/lit/ - Literature

>>11496752
It's a shit book alright, but don't insult this board by falseflagging this poorly. You can be jerked off and get validation from displaying anti-liberal or anti-leftist sentiments in a less obvious way

>>11496752
Nice try Rabbi!

>>11496794
>>displaying anti-liberal or anti-leftist sentiments in a less obvious way

any examples?

>>11496752
>Grouping humans into arbitrary racial categories is a purely subjective mental invention.
That doesn't necessarily mean it's not a worthwhile endeavor. The real problem with that book is that an IQ centered worldview is inherently nihilistic.

>>11496799
It's a /pol/ falseflagger who wants to talk about how dumb niggers are, you thick anti-semitic faggot

>>11496807
Sure you can do it for the sakes of generalization but basing a worldview on some statistical standard(IQ) of arbitrary labeled groups is indeed nihilistic or retarded.

>>11496752
3/10 bait, go back to /pol/

>>11496752
>Only inidividuals exist
WRONG. Only particular organs exist. Grouping organs into abitrary collective groups (e.g. a human being) is a purely subjective mental invention.

>>11497251
>Only particular orgams exist
WRONG. Only individual cellular structures exist. Grouping cells into arbitrary collective groups (e.g. organs) is a purely subjective mental invention.

>>11496812
>thick
inbred anglo bong detected

>>11497260
>Only a individual cellular structures exist
WRONG. Only molecules exist. Grouping molecules into abitrary collective groups (i.e. cells) is a purely subjective mental invention.

>>11497269
WRONG. Only atomic particles exist. Grouping atomic particles into arbitrary collective groups (i.e. molecules) is a purely subjective mental invention.

>>11496752
It's not arbitrary though.

>>11497274
>Only atomic particles exist
WRONG. Only subatomic particles exist. Grouping subatomic particles into arbitrary groups (i.e. atomic particles) is a purely subjective human invention.

>>11497278
So, you agree that Mongols are racially superior to wh*Toids? Good to hear

>>11496752
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

>Most everyone accepts that the biological differences between males and females are profound. In addition to anatomical differences, men and women exhibit average differences in size and physical strength. (There are also average differences in temperament and behavior, though there are important unresolved questions about the extent to which these differences are influenced by social expectations and upbringing.)
>How do we accommodate the biological differences between men and women? I think the answer is obvious: We should both recognize that genetic differences between males and females exist and we should accord each sex the same freedoms and opportunities regardless of those differences.
Thoughts?

>>11497303
Yes.

>>11497284
This but unironically. All scientific taxonomies are basically arbitrary.

>>11496794
first post best post

>>11497284
>>11496752
>>11497251
>>11497260
p good. im looking forward to seeing this on reddit

>>11497304
A growing number of people have started to adopt the belief that sex itself is a social construct.

>>11496807
Also, because IQ is a terrible metric for anything other than telling how good someone is at taking IQ tests. It's repeatedly been shown to be a terrible metric for measuring intelligence. The only reason it's still talked about is because pseuds like to say a number that "proves" their intelligence.

>>11497371
but somehow its correlated with income hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I'd say its fairly accurate within 1 standard deviation IE what its suppose to measure.

>>11497387
>implying income correlates with intelligence
The dumbest people I've ever met have been people with affluent parents.

>>11497401
im sure your personal experience refutes dozens of studies.

>>11497340
I ddon't mean to emphasize the sex differences themselves, but the general attitude regarding them. The point being, if we can deal with great sex differences, why couldn't we deal with the minor racial ones?

>>11497340
which people?

>>11497403
Without actually citing sources, your appeal to authority is just as useless as my anecdotal evidence.

>>11497417
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607000219
''this research shows that each point increase in IQ test scores raises income by between $234 and $616 per year after holding a variety of factors constant''
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cbba/7be42a22b946dc68687ff248ef56147021f0.pdf
'Regional IQs obtained in 2006 are highly correlated with
average incomes at r= 0.937''

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-30052-004
''Although any single study of the interdependency of these 3 variables can be criticized on the grounds that the data are correlational''


its not the only factor but IQ is very important for high end jobs.

