[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/sci/ - Science & Math

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


We need to have a conversation about race and IQ. I will start this thread off by addressing some basic points about this subject, and after that I'm sure we'll get into the specifics.

>Why does this matter?
Much of our understanding of social issues relies on the idea of cognitive equality between races. What this leads to is that whenever we see an average disparity in life outcomes between racial groups, we conclude that this disparity must be due to some environmental factor, or worse, some nefarious force that intentionally keeps certain racial groups scoring lower in measures of life success. In response to this perception of racial injustice, institutions have started to implement policies that explicitly give racial preferential treatment to those races who are perceived to be the victims of oppression. An example of this is that universities are now granting higher admission rates to underrepresented minorities. An Asian American applicant in the fourth-lowest academic decile has virtually no chance of being admitted (0.9%), while an African American applicant in the same academic decile has a 12.8% chance of being admitted. Identical GPA's.
https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/1444900/SFFA_Harvard_Cert_FINAL_SFFA_Petition_for_Certiorari.pdf?p=pdf

Due to the unsubstantiated assumption that racial groups are cognitively equal, we now stray further from a merit-based society and are heading more towards a race-based society. In an attempt to rectify perceived racial injustice, we create true racial injustice at the hands of higher scoring racial groups.

Source picture: Weiss 2010 - WAIS-IV Clinical Use and Interpretation: Scientist-Practitioner Perspectives
https://1lib.nl/book/1043119/76adf1
>>
No, we don't. We need to have a conversation about what motivated you to make this thread.
>>
>Race
Race is a socially constructed category based on observable phenotypic and genetic differences between human populations that arised from divergent evolution semi-isolated from each other for thousands of years. The fact that a category is socially constructed is not a significant point, since every category is socially constructed. The best analogy I can give you on this is the color spectrum. How many colors are there? Where does red end and yellow begin? Aren't there many different shades of red? The answer to all of these questions is that it depends on your application for your categories. In some circumstances you require more specific information about a color than in other circumstances. These categories are ultimately meant to make communication more effective.

Contemporary genetic research has for the most part vindicated our social understanding of race. When a computer algorithm is given genetic information, and is told to divide a group of individuals in X number of clusters, these genetic cluster correspond between 95-99% to self identified race/ethnicity or continental ancestry. Merely 50 random SNPs are necessary to predict continental ancestry with 95% accuracy based on genetics alone. This number approaches 100% the more genetic markers are analyzed.
Here are a few studies that divide humans into genetic clusters that correspond with what we know as races or continental ancestry:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15266342/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17349058/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3951706/
>>
>IQ
It's not the IQ score itself that we're interested in, it is the underlying variable, the g factor, that IQ tests best approximate. The g factor is the variable that summarizes positive correlations among different cognitive tasks, reflecting the fact that an individual's performance on one type of cognitive task correlates with that person's performance on other kinds of cognitive tasks. The focus on IQ tests stems from the fact that these tests offer the highest g-loadings, which means that this g-factor accounts for most of the variance on these tests as opposed to specific knowledge. This makes IQ tests the best measure of intelligence available to us.

In regards to IQ disparities between races, the most researched groups are blacks and whites in the US. The gap is around 1.1 standard deviation, which comes down to a mean difference of 16.5 points.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00094.x
>>
>Heritability
Among academics there is little debate about the size of the gap itself. The contentious point is how much of this gap is due to genetic factors and how much is due to environmental factors. To estimate how much of the gap is due to genetic factors, a good starting point is twin studies. Twin studies reveal how much of the variance in a phenotypic trait (IQ) is due to genetic variance. This is done by comparing the correlation in IQ of monozygotic twin pairs (~100% genetic similarity) to the correlation in IQ of dizygotic twin pairs (~50% genetic similarity). This way we know the effect of a 50% increase in genetic similarity on phenotypic similarity. Twin studies show that the heritability of IQ is ~80% in adulthood, so 80% of the variance in IQ is due to genetic variance between people.
https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/mp.2014.105
https://sci-hub.se/10.1002/neu.10160
https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.intell.2014.01.008
https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.intell.2006.10.003
https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.intell.2008.10.010

So if the variance in IQ within the general population is 80% due to genetic factors, it is a good starting point to assume that the difference between blacks and whites is also for 80% due to genetic factors, unless we find a set of highly unusual circumstances (an x-factor) that are uniformly true for blacks and not for whites that disrupts the finding of 80% heritability in the general population. This is highly unlikely to be the case, as IQ tests are measurement invariant for race, and measurement invariance and an x-factor cannot both be true at the same time.
https://sci-hub.se/10.3390/psych1010017
https://sci-hub.se/10.1177/0734282917698303
>>
>>13067666
I explained that in my first post under "Why does this matter?"
>>
File: Brain_weight_age.gif (17 KB, 659x431)
17 KB
17 KB GIF
How come its "race and IQ" every single time and nobody has ever started a "gender and IQ" thread? Why doesn't the jewish divide and conquer plan involve pointing out how stupid women are? Is it because jews are all effeminate cripplecocks and highlighting the stupidity of females offends them?
>>
>>13067632
Don't care, didn't read. OP is a tranny.
>>
Y it actually matters specially if you want to help people. And ofc its unfair if IQ study's, regarding race, are in some way misrepresented or don't get any attention at all.

But it doesn't matter so much that we need this thread every day on this side.
>>
>>13067693
Women have roughly the same IQ as men. Brain size explains a fraction of the variance in IQ, women don't necessarily have a lower IQ than men just because they have lower brain volume. Asians have lower brain volume than Europeans as well, although not when you adjust for body size.
>>
>>13067632
The idea btw. that some one gets more izzy into an university cause he has an specific race status, wont help anyone in the long run.
The main effect will be that the status of the University starts to decay in relation to the economy to the point, where a degree doesn't matter.
>>
>>13067722
Women and men have the same IQ on average by design. The individual sections of IQ tests were specifically weighted so that at the end the average IQ of both sexes were the same regardless of how g-loaded each test was.
>>
File: Morton_drawing.png (19 KB, 629x474)
19 KB
19 KB PNG
>>13067722
>Asians have lower brain volume than Europeans as well, although not when you adjust for body size
They lack the pronounced frontal lobe of Europeans.
>>
>>13067666
Found the nog
>>
File: 1619783362690.jpg (52 KB, 980x781)
52 KB
52 KB JPG
>>13067632
>tell friend about 4chan
>he thinks its full of rascists and bigots
>tell him there are good boards like sci
>i show him on my phone
>first post he sees is this
>mfw
>>
File: brainlet pride.jpg (97 KB, 634x634)
97 KB
97 KB JPG
>>13067722
>women and men are exactly the same, brain size doesn't matter
>all fundamental physiological differences between men and women stop from the neck up
OK if brain size doesn't matter, then where are all the microcephalic geniuses?
>>
>>13067895
He might learn something
>>
>>13067907
>OK if brain size doesn't matter
Not him but he didn't say that. I think I remember reading their is a positive correlation between brain size and iq of like .3 to .6. So yeah it's not that great of a predictor but it isn't totally useless.
>>
>>13067907
Brain size obviously does matter, but like the other anon said the correlation isn't 1. Also intelligence differences as a result of brain size differences makes more sense after adjusting for body size.
>>
File: 1615576590471.gif (3.48 MB, 448x448)
3.48 MB
3.48 MB GIF
>>13067942
>Men have more gray matter than women
>Gray matter linked to logical reasoning
>women have more white matter than men
>White matter linked to verbal IQ and communication
>Infant males prefer seeing physical objects over people, and vice versa for infant females
>Millions of years of selective pressures on males and females physiologically, morphologically, and culturally yield sexually dimorphic brain chemistries
>>>>BuT MaLe aNd FeMaLeS hAvE eQuAl BrAiNs!!
Blow it out your ass, faggot.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0163638300000321
>>
>>13067632
>We need to have a conversation about race and IQ
No we don't, go to literally any 4chan archive. We've had thousands.
>>
File: superior.png (32 KB, 583x399)
32 KB
32 KB PNG
>>
>>13067736
But this does benefit a lot of people in the long. Mostly it benefits all the people who didn't go to Harvard. It can also benefit society if it becomes the impetus for a little creative disruption in the education field, like the emergence of new degree certification architectures.
>>
>>13067632
Good thread, good post.
>>13067666
>We need to have a conversation about what motivated you to make this thread
He explained it in the post.
>>
>>13067632
From non scientific viewpoint but fully from experience, I really think iq has more to do with poverty.
Not that you will be stupid, because you grew up in a bad place, but the possibility that you will do shit that won't get you anywhere is higher.
>>
>>13067700
Based anti-science redneck.
>>
>>13068061
I'd give your mom some more white matter
>>
>>13068061
Dilate, tranny.
>>
>>13068856
The ability to get out of poverty, or at least get your children out of it, could also be correlated with IQ level.
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQm2kf5vbqs
>>
>>13069039
Or very likely the economic conditions that surround poverty in different places, and the policies that can perpetuate or alleviate them.
>>
>>13067942
>after adjusting for body size.
OK, if thats what you want, but that chart says that a 7 year old boy, who weighs less than half what the average adult woman does, has the same brain mass as an adult woman. Adjusting for body size that would make his brain more than twice as big as a woman's.
>>
>>13069050
this explains why women act like 7 year olds. and no you're being retarded, obviously this is in reference to adults.
heritability of most traits increases with age, so even what you stated would not be unusual
>>
>>13067693
Well for starters women iq distributes as a normal curve while men distributes as a binomial one so calling women stupid when most are above your typical dude bro is retarded.
>>
File: bsr philopsphers.jpg (502 KB, 1600x1200)
502 KB
502 KB JPG
>>13069074
ok, so if brain size isn't proportional to intelligence then where are all the microcephalic intellectuals?
>>
>>13067666
Fun fact: I've heard of perhaps one or two people with "race realist" views who disavowed or openly opposed authoritarianism and other human rights abuses that those views are used to facilitate. All the others either embrace them or pretend like they don't exist. Every single one.
>>
>>13069103
>ok, so if brain size isn't proportional to intelligence then
When in the fuck did I said that, I stated what IQ distribution for women and men are.
Are you so dense you can only think in one variable? Yes brain size correlates with inteligence, Where is the sperm whale civilization? its not about the size itself but weight proportional to size and the brain convolutions. But whatever you are gonna post that pic in response to everything like the retarded one trick pony that you are.
>>
>>13069039
High IQ Jew here. Clawed myself out of poverty.
>>
>>13068856
At the most retarded intelligence should be viewed at a Y = a.X + b with b being your socioeconomic level (representing your access to education and oportunities) while a being your IQ.
>>
File: SpeedLimits-Men-Women.jpg (16 KB, 422x422)
16 KB
16 KB JPG
>>13069211
you seem upset, but at least i finally got you to admit that brain size is a factor in intelligence and that men have substantially larger brains than women, which means that women are dumb, as reflected in the history of the sciences and mathematics.
further evidence of the stupidity of women is that many of the male geniuses of the past never attracted a mate. all of the dumb bitches which went for chads instead of newton doomed their offspring to live as a species less genetically adapted for calculus then they could have been.

