/sci/ - Science & Math

yikes

Tell me more about how you knew calculus inside the womb.

>>10727370

>>10727378
Tell us more about how dogs have the potential to understand calculus in the womb

>>10727370
You see OP, the issue here is people like you will claim these genetic IQ differences are equally spread among every racial population. As such someone like you who is white will claim to be smarter than any black person when we know this to not be true since you're clearly mentally retarded.

>yeah, racial science is my main area of interest. how could you tell?

>>10727393
>someone like you who is white will claim to be smarter than any black person
No one has ever said that, what it's argued is that the average white is smarter than the average black which is a fact whether you like it or not.

>>10727393
>As such someone like you who is white will claim to be smarter than any black person
>what is a bell curve
There’s a few black men that can swim better than some whites, but I bet if you were drowning you would hope that a non-black person is around to save you

define intelligence (iq doesnt count)

>>10727408
g factor

>>10727408
The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

>>10727376
>yikes
Sound about right for a lefty
>>10727378
>Tell me more about how you knew calculus inside the womb.
Tell me more about how a mouse fetus and a human fetus have the same level of intelligence.
IF intelligence isnt genetic, why would there be difference between them
>>10727393
>You see OP, the issue here is people like you will claim these genetic IQ differences are equally spread among every racial population.
And you se
my well meaning cohort
The issue with you is that while i full admit that there is a mutational and enviromental impact on intellgence
you refuse to admit its genetic factor
which inherently will be based upon the natural selection that took place in the region the fetus's ancestors came from and the evolutionary selection there in
the racial intelligence if you will
> As such someone like you who is white will claim to be smarter than any black person
When did i say this?
I must have missed it.
> when we know this to not be true since you're clearly mentally retarded.
Ahh
ahhh i se
the good old "fuck arguments you're a retard" routine
i was hopping that by not posting this on reddit i might avoid it
what a fuckin shame
>>10727395
Probably by your fanatic attempts to derale arguments on it with shit posts
>>10727408
The ability analyze, retain, create and utilize information.

>>10727408
penis size

It's a dead topic, anyone who approaches it would lose their career.

>>10727402

Not him but that's a really retarded statement to make. If you're drowning you would hope anyone would save you regardless of race. The point of contention is whether or not it is more likely you are going be surrounded by more of a specific group of people in the first place because swimming is more routine for them.

Maybe this isn't the case with African Americans but with Caribbean Blacks or Somalians swimming would be routine. They may not win Olympic medals but they clearly have the capacity to save you from drowning.

>>10727370
i think it's obviously influenced by genetic factors, just like every other factor. the question is, just how much does it vary from one "race" to another?
as an analogy, different "races" have different skin traits. for example europeans have lighter skin, improving production of vitamin D in climates with less sun, while africans have dark skin to resist consistent bombardment by uv rays.
in spite of all that, the overwhelming majority of skin traits (the structure of the molecules, the organization of the cells, the healing processes, etc.) are basically the same between all people.

bad actors with political agendas exaggerate the influence of genetics on racial differences and ignore environmental factors entirely, all to justify treating others like animals without considering individual merit. this is unethical. the restriction of civil rights and opportunity should require an extremely high standard of proof (analogous to the way we require extremely high standards of proof to imprison someone for life or sentence them to death).

>>10727432
I was only using an example to show how he ridiculously ignored what’s really the case as pointed out here>>10727401
On average, whites swim better than blacks (even if you don’t believe this is due to genetic reasons, that’s fine), but there are still some blacks that swim better than whites. There are also some whites that run faster than blacks, though we generally believe that blacks have a genetic advantage in that category (see Olympic track running)

>>10727436
Thank you for one of the first non shit opposition posts of the thread.
let loose the fucking baloons.
>all to justify treating others like animals without considering individual merit. this is unethical. the restriction of civil rights and opportunity should require an extremely high standard of proof (analogous to the way we require extremely high standards of proof to imprison someone for life or sentence them to death).
This seems to me like a reasonable line of logic.
And while i wont pretend that im some fucking pargon of neutrality I do think this a fair representation of the facts as we se them and is a fine socio political view to have.

>>10727370
There are 2 different questions. 1st "is intelligence heritable?" and like you say the answer is obviously yes because otherwise we'd be dumb as rocks.
2nd is the controversial one: "how heritable are intelligence differences between races, are they nature or nurture?"
It's a reasonable question to ask but there shouldn't be any controversy (and there really isn't in the scientific community) as it's been well and truly answered.

