Why are race & IQ discussions so taboo but hereditary IQ discussions not?

[Anonymous No.9915075]

Why are the two so different on the taboo scale when they’re basically the same thing? Do scientists hope people are too dumb to put 1 n 1 together?

A quick google search kinda proves this. Searching race and IQ brings up a myriad of feels articles “debunking” it while searching whether IQ is hereditary brings up nothing but scientific results.

[Anonymous No.9915092]

>>9915075
Why are you people so obsessed with correlating IQ to race? What practical consequences do you think it should have? Do you honestly think an 80 IQ subhuman like yourself should benefit from white people having a higher average IQ?

[Anonymous No.9915102]

>>9915092
It’s the most interesting topic I can think of. If science is right and IQ is mostly hereditary then your intelligence is no different than your height. That’s why Charles Murray advocates for UBI, because it’s unfair someone will (on average) be successful because how they’re born.

Add in the African population boom and you start questioning where humanity will be in 500 years with an overall lower IQ. Tons of different questions arise from it.

[Anonymous No.9915107]

>>9915102
>It's the most interesting topic I can think of
You really can't think of a lot of topics, then.

[Anonymous No.9915110]

>>9915107
WTF people have different interests?!

[Anonymous No.9915119]

>>9915102
>no different than your height
But height is very nurture dependant

[Anonymous No.9915138]

>>9915075
Certain people are essentially terrified that if we acknowledge a racial difference in IQ, we would no longer assume that the underlying structure was identical. This means that occams razor no longer works in their favor in the wider context of attributing differences in behavior to race or environmental factors.

IQ isn't terribly interesting in itself (other than to people who like to compare numbers and brag), but it does serve as an example of something that can be measured fairly objectively, and which is generally not determined, for an individual, by environment apart from obvious things like being malnourished or dead. If we accept that it differs mainly because of differences in what produces it in the first place, then we can't simply pretend those differences don't exist in other contexts.

It opens a can of worms because if we can begin to argue that behaviors like e.g. aggression fundamentally vary by race, you can construct an argument for segregation on a large scale (e.g. ethnostates) because you can argue that different races have different optimal social structures, which flies in the face of various ideologies that depend on people being essentially interchangeable, particularly the ones that demand a high degree of integration.

[Anonymous No.9915166]

>>9915138
My objection to it is really that it's a bunch of social science/psychology, two of the fields with the worst track records in science, claiming that we should restructure society against basic individualist principles because reasons.

I also think it's interesting that you're phrasing it as "various ideologies that depend on people being essentially interchangeable" when that's effectively what "scientifc" racism is arguing, that people who share a race are essentially interchangeable. The real solution to thinking people are essentially interchangeable is individualism.

[Anonymous No.9915168]

>>9915075
They are only in the west OP.
I talk about this openly in china.

[Anonymous No.9915192]

>>9915075
Because the race and IQ link isn't the same as whether or not IQ is hereditary, stop making these threads and shitting up the board

[Anonymous No.9915201]

>>9915102
>It’s the most interesting topic I can think of
You don't have to pretend you're doing anything other than looking for scientific backing for your racist assumption.
The answer out there is that it cannot be said for certain that any race is inherently smarter than any other. Even if IQ is acknowledged as hereditary that doesn't mean that all the races have different amounts, they're not classes in a video game, they're clusterfucks of genetics that we've attached labels to. Don't blame others and get whiny when you find your assumptions aren't backed by science

[Anonymous No.9915212]

>>9915107
It is a pretty fascinating topic, and the fact that it reduces people to incoherent rage is a nice bonus for a contrarian autist such as myself.

[Anonymous No.9915218]

>>9915201
>The answer out there is that it cannot be said for certain that any race is inherently smarter than any other.
source?

[Anonymous No.9915243]

>>9915218
Here's an article written by three psychologists talking about the topic
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/6/15/15797120/race-black-white-iq-response-critics

[Anonymous No.9915248]

>>9915243
Sure. Have you read it?

