The Bell Curve

[Anonymous No.9907840]

May you guys explain to me the bell curve and why appearently so many scientist and academics criticized it?

[Anonymous No.9907846]

It's only natural that there is a bell curve. I'd be concerned if there wasn't.
If IQ or 'G' wasn't genetic then we'd still be foraging for food while other animals preyed on us.
To deny that different groups of humans have varying levels of average intelligence is to deny human evolution.
Left wing politics has become the new and trendy socially acceptable religion but at least it's followers can feel good about themselves for not being racists.

[Anonymous No.9907857]

>>9907840
>what is it about
It's a sociology book exposing the following main thesis: since the end of ww2, mass education and standardized testing has made american society very meritocratic, allowing the intelligent to rise from their stations in life and achieve their potential (unlike 100 years ago when their occupation would've been farmer/artisan). Due to the fact that educated people usually intermarry, this means that american society is increasingly becoming stratified in social classes based on intelligence rather than aristocratic origin/family wealth, with the most intelligent controlling most important functions in society, which is a new development in human history. It tries to predict what such an organization for a society portends for the future. This is the reason for the long title of the book.

To rest its case, it exposes the standard literature on the study of intelligence, IQ testing, and the relation of IQ with a multitude of social behaviors such as average income, welfare dependency, children out of wedlock, etc. It shows that IQ is the single best predictor for a whole host of social behaviors, and that low IQ is especially correlated with a lot of social ills.

For a couple of chapters it studies the differences in outcomes between various ethnic groups in America, and how much of it is attributable to differences in average IQ.

Finally it tries to prescribe policies to mitigate the caste society that the authors think America is becoming.

>why is it controversial
Well firstly because it assumes that IQ testing is reliable and accurately measures intelligence, but really the reason the book blew up is because of its chapter on ethnic differences in intelligence, which is one of the biggest taboos in modern America. As far as I know the book's statistical analyses have never been debunked.

>t. read the book

[Anonymous No.9907858]

>>9907846
Interesting! As a black man, I can accept that we do average lower in scores. But the only time I find it wrong when people generalize it, assuming that a black person would be instantly dumber because of studies. Or think every black person has a very simple mind.

[Anonymous No.9907894]

>>9907858
Not criticizing you as this is a general observation, but isn't it telling that we have to say "as a/an ___..." before we talk about something potentially controversial? And if you say it after the fact then you're just obviously trying to not take responsibility for something shitty?
Fucking genetic fallacy

[Anonymous No.9907906]

>>9907840
It is accurate. The Western world changed religions from Christianity to Progressivism. This book, its ideas, and reality in general, contradict Progressive utopian magical thinking.

[Anonymous No.9907910]

>>9907894
No, I’m just trying to give my point if view as one of the ethnic groups studied.

[Anonymous No.9907937]

>>9907910
Honestly ethnic differences is not at all what the book focuses on, it's like 2% of the book.

[Anonymous No.9907948]

>>9907906
Hi Mencious.

[Anonymous No.9907957]

>>9907910
No I wasn't criticizing you. I was just using your post as an example of something that bothers me about people talking about shit online.
Assuming that someone is putting in effort to give a non-inflammatory impression (as you have), if they say <controversial statement X> in response to someone bringing up the topic, then they'll have a bunch of people frothing at the mouth instantly accuse them of being for/against X because Y or any of the logical combinations of X and not-X, and Y and not-Y

[Anonymous No.9908106]

Reminder that the numbers discussed in the bell curve (blacks are 1 standard deviation behind whites in IQ) are from African AMERICANS aka blacks with avg 30% white DNA.
Imagine the IQ difference between someone from the Congo and the average Chinese man. This is the ultimate black pill as Africans will soon number 5-15 billion

[Anonymous No.9908115]

>>9908106

>30%

Most studies report 20% average admixture for African Americans. Meanwhile Nigerians who are the population increasing the most in Africa are around 83-84 IQ to African Americans 85-87 IQ(some reports state 89 among northern states).