tl;dr women are retards and everyone knows it
>>
>>13067666
shut the fuck up
>>
>>13067693
isn't it divide and conquer trying to put men and women of a same race one against eachother?
>>
>>13068856
How much of the correlation between poverty and IQ is genetically mediated?
>>
>>13069232
So what's Y and what's X?
>>
>>13069116
What do you think that proves?
>>
>>13069323
It's an ideological weapon, that's what.
>>
File: out2.webm (1.88 MB, 800x822)
1.88 MB
1.88 MB WEBM
women have higher EQ than men, live longer, and have better organisms with no refractory period
>>
>>13068275
It's too bad too many people sympathize with the whites. Whites are currently closing their borders of Europe.
>>
>>13067632
Sylvester stallone has 160 IQ and makes braindead movies. Trump's IQ score is 156 and he's practically functioning in a borderline vegetative state.
>>
>>13069513
>Whites are currently closing their borders of Europe.
kek, the greens will soon take power in germany, and they will make Merkel look like a fundamentalist conservative.
Maybe Some of the other countries can still fight back, but germany is fcking lost.
t. german
>>
>>13069533
This might be the most retarded criticism of IQ you could give.
>>
>>13069501
>EQ
How do you rank order personality traits?
>>
>>13069550
Maybe, but brain functions and neuroplasticity are nowhere as simplistic as IQ tests could imply.
>>
>>13069533
>IQ is a meme because a President of the United States and a multi-millionaire movie producer have high IQ
cope
>>
>>13069561
IQ tests aren't as simplistic as you think.
>>
>>13069533
>Trump's IQ score is 156 and he's practically functioning in a borderline vegetative state.
What makes you say that? He has a lot of stamina to public speak and stand at a podium, regularly plays golf. He's very clearly active even well into his 70s.
>>
>>13067632
No, we do not. Fuck off back to >>>/pol/
>>
>>13070521
>I LOVE SCIENCE!!!
>no.. not this science..
>>
>>13070548
>"""science"""
>>
>>13070565
>behavioral genetics and differential psychology aren't sciences
Can you please tell me which step in the scientific method these fields skip?
>>
>>13070590
Ideological tools for armchair scientists and would-be genocide perpetrators to putter around with aren't scientific.
>>
>>13070609
On top of the fact that you've failed to answer my question regarding which step of the scientific method these fields do not pass, you ironically demonstrate that your own disregard for entire fields of study stems from an ideological motivation.
>>
>>13070625
I'm not the ideological one - I just know ideological tomfoolery when I see it. Racial "science" is all too often guilty of what many schools of thought are. Its proponents refuse to admit the existence of any variables or evidence that could distract from, let alone undermine, their central message, which is an ideological one. When people call them out head-on and don't let them define the parameters of debate, they throw a tantrum and almost invariably claim that everyone but them is either an emotionally fragile woman or part of a vast conspiracy of powerful people that persecutes innocent, good-willed dissidents. Alternatively, they resort to made-up insults and phraseology like "anti-white."
>>
>>13070661
>made-up insults
Every single insult that exists is "made-up", you fucking retard.
>>
>>13070661
You have again failed to answer the question which step of the scientific method behavioral genetics and differential psychology do not pass. You're not going to answer this question, because we both know that your resentment for these fields is based on nothing more than the fact that you don't like the conclusions. That is a bias, and it's made all the more obvious by your fearmongering about "would-be genocide perpetrators".

If you have any constructive criticism at all, I'd love to hear it. All I've heard so far is feelies.
>>
>>13070590
Predictions
>>
>>13070723
Why argue with egalitards? They're not rational thinkers, their worldview is entirely based on emotion.
>>
>>13070729
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearman%27s_hypothesis
>>
>>13070723
Just like I said, you immediately try to frame the parameters of discussion by your own terms and claim that I'm just being emotional, as is evident in my observation (which anyone can make) that racial "science" is largely the domain of activists who simply don't like liberal or progressive ideals.
>>13070730
Where am I being emotional? Emotionality would be saying "I don't like this, so it's not real." That's not what I've said. I've provided some dispassionate criticism. It looks like you're being the emotional one here.
>>
>>13070749
Fuck off, retard.
>>
>>13070749
>you immediately try to frame the parameters of discussion
You came into this thread to calling these fields not a science, without further explanation. I ask you to back up that statement by telling me which step of the scientific method these fields do not pass. The fact that you can't answer the question to substantiate what you're saying doesn't mean I'm "framing".

>that racial "science" is largely the domain of activists who simply don't like liberal or progressive ideals
Is there anything that would suggest that this is true? Or is this another one of your gut feelings.
>>
>>13068061
men also have 4 billion more brain cells in their cerebral cortex on average

probably has no effect
>>
>>13070749
>that racial "science" is largely the domain of activists who simply don't like liberal or progressive ideals.
It's funny that you say this, because the opposite is the case. Your environmentalist figureheads openly admit they would rather suppress the evidence that races differ in intelligence due to genetic factors, because of the same fearmongering you're displaying in this thread.
>>
>>13068275
unfathomably based
>>
>>13067632
>We need to have a conversation about race and IQ
No we don't

>Much of our understanding of social issues relies on the idea of cognitive equality between races.
Not at all, are you an imbecile?
>>
>>13070796
Skipping or omitting steps of the scientific method is not the only possible problem with something that could call itself "science."
>Is there anything that would suggest that this is true? Or is this another one of your gut feelings.
Some of the researchers who could be reasonably classified as part of this controversy are or were outspoken advocates for political causes, usually eugenics, the end of social programs or other efforts to uplift the poor, expanded use of the death penalty and/or carceral state, the large-scale deportation or internment of foreign immigrants in camps, or the "voluntary" breakup of communities or entire countries. Those who themselves aren't overtly involved in such advocacy generally either openly rub shoulders with those who do, or perpetuate their narratives by unquestioningly repeating them and taking pride in shunning other ideas lest they appear too mainstream or politically correct. It's not just the political or ideological involvement that's suspect. It's their steadfast adherence to those narratives and habitual rejection of challenging ideas.
>>13070835
Their reaction is 100% understandable, but it's not my reaction or the reaction of everyone outside of "race realist" circles.
>>
>>13071052
I like how you never actually answer his question.
>they have opinions i don't like so they must be wrong
Fuck off already.
>>
>>13071068
I answered both of his greentext points, and if you bothered to read what I wrote you'd see it's not just controversial conclusions that I disagree with or find suspect.
>>
>>13071087
Stop replying, dumb fuck.
>>
>>13069116
But are those views logical/factual?
>>
>>13070661
I'm not the ideological one - I just know ideological tomfoolery when I see it. Climate "science" is all too often guilty of what many schools of thought are. Its proponents refuse to admit the existence of any variables or evidence that could distract from, let alone undermine, their central message, which is an ideological one. When people call them out head-on and don't let them define the parameters of debate, they throw a tantrum and almost invariably claim that everyone but them is either an scientifically illiterate moron or part of a vast conspiracy of powerful people that persecutes innocent, good-willed dissidents. Alternatively, they resort to made-up insults and phraseology like "anti-science."
>>
>>13071130
Egalitards don't care about that.
>>
File: 47376.jpg (108 KB, 548x809)
108 KB
108 KB JPG
>>13071052
>Skipping or omitting steps of the scientific method is not the only possible problem with something that could call itself "science."
You have to be more concrete than this. What are you talking about exactly that makes these fields not a science?

>outspoken advocates for political causes
I don't think this is true, and certainly doesn't weigh up against the overt ideological bias against intelligence research or other research that gets labeled "eugenics". The defining difference between hereditarian researchers and environmentalist researchers is that hereditarian want everything to be researched, while environmentalists will do whatever they can to stop research that they think would pose a threat to their beliefs.
>>
>>13071135
I don't know if you're trying to be funny or if you're trying to derail the conversation by bringing in another topic.
>>13071155
Like I said earlier and in the post you're quoting, much of the work in this field of study lacks the skepticism and rigor that makes science scientific rather than mythological or political. Scientists ask questions, don't adhere to dogmas, and don't take pride in rejecting or demeaning other work for being too politically correct or part of a mainstream.
>I don't think this is true
Look at some of the big names, especially in the earlier generations. Roger Pearson and Henry Garrett are two examples. More recently, there's people like Richard Lynn and Henry Harpending. This sort of thing is no secret.
>hereditarian want everything to be researched
Apparently not their abominably bad research methods that they resort to massive cope to defend. Lynn's famous survey of national IQ scores, for example, got one score by testing developmentally disabled kids in a group home. That sort of non-representative sampling indicates either incredible incompetence or deliberate tailoring of the work to fit with a preconceived notion, not scientific data collection. It also seems like few want to touch the vast body of work, both scientific and informal, that explores the long-term, traumatic processes behind phenomena like urban decay, crime waves, poverty, corruption, and war, instead opting to hand-wave all that away by appealing to simplicity or dismissing it all as part of a politically correct conspiracy designed to maneuver around untouchable truths.
>>
>>13071343
>I don't know if you're trying to be funny or if you're trying to derail the conversation by bringing in another topic.
illustring the point that your notion of race/IQ being an ideological trojan horse is isomorphic to that of "climate change"being the same (both notions are correct btw)
>>
>>13071343
> It also seems like few want to touch the vast body of work, both scientific and informal, that explores the long-term, traumatic processes behind phenomena like urban decay, crime waves, poverty, corruption, and war
Look at this genius, he's the first guy to figure out that environment plays a role in determining your IQ. Nobel prize winning stuff, really.
>>
>>13067885
They lack the pronounced frontal lobe of Europeans
what are the behavioral or intelligence implications there?
>>
File: soyence.jpg (149 KB, 974x878)
149 KB
149 KB JPG
>>13070565
>>
You just want to push your shit on everyone. fuck you.
>>
>>13071343
>much of the work in this field of study lacks the skepticism and rigor
The opposite is the case. You might know that the field of psychology is undergoing a replicability crisis. Oddly enough, intelligence research doesn't suffer from this issue. Especially group differences in intelligence has the highest statistical power and replicability in all of psychology.
https://psyarxiv.com/ytsvw

Why is this the case? It's precisely because intelligence research faces the most skepticism and are held up to the highest standards. Academics are incredibly invested in criticizing the ideas they're vehemently opposed to and as a result even the most minor errors will be quickly shut down. Only high quality research survives the hordes snarky academics while other fields don't have thousands of BLM he/him's lined up to do their epic takedown of racism™ on Twitter.