>>11497417
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cbba/7be42a22b946dc68687ff248ef56147021f0.pdf

Not the guy you're responding too, but how many wealthy people (>$200k/yr) do you actually know? I used to think like you until I met a large number of wealthy people, on AVERAGE they do tend to be more intelligent, mate with other intelligent people, and have on AVERAGE more intelligent kids

You unironically may want to read the Bell Curve, he spells this stuff out pretty clearly and cites his sources

>>11497440
***Although any single study of the interdependency of these 3 variables can be criticized on the grounds that the data are correlational(and consequently are open to alternative interpretations) when viewed together, the evidence for their linked causality is quite convincing:

missed full quote

>>11497413
Judith Butler, Andrea Dworkin, the list could go on

>>11497440
Having "high end" jobs doesn't make one intelligent

>>11497447
>wah wah why can't you prove every conclusion of social science with rigorous formal logic proceeding from self-evident axioms

Obviously any social science analysis can be criticized on the grounds that you can't PROVE that a relationship exists by rejecting the null, only that it becomes increasingly likely as the p values drop. So yeah, you're right, we can't prove it. It is still a relationship that is highly highly likely to be true, and that fact ought to inform our decisionmaking

Are you seriously arguing that intelligence is uncorrelated (or negatively correlated) with income? Would you be willing to bet money that a randomly selected sample of people with an IQ of 110 would have less income than a randomly selected sample of people with IQ 90?

>>11497447
no but you need an above average intelligence to be a doctor, trader, engineer etc.

>>11497465
Says who? You just need be trained to do these jobs. Intelligence is more than just following rules and orders.

>>11497457
Perhaps as a generality, but this is who social science is retarded.

>>11497446
that's gender anon, not sex. i thought you found someone who thought chromosomes were socially constructed. the idea that gender, ie customs like who wears make-up and who wears pants, is not set in stone is pretty uncontroversial.

>>11497474
>Intelligence is more than just following rules and orders.
have you actually ever tried to explain an abstract thought to a person below 80 iq? its like talking to a brick wall

>>11497483
Are generalities not useful?

>Smoking is associated with much higher incidences of cancer

Yes, you don't know whether YOU will have a higher chance of getting cancer if you smoke, but isn't the general information still useful to your decisionmaking?

>>11497474
I highly highly highly doubt you went to a public high school if you say these things. You speak like someone who went from private prep school --> small liberal arts college and has never interacted with people who failed out of community college or barely passed algebra II in high school

>>11497548
Half true, i went to public and private highschool and I'm a liberal arts college dropout. How'd you know?

>>11497548
>Are generalities not useful?
yes, for instance people who talk like you are generally stormfront hustlers or /pol/ "influencers"

>>11497284
>>11497274
>>11497269
>>11497260
>>11497251
I've had this discussion in my mind so many times it's cool to see it posted in my favorite nepalese origami forum.

>>11497710
>nepalese
i aint no dirty italian

>>11497718
Fight me, Luigi

>>11497465
Do you need an above average intelligence to be a good writer?

>>11497860
>art
>iq
ayyyyyyy nice trick question

>>11497693
Haha, this

>>11496752
>Only individuals exist.
Define individual without also defining groups. If one exists then the other must exist as well.

>>11499600
correction: if individual = human being, then groups exist.

>>11499606
>>11499600

groups are just a collection of individuals. hence why a ghost town is not a real town even though it may still have all the material artifacts and structures in place.

>>11497465
>you need an above average intelligence to be a trader

>>11496794
>It's a shit book alright
it really isn't, you can disagree with it but it's well reasoned. it's not like you've even read it ffs

>>11497474
>ou just need be trained to do these jobs
yeah take a bunch of retards and train them to be engineers im sure it will go fantastically

>>11500139
they thought the twin towers wouldn't melt

>>11496752
>Grouping humans into arbitrary racial categories is a purely subjective mental invention
retard detected
obviously the distinctions between racial categories are incredibly blurry, nobody with a brain would deny this, but to try and pretend that race does not exist at all is laughable

>>11500153
show me a "race"?

>>11500160

>>11500169
yeah individual humans...one race...everything else is subjective

>>11500169
who and how do you determine differences...one has slanted eyes, others dont..they both have similar hair color. two different facial structures. How do you determine idenity differences. it's all subjective.

>>11500175
the fact that different groups of humans were physically separated by seas for a long time with very limited cross-sea interactions and the process of natural selection caused them to develop different characteristics is subjective?
ok bud

>>11500182
what about the features that they shared? should we just ignore those? I'm sure all humans have some of the same genetics down the line. Where you separate one from the other?

>>11496752
Hillary should have won. She’s 100x as likable as trump and if we weren’t fucked in the head enough to edit our worthless constitution so that obama could serve a third term, hillary shoukd have been elscted. Fuck you racist jews and you racist cow-titty stroking racist crackers. You’re equally ignorant.