[Anonymous No.9908423]

>>9907857
>As far as I know the book's statistical analyses have never been debunked.
No it has been debunked. /pol/ refuses to admit it though.
Using race and relating it to IQ is lazy science. Academically speaking, race "science" (it's not a science) has been debunked since ages ago.
The use of race (instead of genetics) is lazy and does a poor job at explaining the relationship between IQ and different groups of people - even Murray admits to this, saying that he used race as a proxy for genetics. Genes flow between populations as well as between families. This leads to a blurring of racial categories.
But again, you cannot do this as the genetics of race and the genetics of IQ are two distinct things.
A common question is: If race is genetic, and IQ is genetic, then maybe you can link up race and IQ via genetics?
Well no you can't and there are 2 problems: 1) Bringing up race distorts the causual analysis. Genes might play no role on racial gaps on IQ test. 2) If they did, what's the point? You would have a handful of black, white, asian kids which marginally favor intel. Others wouldn't - the connection is still genetics.
Even connecting genetics to IQ is inconclusive though, as we are not sure how heritable IQ even is. It's still a highly debated topic, that typically boils down to sociological ideas of education, income, family structure, neighborhood, and the big one which is discrimination - which most likely correlates to race issues.

[Anonymous No.9908435]

>>9907840
>May you guys explain to me the bell curve
People are different.

>why appearently so many scientist and academics criticized it?
They're (((marxists))) or useful idiots.

[Anonymous No.9908436]

>>9907858
>I find it wrong when people generalize it
This is where the retards come out and play doctor on a chinese basket weaving site.
They think they can judge the individual, based on the index, when they cannot. If I were to say most of the top rugby players are Italian. This does not mean most Italians are top rugby players.
That's like going onto a plane with a bomb, and justifying it with, "Well the chances of being on a plane with 1 bomb is pretty low, but the chances of being on a plane with 2 bombs is even lower. So I bring one bomb with me to hedge my bets."
It's a common statistical error called confounding conditional probabilities.

[Anonymous No.9908438]

>>9908423
>as we are not sure how heritable IQ even is
it's more heritable than height...

[Anonymous No.9908440]

>>9908436
>hurr durr make a comparison using the the 0.000001%
>pay no mind to averages
You're a sophist nigger faggot.

[Anonymous No.9908448]

>>9908423

Ok, so it hasn't been debunked.

[Anonymous No.9908455]

>>9908440
>You're a sophist nigger faggot.
You are a mongoloid who doesn't understand statistics.

[Anonymous No.9908458]

>>9908448
You cannot link up race to IQ.
It is lazy science.

[Anonymous No.9908470]

>>9908455
>pre-emptively judging people by the mean would be like pre-emptively judging people by those 10 standard deviations from the mean
You are a nigger.

[Anonymous No.9908471]

>>9908423
>Using race and relating it to IQ is lazy science.
But we've already begun to trace genes in an ethnically homogeneous lineage (basically a proxy for race) group of people and observed those genes correlate with intelligence and life accomplishment, and also done the same for propensity to violence. That only proves "intraracial" intelligence is based on genes.
However, it's not a huge leap to think it's quite possible those correlations with the exact same genes would also apply to other ethnic groups in the "interracial" sense by noting which ethnic groups do and do not have large expressions of those intelligence genes which are significant in other ethnic groups. Obviously, we currently can't make direct comparisons because of the vast cultural differences in ethnic groups. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Also your statement regarding not knowing the heritability of IQ is misleading. We've observed intelligence heritability is upwards of 60%.
I'd say your claim of anything being "debunked" is far from being true. We don't know yet, but from what we do know it's more logical to lean towards the idea that the genetic makeup of certain ethnic groups or races will play a part in those groups' relative intelligence once we have a better understanding of the topic.

[Anonymous No.9908477]

>>9908458

But you can as the book did. Disliking a category doesn't alter it's statistical properties. Your entire criticism is sociological in nature and had nothing to do with the actual methodology.

[Anonymous No.9908481]

A major thesis of the book is that IQ predicts social outcomes better than does parental socioeconomic status.

[Anonymous No.9908484]

>>9908477
dubs here and the anon above speak the truth.

>>9908458
>>9908423
You're a faggot.