>Lynn's famous survey of national IQ scores
For the sake of this thread, I'm not interested in crossnational differences, but I do agree the older dataset wasn't accurate. The 2019 revision with Becker is much better.
>>
>>13067676
>So if the variance in IQ within the general population is 80% due to genetic factors, it is a good starting point to assume that the difference between blacks and whites is also for 80% due to genetic factors
That isn't it. Genetic factors aren't race based. the difference between two guy form the same village is what is 80% and even what pertains of that 80% is tiny.
>>
>>13072046
Studies are hard to do because we have no ways to make a environment to do these studies where racism and bias does not alter the study (see that I said study not the researchers themselves).
>>
>>13072049
So the difference in IQ between random individuals in the US is 80% due to genetics, but the difference in IQ between groups that are demonstrably more genetically distant from each other is less than than base 80% due to genetic factors? How so?
>>
>>13072049

>race isn't genetic

Lmao fucking cope redditard.
>>
>>13069554
>EQ
Haha)) they come up with their own measure for women only, who’s the most emotionally unstable?
))
That’s clever, then they say, well men have low EQ.. duh men also don’t have a period.
>>
>>13070834
>men also have 4 billion more brain cells in their cerebral cortex on average

Correct
>>
>>13072069
The way we split race is not by genetics.
>>
>>13072124
Did you read this post? >>13067668
>>
>>13072046
>The opposite is the case.
Look at the rest of my comment. Some of the methodologies you can find are pretty sloppy, sources are often outdated or unreliable, and the people doing the work will rush to their own defense with a whole lot of cope.
>Academics are incredibly invested in criticizing the ideas they're vehemently opposed to and as a result even the most minor errors will be quickly shut down.
The work of JP Rushton, who made both methodological and ethical errors in his studies, often about ridiculous topics like penis size and race, still gets cited. This sort of stuff gets through not-uncommonly, usually because of either a lapse in judgement or a high level of tolerance extended to this sort of thing.
>>
>>13072121
right. larger brain, more neurons, all the accomplishments in the history books, plausible also because males face greater selection pressure due to anisogamy/sperm being cheap so must evolve higher intelligence in addition to other secondary sex traits like size and strength for competition with other men, well, the writing is on the wall
>>
File: women are stupid.jpg (165 KB, 800x820)
165 KB
165 KB JPG
>>
>>13067632
https://warosu.org/sci/image/IungX5M1lFojuWC5BAuBnw
we need to talk about bots, political campaigns and/or obsessive human beings.
>>
File: feminiggers.jpg (100 KB, 491x750)
100 KB
100 KB JPG
>>13073344
>le ad hominem fæce
>>
>>13067632
Very well said anon. I will screencap this and post next time someone inevitably asks "But what's the point talking about this?"
Such as right now.

>>13067666
see pic
>>
>>13067693
Well for one, women don't demand reparations from men for centuries of supposed discrimination as our colored countrymen do. And two, the gender stuff jews push such as wage gap, no women presidents, bla bla bla can not be explained by gender IQ gap.
>>
>>13067895
This is actually a decently worded OP post compared to most race and IQ threads.
>>
>>13068066
And yet, some anons still think Taleb is a genius or that race is a social construct. We do need to have this conversation.
>>
>>13069116
I have never met any race realist who supports human rights abuses.
>>
>>13070749
>Where am I being emotional? Emotionality would be saying "I don't like this, so it's not real." That's not what I've said.
Right, you said "This will cause genocide so I don't like it."
>>
>>13071343
>Lynn's famous survey of national IQ scores, for example, got one score by testing developmentally disabled kids in a group home. That sort of non-representative sampling indicates either incredible incompetence or deliberate tailoring of the work to fit with a preconceived notion, not scientific data collection.
This was his only mistake in that book and you people keep pretending all his other data must be similarly inaccurate as well with no shread of evidence. Completely biased and fallacious reasoning for someone who was boasting about not being emotionally invested just few posts ago.
>>
>>13072046
>For the sake of this thread, I'm not interested in crossnational differences, but I do agree the older dataset wasn't accurate.
This is not true. Lynn's 2002 data correlate at 0.946 with his 2012 data.
I also prefer his newer books because they are more comprehensive but let's not pretend the earlier ones are innacurate.
>>
File: 1503477281902.png (123 KB, 553x561)
123 KB
123 KB PNG
>>13072132
>The work of JP Rushton, who made both methodological and ethical errors in his studies, often about ridiculous topics like penis size and race, still gets cited.
What the hell is "ethical error" and why would that topic be ridiculous? Are you twelve that you snicker anytime someone says penis?
It gets cited because it's relevant and correct. Sorry that facts make you uncomfortable but that's not our problem.
>>
File: ndwdpyzyzo141.png (522 KB, 820x767)
522 KB
522 KB PNG
>>13069533
It really says a lot about our society
>>
https://files.catbox.moe/f5ormt.pdf
>>
>>13069040
>science is nazi
>appeal to motive
>IQ is a conspiracy to cover up "the real" reasons of black poverty
>appeal to anecdote
lmao is this what lefties consider a great intellectual? Even hack like Peterson is more honest than this charlatan.
>>
File: 6opmk8.jpg (133 KB, 720x1086)
133 KB
133 KB JPG
>>
>>13074170
I mentioned that as an aside.
>>13074186
>you people keep pretending all his other data must be similarly inaccurate
If someone makes even one very serious mistake but continually insists it was justified and that they did nothing wrong, it's justified to think that they are no longer trustworthy.
>>13074204
If you don't know about the instances he got into hot water for ethical violations, you're probably either pretending or you're genuinely uninformed. He violated the ethical protocols for human subject research when giving surveys of students' sexual activity.
>>
>>13067632
>race
>IQ
Define them, then we can discuss it.
>>
File: 93c.gif (68 KB, 570x537)
68 KB
68 KB GIF
>>13074332
Can you prove him wrong rather than just crying?
>>
>>13074339
>point 1
A white person is most likely to be killed by a white person. A black person is most likely to be killed by a black person. Victims and killers usually know each other. Interracial murder statistics are a red herring that just distracts from this.
>Bolsheviks were majority non-white
False for the most part. Most were Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, or Jewish, of whom the majority were Ashkenazi Jews.
>>
>>13074467
OP has already covered this >>13067668 >>13067672
>>
>>13074456
>I mentioned that as an aside.
Either way, it's bullshit excuse. There is no reason to suppose that discussing race and IQ will lead to genocide.

>If someone makes even one very serious mistake but continually insists it was justified and that they did nothing wrong, it's justified to think that they are no longer trustworthy.
He literally stopped using that number ever since it got pointed out by Wicherts in 2010. You can read any of his books post 2010 and you will see Eq. Guinea is not 59 IQ. You are completely making shit up.
And this was not a serious mistake anyway. You know what was a serious mistake? Thinking that humans can mate with monkey as noted biologist Stephen Jay Gould did. Or insisting that asians have lower IQ than whites as James Flynn used to do in 1990s. And Lynn together with other hereditarians were arguing against him. Isn't it weirs how the supposed racists and nazis are the ones who argue that non-white race has higher IQ than whites? Almost as if....

Underestimating IQ of some African shithole is very minor fuck-up in comparison. Especially when you consider Lynn had to go over hundreds of IQ papers while making his book.

>If you don't know about the instances he got into hot water for ethical violations, you're probably either pretending or you're genuinely uninformed. He violated the ethical protocols for human subject research when giving surveys of students' sexual activity.
Okay but what exactly is the error here? Were any of his data inaccurate?
>>
>>13074472
Prove what wrong? His unsubstantiated claims or fallacies he resorted to?
>>
oh teh irony of /sci/
>psychology is not science
>posts pseudopsychology
>>
>>13074572
Can you prove he used fallacies? Everything he said seems to be true. The fact that it offends you doesn't make it untrue.
>>
>>13074584
What do you mean by pseudopsychology?
>>
>>13074613
psychology is based on personal data collected from humans that is analyzed. this includes dissection, full account of the case, speculation, and proof writing. generalized opinions on a pop do not help with a field that takes an individual as it's subject. but there is some truth to individuals experiencing symptoms.
>>
>>13074635
No, psychology researches individuals as well as groups and their differences.
>>
>>13074661
in what way?
>>
>>13074562
>There is no reason to suppose that discussing race and IQ will lead to genocide.
Discussing race and psychometrics or evopsych could lead to all sorts of horrible things, as history has taught us. An emotive reaction to this is understandable, but a more appropriate reaction is dispassionately recognizing the ideological and untrustworthy nature of most of this research.
>And this was not a serious mistake anyway.
He published a paper defending this "mistake" and other methodological issues (like systematically discarding higher IQ scores for African countries) actually. At that point, it's no longer an error. It's 100% deliberate as soon as you start defending it.
>Thinking that humans can mate with monkey as noted biologist Stephen Jay Gould did. Or insisting that asians have lower IQ than whites as James Flynn used to do in 1990s
This is what's called "whataboutism."
>Okay but what exactly is the error here? Were any of his data inaccurate?
I don't think you understand this. Researchers who violate ethical mores and insist on pursuing bizarre, unscientific theories like those about penis size (reports from doctors, not self-reported statistics, show little difference between blacks and whites there) are not legitimate scientists who produce trustworthy data - they're ideologues.
>>
sorry i didn't read the op

it was an observations.

no, racial based society maximizes the parameters for racial advantages. w/e tf those are. probably has to do with reading books (maybe? I could be wrong :P).

yes we all have brains.

i don't believe in analyzing generalizations unless you have subsets of the dataset
>>
File: 143.png (17 KB, 542x457)
17 KB
17 KB PNG
>>13067632
>Due to the unsubstantiated assumption that racial groups are cognitively equal...
This is analogous to the unsubstantiated assumption that citizens are innocent until proven guilty, even though, with all things considered, the accused is statistically more likely to be guilty than innocent.

This is because depriving someone of their civil rights, liberties, and life opportunities is serious and not to be done without very strong reasons.

Thus, at least in modern civilized nations, we can't allow mere group statistics to curtail the civil rights of individuals. To do so is unethical.

Pic related is my genetic makeup. I have an IQ of 143. For me to argue that we should seriously act on IQ predictions based on outward racial phenotypes alone would be to argue that I should not have been taught in good schools throughout my life, etc. I can't do that.
>>
>>13074682
Conducting intelligence tests among different groups for example
>>
>>13074750
groups follow rules anons. nice bell.
>>
>>13074752
No idea what this is supposed to mean
>>
>>13074763
A group must follow internal rules. Everyone would thus be the same. That's the theory of a group.
>>
>>13074728
Racialists know it's "unethical." They simply don't care. They don't believe in ethics or morals - all they see is the "correct" and "incorrect," though of course seen through their blinders.
>>
>>13074728
>For me to argue that we should seriously act on IQ predictions based on outward racial phenotypes
This is exactly what OP argued against. He thinks we should treat people based on individual merit, and due to group differences we shouldn't be surprised if the proportions between races in life outcomes are assymetrical.
>>
>>13074698
>Discussing race and psychometrics or evopsych could lead to all sorts of horrible things, as history has taught us
Can you give an example? Which genocide was carried out because the targeted group was deemed to be less intelligent?