>>11500175
imagine being this fucking stupid

does nobody in this thread understand that races are just extended families? that humans have split off from each other at various times in the past 300k years and the interbreeding that has since occurred between various groups creating hybrids doesn't change this essential diversity of humanity not to mention the admixture from archaic groups like Neanderthals, denisovan, and others that add particular elements to certain populations

>>11500193
the problem is regardless of the differences in human populations, there is no objective determination of what constitutes a particular race. I'm sorry that racists can't deal with fact.

>>11500187
yes nobody is denying that asians are also human, im not sure if you understand the difference between race and species??

the separation is based on a long period of history wherein white people, black people, asian people and the various smaller races like australian aboriginals were not interacting with each other apart from very specific rare ocassions (though of course there are land borders where things were surely a bit more fuzzy)

>>11500201
>>apart from very specific rare ocassions (though of course there are land borders where things were surely a bit more fuzzy)

this invalidates racial identity as an objective fact

>>11500200
it's a spectrum centred around clusters of genetics. im sorry literal retards such as yourself can't grasp any classification that isn't discontinuous units

>>11500206
yet the fact that a human who, in the 1900s, was born in central asia to parents who were born in central asia would be universally recognized as not belonging to the same race as boudicea invalidates race as a subjective falsehood.

we fucking know you cant draw a line around all the asian people, its analogue, nobody is arguing this in the first place

>>11500222
>>(it's a spectrum centred around clusters of genetics.)

not objectively verifiable.

>>11500233
so i guess red and blue are the same thing since they technically bleed into one another with no division
THANKS FOR THAT BRO VERY USEFUL

YES NOT OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE, WHAT ARE YOU SAYING OFFICER THE RED LIGHT IS ONLY ARBITRARILY RED YOU SEE THERE IS NO DIVISION BETWEEN RED AND GREEN OFFICER LET ME GO

>>11500229
because something can recognized as different doesn't mean a categorical identity such as race can is real. The variables of such differences are inherently arbitrary regardless if there's a pattern or not.

This book is by a brainlet made for brainlets. Only atoms exist. Grouping atoms into arbitrary bodily categories is a purely subjective mental invention. No wonder why we are in deep shit nowadays.

>>11500239
just because something can be used in a useful and practical sense doesn't mean it's actually objective.

I can say niggers and gooks are different but at the end of the day it's really BS. I'm just basing this of generalizations and I know that really it's just culturally relative and superfical. Aliens would just see all humans as just one retarded species with some casual differences in appearances.

>>11500249
>atoms
lad we are far beyond that idk what the physicists are saying these days but it is not 'atoms'

>>11496752

Trump’s daughter is unironically a silly stupid little whore. The bitch married the equivalent of scott from the kardashians. She’s as spoiled and empty/headed as that worthless mooching family. The two families are alike. Ignorant little monkeys exemplyfying what’s lowest in us to mske us feel better about being retarded apes.

>>11500249
strawman. comparing arbitrary groups of individuals to real/verifiable physical differences in different organs doesn't mean only atoms exist.

>>11500251
>>11500242
there are real, objective differences between anyone whos ancestors were all born in the bottom half of africa for the last 2000 years and someone whos ancestors were all born in the east half of asia for the last 2000 years. if i can recognize then that recognition is based on real attributes that i am perceiving.

>>11496752
>>11496799
Good thing that with enough experience even an individualist can form the heuristics necessary to name the Jew.

>>11500261
please draw a circle around all the atoms that belong to my retina without circling any of the atoms that belong to any other part of my eye

>>11500263
what are those objective differences?

http://multiracial.com/index.php/2001/04/01/the-illusion-of-categorical-identity/

>>11500275
>>For those who subscribe to the idea of racial identity, I have a question: If yours was the only race on the earth, would you disappear into the sameness and cease to exist?

>>11500269
there are a list of common characteristics amongst the african people which we will call group A characteristics and there are a list of common characteristics amongst the asian people which we will call group B characteristics

where more group A characteristics are present i can identify the person as african and i will be right 100% of the time

where more group B characteristics are present i can identify the person as asian and i will be right 100% of the time

the fact that i can make objective judgements about the two groups proves the objective difference between the two groups

or am i just using magic to sort them?

>>11500285
sure you can make these judements but where does it end? identity can't be distinguished by characteristics by ones that are arbitrary chose by others.

>>11500298
im not sure what your point is here

>>11500302
identity is not defined by arbitrary racial distinctions. so race is inherently a subjective invention to identify others. everyone is different regardless of what patterns and characteristics you can discern they share. Other people will note things that are similar and different.

>>11500298
>arbitrary chose by others.
it's not arbitrary, you ask any human on earth, fuck probably ask a dog, to sort 100 swedes and 100 malaysians into two groups, they will do it perfectly

>>11500310
either im misunderstanding you or you've changed what you're arguing from what we were initially debating to something i dont care about

>>11500310
>identity
what exactly do you mean by identity?