[Anonymous No.9915294]

>>9915201
Numerous studies state that adult IQ is around 80% hereditary. If you believe in hereditary IQ, you unknowingly believe in race being a determinant of IQ.

It’s an absolutely fascinating topic. If those numbers are correct, it can explain huge portions of human history and development. It explains large amounts of “inequality” in America. It shows that a country like Nigeria could almost never compete 1 v 1 with a country like Germany (if it stays german) technologically or innovation wise. It makes you wonder what the African population exploding to 10+ billion will lead to for humanity’s future.

[Anonymous No.9915301]

>>9915248
Nice

[Anonymous No.9915305]

>>9915243
Most of that article try’s skewing statistics in their favor by focusing on the “gap narrowing” and not maximum IQ possible.

Everyone agrees that bad nutrition leads to not maximizing someone’s height. Same with someone living in absolute poverty wont be maximizing their intelligence....

BUT notice a key line in that article they try to downplay. “SAT scores among blacks have not changed”. This is the key to the article because who takes the SAT? Certainly not ghetto kids who drop out but students who are in every position to showcase their potential/max IQ and when compared to white or Asian kids of the same economic conditions, THE GAP STILL EXISTS.

[Anonymous No.9915307]

>>9915075
Race is a determinant of iq, this is undisputable under the current evidence. Blacks have lower mean iqs than whites. What people are afraid of is a slippery slope fallacy; just because someone has a lower iq than another does not make them less human. Social darwanism's greatest flaw is implicit racism there is no way around it.

So, to move forward we must accept religious structures which add a special exception for humans. Humans are made in the image of God. Simple as that, problem solved.

Don't know why it's so hard to accept this premise and move past social darwanism.

[Anonymous No.9915353]

>>9915092
Because eugenics are thing and a smarter population would drive progress forward or destroy the Earth in the process.

[Anonymous No.9915406]

>>9915092
It explains the world around you in a way that the common narrative does not. Why do inner cities suck? Why do some nations succeed and others struggle? Why can't all children be successfully educated?
Instead we have an endless cavalcade of nonsense about colonialism holding back Africa, implicit bias, grit, growth mindset, red lining, single mothers, stereotype threat and on and on, more useless excuses, and what do the politicians do? Believe them all! And spend vast amounts of money trying to fix each excuse and achieve zilch in 50 years.
If we accept that IQ is largely hereditary, that there's not much beyond basic nutrition that can increase it, then it follows all the gaps between ethnic groups aren't down to oppression and bias. Instead we can think about real methods of increasing IQ, with nootropics, gene therapy or embryo selection.

[Anonymous No.9915463]

>>9915075
because as soon as we admit that we'll have some fuckwits advocating for eugenics or having them justify the cleansing of the african continent or whatever

for one thing, people forget that yes, this is still a statistics thing, and iq variation is higher within a race than between them, so with a billion africans suddenly poof you're bound to lose some smart people (1 in 10000 intelligence on a mean of 80 would mean you're offing 100,000 "smart people"). "b-but, that means nothing, there are more white geniuses etc." well, probably, but even then a small group of black geniuses would be useful in determining the entirety of the gene spectrum which controls for intelligence (and possibly lack of it). but this doesn't even matter, because most "iq and race realists" don't use their shitty ideology to create some genetically perfect iq ubermensch- they use it to justify just negative genetics, when in reality le iq ubermensch would probably be better achieved through some admixture of primarily jewish and asian genes, and not some silly white ethnostate they love to push down our throats.

the only way you could logically give a shit about iq and still hold some vague political belief is that if you believe some sort of social darwinistic capitalism leads to an upper class of the rich and wealthy, moving humanity forward blah blah blah, and when you put an ideology like that forward it's no wonder you're finding people vehemently in opposition to anything attached to said ideology.

[Anonymous No.9915586]

>>9915463
>iq variation is higher within a race than between them
So? That has no effect. A variation within a group is likely to be larger than the variations within two groups of similar populations. Is stays nothing at all about the averages.

