in 300 men in the world carry the Genghis Khan genetic marker, even if you are not Asian.
Besides having ancestry of X race doesn't necessarily adds up to you being of that race, thus genetic fallacy for DNA implies race.

[Anonymous No.9390058]

>>9390045
>IQ is validated by the g-factor
The g-factor validates life success and plenty of other variables. The Genetic Studies of Genius disproves any correlation between IQ and achievement ergo IQ and the g-factor are uncorrelated.

[Anonymous No.9390066]

>>9389307
Evolution denialists? NM
We need updated norms that reflect the populations with which cognitive testing intends to measure. Non-white populations.

[Anonymous No.9390069]

>>9375285
>What do evolutionary biologists, neuroscientists and other related subfields think of IQ tests as an accurate measurement of intellectual capacity?

>evolutionary biologists, neuroscientists
this is my exact profession

those tests are only good to find stupid people, they cannot indicate or measure intelligence, they can only quantifiy its absence or indicate if there's an absence of it

also their internal error is too high

[Anonymous No.9390072]

>>9382363
What country are you from? And why are you taking multiple IQ tests? Unless you're having problems, there's no need to do it, especially multiple times. Those quizzes you can give yourself online don't count either. Your understanding of IQ testing suggests you don't know as much as you think you might, but I am willing to overlook that because I'm hoping something got lost in translation.

[Anonymous No.9390113]

>>9390045
>doesn't define intelligence
>doesn't even know how intelligence works
>doesn't fully comprehend the circumstances that change the performance of the test
IQ has no basis. IQ has correlations that don't even have to be explained as it's only practical by itself. IQ is not science. IQ is pseudoscience.

I've already explained this to you probably on the other thread. Keep rejecting facts. IQ is pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.9390133]

>>9375285
Why's the Hispanic score so low when they're basically just a branch of Asians mixed with whites?

[Anonymous No.9390162]

>>9390133
european admixture fucked them up

[Anonymous No.9390335]

>>9376535
I like this post and agree. My IQ according to mensa's web test is 143 or above the 99.8:th percentile iirc. But a friend of mine is at mensa and objectively smarter than me. Not a lot, but it's still clear. Neither one of us is any kind of a genius though. While we both find it relatively easy to compete in work life with no more than average effort required, really getting ahead still requires a shitload of effort.

Point being, the difference in IQ, from my subjective experiences, has to be fucking enormous to close the gap between years of practice and motivation. In short, in all but the most extreme one in over a thousand cases, hard work triumphs over pure intellect.

The real differences come from everyday life issues. I don't think I know a single average IQ person who isn't mostly driven by social pressures, propaganda, their emotional states and woefully erroneous subjective personal or shared experiences and beliefs. High IQ people seem to be levels above when it comes to critical thinking and a broader understanding of just how the world works. They're independent, and difficult to control or manipulate. How useful that really is on a personal level is debatable however. I may understand all the things that are wrong and why, but I still don't have any power to change anything.

[Anonymous No.9390404]

>>9390335
Take a real test maybe. I got 130 something from the test on Mensa's site and I still feel like a huge idiot all the time.

[Anonymous No.9390418]

>>9390404
Yup I agree. And I probably will. Just haven't gotten around to doing it yet.

[Anonymous No.9390898]

>>9375300
that's average fuck-wit

[Anonymous No.9390901]

>>9375285
What's /sci/'s consensus on Middle Easterners? Islamic or sans Islam, I don't mind. What's their IQ?

[Anonymous No.9390966]

>>9390901
White level, if not inbred and properly educated.