[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 9 KB, 512x512, alpha.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9518698 No.9518698 [Reply] [Original]

I have a question for the biologyfags out there.

Let's say you took a population of 10,000 blacks from Africa whose IQ was at least 115 and ensured none of them interbred for several generations. Would their progeny's IQ still regress below 85? If not, then what if the starting population's mean IQ was 115 instead? (As opposed to being at least 115 for every individual.)

Please advise.

>> No.9518706
File: 2.56 MB, 480x480, 1512134621239.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9518706

>>9518698

That's maybe the more unscientific post i saw here.

>> No.9518707

>>9518698
>none of them interbred
Sorry I meant they only bred amongst themselves and not outside this starting population.

>> No.9518762

>>9518698
Friendly remainder that IQ is an arbitrary measure invented unscientifically by the same people that tried to elctroshock gayness out of people.

>> No.9518787
File: 42 KB, 500x375, White People Opinions.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9518787

IQ is bullshit, but if it wasn't, obviously fucking no. Why the hell would it? Because society sees black people as dumb? This is one of the most retarded threads I've seen in hours but will be taken seriously because of the passionate hatred for black people some people have on this board.

You're arbitrarily suggesting black IQ's inherently decrease over time, the opposite has been shown through studies, I however believe all studies regarding IQ positive or negative towards any ethnic group are fucking bullshit though.

>> No.9518791
File: 8 KB, 1095x805, dollarbar.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9518791

>>9518762
>arbitrary

>> No.9518802

>>9518787
I'm sorry you're so frustrated, but I wasn't trying to imply their IQ would lower simply because they are black. If the starting population's IQ was 50 then it would increase over time to the mean (phenomenon known as regression towards the mean). And it applies to all races.

>> No.9518806

Learn about the breeder's equation. They would regress toward the mean but they'd still be better off--and the mean they will regress toward will itself grow--the effects accumulate!

>> No.9518819

>>9518806
Wow thanks! That perfectly answers my question. Shame about the other posts in this thread though.

>> No.9518854

>>9518787
>Because society sees black people as dumb
They are dumb dude.

>> No.9518858

>>9518791
>scores on a test that measures qualities necessary to do well in science and mathematics are correlated with income levels in a society that is driven by technology

No shit. But take a society like Ancient Greece or Rome, where art and politics were considered far more important, and engineering was actually considered low-class, and you'd have a very different relation

>> No.9518883

>>9518762
>>9518787

IQ is legitimate. This blog covers it extensively and I suggest it to anyone who has the conceit to post here.

http://infoproc.blogspot.com

Whenever someone spouts off saying IQ is bullshit they're just outing themselves as illiterate.

>> No.9518886

>>9518858
But anon, the quality necessary to do well in math and science is intelligence, which you are tacitly affirming IQ is a valid measure of.

>> No.9518893

>>9518886
He's scientifically and historically illiterate. IQ is the best predictor of competence, bar none. If a society valued art and 'politics' more highly than engineering then that's where high IQ people would go. There's a reason you had people memorizing the ILLIAD AND ODYSSEY. They memorized those monuments.

>> No.9518907

>>9518883
>Whenever someone spouts off saying IQ is bullshit they're just outing themselves as illiterate

>illiterate
For thinking a retarded test is inaccurate. Wow.

>> No.9518954

>>9518907
Retarded by what measure? In terms of its ability to measure intelligence, the people whom are traditionally thought of as being intelligent (holders of graduate degrees, inventors, scientists, etc) have a very high mean IQ when taken as an aggregate. Conversely, those traditionally thought of as being stupid (mentally retarded people, working class people, etc) have a mean IQ around what you would expect.

What's more, when a working class couple produce a high IQ child, that child goes on to surpass his or her parents' level of achievement, suggesting that IQ isn't just measuring socioeconomic status and that you can predict success based on IQ to at least a moderate degree (you can).

I can't help but suspect that all of IQ's detractors either scored lowly on the test themselves or have people dear to them who have scored lowly.

>> No.9518966

>>9518886
No, the necessary qualities are logic and spatial reasoning.

These aren't necessary to create great art.

>> No.9518982
File: 63 KB, 940x545, Statue-of-David.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9518982

>>9518966
>spatial reasoning is not required to make great art

You know logic is applicable to every facet of life, right? This basically makes it synonymous with intelligence. You're grasping at straws in a big way. I guarantee you anyone who is technically gifted in anything be it math, science, art, or otherwise was never mentally retarded (IQ < 85), and in fact they probably had IQ greater than 115, and yet you still wish to insist that IQ is irrelevant?

>> No.9518984

>>9518893
>intelligent people only pursue economically rewarding fields

Are you actually fucking retarded, mate?