[Anonymous No.9916318]

>>9915075
Taxonomy, sociology and psychology have all been corrupted by post-ww2 egalitarianism.

[Anonymous No.9916373]

>>9915212
It's not fascinating at all. People who like any form of politics are on the same tier as people who watch reality TV, gossip about celebrities, read horoscopes, etc.

[Anonymous No.9916380]

>>9915586
it says something about the proportion of people within a given subset of the population being above a given mean- say, the national iq mean in a nation
this is the difference between saying most blacks are below 100 iq and saying all blacks are below 100 iq

[Anonymous No.9916409]

>>9916380
>it says something about the proportion of people within a given subset of the population being above a given mean- say, the national iq mean in a nation
No. It. Does. Not!

Variation is not the mean. What do you even know about statistics??

[Anonymous No.9916425]

>>9916409
variation is about a population's distribution around the mean you dumb twat
for example- women have a lower standard deviation on iq than men, so there are less female geniuses but also correspondingly less female retards
the same would apply to, say, an ethnic population- which is to say statistically asian retards exist and black geniuses exist, though in varying proportions, obviously

[Anonymous No.9916480]

>>9915119
So is iq.

[Anonymous No.9916526]

>>9915075
Because the only correlation between race and IQ is not causal. IQ is strongly correlated with nutrition and sleep deprivation, and weakly correlated with education all of which are factors of the standard of living. Distribution of "Race" (usually just black/white) is correlated with standard of living over geographic areas (whites typically in first world, blacks typically in third because history and racism) and that correlation drives the narrative that black people are less intelligent on average.

[Anonymous No.9916531]

>>9915075
>Do scientists hope people are too dumb to put 1 n 1 together?

Maybe, and they are right. Although intelligence research is controversial (by leftists mostly), IQ research has progressed so much that it has produced damaging evidence that you would think the left would not like, since it undermines their equality narrative, because researching the heritability of IQ is not as taboo as trying to link it with race. It is kinda cute that these people talk about what a dystopia "Gattaca" is, a world were people chance at success are mostly driven by their genes, yet there is an unequal distribution of genes among humans, acting like we don't already live in that type of world. This all happen without a peep of outrage from the left, mostly because they are ignorant of it.

I think nothing speaks more of their ignorance that their mouthforthing over "The Bell Curve" and how it has been "debunked", that there is no such thing as IQ or that races don't differ in IQ, even though its over 20 years old, and evidence for the heritability of IQ and even "race and IQ" has really piled up. Frankly, the leftists should be GLAD that /pol/ and most people only have a basic understanding of race realism, and never read to deep into the latest science behind this, or they may go hardcore race realist gene determinist.

For example, I am shocked that libshits aren't going nuts over the Bell Curve of the 21st century "Cognitive Capitalism: Human Capital and the Wellbeing of Nations" by Rindermann.

https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Capitalism-Capital-Wellbeing-Nations/dp/1107651085

Don't know why, this book is saying far more extreme things then the Bell Curve ever did (genes determine the success of nations) guess because Rindermann wording is too technical and the implication is too discrete. Charles Murray was trying to argue public policy after all, which wasn't wrong given the data.

[Anonymous No.9916539]

>>9916526
Ahhh, yes, it must just be whitey keepin' a brotha down, am I right, fellow redditor?

[Anonymous No.9916546]

>>9916531
And when I talk about more hardcore race realism? What do I mean? You'll see.

>>9916373
Yes, it is fascinating, because IQ differences are having real world impacts on this planet right now. IQ is the main reason why we have differences between nations, and tons of people actively give up their own home just to move to a nation built by high IQ people. YOU also actively live in a first world nation. So don't tell me that IQ is not fascinating. Normal people are fascinated by intelligence, and thankfully, there is no university in the world that is gonna give up intelligence research because some twat afraid of the implication think its not fascinating.