>>11500313
lol but this is based off cultural stereotypes.a nationality doesn't neccesarily always correlate with appearances

>>11500315
what were you intialty debating? I was saying race is a subjective concept.

>>11500275
The very first sentence is a pure sophism and fallacy.
>A category is subjective mental invention, not objective discovery
How does one write this out and think this in any way answers the objections raised by race realists, human biodiversity advocates, social scientists, etc.

>>11500317
unique characteristics of an individual

>>11500326
you don't think humans have basically common characteristics which can be grouped in different ways, one of these ways being race?

>>11500324
and now you are talking about how it relates to identity and i have no idea how that makes racial categories not real when, as established, it is possible to objectively judge someone's origins from their physical attributes

>>11500335
maybe, but it doesn't determine someones identity.

>AI naturally creates the same groupings
>even when researchers attempt to control for it
lmao

>>11500340
where did anyone claim it does?

>>11500336
those physical attributes are subjectively determined though. there is no verifiable way to say "this is what ALL white people have" vs "this is what ALL black people have"

>>11500345
anyone who uses race as a determine factor for how an individual behaves. Which is most racists and the author of OP book.

>>11500348
are you fucking retarded

this [group A of characteristics] is what ALL white people have [in greater quantity than] this [group B of characteristics] which all black people have [in greater quantity than group A]

wheres the subjective element here?

>>11500351
the author of the bell curve never even vaguely suggests that we judge an individual by racial categories, i swear none of you have read this fucking book

all he talks about are the broad patterns of populations, of which only one, a tiny section of the book, is about race

>>11500351
saying that people of a certain race are more prone to certain behaviours is not the same thing as saying all individuals within a race behave in a certain way because of their race

>>11500357
>wheres the subjective element here?
>>[in greater quantity than]

how is this determined? have you surveyed every single person that is deemed a black or white?

>>11500363
i mean look athe fucking subtitle 'CLASS STRUCTURE'
does that not tip you off to what the book is largely addressing

>>11500366
have you to determine that it isn't true?

why is subjectivity the default when both of our experiences (as well as the experiences of everyone in this thread) suggest that in fact there are no people who look like pic related that have 2000 years of ancestry entirely within the african continent

>>11500366
this is called an isolated demand for rigor. in most situations you would be fine with a representative sample of the sets in question but here you demand exhaustive and impossible criteria for your oppenent's theories

>>11500363
the thing is this book is used by alt-right fags and neoreactionaries to justify how certain races are inferior or behave in ways not suitable to their liking. so perhaps the author didn't intend for this to be this way as he was talking about broad patterns but it was the impact

Grouping living organisms into individual members of species is abitrary and capricious. Only
genes exist. Group anything into a higher level of organization than the most atomic is a purely subjective mental invention. The proper level of analysis is maximally reductionistic... ALWAYS!

>>11500375
nevertheless, judging groups(classes) of individuals is just generalzations. in reality you cant really say much about people in an absolute sense. race is just the more superficial form

book is a bunch of bunk to justify jewish supremacy but nazis are too dumb to realize it's a trick

It doesn’t matter if the Alt-Right or anyone else uses a book to justify a policy or proposition. Don’t argue from consequences. The arguments in the book are either true or they aren’t.

>>11500379
because social "science" is BS. you could do this with chemicals in a lab not individuals.

>>11500390
wow you seem very smart! ! ! ! !

next up from anon: 'why defining a chair as something you can sit on is a superficial generalization oh no help my mind has melded with the universe itself i was just subjective all along'

Why is every single race/intelligence thread the same? It always boils down to some autistic shit flinging over muh taxonomies, muh catagories, muh continuums.

“Just generalizations”

Generalization has gotten a bad rap. Much of both deductive and inductive reasoning is about generalization. Why is it regarded as such an insidious process when applied to humans? Are we to refrain from trying to understand ourselves?

>>11500376
cant know for sure

>>11500393
if people weren't interested in it for the racism then they would refer instead to his most recent book "coming apart" that strictly compares whites rather than old shit from the 80s

people who think they exist are brainlets. only energy exists. grouping energy into arbitrary discrete qualia is a purely subjective mental invention. no wonder why we are in deep shit nowadays.

>>11500402
cuz its fucking 4chan which is full of retards, trolls and retarded trolls

>>11500403
because of the inherent uncertainty in regards to studying the human condition.