>He published a paper defending this "mistake"
Which paper do you mean? He published this as a reply to Wicherts and nowhere did he defend 59 figure for Eq. Guinea
https://sci-hub.se/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289609001275?via%3Dihub

>and other methodological issues (like systematically discarding higher IQ scores for African countries)
He gave reasons for why he discarded some high IQ estimates in the above paper. The instances where he discarded a study purely by high IQ was in case like Kenya where one study found 87 IQ while all others were around 70. Or Nigeria where one study found 96 IQ. These were clearly unrepresentative samples and should not be used to estimate IQ of a whole nation.

>it's no longer an error. It's 100% deliberate as soon as you start defending it.
Well, good thing he didn't.

>Researchers who violate ethical mores
Ethical mores like asking students some questions. "We shouldn't research X because it goes against our rigid guidelines from last century". You talk like some narrow-minded conservative. Science would progress nowhere with people like you.

>unscientific theories like those about penis size (reports from doctors, not self-reported statistics, show little difference between blacks and whites there)
Which report do you mean? Kinsey data which he used were measured by doctors. UN also recommends different sized condoms for each continent.
>>
>>13074766
Which rules are you talking about? And what about this bell you mentioned?
>>
>>13074785
bells in op's pic actually.

maybe the group is a lie. with lies for rules.
>>
>>13074598
The problem with fallacies is not that they must be wrong but that the are misleading and/or irrelevant.
His mother came from family of 11 kids. So what? Does it mean jews typically don't have small families?
Hereditarians publish IQ research because they are Hitler worshipers and want to use it o genocide black people. So what? Does it mean their research wrong?

It' sad I have to explain basic stuff like fallacies to you.
>>
>>13074796
Do you mean there are no racial groups?
>>
like the group rule that when we go to school we read our books, do the homework, and attend class.

maybe. functional rules anyways.
>>
>>13074800
Eastern European Jews, allegedly highly K-selected, historically had very large families. His example isn't unusual or unrepresentative. It wasn't until the modernization of Eastern Europe or migration of Jews to the West that their family sizes decreased.
>Hereditarians publish IQ research because they are Hitler worshipers and want to use it o genocide black people. So what? Does it mean their research wrong?
Like he said, it means it's a deliberate weapon, not innocuous, isolated data. You seem incapable of grasping that concept, as if science as a concept was as simple and concrete as a middle school math problem.
>>
>>13074829
>Eastern European Jews, allegedly highly K-selected, historically had very large families. His example isn't unusual or unrepresentative. It wasn't until the modernization of Eastern Europe or migration of Jews to the West that their family sizes decreased.
Everyone used to have big families back then not just jews and this is not even what he said. You are steelmaning his argument because you know what he said is garbage.

>Like he said, it means it's a deliberate weapon, not innocuous, isolated data.
As I said, this is completely irrelevant to whether it is true or not.
>>
>>13074728
>>13074773
So you're okay with factual discussions of group statistics, but you're not okay with letting them curtail the civil rights of individuals
>>
File: 1615893323546.jpg (179 KB, 638x850)
179 KB
179 KB JPG
>>13067632
I've noticed the shift from meritocracy to racially biased selection as well in my country.
I think their idea is to elevate the 'disadvantaged minorities', it feels a little patronising to me.
But hey, I'm the majority where I live, and my demographic isn't 'disadvantaged', so maybe I'd feel differently if I were part of one of those who supposedly are.
But I'll admit it does irk me when I go to apply for jobs and they're labelled as only indigenous or only women (not racial, but still relevant to this strange world of forced diversity we're headed into) applicable.
My somewhat unscientific theory is that *most* intelligence disparities between races can be put down to socioeconomics, I've read that your genes and environment have roughly equal weight in your final IQ.
So if you have little access to *good* education, I know everyone in the west has access to some education but there is definitely a difference in quality between public schools and private schools for instance. Or simply the fact that higher socioeconomic families are more likely to have conscientious parents who try harder to make sure their kids turn out the same way they did.
I really don't like the way my country offers racially biased welfare as well, you get more free shit if you're a certain colour. Why should an impoverished indigenous child have more access to help than an impoverished white child?
If the difference is more innately physical then I really don't know what we could do about it.
Raise awareness and education standards in their communities perhaps.
>>
>>13068275
Wow I didn't know Jews were the superior race
>>
>>13069103
If brain size was the only factor of intelligence whales would be the smartest mfs in the world
>>
>it's another /pol/ raid
It's all so tiresome.
>>
>>13075502
4CHAN USERS ARE RAIDING 4CHAN AGAIN MOOOOODS
>>
>>13075476
Talk to a Jew sometime, most of the self-described chosen people believe this in some fashion
>>
>>13074778
>Which genocide was carried out because the targeted group was deemed to be less intelligent?
Like I said, it's not just genocide, and you'd have to be historically ignorant to not know some of these things. As far back as Aristotle, people have argued that some groups are naturally suited for enslavement or subjugation. It was one of the common tropes of the colonial era, claiming that Africans and other conquered peoples were like children in need of civilizing or animals in need of taming. It was used as an excuse for the subsequent decades of enslavement, mass murder, exploitative labor practices, and the establishment of caste systems that denied recognition of the humanity of millions of people. In Nazi Germany, "useless eaters" or "life unworthy of life" were targeted for extermination or forcible sterilization. In the USA, Australia, South Africa, and many other countries, dogma of racial hierarchies were the keystone of regimes that killed tens of thousands of people in some cases and condemned millions more to lives of poverty, imprisonment, and servitude.
>Which paper do you mean? He published this as a reply to Wicherts and nowhere did he defend 59 figure for Eq. Guinea
He does, however, go on damage control and defend almost every single figure he used, usually just ignoring what people say about them.
>He gave reasons for why he discarded some high IQ estimates in the above paper.
Cope.
>You talk like some narrow-minded conservative. Science would progress nowhere with people like you.
You talk like a crying wojak cartoon.
>Kinsey data
Kinsey's data was revolutionary... in the 1950s. Later he was criticized for sampling bias, and his work is considered rather outdated nowadays.
Rushton's 1987 paper also cited obviously non-scholarly sources like folk tales and porn magazines. Interestingly enough, Lynn reviews Rushton's work and doesn't have much to say against this glaring flaw, and he himself uses unreliable sources.
>>
>>13074773
>They don't believe in ethics or morals
they do, ethics and morals are arbitrary systems. hitler saw himself as a good guy too
>>
>>13075662
>Africans and other conquered peoples were like children in need of civilizing
wasn't that kinda true though? Even today we think we can go civilize african tribes away from practices like genital mutilation
>>
>>13074859
>this is not even what he said
He talks about Eastern European peasants in general.
>You are steelmaning his argument because you know what he said is garbage.
I'm trying to clarify what he's implying, because you apparently don't get it, and his style of speaking can include a lot of subtle, deadpan jabs at what he's criticizing.
>As I said, this is completely irrelevant to whether it is true or not.
It makes it a whole lot less likely that it's true, and it's a sign that one should use caution in any case with such a subject. People who say otherwise are often ideological sympathizers with it, so of course they'd leap to defend it.
>>
>>13075010
We'd arrive at a factual discussion if people who have no problem violating civil or human rights would please leave the conversation.
>>
>>13075678
"Civilizing" in this context wasn't a benevolent, gentle or peaceful process, if that wasn't clear. It meant bringing entire nations under the yoke.
>>
>>13075677
And I hope we can all agree that he wasn't, and that his regime's crimes serve as an example of what happens when "civilized" peoples decide to ignore all the progress they have made and abandon the most elementary morality. This isn't Platonic theory or anything beyond the reach of most people, except perhaps nihilists, moral relativist cucks, and people who actively seek to do harm.
>>
>>13075541
Jewish presence in academics is for a large part responsible for the race denialism consensus though. At least in 1978, but I'm willing to bet the same trend follows today.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/274899?seq=1
>>
>>13075687
including the human rights to free movement and assembly during a pandemic?
>>
>>13075763
Yup it's pretty hypocritical
>>
>>13075694
Am I wrong though? Surely you think FGM should be civilized out of existence, that we should bring the world under the yoke of gender equality
>>
>>13075776
Yeah FGM is barbaric, as is routine circumcision of male infants and children.
>>
>>13075765
Optimally, yeah, the people calling for even stricter lockdowns and harsher enforcement would be ignored. Lockdowns past the initial few months of the pandemic probably caused more damage than they prevented, especially for low-income people and people under 60.
>>
>>13075810
Absolutely, and to some of us it was obvious from the beginning that this was going to happen. Of course even lockdown in the initial few months was a violation of human rights. Point being that many people here consider human rights expendable in the pursuit of the greater good
>>
>>13067632
shut the fuck up just shut the fuck up please im begging you to unplug your router for even a day
>>
>>13075772
how so? races don't exist but culture, genetics and epigenetics are real. take a pair of twins and give one child to a family that speaks a language that doesn't come with the same built in concepts as say english or mandarin and makes a living with farming and give the other to an upper middle class NY jews that makes it learn not just english but also jewish law and hebrew and they will turn out very differently. one will probably be superior in many ways.

>>13075694
and what is a nation? some group who brought entire nations/tribes/whatever under their yoke and somehow sculped them into a new in group. clan is worse than a tribe is worse than confederation is worse than a nation is worse than homoglobo utopia because there can be infinite ethnicies, all it takes is some social engineering.
but since we're stuck on a single planet with 8 billion people the right to self determination is obviously not universal.
it's just something short sighted the most powerful states agreed upon last century.

>>13075765
these aren't human rights, they're rights some humans have in some states
>>
>>13076020
>races don't exist but culture, genetics and epigenetics are real.
Race is the intersection of those three things boyo
>>
>>13076020
>these aren't human rights, they're rights some humans have in some states
difference?
>>
>>13075662
>Like I said, it's not just genocide,
Judging by what you wrote it's not genocide at all. You talk about anything BUT genocide.
I have no intention to discuss the "race was invented to justify slavery" narrative again so we can at least agree that your worries about IQ research leading to genocide were unwarranted.

>He does, however, go on damage control and defend almost every single figure he used, usually just ignoring what people say about them.
Did you even read any Lynn's books? Or Wichert's paper at least? Probably not, you only know about Eq. Guinea because you saw that repeated here often. Why are we even continuing this conversation? You are clearly grasping at straws here. And you very clearly decided priori that Lynn's work is wrong and nothing I could write would convince you otherwise.