[Anonymous No.9916568]

>>9916546
>>9915463
>we'll have some fuckwits advocating for eugenics

Whats wrong with that? If human beings can control their genes, why wouldn't they select for what they think are good traits? Genetic selection just has too many practical uses. I mean, if we wanted to colonize Mars, genetic selection can actually make that task easier by making humans who don't have to suffer from potential health issues from Mars different gravity.

[Anonymous No.9916569]

>>9915075
I used to waste a lot of time participating in IQ threads on /sci/.

To all those trying to explain the validity of IQ studies: you are wasting your breath. Honestly, you are arguing with people who are so blinded by ideological fanaticism that they will forever refuse to entertain the thought that intelligence is not equally distributed by providence. I don't think they can be changed. It's like trying to argue with creationists.

I also think a lot of the anti-IQ posters are black, and they view threads like these as a personal attack on them, which is understandable I suppose. No one likes to hear that they belong to an inferior group, and I find it unsurprising that they enter a state of denial.

[Anonymous No.9916574]

>>9915406
This. It's a cause of suffering that isn't connected to the patriarchy. Maybe those inclined to hatred prefer to resist having their pet target taken away rather than finding a solution to the problem.

[Anonymous No.9916581]

>>9916569
/thread

[Anonymous No.9916598]

>>9915463
>"b-but, that means nothing, there are more white geniuses etc." well, probably, but even then a small group of black geniuses would be useful in determining the entirety of the gene spectrum which controls for intelligence (and possibly lack of it). but this doesn't even matter, because most "iq and race realists" don't use their shitty ideology to create some genetically perfect iq ubermensch- they use it to justify just negative genetics, when in reality le iq ubermensch would probably be better achieved through some admixture of primarily jewish and asian genes, and not some silly white ethnostate they love to push down our throats.

Now, this is interesting because it shows just how IGNORANT most of the left and even /pol/ are about race realism and genetics. Basically, they are still stuck in the "IQ and race" paradigm. The thing is you can go much further then this, is that we know from dog breeding that you can breed for BEHAVIOR and PERSONALITY traits. We know that animals and even babies show differences in behavioral and personality trait. Why is that?

The idea that behavioral and personality traits are not only affected by genetics, but mostly INFLUENCED BY THEM is something that most leftists would probably throw a gasket about learning, it may even be more offensive of an idea then intelligence being influenced by genetics. And yet, what leftist don't understand, is that this very subject IS an entire field called "behavioral genetics" and "sociobiology", and it too has progressed greatly.

http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf

In the 10 replicated findings of behavioral genetics, you basically have a bunch of ideas that fly in the face of "conventional wisdom", including what "environmental effects" REALLY mind, the actual nature of nature-nurture (there is no true division) and that ALL human traits, are heritable.

[Anonymous No.9916609]

>>9916539
>Posts excerpt from hereditary IQ article as evidence of racial IQ
You have to be trolling. Did you even read my post?

[Anonymous No.9916630]

>>9916598
Now if you ever choose to read that and ponder the implications, consider what happens if you extend the ideas of behavioral genetics to race...

If IQ differs between races, what's stopping behavioral and personality traits from differing between races? When you think about, when it comes to racial judgements and stereotypes, historically, their "intelligence" was only one aspect that was made. The more common ones seem to focus on personality and behavior. And if IQ was THAT quickly selected among human populations, maybe sexual selection also actively selected for certain traits in certain populations.

Now, if you start thinking along these lines, you start to think interesting questions like "How come Asians with their higher IQ and early advanced civilization wasn't the birthplace of the industrial revolution". Then you look at European countries, and begin to notice disparities "How come having access to so many resources didn't cause SPAIN to become the richest European nation? Why was Northern France, England and Germany SO OVERREPRESENTED when it comes to the Scientific revolution? Why did the Dutch do away with the mercantile system with proto-capitalism? Why was the UK the site of the industrial revolution? Why is it that Eastern Europe and even Southern Italy and Spain excluded from this? The most interesting thing about this question is that there is a strange biological correlate. Marriage patterns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajnal_line

[Anonymous No.9916645]

>>9916630
The thing I notice is that the more extreme race realist, which make up most HBD bloggers, are basically people who accept the idea that IQ is just one of countless traits that are influenced by genetics and differ between human populations. And again, such an idea isn't that farfetched, because unlike "race and IQ" were there isn't any real study that shows this to be the case defacto, most of this is just speculation, its standing on solid ground, because even the ideas of behavioral genetics have not filtered down to the general public, and would sound extreme to anyone who heard it.