>>11500380
neoreactionaries are smarter than attributing immutable essences to races. and believe me i have no sympathy for their project

your garden variety white nationalist does exactly that, but he didnt need the fucking bell curve to do so, and the 'altright' largely lack the balls to be open racists or theyd shave their heads and tattoo swastikas on their arms
>>11500390
race is not superficial. christ doctors take race into account every time they have to perform an organ transplant. you can equivocate about the degree to which race applies to behavior but race itself is not in question and it makes you look ridiculous to assert that it is

also your contention that making generalizations about people is doomed to failure reeks of skepticism applied only to that which you dont want to think about
>>11500395
science is nothing but reproducibility, if you can get the same results from different people carrying out the same experiment multiple times, you have science, that is literally all it is. the degree of hardness is the degree of precision, but the distinction between pseudoscience and science is the element of reproduciblity

>>11500407
did you see your argument becoming this bad when you made this thread?

>>11500426
what's the argument?

>>11500413
I agree but there are tons of other topics that I think, on the logic, could similarly descend into shit flinging over what constitutes significant differences on things that lie on a continuum. But here, now, suddenly every single word is up for deep epistemological and ontological questioning. You could do the exact same thing in every single social science and, if you really wanted to, any topic of discussion.

Rarely do threads on "what is good writing," for instance, break down into arguments over how writing can even be real because its a linear construction of ideas while humans think along weird, nonlinear matrices of unspeakable sensations, or maybe humans can't construct anything at all because "being" is not temporal and so the sentence exists already, etc., etc. Its only with race/IQ/gender that we rapidly enter such frustrating waters.

>>11500423
all im saying is race is arbitrary. doctors and medicine is an art not a science so i don't think its neccesarily wrong for them to try to consider someones race if they think it can be important.

and skepticism is only safe route when studying humanity. everything else has led us to oppression and disaster. questions are more important than answers

>>11500450
"race isnt real because you cant prove there isnt a guy whos ancestry is entriely within the african continent in the last 2000 years that looks JUST like brad pitt"

>>11500458
it's not real in the sense that everyone will agree that humans are a species that live on earth that each have different characteristics

>>11496752
Have you actually read the book? I find that most criticism is from people who haven't taken the time to read the entire thing, cover to cover.

I understand, it's long and dry. If you don't want to read it, you don't have to- but don't talk shit about something you've neither read nor understand.

Murray notes causal relations between intelligence and a range of life outcomes. He also notes well sourced correlative studies between intelligence and race, among other things.

>>11500466
>each leaf of a tree is different and therefore we cant identify which branch the leaf comes from
at last i truly see
>>11500457
people literally die if the organ transplant is too racially distant you absolute homosexual

skepticism is going to help us? do you have anything like evidence for this proposition? no of course not

>>11500454
>>Its only with race/IQ/gender that we rapidly enter such frustrating waters.

to prove that whole issue is a quibble/retarded and should be done away with. this why my entire point.

>>11500469
This. The book does nothing to support racism but does a lot to criticize elites whom gate themselves off from other populations and amass not only material wealth but beneficial genes that predispose their children to success, furthering our economic and social divides. It is not at all an argument for beating down muh brown people, its actually the complete opposite.

>>11500476
what about mixed race people?

>>skepticism is going to help us? do you have anything like evidence for this proposition? no of course not

every time someone things they are sure of themselves we end up in a cluster fuck. think about all the social engineers/planners and intellectuals

>>11500483
>he book does nothing to support racism
well this is just blatantly untrue, but your post is otherwise not bad

>>11500476
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2954674/

doesn't mention a correlation with race and organ transplants

>>11500485
mixed race people are quite often fucked wrt organ transplants, but it's not a very common phenomneon because race mixing is not very common.

Im with you in theory about skepticism, but doesn't that lead us down the road of paralysis? if something verifiably gets results why would we not use it

>>11500483
i didnt read bell curve, but i did read coming apart, and it was the same shit, pretty reasonable assessment of why certain segments of white society are totally getting left behind, but what does he want us to do? have a bunch of kids with a trailer park meth head? not gonna happen, not even because i'm opposed to ravage the vag of some white trash thots, but because they'd think im a fucking nerd, oh well, just have to have a family with some immigrant who values education instead

>>11500493
>>There was no significant difference in survival when an organ was transplanted between black and white Americans and vice versa.