[Anonymous No.9908487]

>>9908484
>>>9908458
>>>9908423
>>>9908477
By above I mean this anon: >>9908471

[Anonymous No.9908566]

>>9908470
>>pre-emptively judging people by the mean would be like pre-emptively judging people by those 10 standard deviations from the mean
You are confusing the differences between conditional and unconditional probability.
You are ultimately distorting the denominators in a statistical evaluation.
Kahneman and Tversky have documented this phenomenon in careful experiments as a form of cognitive bias. They call it "ignoring the base rates" because what relates the conditional probability of one event, given the other to the converse conditional probability is the ratio between the unconditional (base) probabilities of the two events.
>>9908471
>it's not a huge leap to think it's quite possible those correlations with the exact same genes would also apply to other ethnic groups in the "interracial".
Yes it IS a huge leap. You cannot call this science you fucking moron; this is scientism.
Genetic studies are done within, not between populations - so you cannot extend it to race.
They also measure the degree to which being someone's twin or biological sibiling, rather than simply rowing up in the same household.
Moreover, these genetic studies don't account for many other differences that come into play when comparing whole populations. Thus if you only isolate it to race, you're stretching genetic studies beyond their explanatory power.
You are introducing complicating factors relating to education, income, family structure, etc. as mentioned before
>We've observed intelligence heritability is upwards of 60%.
No. The current research shows it's loosely between 40 to 80 percent heritable. retards like you love point estimates and are afraid of confidence intervals.

[Anonymous No.9908575]

>>9907840
Racist people often use the book to justify their agenda. However, racist people commit the association fallency argument. Even if 30% of black people really are very below average I.Q, why should black people of regular I.Q be denied getting into college just because a majority of their ethnicity did poorly?

[Anonymous No.9908595]

>>9908575

It's closer to the opposite, why should average people of other races be disadvantaged to prop up below average people.

[Anonymous No.9908630]

>>9908575
>why should black people of regular I.Q be denied getting into college just because a majority of their ethnicity did poorly?
regression to the mean. They introduce bad blood intro society.

[Anonymous No.9908743]

>>9908566
Bruh. Homo sapien evolution is a thing. We've spent thousands of years from one another living in completely different climates and latitudes, adjusting to different fauna, bacteria, insects and environment to exploit which led to us looking extremely different from one another. A black guy is simply much different from a swedish, iranian, aborignal, chinese or peruvian. Not just in skin colour, but in bone density, skull shape, skeletal structure and tons of other differences caused by differences in genetics.

The whole out of Africa thing is currently again debatable, but nonetheless, what do you think, happened to early primitive homo sapiens, moving from the red area in my picture up the nile towards the earasian content, where all of the sudden these homonids encountered seasonal climates, less fruit hanging around and thought like: fuck, we need to survive here. Evolution through environment selected people that were most creative, high in problem solving, delayed gratifucation, future planning and cooperation. They also needed fuckton more of cortical space for all the new motor and communication skills to be installed and remembered (4 different seasons call for 4 different approaches with nature which means more communication and collaboration within tribes. Cold means you need to have fine hand motor skills in order to make clothes out of animals, only animals there were fucking large mammoths so they needed close collaboration and incredible chucking power for spears to kill them). Caucasian brain size is statistically higher than sub saharan black brain size. Average hip weight is statistically higher in caucasian woman than black woman. We're homo sapiens, all, but still completely different peoples. Look at the pygmee's, the sentalese. That's not just a social construct, but thats the difference between a species and thousands of years of evolution that can drastically alter the expression of general homo sapien intelligence.

[Anonymous No.9908791]

>>9908566
>Genetic studies are done within, not between populations - so you cannot extend it to race.
I literally said this when I referred to the studies as having only "intraracial" applicability so stop being triggered. Moreover I specifically stated "Obviously, we currently can't make direct comparisons because of the vast cultural differences in ethnic groups" which answer the rest of your response.
However, moving on, you'd be a fool to think if one ethnic group/race shows high intelligence correlated to a specific set of genes there is *no reason* to think the same pattern won't be observed in another ethnic group/race after culture is taken into account (we currently don't have a method to do this). Do you honestly think white people and black people have different sets of genes that make them intelligent??? If you can't answer that without obfuscation, reverting back to your culture non-argument which I've addressed twice now, and using circumlocution then don't even bother.
With acknowledging that (I doubt you will) it makes perfect sense that if one ethnic group/race has an absence of those genes that correlate with intelligence then that group will be less intelligent compared to a different ethnic/racial group. You cannot deny this without resorting to a priori political correctness or pretending we'll magically find a different set of genes that correlate with intelligence.
>No. The current research shows it's loosely between 40 to 80 percent heritable
What the hell is this even supposed to mean? Does the phrase "loosely 100% heritable" make any sense in your mind? If no (and the answer is obviously no) then qualifying any other percentage is equally nonsensical. I said 60%, you said 40-80%. You're trying to deconstruct science by adding your own personal nonsense qualifiers to objective numbers through the facade of pretending confidence intervals invalidate the studies. You're undeniably offended by this topic and can't approach it objectively.