>Kinsey's data was revolutionary... in the 1950s. Later he was criticized for sampling bias, and his work is considered rather outdated nowadays.
This is very smooth goalpost move. You say a thing, I prove it wrong and then you immediately move on to the next one. As with Lynn. Just beautiful.

>Rushton's 1987 paper also cited obviously non-scholarly sources like folk tales and porn magazines. Interestingly enough, Lynn reviews Rushton's work and doesn't have much to say against this glaring flaw, and he himself uses unreliable sources.
He cited Penthouse once yes. So what? That's a "flaw" maybe for desperate ideologues who have no real arguments against his work. I have no clue what folk tales you are talking about but knowing you, it's probably some shit you made up.
>>
>>13076020
>races don't exist
What makes a category "not exist"? Just because you don't like the usage of this categorization doesn't mean it doesn't exist, everyone else uses racial categories. If you want to make an argument about how race doesn't correspond to genetic clusters, I'd love to hear it.

>take a pair of twins and give one child to a family that speaks a language that doesn't come with the same built in concepts as say english or mandarin and makes a living with farming and give the other to an upper middle class NY jews that makes it learn not just english but also jewish law and hebrew and they will turn out very differently. one will probably be superior in many ways.
IQ correlation for MZ twins reared apart is 0.72, and 0.86 for MZ twins reared together. The environment doesn't have as much of an effect as you think.
>>
>>13075890
gonna post this tomorrow just for you lad
>>
>>13075890
why so triggered?
>>
>>13075681
Please, be cautious all you like. You can pretend that what Chomsky said isn't what he meant but don't pretend that video gives arguments against race and IQ. You like it because you enjoy listing to smart person repeating what you believe but don't pretend it's anything more than that.
>>
>>13076201
>Judging by what you wrote it's not genocide at all. You talk about anything BUT genocide.
I never said it's just genocide. Don't move the goalposts.
>I have no intention to discuss the "race was invented to justify slavery" narrative again
I never said that it was the sole reason the Atlantic Slave Trade existed, but it's a lie to claim that racial "science" played no role in justifying it.
>Did you even read any Lynn's books? Or Wichert's paper at least? Probably not, you only know about Eq. Guinea because you saw that repeated here often. Why are we even continuing this conversation? You are clearly grasping at straws here.
Absolutely zero arguments here. Just screaming and crying like a woman.
>You say a thing, I prove it wrong
And I show how you prove jack shit.
>So what? That's a "flaw" maybe for desperate ideologues who have no real arguments against his work
It's neither scientific nor professional, and you won't find many people defending it, except libcucks, and of course people like you.
>I have no clue what folk tales you are talking about
Did you not see the sources cited that include a book by an anonymous 19th century French surgeon who repeated what were basically urban legends and other unverified information?
>>
>>13076237
I'm not saying what Chomsky said isn't what he meant. I'm saying to seem to not understand what he's saying or what he means.
>>
>>13076202
what's the use of race as a category? is there one? most of the world isn't even using it anymore, just the US somehow didn't get the memo. they even dumbed down good old euroracism into just black white yellow brown red. why would you divide humanity in just 5 genetic clusters? and are they even genetic clusters?

>IQ correlation for MZ twins reared apart is 0.72, and 0.86 for MZ twins reared together. The environment doesn't have as much of an effect as you think.
IQ is just one metric and twins raised in the US by different parents still grow up in twhat is broadly the same culture.
>>
>>13076286
>I never said it's just genocide. Don't move the goalposts.
You said IQ research will lead to genocide. After I asked you to give examples of such genocides you talked about pretty much everything but genocides.
So you are the one who is moving goalposts. Again.

>but it's a lie to claim that racial "science" played no role in justifying it.
It's the truth. People didn't need anything to justify slavery. But it's snot that important thing so believe what you want.

>Absolutely zero arguments here. Just screaming and crying like a woman.
Again, why? We both know you never read Lynn. We both know you have no actual arguments against Lynn. You are just poisoning the well and making vague claims to make him appear untrustworthy because you have nothing specific. Why continue this? Do you want to have the last word is that it?

>And I show how you prove jack shit.
Aaah, self-deception. It was only matter of time.

>It's neither scientific nor professional, and you won't find many people defending it, except libcucks, and of course people like you.
Based libcucks then

>Did you not see the sources cited that include a book by an anonymous 19th century French surgeon who repeated what were basically urban legends and other unverified information?
I really did not see. He had one chapter on how race was viewed throughout history in various parts of the world so perhaps that's what you mean.
>>
Your racist garbage has been thoroughly debunked on reddit. Go back to your cave, you piece of shit bigot.
>>
>>13076403
>what's the use of race as a category?
The same use as any other category, to communicate some generalized information about what you're talking about. What's the use of categorizing animal species if they're all just animals?

>most of the world isn't even using it anymore, just the US somehow didn't get the memo.
The use of racial categories is actually increasing in this pseudoreligion of anti-racism. You cannot rectify racial injustice without recognizing human races.

>why would you divide humanity in just 5 genetic clusters?
Even 5 genetic clusters gives you a fair amount of information to make some reasonable predictions at a continental scale. If more specific information is required, you could get more specific and use a narrower cluster, in the same sense that humans fall under the animalia kingdom, chordata phylum, mammalia class, primates order etc etc.

>twins raised in the US by different parents still grow up in twhat is broadly the same culture
If we're talking about black-white IQ differences in the US, then it would only make sense to look at the range of environments within the US.
>>
>>13074076
>women don't demand reparations from men for centuries of supposed discrimination as our colored countrymen do
They absolutely do in some form. Women are the biggest recipients of affirmative action, they get advantages in hiring and there are all sorts of gender based fundings and discrimination that favor women.
>>
>>13074728
>This is because depriving someone of their civil rights, liberties, and life opportunities is serious and not to be done without very strong reasons.
So you're against positive discrimination ?
>>
>>13074332
the nazi comparison is stupid anyway, the last thing a nazi wants is someone pulling up IQ results that show Asians and Jews are smarter than white people.
>>
>>13076507
Only the US and /pol/ use these categories. A Sami and a Yemeni American are both white, how is that useful? A Somali, a guy from Senegal and a 1 drop rule 1/16 ''''African'''' American all fall under black.

>If we're talking about black-white IQ differences in the US, then it would only make sense to look at the range of environments within the US.

But why do you want to talk about black-white IQ differences in the US in the first place? Because they taught you these categories at school and your whole society pretends that they matter just like they stick to the imperial system.
>>
>>13076613
depends on what you mean by "nazi"
>>
>>13076628
>Sami and a Yemeni American
How are either of these categories useful?
>>
File: 12523.jpg (445 KB, 1581x2337)
445 KB
445 KB JPG
>>13067693
>>13067722
>notice men have much higher IQ
>redefine IQ such that men and women are the same, never talk about this fact
>LOOK, MEN AND WOMEN ARE THE SAME
midwits belong on /b/
see this post
>>13067757
>>
>>13076628
>Only the US and /pol/ use these categories
No, I'm from Europe and anti-racist zealots use racial categories all the time to point at perceived injustice.

>A Sami and a Yemeni American are both white, how is that useful?
A dog and a horse are both mammals, how is that useful? Well, they can be subdivided further down or generalized further up depending on your use of the category. You're not even arguing against just racial categories at this point, you're arguing against all of taxonomy.

>A Somali, a guy from Senegal and a 1 drop rule 1/16 ''''African'''' American all fall under black.
This categorization of black would already give you enough information to know that we're not talking about someone with 100% European ancestry or 100% East-Asian ancestry. You have already narrowed down to a certain subset of human populations based on something people understand.

>But why do you want to talk about black-white IQ differences in the US in the first place?
Because these are the best researched groups, and it gives us the clearest picture of how much genetic factors and environmental factors play a part in their differences because they're exposed to the same range of environments. Crossnational comparisons include too many variables.
>>
>>13076628
>people who look slightly white are White people
That's incredibly moronic, nobody thinks this way. You'd have more luck calling a group of Yiddish-speaking, Torah reading middle-easterners/north-east-africans European, despite how obviously dumb that would be.
>>
Do we have some research on genetics and intelligence from non-pozzed regions of the world? E.g. China or Russia.
>>
>>13076681
95% genetics, 5% environment. Case closed. You have to be exceedingly poor - near starvation - for it to matter.
>>
>>13076449
>You said IQ research will lead to genocide
As one possible outcome. As I've said multiple times, there are multiple other undesirable outcomes.
>It's the truth
Except it's not. Literally read anything about racial theories of the time.
>We both know you have no actual arguments against Lynn
Other than the things I've mentioned.
>You are just poisoning the well
This is called the "fallacy fallacy."
>Aaah, self-deception. It was only matter of time.
Not an argument.
>>
>>13076677
Homicides perpetrated by whites often go unreported to police, on the other hand black people are falsely accused of crimes much more
>>
>>13076713
>the birthplace of marxism, the very nation where the jews first brought genocide in the form of communism to the world
>non-pozzed
Anon, I...
>>
>>13076613
Nazis and neo-Nazis today fucking love IQ and intelligence research. They don't care if it favors Asians as long as it disfavors blacks and other "inferiors."
>>
File: 1552632942502.gif (1.18 MB, 616x5370)
1.18 MB
1.18 MB GIF
>>13076723
Give numbers or go away.
>>
>>13076719
to be clear, you do believe that different races have different IQ but you think that pointing out this fact will lead to undesirable outcomes
>>
>>13076731
Why would Nazis not think asians are inferior? I thought nazis hated every group but their own
>>
File: 1547007874648.png (1.74 MB, 1654x4358)
1.74 MB
1.74 MB PNG
>>13076731
It doesn't favor native asians. It favors the smart ones who do well enough to relocate to better countries. As an added benefit, jews have 95 IQ.
>>13076723
>>
>>13076726
Fags get beaten up in Russia, in the capitalistic west they are untouchables, dumb /pol/cel.
>>
>>13076732
Look at your own numbers my dude. 200x more assaults from black people than white people? There is no other possible explanation besides systematic white supremacy
>>
>>13076731
see >>13076744
lol
>>
File: IMG_20210504_144049.png (27 KB, 720x534)
27 KB
27 KB PNG
>>13076744
>It favors the smart ones who do well enough to relocate to better countries.
Why do you lie, retard? These are the top countries in terms of IQ.
>>
File: cb7.jpg (55 KB, 1200x625)
55 KB
55 KB JPG
>>13076774
Because neonazis are stupid and liars, their whole worldview is cope.
>>
File: 1563129132688.gif (1024 KB, 2970x2483)
1024 KB
1024 KB GIF
>>13076747
Well, you've got me there.
>>13076748
kek'd
>>
>>13076726
>LARPing being not a pro-spacecommie
Good one anon, but on a serious note, their pozz is of a different nature than LGBT/race wokeism
>>
>>13076785
you really believe jews control the west?
>>
File: 1574446438219.jpg (99 KB, 413x1024)
99 KB
99 KB JPG
>>13076774
I don't even need to point out the obvious problem with China's ranking... Let's pretend that they are and always has been perfectly honest and trustable. Do the reported numbers make any sense? What possible errors do you expect in the method for sampling the population? For what reason does everyone here believe that you are, at best, a midwit? Hmm?
>>
>>13075678
Who is "we"? Surely not Americans, right? After all you literally practice genital mutilation aka circumcision.
>>
File: 1561846186405.jpg (2.45 MB, 4698x3405)
2.45 MB
2.45 MB JPG
>>13076826
He probably doesn't, but they do. Usury is a powerful thing, and the rich can only get richer. It helps when you got your job from your relative, and all your relatives got their jobs from their relatives, and so on for a thousand years, dating all the way back to your entire desert tribe being international slavemasters.
>>
>>13076830
>China statistics not real because they make me mad
Leaving this cope aside, I like how you blatantly ignored Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong which are all western style democracies allied with the US, you retarded incel.