>>11500510
yeah, like he said, there was no correlation

>>11500496
the only thing that seems to get results is letting people alone—economic freedom. and this hasn't been tested much throughout history

>>11500493
this is a masterpiece of leftist boilerplate

>There was no significant difference in survival when an organ was transplanted between black and white Americans and vice versa.
This elides the actual distinction, wich is between same race and different race transplants, for one of black-white or white-black similarity
>Postnecrotic cirrhosis from a variety of causes was the most common indicator affecting black and white recipients, while primary biliary cirrhosis and primary sclerosing cholangitis were uncommon in the black population.
This is simply irrelevant other material added to distract from the idea that race matters in organ donation
> While the number of organs donated by blacks was low, it was, however, proportional to the number of black recipients in this study.
Confusing the general lack of black organ donors in reality with the obviously curated percentage of the study
>Reasons for the low rate of donation by the black and white Hispanic population are discussed.
Black and hispanics are oppressed of course and therefore cant donate
>It is concluded that race is not a criteria to be used in selection of donors for liver transplantation.
Yes let's let people die to maintain our delusions of equality
>Educational programs addressing issues of organ donation and transplantation directed towards the black and Hispanic populations are recommended.
but actually no we have to have them donate more because blacks and hispanics need the organs

This obfuscation is typical, you can often find someone outright saying 'race doesn't matter, but doctors do take into account genetic similarity' as if race is not exactly the same fucking thing as 'genetic similarity'

>>11497693
>its alright when i make generalizations to dismiss things!!!

>>11496752
in disguise

>>11496752
The book's ok. The problem is with brainlets who attempt to extract information.

if you're on the right:
>average black has lower iq than average white
>means whites have superior iq
if you're on the left:
>op's post
>the book is wrong or racist

When I see a black guy I don't think he has a lower iq. Heck it's on average, there's a great chance I have lower iq than most black people I know.
I still sometimes think he might mug me because statistics.

Charles Murray is a CIA puppet

>>11497474
You have never seriously talked to someone with an IQ of sub 80 before.

>>11500765
What is your IQ that you think there is a greater chance you will have lower IQ than most (black) people you know?

>>11500987
I never said greater.

>>11500103
He means stock trader, not somebody running a market stall. It's literally the job with the highest intelligence requirement, because the only way to succeed is to be smarter than your competitors. Mediocre scientists can still make discoveries. Mediocre traders get fired.

>>11501216
You do realize that for a good X to exist, mediocre X have to exist too, right?

>>11500765
>there's a great chance I have lower iq than most black people I know.
No, there isn't unless you're quite dumb.

>>11501233
>mediocre X have to exist too
Of course. "Up or out" flushes them away. There's always fresh meat for the system.

>>11500976
Consider that there are countries where "dumb phoneposter"-tier intelligence puts you in an elite minority. Nobody who's seen real stupidity would think training was the answer.

>>11497860
Yes, 120 is the average.

>>11496799
The author of the book is a jew you inbred amurigan imbecile

>>11497371
Find me one person that has ever contributed to the sum of human knowledge with a sub 100 iq.

>>11502370
no tru scotsman bro if someone contributed to some shit then they will just say they had high iq, like all those jazz fags who were mad nice at tickling the ivories but were dumb ass shit got a whole new metric of "musical iq" made for them, guarantee if some guy with downs cured aids they would say he may have been developmentally challenged by had high "medical iq" or something, iq is fucking dumb

>>11502401
You can't invalidate iq by referring to retards who think multiple intelligences is a thing. That's not the same thing just because they make up things with 'iq' in the name.

>>11502427
but what about "muh verbal iq" that i hear fags on here whining about all day

>>11500531
even a retard can see what I'm doing in that post, but apparently /pol/ is full of warrior-monks who can't do a sit-up and can't reason their way out of a paper bag

>>11497340
belief in blank slatism is cratering, go outside

>>11502446
That's a different group of people who are also trying to invalidate iq you brainlet. What they name their bullshit has no impact on whether someone with <100 iq has contributed to the sum of human knowledge.

>>11502446
it's a component of the iq score, there's verbal, visuo-spatial, and some other stuff iirc. There are people with very high scores in one category but low scores in others. Terrence Tao for example has a mediocre verbal iq score but is off the charts for the spatial one. Generally i think they correlate with each other a bit though

>>11502474
>terrance tao

asians are "good at math" but only ever produced one minor mathematician

>>11502482
Maybe you just don't know anything about mathematicians?

>>11502493
Kek

>>11502482
im just saying tao is clearly a very smart guy but he did poorly in all his language studies. there's an interviw with him talking about this, he says he doesn't like the ambiguity of natural language

>>11502493
maybe i went to a tech school and met enough asian cram masters to know those kids approach to learning guarantee they will not produce anything of value

>>11502507
yeah, usually people who are stupid go into math because its easier, memorize the shit, regurgitate on test, collect "A", no thought required, math majors are fucking mongs with low work ethic

>>11502512
Maybe your anecdotes don't change the fact that debatably the best number theorist in the world is japanese

>>11502518
>usually people who are stupid go into math
math is one of the highest iq disciplines, especially once the female undergrads are weeded out and become teachers. Only physics and one or two other fields have higher averge iqs

>>11502538
where do these fucking gay ass stats come from? do you have a citation?