[Anonymous No.9908913]

[Anonymous No.9908915]

>>9908595
Why should race factor in? The rich will always be taxed more to support the poor. If you think we can be more efficient by raising average IQ, you can create your eugenics/genocide program based on IQ. Race never has to be considered.

[Anonymous No.9908924]

>>9908915
Because it's more efficient to just use race, and the impact is 99% the same with absurdly less effort.

[Anonymous No.9908929]

>>9908924
>Because it's more efficient to just use race
I don't think you understand how complicated it would actually be. Would you use self-identified race or would you give DNA tests? Testing IQ would surely be easier.

[Anonymous No.9908949]

>>9908929
DNA would probably be the best, and while we were at it we could eliminate genetic diseases. But again, visual identification of the relatively pure blacks and hispanics would be easy enough. There would be no need to only use one method.
And it's not as though a one size fits all approach would need to be used; infertilization and IVF/artificial wombs with chromosome replacement could be viable and suitably 'humane' methodology.

[Anonymous No.9908955]

>>9908423
IQ is more determined by genetics than anything else. :)

[Anonymous No.9908965]

>>9908949
You're going so far out of your way to make it based on race rather than IQ, this is crazy lol.

IQ test at 7 years old, anyone below 90 is out, ezpz.

[Anonymous No.9908977]

>>9908965
I was thinking more along the lines of it being really easy for subversive agents to falsify.

[Anonymous No.9909501]

>>9908949
>Hispanic
>Race

You and the kike that wrote the book have a low iq

congrats

[Anonymous No.9910091]

>>9908423
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/2163484-found-more-than-500-genes-that-are-linked-to-intelligence/amp/
Intelligence is heavily genetic.

Your argument "its been debunked by many whove pointed out that genes and race are not equal" does not disprove the underlying argument of his book. Race is a banner used to classify a broad scale of genetic line. To imply that because portions of his argument are inductive that it entirely derails it is silly. With that mentality you could claim the entire field of psychology is false and irrelevant for example.

[Anonymous No.9910095]

>>9910091
>With that mentality you could claim the entire field of psychology is false and irrelevant for example.
That was a bad example. The entire field of psychology is false and irrelevant.
But your points stand.

[Anonymous No.9910109]

>>9908791
Now the shill ignores you, as he desperately implies by silence that what you say has no merit and is not even worth responding to.

[Anonymous No.9910111]

>>9908949
Point me to actual instances of chromosome swaps please. I NEED to know more for my humanzee plans.

[Anonymous No.9910147]

>>9907840
At a guess, they reason that if iq is genetic, then racism is genetic, which true or not is unacceptable.

[Anonymous No.9910444]

>>9907858
What a fucking dumb nigger.

[Anonymous No.9911715]

Daily reminder to subtract 15 points from your iq score to obtain your ASHKENAZI adjusted iq score.

[Anonymous No.9911917]

>>9908423
This is confused. Human population structure largely matches traditional racial categorization, so while it’s true that genetics is what matters, you can’t simply brush race away when the two go hand in hand at a broad level.

[Anonymous No.9911928]

>>9908791
While it’s true we should expect many of the same alleles to be involved in intelligence between racial groups, that’s actually not true when we have to rely on GWAS because the SNPs don’t correlate very well between races due to different linkage disequilibrium. So until we have the casual genetic pathways identified we’ll have to do GWAS for each population separately to get accurate information.

[Anonymous No.9912452]

It undermines leftist social engineering if you accept IQ, which traces white collar smarts, is largely heredity; their conservative and lowball claim 60%. Affirmative action gets scrutiny at the very least. It would be like organizing a sports team and ignoring athletic potential.