It is pretty fascinating, and ironically, makes you care less about race and IQ, because inter-racial differences really begin to pop up at you. They are also the only people I notice to try to explain WHY Europeans have such a high IQ, and Henry Harpending is the only one who made such explicit HBD papers, like on the fall of violence and homicide rates in Europe between the 1000s to the 1900s.

So when you say adding in a bunch of high IQ A.Jews and Asians would make the "super race". Not necessarily, as IQ is just one of many traits.

[Anonymous No.9916651]

>>9916568
there are a lot of moral and ethical implications to artificially selecting humans
>traits that we don't want are bad and don't deserve to exist
>traits that we do like are good/useful and should propogate the planet(s)
i'm not arguing le diversity or le postmodernism, but an ideology centered around manipulating people as pawns for some technocratic end doesn't sound like a very fun business for the pawns
this is sounding vaguely brave new world-like already

>>9916598
again, is this the morally correct thing to do? if we start the process of artificially selecting humans, what happens to the (majority, assumedly) unselected population? are they kept alive through UBI, living meaningless but contented existence? or are they exterminated outright?
even if everyone really is determined by a genetic basis, i don't think the general philosophy is productive at all save for people who attained the most optimal die rolls

[Anonymous No.9916652]

>>9916598
>http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf
Nice, I'll check that out.

[Anonymous No.9916656]

>>9916651
>there are a lot of moral and ethical implications to artificially selecting humans
Eugenics can be done without force. For example, we could offer felons time-served for voluntary sterilization, or we could start tying welfare benefits to sterilization. One would have to look deep within the Talmud to find moral qualms with either of these policies.

[Anonymous No.9916671]

>>9916656
those are very weak forms of eugenics, though. very smart people can occasionally be poor as well, so you'd have to toss an iq test in there, to boot, unless you were also selecting for traits which made people wealthier

i mean, in the end, i think your side will win out, even if the current political atmosphere is less than favorable
i just don't think the future it brings is at all worth looking towards

[Anonymous No.9916705]

>>9915294
> Numerous studies state that adult IQ is around 80% hereditary.
Numerous studies also state that 80% of statistics posted on 4chan are pulled out of anon's ass.

[Anonymous No.9916710]

>>9916705
The other 20% are pulled from somewhere else because anon is into sounding.

[Anonymous No.9916788]

>>9915092
>What practical consequences do you think it should have
Triggering liberals

[Anonymous No.9916997]

>>9915102
The US has increased education spending 50% past inflation in the last 40 years and this hasn't changed graduation rates one little bit. On top of that SAT scores are dropping and we've been prohibited from correlating socioeconomics and racial test performance since the 90's all because of .....reasons (there are no reasons).

Also Africa will have one billion extra people in our lifetimes who all need food. An 80 IQ population cannot sustain itself, and if it tries to implement a legitimate democracy it'll just end up with warlords like the current situation.

This doesn't even touch the surface. There are highly practical consequences of correlating race and IQ. Sure it's mostly racists who want to rub it in peoples faces, I happily acknowledge that. But there really are objective reasons the race-IQ issue should be addressed and not brushed under the rug due to political correctness.

[Anonymous No.9916998]

>>9916997
Sorry this was meant for >>9915092

[Anonymous No.9917035]

>>9915110
Well look at the topics on /sci/
A discussion on the expansion of the universe
A look into the field of biomechanics and prosthetics
All of you brainlets and /pol/ lurkers talking about race and IQ