>>11502526
woah in the history of the world there was one japaese guy who was good at math! nice anecdote bro!

>>11497371

Bullshit, you heard a buzzfeed article say that and now you're repeating it.

IQ is actually an amazingly good predictor for everything related to intelligence.

>>11502546
there are all sorts of studies on this stuff dude, just google it

https://thetab.com/us/2017/04/10/which-major-has-highest-iq-64811

>>11502552
Thats one more major asian mathematician than you claimed existed. So you've been proven wrong and can reevaluate your beliefs after you do some research to get some idea what you're talking about. You're welcome.

>>11502565
do you work in the iq testing industry? who gives a shit about iq?

>>11502572
wow man now there are TWO possibly notable east asian mathematicians! considering the total number of asians that didn't move the needle much dude, i'm sure there are two black guys who are good at math too

>>11502590
If you had no idea any asian person besides terry tao is good at math why are you now so confident that no asian person besides those two is good at math?

>>11502575
>who gives a shit about iq?
well using it for job applications was suspiciously outlawed on the basis it would promote racism or something, so it has few practical applications

if youre interested in knowing the outcomes of a group of people their average iq will give you a very good idea

>>11502613
>well using it for job applications was suspiciously outlawed on the basis it would promote racism or something
why can't you just ask iq-y questions at their interview? is that illegal too?

>>11502567
>https://thetab.com/us/2017/04/10/which-major-has-highest-iq-64811
>guy goes on and on about "high iq" academic shitbags
>links to a fucking buzzfeed tier website
>the link from the shitty clickbait article just refers to a "study" done by some organization pushing standardized tests that isnt actually available

yeah since you're a high iq professor maybe try linking to something at least peer reviewed?that place probably just took gre/sat scores and converted them to iq using some bullshit formula

>>11502613
actually studies have shown that "long time horizon" is the best predictor of outcomes, not iq, kys pseud

You can’t apply averages to the individual.
Also, of course people who never go to school and live in mud huts are going to be bad at logic puzzles

>>11502625
would you mind explaining to me what peer review adds to the scientific process, which is based on the idea of reproducing studies
>>11502634
that can be true and iq can still predict for outcomes. Once again a post containing the word 'pseud' is worthless, it's almost 100% of them

>>11502621
what do you think the "white board" part of a programming interview is? of course it can be easily biased when you give the african dude a fucking nearly impossible sorting question or something, but then make the white tech bro you went to hebrew camp with a fizzbuzz

>>11502657
>white tech bro
>hebrew camp
hm

>>11502653
>guy links to a clickbait listicle
>now wants to challenge the merits of peer review

this guy is probably a chunky nazi with cheeto dust on his kek t-shirt, why am i wasting my life on the this retarded website

>>11502608
Because he doesn't understand induction.

>>11502669
>why am i wasting my life on the this retarded website
because you're the kind of person that thinks
>this guy is probably a chunky nazi with cheeto dust on his kek t-shirt
is compelling, i guess

>>11502669
surely if peer review is so evidently beneficial you can give a brief description of what it adds to the scientific process

>>11496794
lmao true

Post face OP.

>>11497474

brainlet

>>11502691
who said anything about "science" you fucking sped? its about filtering out bunk research including in the humanities, philosophy, and plenty of "non-scientific" domains, i will bet money you don't have a bachelors even from a state school, this kind of worship of iq but anti-academia stance not to mention links to pol tier infographic type shit just shows you ironically have a low iq, its probably like how short guys are always obsessed with people's heights, asking me "do i play basketball" and shit like that, fuck outta here manlet brainlet

>>11502787
so you can't define any of the terms in question, good stuff

>>11500175
How come it's always black and brown people who deny biological antropology?
Do they feel bad that they are lower in the hierarchy?

>>11502638
No matter how hard you try to deny science it will not change according to your current emotional state.

People differ in many ways that define characteristics of both their body and psyché.
The deep self or in other words the instinctiveness of an individual and the intellectual and emotional abilities are determined by genetics.
For example, this is why you willl never paint like Picasso or run like Usain Bolt no matter how much you practice.
Racial distinction is neccessary because the separated development of races made them so distant from each other it is impossible to maintain a balanced society with all of them being part of it.