[Anonymous No.9912454]

>>9911928
>using actual science
this is an ideology thread dumby

[Anonymous No.9912590]

>>9908791
>>9910091
>>9912452
It's worth noting that the percentage of IQ inherited changes based on socioeconomic conditions. The poor are more affected by the environment.

[Anonymous No.9912595]

If you're really interested in this, the SPLC (who really themselves are bordering on being a hate group) compiled all the precise criticisms of the book, and Charles Murray published a response

http://www.aei.org/publication/charles-murrays-splc-page-as-edited-by-charles-murray/

[Anonymous No.9912615]

>>9907846
>but at least it's followers can feel good about themselves for not being racists.

Except this is only through delusion. Obviously, there's the problem that judging somebody by their skin color should *never* be acceptable, even if you're now giving the color benefit to blacks as revenge.
But more importantly here, IQ is both nature and nurture. To deny or say we must ignore black IQ differences (and a full standard deviation is a huge difference) is to take improvements that can be realized through addressing the nurture side off the table, which is tantamount to actively disadvantaging black people. Of course, if you think SJWs get bent out of shape over IQ, their heads would absolutely explode if you broached the toxic culture that stands in the way of providing better nutrition, parental involvement, and education (and a 2 parent family) in early childhood that are the big factors. And no it's not poverty, SJWs always want to blame poverty without examining other groups living in poverty, like being poor is unique to black people.
So bottom line, progressive SJWs are highly racist, because they don't want to improve black peoples intelligence (among other issues). Not to mention, I rarely hear any SJW/progressive calling for an end to the war on drugs beyond pot, which is by far the most destructive force in the black community, with a large disparate impact. So they support a racist policy too.

[Anonymous No.9912651]

>>9912615
Either you're based or a brainlet. Let's go with based brainlet

[Anonymous No.9912658]

Why do people still reply to threads like these?

[Anonymous No.9912659]

>>9911928
I'm glad you acknowledged the phrase "racial groups" so at least I know you're not just trolling and may acknowledge the plausibility of a polytipic interpretation of humans. Most who outright reject the concept of race seem to do so out of ideological predispositions and it's a waste of time to discuss the idea with them.
You used both "race" and "population" terms.... what is the difference in the context of what you said? I'm an engineer not a biologist so I'd like to know more about where you stand, and if you're going to let politics cloud your judgement, before I spend time delving into esoteric concepts I'm not familiar with.

[Anonymous No.9912663]

>>9912659
It's better to use ethnic groups then just race. there are many peoples with really diverse populations and origins.

[Anonymous No.9912664]

>>9912590
This is true and not surprising. If your parents are geniuses but you eat lead paint chips as child because you're dirt poor then your intelligence likely won't correlate with your parents' intelligence as strongly.

[Anonymous No.9912684]

>>9912651
why brainlet, what exactly do you think is inaccurate? Every word of that was true.

[Anonymous No.9912758]

>>9907858
I find it hard to believe that anyone has done that to you in your life.

[Anonymous No.9912769]

daily reminder

[Anonymous No.9912776]

>>9912769
>I mean, really what does [nigger IQ] add to the conversation about the movie
Irrelevant and retarded, nigger.
This is a thread about IQ talking about the racial differences described in a book about IQ
The fact that you thought it was at all appropriate to post that is why "we" hate your kind

[Anonymous No.9912781]

>>9912776
stay mad stormcuck, just accept you have no evidence to back up your autism

[Anonymous No.9912806]

>>9912781
>You know I'm right but are doubling down on being a nigger
Must be fun being retarded

[Anonymous No.9912819]

>>9912806
>still pushing racial slurs as though any dissent equates to being subhuman
Must be hard not being able to accept that people don't agree with your lies

[Anonymous No.9912829]

>>9912615
>they don't want to improve black people's intelligence
...have you heard of affirmative action? And most "progressives" I know and/or read rightly call out the war on drugs as bullshit call for a complete decriminalization of all drugs.

