Race and intelligence

[Anonymous No.6303070]

Okay, so before I start off, I'm not from /pol/. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'll admit I can be pretty racist at times and generally prefer the company of my own, but I don't hate others races, nor do I have a problem with people dating outside their race, nor do I have any desire to create an all white society or anything like that. I'd like to believe there aren't any intellectual differences between races, but I don't see any way around it.

So here's my train of thought: pretty much everyone accepts there are intellectual differences between individuals, right? Well, why on earth should these differences manifest themselves equally within groups, especially when these groups have been geographically separated for, what, hundreds of thousands of years, where they lived in radically different environments? Even as a matter of sheer randomness, this seems incredibly unlikely. We know there are physical differences between races. If I said that black people have darker skin that white people or a different type of hair, that wouldn't be logical gobbledygook. You would know what I meant, and no one would dispute this. But for some reason, this doesn't apply to other traits, like intelligence? I just don't understand the logic in this position.

Sorry, I know this probably gets asked all the time, but I don't browse 4chan that often.

[Anonymous No.6303074]

It's a pretty reasonable assumption to make that there is a difference in intelligence between the races, and casual observation appears to confirm this assumption

But we aren't allowed to talk about this stuff because it's not part of the narrative

[Anonymous No.6303078]

more importantly, why the LASER focus on race?

traits differ and correlate across countless categories.

i think it's just for political / ideological purposes, and because it's a sensitive subject.

[Anonymous No.6303080]

>>6303074

>But we aren't allowed to talk about this stuff because it's not part of the narrative

exactly.

/sci/ is on the receiving end of a parade of 15 year olds that finds some rushton copypasta and think they've stumbled on some profound, unspeakable truth, and they just have to enlighten *SOMEONE*, as though we haven't heard and debunked it 1000 times (a week).

[Anonymous No.6303091]

>>6303080
I'm confused. He said that it was reasonable to assume there were differences between races, and you say it's been debunked. Did you misread his post or am I misunderstanding you?

[Anonymous No.6303095]

>>6303091
>dat reading comprehension

did you bother to see what I referenced?

[Anonymous No.6303096]

Let's assume group X is less intelligent than group Y, on average. How then do you propose we use this information?

[Anonymous No.6303098]

OP here. Another thing: why is "race is a social construct" considered a valid response to the stuff I've said? It seems like a red herring. So what if race is a social construct? The issue is whether differences exist between groups. Political ideology is a social construct, but none of the people who complain about this seem to have any issue with studies that demonstrate liberals have higher IQs than conservatives. They know what's being said there, there are implications to it, and it's worth knowing. Why doesn't the same apply with race, which I would imagine is much more clearly defined than "liberal" and "conservative"?

[Anonymous No.6303100]

OP, most traits have not experienced any significant differences selection between environments.

It's a result of observer bias that we notice the few, most apparent differences that do exist, and extrapolate that to selection differences across all factors.

Any two given humans are incredibly similar across all traits. Our brains are naturally evolved to hone in on the few differences that exist.

In fact, modern human intelligence evolved within Africa, meaning it was selected for there.

Skin color and the sorts of food we digest did experience environment-specific selection. But we cannot look at these two traits and extrapolate to all others.

[Anonymous No.6303101]

>>6303096
Force group x to sit up the back of the bus.

[Anonymous No.6303103]

>>6303095
Yes, I did. Rushton is a proponent of the idea that there are differences between races, right? The guy you responded to like you were agreeing with him said that there were probably differences between races, but then you said this has been debunked thousands of times, which is why I wondered if you had misread his post.

[Anonymous No.6303104]

>>6303098
>but none of the people who complain about this seem to have any issue with studies that demonstrate liberals have higher IQs than conservatives.

can't change your race; can change your political alignment.

[Anonymous No.6303107]

>>6303070

Obviously differences exist between the races, but we obviously can't acknowledge it or risk being politically incorrect.

In other words, be a good goy and embrace multiculturalism

[Anonymous No.6303109]

>>6303104
Wouldn't that strengthen what I was saying? Even considering that fact no one thinks saying "political ideology is a social construct" somehow refutes those studies, but they seem to with race, which, as you say, is at least static unlike political ideology.

[Anonymous No.6303112]

>>6303107
>>6303107

some of us belong to diverse cultures on 4chan; is that a bad thing?

[Anonymous No.6303115]

>>6303104
Not to mention that being intelligent has nothing to do with political alignment. It actually has to do with the how receptive you are to information. A republicans are religiously motivated and thus apt to ignore information that doesn't support their preconceived notions. Not that I'm saying this is strictly a republican problem for sure but religion does seem to prime people with the ability to deny the undeniable.

[Anonymous No.6303116]

>>6303070
For certain values of intelligence, yes.

[Anonymous No.6303117]

>>6303109

Definitions of race haven't been static; it's just individuals often have no control over the race they are categorized into by others.

It's a question of those traits that are incorrectly attributed to their appearance.

[Anonymous No.6303118]

>>6303115

>Not to mention that being intelligent has nothing to do with political alignment.

If your platform contains retarded beliefs, then I've got bad news, bro.

[Anonymous No.6303122]

>>6303115

> A republicans are religiously motivated and thus apt to ignore information that doesn't support their preconceived notions.

Which has an influence on your intelligence.

Thinking from the perspective of religious truths rather than rationalism will influence your problem solving capacity.

I don't understand why this isn't a part of what makes one intelligent / unintelligent.

[Anonymous No.6303129]

To look at intelligence solely on the basis of how well groups do in schools doesn't really lend the depth the subject needs. There are a lot of other factors such as socio economic status, history, culture, school system construct, and background. Just looking at how well certain groups do in schools would lead to false statements like "girls are smarter than boys". Based solely on test scores in the US this is a reasonable conclusion but no one in their right mind would say this.

[Anonymous No.6303131]

>>6303122
Yeah but there are some people who are geniuses and still don't agree with evolution. Why? Conditioning. It's hard to go against programming. Maybe this is not the majority but I < speculate > its a decent number

[Anonymous No.6303136]

>>6303131

'genius' is defined by your problem solving capacity.

if your worldview / culture doesn't lend itself to rational thinking, you're going to have trouble solving real-world problems.

[Anonymous No.6303150]

>>6303136
>if your worldview / culture doesn't lend itself to rational thinking, you're going to have trouble solving real-world problems.
Very true but there are still people who are mathematically brilliant but think that evolution is a lie. But it for sure inhibit rational thinking which for most problem solving is the very foundation. I just think the issue is very complex and probably not well understood.

[Anonymous No.6303208]

>>6303078
>traits differ and correlate across countless categories.
True e.g. social class, even physical health beauty and tallness and brain size are correlated with IQ.

[Anonymous No.6303209]

>>6303100
>most traits have not experienced any significant differences selection between environments
So why are the Eastern European Jews so smart? They had plenty of time to select for intelligence, and also for immunity to various ghetto diseases.


Dog varieties have been evolving no longer than humans and you can't tell me a King Charles Cavalier is as smart as an Australian Kelpie.

[Anonymous No.6303253]

>>6303209
>you can't tell me a King Charles Cavalier is as smart as an Australian Kelpie.
actually they are as far as science has been able to tell.

the only evidence for differences in dog breed intelligence comes in the form of polls of dog show judges where they overwhelmingly ranked certain body types as smarter.

the bias (shape of the dog informs opinions of intelligence) has been well-studied, but no actual differences in dog intelligence have ever been found.

so there is that.

If you can't even accept obvious truth over cultural myth regarding dogs you can't be expected to converse in any meaningful way about human behaviors.