>>11502908
>Racial distinction is neccessary
only for people who are uncomfortable with themselves. the crux of this matter is individualism vs collectivism. people need the security of being defined by a collective grouping instead of embracing themselves

>>11502821
>has no actual valid citation
>tries to change the subject to an argument about scientific method

ok dude

>>11502787
/lit/ is really nigger’d up now huh? or are you a spic? you talk like a midwit nigger

>>11502908
>you will never run like usain bolt

not unless i get some of those sweet sweet peds he's on

>>11502845
But they are rarely the ones who complain about this. Are you stupid?

Should people with low IQ's bother with literature, or will it forever be out of their grasp to truly appreciate?

>>11497269
put me in the screencap

>>11497371
Here, buddy. Read up.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23931870-200-the-truth-about-intelligence-what-is-it-really/

>>11502613
Where do you live that iq tests are outlawed for job interviews?

>>11500134
>it really isn’t
False. It’s shit. Absolute horsecrap and it’s incorrect

>>11497442
It’s a good thing that income distributions on average do not even resemble bell curves at all you dumbass retard

>>11497474
Underrated post, unironically

>>11504754
t. hasn't read the book

>>11505297
See
>>11504759

>>11505307
the bell curve refers to iq distribution you absolute retard, not wealth

>>11505325
Then you do no better than the three year old who thinks the square block can go into the circle hole for can’t see a gaping logical hole here

>>11497251
Alri Guittari

>>11502450
>Its a joke so I didnt do exactly what i did!!!

>>11505640
>Its a joke
holy shit you're dense

>>11496794
/thread

>All this hatred on the thread
Unironically just play nice with the other human beings, lmao

>border collies are smarter than other dogs
>hounds have a greater hunting instinct than other dogs
>labradors are friendlier than other dogs
>etc

they are all dogs, but different kinds of dogs have different attributes aside from their obvious physical differences, generally.
why would / wouldnt this be the case with different groups of humans also? different races of humans are quite physically different, why would / wouldnt we be mentally different also?

>>11505899
Because it has awkward implications so please ignore it

lmao at these kids who think race doesn't exist. I thought the exact same thing like 10 years ago after I took sociology 101. leftist brainwashing in academia is 100% real

>>11505899
>some dogs are friendlier than other dogs!
wow! great insight!
>different races of humans are quite physically different, why would / wouldnt we be mentally different also
yeah it's almost like intelligence isn't the same thing as muscle fiber

>>11506005
If there are observable differences in intellect among visually distinguished groups of humans, which there are, why pretend differently?

>>11506005
>let me misinterpt your first point so avoid confronting it
You are so insanely delusional to deny what is directly being presented in front of you

>>11506042
nobody's pretending anything
people are making research, the problem is that you don't like the interpretations they're making so you're using those with whose interpretations you do agree with
>>11506087
there's nothing misinterpreted about it, he's comparing a dog's fucking friendliness to human intelligence

>>11506123
>he's comparing a dog's fucking friendliness to human intelligence
Both are behavioral traits.
Both agreeablness and cognitive ability are heritable. Except that cognitive ability is far more heritable than agreeableness.

>>11497465
>you need an above average intelligence to be a trader
lmao

>>11501216
>It's literally the job with the highest intelligence requirement
if hedge fund traders where as smart as you procalim them to be, they wouldn't have found themselves in such thigh shit back in 2008.

>>11496752
>OP single handedly assblast half of /lit/ with his god tier bait the thread
lmao, good job OP, your iq surely is atleast 130.

The book has a single chapter about race and IQ.

>>11506138
"behavioral trait" is about as fuzzy a term as possible, it can encompass everything from pissing in the sink to something like agreeableness, it's insufficient to just say "these are both behavioral traits which means they act in the same manner, like a 1:1 copy"

>>11502565
Imagine finding your faith in IQ tests, of all things, like this guy.

>>11506588
i dont believe it was saying that the traits in non-human animals act as 1:1 copies in humans
simply that difference in behavioural traits and cognitive abilities are observed in different breeds and sub-species, and if this is the case isnt it likely that the same applies to humans? and if not, why not?

>>11497336
Some brainlet couldn't understand it was not a fresh joke, but a reference to one of the core problems of epistemology. CRINGE!

we have no need of the bell curve
Understanding Human History: An Analysis Including the Effects of Geography and Differential Evolution
A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History
Sociobiology: The New Synthesis
Our Political Nature
The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature
Nature Via Nurture: Genes, Experience and What Makes Us Human
The Agile Gene
The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some are So Rich and Some So Poor
A Farewell to Alms

define "race"