[Anonymous No.9912838]

>>9912829
Affirmative action leads to more racism, not less.
If it takes only takes a 3.0 for a Black man to get into a top university but a 4.0 for an Asian, you better believe I'd trust the Asian over the black.
This is the exact opposite of how it was when there was ACTUAL racism.
Where if you had a black doctor, he was most likely even better than a random white doctor due to all of the hurtles he had to deal with to get there.

[Anonymous No.9912840]

>>9912615
>thinks the standard deviation difference is after accounting for socio-economic factors
>thinks genetic IQ differences should have any impact on policy making
>thinks genetics is a dictator of performance rather than an upper limit
>thinks sjws only blame poverty
>thinks sjws dont want black people to be smart
>thinks sjws dont want drug decriminalisation
>thinks sjws support racist policies against minorities
>most importantly, thinks that even if blacks on average have a 5 point difference that it should have any fucking effect on how you treat people

[Anonymous No.9912841]

>>9912615
>as revenge
are you retarded
affirmative action is not "revenge" its to try and counter the effects of EXISTING PRESENT DAY societal imbalance
you cannot sit their typing as though blacks havent been fucked over for centuries with slavery, segregation, jim crow, etc and think that they'll magic not have problems when the majority of racists supporting those policies are still fucking alive, even ignoring the fact that it would take a dozen generations for things to normalise in a situation where racism doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.9912845]

>>9907840

The bell curve in academia is a grading algorithm that attempts to forcibly normalize a non-random sample. That is the reason academics dislike it, because it is bunk.

[Anonymous No.9912847]

>>9912838
dont start pulling the asian card, asians are consistently discriminated against by academic institutions in the US
there is also literally no possible way to counter the effects of past racism without favouring modern day blacks as the effects are STILL being felt from history. Racist people from the past are still alive, all the poverty and cultural division caused by racism in the past STILL exists, and your solution is to not do anything about it because a few white kids are not gonna get into their first choice university, meanwhile asians are going to get fucked over regardless of whether or not affirmative action exists because idiots like you can't see discrimination where its still ACTIVELY ongoing

[Anonymous No.9912851]

>>9912847
>dont start pulling the asian card, asians are consistently discriminated against by academic institutions in the US
My post:
>Where if you had a black doctor, he was most likely even better than a random white doctor due to all of the hurtles he had to deal with to get there.
It's like you read my post but didn't get the point

[Anonymous No.9912858]

>>9912838
>Affirmative action leads to more racism, not less.

How does it? People doubting Coloured folk who they think got in form being favoured? Nigger they'd shit and doubt on those folk whether or not thy got AA or not. People in universities always threw a bitchfit when poorer folk got in due to scholarships or programs to help the poor. It's just race/class thing because in America university is for the rich and well off (that changed but it still remains in another form) and not being either will miff a lot of people in those institutions.

[Anonymous No.9912860]

>>9912838
>Where if you had a black doctor, he was most likely even better than a random white doctor due to all of the hurtles he had to deal with to get there.

And it would suck massive cocks being one because people would openly be a racist dicks to you and can get away with it alongside being fucked by whatever sentiments upper management has on your people hindering your career. And lets not forget to mention that back then the people on the older age end of the spectrum in academia or medicine were even more open and overt with their racism.

[Anonymous No.9912863]

>>9912858
I literally explained it in my post
What's with it with you retards and reading comprehension?
Do they not teach that in primary school anymore?

[Anonymous No.9912867]

>>9912860
Right. So you would rightfully trust a black doctor more.
Now we have the same situation, except for whites and Asians as they're the only ones who don't qualify for some form of affirmative action at this point.
Sorry that your attempt to fight racism with more racism has only lead to even more racism

[Anonymous No.9912883]

>>9912847
>there is also literally no possible way to counter the effects of past racism without favouring modern day blacks

There is however a better way to counter it. Instead of doctoring the admissions for universities, it would be better to improve conditions of inner city schools such that they graduate students fit for university life. It does a disservice to admit underprepared students and then blame then when they fail, or worse, give them a pass.

AA is a solution in disguise, if it were going to work it would have by now, several decades in. It's more likely that it is an attempt to cheat and avoid actually educating blacks in k-12 instead of simply pretending to teach them as currently.

[Anonymous No.9914081]

>>9912595
>Murray himself repudiates /pol/'s interpretation of his work
top kek