>For what reason does everyone here believe that you are, at best, a midwit? Hmm?
Not even an Asian but what kind of argument is this? lmao. Retards like you being jealous is not an argument.
>>
>>13076839
Can you prove that Jews are more likely to hire Jews? Even if they were, that still proves jews are superior. If a businessmen hires his alcoholic and gambling-addicted brother, he will go bankrupt. If hiring other jews just for the sake of them being jews makes them remain on top, that still proves Jewish superiority. Regardless, it's not like you have proof they are more likely to engage in nepotism anyway.
>>
>>13076731
They do care, which is why they go into denial like this:
>>13076839
>>13076830
>>
>>13076865
Do you think Jews are more likely to engage in nepotism or not?
>>
>>13076836
By "we" I mean forward-thinking kindhearted individuals such as myself working to bring forth global equality. Are you not opposed to FGM?
>>
>>13076873
if I think asians are smarter but whites have the optimal combination of intelligence and creativity am I a nazi?
>>
>>13076878
Since when do neonazis care about equality?
>>
>>13076888
I don't identify as a neo-nazi, should I? What are their beliefs
>>
>>13076900
One of their (your) beliefs is being aware that everything you stand for is an abomination hence why you need to mask your views and pretend to be a progressive.
>>
>>13076921
You're saying that neo-nazis believe that everything they stand for is an abomination...? That doesn't make a lot of sense dawg. It sounds like you have an irrational hatred of this group clouding your ability to think straight
>>
>>13076667
They're both ethnicies with their own culture and at the same time much smaller genetic clusters

>You cannot rectify racial injustice without recognizing human races.
You can outlaw racial injustice just fine without having to recognize that human races exist. That's how most liberal democracies do it.

>>13076681
>Because these are the best researched groups, and it gives us the clearest picture of how much genetic factors and environmental factors play a part in their differences because they're exposed to the same range of environments. Crossnational comparisons include too many variables.
And why are these the best researched groups? Maybe because the US has a history of racial segregation and discrimination and is only now starting to slowly clean itself up.

Where's all the French or British race and IQ research btw?

>>13076707
That's exactly how the US does it. And lumping them all into the category 'white' us just as useful as the category 'black' that includes ethnicies from 1/3 of the world, many of whom aren't even closely related.

>>13076743
Nazis didn't use the same definitions /pol/ or the US uses and where pretty flexible when it came to who was inferior to whom. Some Slavs had to be exterminated, some could be Germanized. A Jew could get turned into an Aryan too when it was convenient. In the end propaganda and usefulness trumped ideology and Hitler didn't exactly have a coherent world view. East Asians were seen as inferior to Aryans but they didn't hate them. China and Japan both were Kulturträger and until 1937 the Nazis had close relations with both Japan and the KMT.

Neonazis and /pol/ usually haven't actually read anything but American stormfront drivel, you can show them a primary third reich source and they'll just screech ((((post war fabrication))) when they don't like what they see.
>>
>>13076940
>They're both ethnicies with their own culture and at the same time much smaller genetic clusters
And this makes the categories useful how?
>>
>>13076940
>Neonazis and /pol/ usually haven't actually read anything but American stormfront drivel, you can show them a primary third reich source and they'll just screech ((((post war fabrication))) when they don't like what they see.
Are you saying /pol/ and neo-nazis should be more like the actual third reich nazis were philosophically?
>>
>>13076940
>Where's all the French or British race and IQ research btw?
Europeans are even more opposed to intelligence research than Americans
>>
>>13070590
1. Observe phenomenon.

Observing mental processes indirectly through human behavior isnt a valid way to measure anything.
>>
>>13076974
The observed phenomenon is that races have different life outcomes
>>
>>13067666
niggers
>>
>>13076954
It wouldn't hurt if they at least understood the ideology, most of them are exactly the type of person that would have ended up in a KZ. If you want to see some amazing levels of cognitive dissonance and mental acrobatics find yourself an Ukrainian /pol/ack and let them explain how actually the third reich only had their best interests in mind via infographics and poorly translated and cherrypicked sources.
>>
>>13069116
>human rights
????????????
>>
>>13077006
But do you think it would be better if they shared the 3rd reich's ideology, or kept the updated one? You're not wrong that most of them have never read original sources, but of course that's true of all faddish political leanings like Marxism. Certainly people who hate Nazis have looked at the original sources even less, and just feel that way because they were explicitly programmed to
>>
>>13067895
>can't spell racist
>thinks not being racist is "good"
I'm sure this is a coincidence
>>
>>13077012
human lefts then?
>>
>>13077185
Enough about humans rights, we need to talk about human wrongs
>>
>>13076931
It does make sense, it's called being evil. Evil people are aware that what they stand for is abhorrent, this doesn't deter them from believing what they believe.
And no such thing as "irrational" hatred of neonazis.
>>
>>13077154
Not him but I don't care what nazis believe as long as they are not allowed to spread their hateful shit in free, democratic societies.
>>
>>13067632
>race
Race is a poorly defined and unscientific taxonomy. The "traditional" racial categories that are typically used by racists in their IQ testing ("white", "black") leave billions of people belonging to no race (e.g. central asia, india etc).
>IQ
Psychology is the weakest of all scientific disciplines. It does not understand the brain. It does not understand intelligence. It does not know it's mechanisms or nature or how they relate to human biology.
The IQ test methodology is deeply flawed on a conceptual level. IQ proponents will try to defend IQs soundness with assertions that they never bother to test in an experimental setting.

Tl;dr: it's a sham
>>
>>13077243
If they're not allowed to share their opinion then your society is neither free or democratic.
>>
>>13077235
A good german would have believed there is no such thing as an "irrational" hatred of jews. Are you really much different?
>>
>>13077352
It's both free and democratic if they're allowed to spread it -somewhere-. If they cant do it on mainstream platforms that is zero problem though.
>>
>>13077235

Can you please kindly fuck off back to plebbit? Your kind aren't welcome on this website.
>>
>>13077336
>Race
Subspecies also have a lot of debate around how they're defined, yet you take no issue with that because it has no political implications. Calling a category unscientific is blatant authority posturing.

>IQ
IQ testing is the most well established construct in all of psychology. You have no idea what you're talking about.

tl;dr: you're retarded.
>>
>>13077371
>here's all this super legit SCIENCE proving that blacks are inferior
>your science is shit and here's why
>c-c-cope! n-n-niggerlover!
>>
>>13076737
I think there's some evidence of differences in measured intelligence between people in different parts of the world. I'm just distrustful of many of the people who produce the work purportedly showing all these terrible things about this or that race, just like I'm distrustful of some pop science outlets or authors known for pushing an agenda.
>>
>>13077389
>Subspecies also have a lot of debate around how they're defined, yet you take no issue with that because it has no political implications
This is nonsensical word salad. Give me a taxonomy of subspecies where the "scientists" are happy to just leave 50% of the population unaccounted for because they're not as fun to talk about as niggers jews and le based whites
>IQ testing is the most well established construct in all of psychology
It is a sham, for the reasons stated.
>>
>>13077375
Of course, after all mainstream platforms are private companies and we both think that private companies should be able to do whatever they want. So you think that nazis *should* be able to spread their hateful shit
>>
>>13077390
>and here's why
You actually haven't explained a thing. You just called it flawed with no further explanation. You don't actually know anything about psychometrics, stop pretending.
>>
File: whitefragility.jpg (336 KB, 1707x2560)
336 KB
336 KB JPG
>>13077401
That's a really cagey way to say "yes I think that different races have different IQ"s but I'll take it. One should be distrustful of all experts, especially those who are pushing an agenda
>>
>>13077403
>This is nonsensical word salad.
You just have bad reading comprehension.

>Give me a taxonomy of subspecies where the "scientists" are happy to just leave 50% of the population unaccounted for
You mentioned Central Asians and Indians, why can't you call them that? The fact that you're trying to express to me which groups you mean already proves that you can meaningfully categorize humans into races.

>for the reasons stated.
You haven't stated any reasons, I'm sorry.
>>
>>13077405
They can spread it on some fringe website they pay for themselves. Provided that the hateful shit does not amount to incitement.
>>
>>13077412
That's not what I said.
>>
>>13077406
Not at all. I summarized some widely known facts about the field of psychology: that it doesnt have much of a clue how the brain works; that it does not know what intelligence is; what it consists of; how it works, functionally; or how it manifests and relates to the human biology. Does that sound like a firm ground to stand on for measuring and reasoning about something? The level of science here is leeches and essential body fluids. Call back in a hundred years or so.
>>
>>13077424
>let's just call them something, why cant that be science?
leave this board stormcvck
>>
>>13077427
Then you think all races have the same IQ
>>
>>13077426
Is it okay to say hateful shit about nazis that might lead to incitement, like that it's okay to punch them?
>>
>>13077447
I didn't say that either.
>>
>>13077435
Just because you don't know shit about psychology doesn't mean nobody knows. We know how to measure intelligence and rank order it, we know how a general factor of intelligence explains performance across all cognitive tasks, we know how heritable intelligence is, we know almost half the genome plays a role in intelligence, and in the context of this thread, we know that races differ in intelligence. What are you talking about?
>>
>>13077455
An intuitionist I see
>>
>>13077443
How do you think categories of subspecies come about, and explain in detail why it isn't equivalent to categorizing human races.
>>
>>13077450
It's obviously a legal matter for a court, but if someone is judged to try to incite violence against nazis in a credible way then that sounds prosecutable, sure
>>
>>13069501
>organisms
I wish I had a nice organism.
>>
>>13077468
So it should be prosecutable to say "it's okay to punch nazis". I can see the logic there, in my ideal society there is no idea that is prosecutable
>>
>>13077457
Does it sound like I dont know shit? You didnt address any of my statements even though all of it is widely known by professionals within the field of psychology, so it stands to reason that you're the one who doesnt know shit.
>We know how to measure intelligence and rank order it
asserting that which you are supposed to prove
>we know how a general factor of intelligence explains performance across all cognitive tasks
statistical correlation is an weak form of scientific evidence. I can design an empirical experiment showing that IQ scores are affected by practice and prior knowledge. That's strong scientific evidence. Can you design an experiment that shows that there are bounds to the impact of practice and prior knowledge? Can you quote any such research?

If not, why are you appealing to statistics when you could spend your time doing real hard empirical inquiries into whether your methodology is sound, or not?
>>
>>13077478
Are you a retard? That's not what I said.
>>
>>13077378
>reddit spacing
bait.png
>>
>>13077361
Yeah, I'm quite different considering that hating an entire ethnic group is pretty different from hating precisely those who hate people for their ethnicity, you massive idiot.
>>
>>13077352
I don't mean spreading their opinion, I'm ok with them ousting themselves. I mean spreading their ideology by enacting their policies which are inherently against democratic ideals.
>>
>>13077492
>Does it sound like I dont know shit?
Yes, it takes a complete idiot to make a statement as retarded as "there are a lot of questions unanswered therefore the entire field of psychology is a sham". Critics who actually know what they're talking about go into different things than basic bitch race denialism and discrediting the entire field of psychology.

>You didnt address any of my statements
You haven't made any statements apart from "psychology is stupid we don't know anything!!!"

>all of it is widely known by professionals within the field of psychology
Here are consensus items among psychologists. They disagree with you on a number of key points. You're battling against the field of psychology.
https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.007

>asserting that which you are supposed to prove
IQ tests are the best method available to measure intelligence. This is because IQ tests are designed to have high g-loading, meaning that performance on the test is largely explain by a general factor that we know as general intelligence, as opposed to specific knowledge.

>statistical correlation is an weak form of scientific evidence.
What do you think is the reason that a fraction performance of verbal ability overlaps with performance on working memory, visual-spatial reasoning and processing speed?

>I can design an empirical experiment showing that IQ scores are affected by practice and prior knowledge.
That would only reduce the accuracy of the IQ test, it doesn't alter intelligence. You can detract the effect of g from non-g effects such as from practice or specific knowledge.

>Can you design an experiment that shows that there are bounds to the impact of practice and prior knowledge?
An example of this would be that while you can increase knowledge based test scores, we can demonstrate that it doesn't affect the underlying trait of cognitive ability. Here's an example:
https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613516008
>>
>>13077450
If it's done in order to counteract an act of violence by them such as them battering a gay person or a black person, sure. Your freedom ends where others' begins.
>>
>>13077569
>"there are a lot of questions unanswered therefore the entire field of psychology is a sham
I called IQ a sham, not the field of psychology.
>You haven't made any statements apart from "psychology is stupid we don't know anything!!!"
I said: widely known facts about the field of psychology: that it doesnt have much of a clue how the brain works; that it does not know what intelligence is; what it consists of; how it works, functionally; or how it manifests and relates to the human biology.

Is there even ONE out of these that you're going to try to dispute? Which?

>>13077569
>Here are consensus items among psychologists.
"Survey of opinions on the primacy of g" isnt science; it's opinion polling. Are you, as a scientist (which you're probably not) claiming that this is evidence of something?
>What do you think is the reason that a fraction performance of verbal ability overlaps with performance on working memory, visual-spatial reasoning and processing speed?
What do you think is the reason that crime levels overlap with icecream sales? Are you disputing that statistical correlation is a weaker form of evidence than empirical experiments?
>That would only reduce the accuracy of the IQ test, it doesn't alter intelligence. You can detract the effect of g from non-g effects such as from practice or specific knowledge.
Can you refer to some empirical testing that has established that there is any form of limit to the impact practice and prior knowledge can potentially have? That kind of test is perfectly doable, you know. Take your fancy little test, explain exactly how it works to your subjects, tell them they'll get $10k if they ace it, give them some weeks to practice, measure the scores. If you havent done that test, why the fuck are you still trying to defend your crappy ass test with statistics and assertions not in evidence?
>>
>>13077569
>An example of this would be that while you can increase knowledge based test scores, we can demonstrate that it doesn't affect the underlying trait of cognitive ability. Here's an example:
I dont see how you find that relevant. What you are supposed to prove is that your methodology is solid and that you can establish that there is a limit to how much prior knowledge and practice can impact scores of -IQ tests-. How can the accuracy, or lack of accuracy, of other tests, not IQ tests, prove that -your- methodology is valid?
>>
>>13077558
Why?
>>
>>13077582
>Your freedom ends where others' begins.
So your freedom ends where mine begins
>>
>>13077700
Hating people for their ethnicy is a choice, being part of an ehnic group isn't. If I define you as the other and decide you have to die so that I can thrive that's a choice I made. You can't opt out, I'll just take you behind the shed.
>>
>>13077630
>I called IQ a sham, not the field of psychology.
You said "Psychology is the weakest of all scientific disciplines. It does not understand the brain. It does not understand intelligence. It does not know it's mechanisms or nature or how they relate to human biology."

>Is there even ONE out of these that you're going to try to dispute? Which?
I have already explained to you what we do know >>13077457

>it's opinion polling. Are you, as a scientist (which you're probably not) claiming that this is evidence of something?
This is in response to you saying all of this is widely known by psychologists (referring to knowing nothing about intelligence). I'm demonstrating to you what psychologists do know.

>Are you disputing that statistical correlation is a weaker form of evidence than empirical experiments?
"correlation=/=causation" is a very weak criticism of factor analysis because it is exactly the correlations we're interested in. I'm curious what kind of causal evidence you're looking for to be convinced that IQ tests measure cognitive ability. What are your criteria exactly?

>any form of limit to the impact practice and prior knowledge can potentially have?
Why is this relevant if we can already detract g-loaded items from specific knowledge? You're not asking the right questions, you're a step behind.

>tell them they'll get $10k if they ace it, give them some weeks to practice
This would only make the test less g-loaded. The intention of IQ tests is in part to challenge novel problem solving. If you practice for an IQ test, you've only cheated on yourself, it doesn't discredit the test.
>>
>>13067632
>We need to have a conversation about race and IQ. I will start this thread off by addressing some basic points about this subject, and after that I'm sure we'll get into the specifics.
You make this everyday
>>
>>13067666
>everyone will just dog pile first post with pol buzz words
>>
>>13077709
I definitely agree that harming people is bad, I disagree with your "it's a choice" argument which seems like a rationalization and is not particularly true. You can't choose not to hate, you can only repress your feelings. Hating people for their ethnicity seems to be base human nature
>>
>>13067895
>tell him there are good boards like sci
Anon... I
>>
>>13068061
There is no humanity left in people
>>
>>13067632
Bump
>>
>>13067632
Fuck pol
>>
>>13067632
Gay ass political race bait threads
>>
>>13077645
It shows you that we can detract the effect of intelligence from prior knowledge in test scores, so your criticism of practicing for IQ tests doesn't hold up.


>How can the accuracy, or lack of accuracy, of other tests, not IQ tests, prove that -your- methodology is valid?
The thing is that all cognitive tests correlate with each other to some degree, any mental task is in essence an IQ test. But tests such as Wechsler correlate with the g factor at about .95. Raven's at .80.
>>
>>13067632
Moot should have never allowed /new/
>>
>>13067632
Fuck rapeape
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en/article/m7aap8/the-man-who-helped-turn-4chan-into-the-internets-racist-engine
>>
>>13077783
>4chan is racist!!
>continues to post on 4chan
>>
>>13077731
>You said "Psychology is the weakest of all scientific disciplines.
Correct, furthermore Psychology doesnt have much of a clue how the brain works; that it does not know what intelligence is; what it consists of; how it works, functionally; or how it manifests and relates to the human biology.

Are you going to dispute any of that? Professionals within the field of Psychology will recognize all of those observations as true and non-controvercial. So what is your position? It gets more and more obvious that you are in fact not a professional scientist in the field, or you would have acknowledged things that are largely uncontroversial and moved on...
>This is in response to you saying all of this is widely known by psychologists
Until you clarify if there is anything of what I outlined that you want to dispute, it's irrelevant. As of yet you've disputed nothing. Posting an opinion survey about g is an attempt to change the subject to ground on which you feel more comfortable: spamming statistical research re: g and IQ tests.
>"correlation=/=causation" is a very weak criticism of factor analysis because it is exactly the correlations we're interested in.
Once again you're battling strawmen. The criticism is specifically that empirical experiments are viable, and will show the IQ methodology problematic. Refusing to test the methodology in an empirical setting and claiming that statistical correlation shows the viability of using IQ tests to probe g shows what a fragile house-of-cards the field of IQ testing is.

In your opinion, given that empirical testing is by appearances very doable, what is the reason that IQ researchers just arent doing it?
> I'm curious what kind of causal evidence you're looking for to be convinced that IQ tests measure cognitive ability. What are your criteria exactly?
Like I outlined in the previous post it's pretty straightforward: perform the test on your subject, measure the results.
>>
>>13077790
Shut the fuck up you green texting Neanderthal
>>
>>13077794
2/2
.. Then explain how the test is designed and how it works to your subjects. Give them an incentive to ace the test. Give them time to practice.
>Why is this relevant if we can already detract g-loaded items from specific knowledge? You're not asking the right questions, you're a step behind.
Using twin studies and statistics which are weaker forms of evidence compared to what is being suggested. So what you're saying is. "I am of the opinion that I've proved this with a weaker form of evidence; why do I need to prove it with a stronger form?"
>This would only make the test less g-loaded. The intention of IQ tests is in part to challenge novel problem solving. If you practice for an IQ test, you've only cheated on yourself, it doesn't discredit the test.
It discredits the tests completely. Think about what you're saying. Prior knowledge must be controlled because prior knowledge can potentially completely ruin the results.

This is an admission already at this point that the whatever prior knowledge subjects have can completely ruin the "measurements". What methodology do IQ proponents claim to have to control this? None. What do they offer instead? Statistical correlation and twin studies.
>>
>>13077790
Dilate your festering, necrotic, pus-filled cloaca, tranny abomination.
>>
File: gottfredson.jpg (284 KB, 2048x1272)
284 KB
284 KB JPG
>>13077794
>Psychology doesnt have much of a clue how the brain works
This is more related to neuroscience, and they do have a wealth of technologies available to understand many aspects of brain functioning, this includes intelligence.

>that it does not know what intelligence is
>what it consists of
We do know what intelligence is and what it consists of, see pic related.

>how it works
Simply said intelligence works by communication between neurons through electrical impulses. I think you're being slightly obtuse by asking these questions.

>or how it manifests
I do not understand what you mean when you ask this, could you clarify?

>and relates to the human biology.
Intelligence relates to human biology in the sense that it is a product of physical processes in the brain. The relationship between brain size and intelligence has the most research behind it, putting it between .20-.40. Other correlating variables include white matter, grey matter, amount and density of neurons, and the way they're organized. These correlations are important because it refutes any claim that IQ or g are statistical artifacts. If you want to learn more about how g arises from the brain specifically, the leading theory among neuroscientists right now is Parieto-Frontal Integration Theory (P-FIT).

>Professionals within the field of Psychology will recognize all of those observations as true and non-controvercial.
No, where did you get this idea from?

>Posting an opinion survey about g is an attempt to change the subject to ground on which you feel more comfortable
You're making claims about the consensus among psychologists, and I'm demonstrating to you that psychologists agree on a number of key points about our knowledge of intelligence. This directly refutes your unsubstantiated claim.
>>
>>13077835
>Give them an incentive to ace the test. Give them time to practice.
This just goes back to the training hypothesis. You can train for an IQ test, but any IQ gains won't reflect a true increase in intelligence, you just made the IQ test a less accurate estimate of your intelligence than it would be under novel conditions. It doesn't have any effect on its predictive validity of other life outcomes.

>Using twin studies and statistics which are weaker forms of evidence
Well no, the overlap in performance between any kind of subtest and even between different test batteries is the part that explains the general factor. This general factor is exactly how we define intelligence. Factor analysis is the relevant evidence that IQ tests measure g.

>compared to what is being suggested
Looking at the effect of practice on IQ scores doesn't challenge the fact that IQ tests measure intelligence, because it still measures intelligence after practicing, just to a lesser degree because you cheated yourself.

>So what you're saying is. "I am of the opinion that I've proved this with a weaker form of evidence; why do I need to prove it with a stronger form?"
No, I'm saying the opposite. I've presented the relevant evidence that IQ tests measure intelligence, and what you're bringing up doesn't challenge this.

>It discredits the tests completely.
No, it decreases the g loadedness. Moreover, the most g loaded tests find the smallest effect size from a training intervention while the least g loaded tests have the largest effect sizes, this only reaffirms the fact that properly g loaded IQ tests measure intelligence.

>Prior knowledge must be controlled because prior knowledge can potentially completely ruin the results.
Much like cheating on a school exam doesn't invalidate the test, it only makes your test result less accurate. If conducted properly, the exam gauges your aptitude in the subject reasonably well.
>>
>>13077796
>>13077928
Go fuck yourself braindead retard. You're genetic garbage.
>>
>>13078028
This is just sad
>Yeah we know exactly what a car is and what a combustion engine too
>We know it can go both fast and slow, we know it can beep and we believe it can be blue
>How it works? It's metal. Next question!
>We believe that the speed of the car is related to how well the parts are connected
Perfectly true! But how close were you, really?

It's late here. If this thread is still here tomorrow I'll adress the rest.
>>
>>13078046
Maybe you should green text harder
>>
>>13078100
You're pretending like we don't have answers to these questions, but we do. Entire books are written about these questions, yet you expect me to answer these questions to the fullest extent in a 4chan post? You're being willfully obtuse and you know it.
>>
>>13078103
Cry harder little bitch. Go kill yourself stupid retard.
>>
>>13067632
>t. midwit
>>
>>13067632
The chad scientist vs.
>>13067666
the virgin ad-hominem redditor with satanic digits.
>>
File: race genetics pca.png (94 KB, 600x786)
94 KB
94 KB PNG
>>13076020
>races don't exist

>We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
>>
>>13078125
For the fuck your feelings crowd you sure are having a lot of feelings right now
>>
>>13078132
You know what’s hilarious about reddit
You guys shit talk them
But all the memes come from there now
Breaking news
Basically anything interesting that gets posted here chances are it’s from there
Reddit is what I imagine old fun era four chan to be and current era four chan is how you make Reddit sound food for thought
>>
>>13078163
Stay mad and kill yourself idiot kid.
>>
>>13078140
Ah yes, the 4 human races. White, African American, Hispanic (Mexican), and East Asian
>>
>>13078177
That's a pretty shallow critique of the study
>>
>>13078177
This is your criticism of the study?
>>
>>13078171
>Basically anything interesting that gets posted here chances are it’s from there
What is even one time this happened
>>
>>13078132
Learn what "ad hominem" means
>>
>>13078193
it's latin for "gooseberry"
>>
>>13078176
The name of the game is seethe old man and you just lost
>>
>>13078247
Sounds like you're butthurt, why don't you kill yourself lmao
>>
>>13078256
Kill yourself how original
Did you dust off the archives for that scathing retort
>>
>>13078261
Kill yourself butthurt retard
>>
>>13078269
You need to put that tired ass reply back in whatever museum you found it from
>>
>>13078284
Or you could kill yourself retard
>>
>>13078193
>(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
>>
>>13078287
Isn’t it bingo night at the old folks home?
>>
File: reddit moment .jpg (127 KB, 1334x750)
127 KB
127 KB JPG
>>13078171
bait but I'll reply anyway
>>
>>13078295
Kill yourself braindead retard
>>
File: IMG_1537.png (8 KB, 571x457)
8 KB
8 KB PNG
>>13067666
>We need to have a conversation about what motivated you to make this thread.
Read the second paragraph, retard
>>
niggers are just as smart as whites, deal with it
>>
>>13078301
Come on grandpa let’s take your heart medication and get you to bed
>>
>>13078307
You're a mental retard, you should kill yourself in real life.
>>
File: 15 years of service.png (39 KB, 414x293)
39 KB
39 KB PNG
>>13078171
Reddit has always been better than 4chan
>>
>>13078315
I know grandpa don’t lay down wrong don’t want you breaking your hip again
>>
>>13078343
Commit suicide loser
>>
File: 1603154954273.png (111 KB, 700x765)
111 KB
111 KB PNG
>>13078303
>tfw no gf
>why is it so hard to compete with these inferior negros?
>why did I get fired just for talking about race and IQ?
>if I post the same thread on /sci/ every day the world will take notice and realize that race realism is the only way
>>
>>13076719
>As one possible outcome. As I've said multiple times, there are multiple other undesirable outcomes.
You've said this million times but you still didn't give me a single example of it. Give me an example of genocide which was carried our because the targeted group was deemed to be less intelligent.

>Except it's not. Literally read anything about racial theories of the time.
There were racialist theories at the time but that doesn't mean they were used to justify slavery or colonialism. This part is a myth made up by American sociology departments.

>This is called the "fallacy fallacy."
No it's not. Pointing out you used a fallacy is not a fallacy. It would be if I said something like: "Yo used a fallacy while arguing against Rushton therefore Rushton must be right". Which I did not.

>Other than the things I've mentioned.
You mentioned Eq. Guinea but even then you thought it was intentional and not a mistake. Other than that you had nothing.
You know what? I'll give you one last chance. Give me the best augments against Lynn's IQ work you have. It may be something you suspect is wrong or what you overheard others saying but not just spam million links which you never read.
Go on, amaze me.
>>
>>13078304
This is white supremacist lie. Nubian king are smarter than some honkey ass whites. Results from BITCH test prove this bexond a doubt.
Please educate yourself sweety.
>>
File: 1602675713344.jpg (103 KB, 1200x900)
103 KB
103 KB JPG
>>13078389
Nothing says I have good mental health like quoting a person that doesn't exist.
>>
>>13078028
>>13078041
>>13078121
This thread hit the bump limit so I created a new one >>13078975

My response is there..
>>
>>13072129
>>13074552
We consider someone with a white mother and a black father to be black when genetically that is nonsense.
You can divide humans into groups using genes but the current categories that we have are illegitimate.
>>
File: ezgif-4-37e77a22a177.jpg (29 KB, 550x549)
29 KB
29 KB JPG
>>13079201
This doesn't challenge the categories themselves, it merely challenges the way in which some people interpret the categories in the same way the categories of crocodiles and alligators aren't discredited if someone calls an alligator a crocodile. The error is inherent to the user, not to the construct.
https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/34
>>
File: download.png (144 B, 235x214)
144 B
144 B PNG
>>13079201
Another example is that some might call this color green, others might call it blue. The color in actual fact is turquoise. Misnaming this color as blue or green doesn't discredit the categories of blue or green, it's somewhere inbetween after all.
>>
>>13079257
Like i said I am not objecting to the idea of categorizing humans into different sub-groups, although it would be difficult cause there is a lot of overlap but the general point is the construct that exists now does not have a genetic basis.

/pol/fags and the general population do not consider Middle Easterns and North Africans to be the same race as Europeans but MENAs are very close genetically to Europeans in relative to other human populations. There is also the issue with mixed race people i already mentioned.

Races can exist but our current conception of race is a bit silly. It needs revision.
>>
>>13079382
The major races map onto genetic clusters pretty damn well in general, some nuances occur for minor races such as MENA which get their own cluster at a higher number of clusters, I believe at k=11 or so. I also think it's worth pointing out that it is perfectly reasonable to use other factors besides or along with genetic clusters to identify racial groups, such as geography or skin color. In the end it's about creating a common understanding about a group of people. The way that's achieved is less important and doesn't need a strict genetic basis, even though it is there.
>>
>>13079538
>The major races map onto genetic clusters pretty damn well in general
Only because of what clusters we pick in question. If you define race by an arbitrary factor of clusters you can alter it to expand ot shrink certain groups.
>>
>>13079701
Yes, exactly. That is precisely how it works for any other category too. Or did you think there is an objective number of zebra subspecies?
>>
>>13078727
>You've said this million times but you still didn't give me a single example of it. Give me an example of genocide which was carried our because the targeted group was deemed to be less intelligent.
You're focusing on genocide. Again. Even though I gave examples of other undesirable things that occurred because of or were justified by "race science."
>but that doesn't mean they were used to justify slavery or colonialism
Until it does.
>This part is a myth made up by American sociology departments.
Can you prove it?
>No it's not. Pointing out you used a fallacy is not a fallacy
If I actually used a fallacy. Criticizing a source or pointing out its bias or unreliability isn't fallacious.
>>
>>13079753
>You're focusing on genocide. Again. Even though I gave examples of other undesirable things that occurred because of or were justified by "race science."
Yes you did and I want to hear an example of genocide now. Or do you admit there is none?

>Can you prove it?
The lack of evidence for that claim itself proves that it is made up. If you have evidence for that I would like to hear it.

>If I actually used a fallacy. Criticizing a source or pointing out its bias or unreliability isn't fallacious.
You did though. Poisoning the well is a fallacy. And you did that with Lynn. You suggested that because he gave favorable reviews of Rushton it must mean his work on IQ is wrong.

Speaking of which, where is that critique of Lynn?
>>
>>13075476
How could you not know that?
>>
File: funny fuhrer.jpg (27 KB, 608x402)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
>>13080680
gibes for a holocaust that never happened confused him



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.