>>10727370
that's one of the many fantastic results of diversity. can't go insulting our own people and maybe even utilize the data to do something helpful for the less fortunate. no javonte is just pretending to be retarded you silly racist sister fucking caveman

>>10727436
>bad actors with political agendas exaggerate the influence of genetics on racial differences and ignore environmental factors entirely

other very powerful bad actors with political agendas do the opposite

>>10727436
But what if it were absolutely proven that, say, aboriginals have an IQ 20 points fewer than, say, Europeans? What if aboriginals has populations in the millions and they wanted to live in European civilizations? What if there were a race with 70 IQ, or 60, or even 50? At what point does it become acceptable to segregate society? It is one thing to treat someone with kindness, as most people treat animals, though their intelligence is much lower than ours, but it is another thing to pretend that everyone of all races are compatible and should all share the same society.

>>10727436
statistically significant genetic intelligence differences on the racial level are likely minor. if not, there would probably be less disagreement on the subject.
furthermore, populations are large enough that we would be mistaken to rely on such hamfisted evaluations. suppose, hypothetically, that american racists are correct, and (say) 50% of whites are "smart", but only 30% of blacks. even then, the policy of excluding "blacks" from education would wastefully exclude millions of people who are "smart", any one of which could be the one who cracks the next big problem.

on top of all that, we also have issues defining intelligence.
for example, we know that different individuals express intelligence differently; e.g., in mathematics, there is a definite divide between intuitive and rigorous thinkers, but both are extremely valuable in the field.
https://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Poincare_Intuition.html

in my opinion, there's enough uncertainty about the concept of intelligence itself to doubt the veracity of the "iq" metric.
i know a black guy who's married to a chinese girl; she's very rigorous, he's got a really strong intuition. they work as a team and they're both accomplished professors in their field, and in only a few years have published scores of noteworthy papers. which one is "smarter"? is it justifiable to exclude either one of them in spite of their prodigious abilities and achievements?

>>10727460
indeed. and yet we have pic related, who claim conservatives are genetically inferior. how far down the rabbit hole do we need to go before we realize it's just filled with shit?

>>10727436
>overwhelming majority of skin traits (the structure of the molecules, the organization of the cells, the healing processes, etc.) are basically the same between all people
That's wrong though.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18492142/
It might be true in the most general sense but most skin traits are a bit different.

>le niggers are dumb

>>10727468
are you serious with this post? the west is fully ready to sacrifice its culture, civility and progress to allow those with with a lower intellectual capacity and even those with violent temperaments to live among us. sadly there are only two paths at this point and I am certain that whites will puss out and allow everything to be taken from them and bastardized

>>10727417
this is actually true

>>10727370
>Social Darwinism
M'Baron.

>>10727487
>That's wrong though.
it's a question of degree, as i already stated in the post you replied to.
biological structure is coded by millions of genes. the differences are relatively minor in number. a black can live long in europe, and a european can live long in africa. this is because the essential properties of skin are the same among all races; they all have same basic structure (pic related).

>>10727491
theyre not dumb. they are well adapted to a hunter gather lifestyle on the african savanah.

>>10727468
again, "iq" itself has serious issues.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/538431/deep-learning-machine-beats-humans-in-iq-test/
https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.07909
in this research, a neural network trained on word embeddings (this is a hot topic in natural language processing) is able to compete with humans on a verbal iq test.

https://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2017/01/making-ai-systems-see-the-world-as-humans-do.html
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-60724-002
here, a convolutional neural network (typically used for image processing) scores in the 75th percentile on a raven's progressive matrices visual iq test.

should personal computers be afforded greater access to society than actual human beings, since any of them can be loaded with these python or lisp scripts and then made to pass an iq test?

clearly, the iq metric is not a sufficient basis for discrimination in human societies.

>At what point does it become acceptable to segregate society?
good question. my guess would be never, at least not on broad racial lines. but first you have to figure out: what exactly is the standard for integration in society?

>>10727370
it's not

>>10727468

Not him but the problem with this logic is that such populations like the Aboriginals have not showed any desire or capability to migrate into European countries. It's actually been the opposite, Europeans came to Australia and all of sudden they bitch about Aboriginal integration when it was their fault for establishing a civilization there in the first place.

The same goes for America, Sub-Saharan blacks didn't come to the America they were brought over by Europeans. The Amerindian populations didn't migrate to European civilizations they were fucking invaded by European civilizations.

The same to some extent even goes to ethnic middle eastern populations. They were not migrating in mass to European countries until the U.S. and Russia started fucking around in there. They were unironically content with just selling you oil as long as you didn't fuck with their backwards Muslim ways.

The shit going on with European civilizations is self inflicted. And it's hard to feel bad for people who self inflict their own wounds.

>>10727549
And whites are well adapted to foraging temperate forests? Everyone knows the point of this thread is
>hur nigs dumb
>hur jews lie
>hur leftism is religion
You aren't fooling anyone. Pretending to be stupid makes you stupid.

>>10727566
way to miss the point completely and go on a reddit tangent

>>10727577

How does it miss the point? The only reason you posted such statements is because you are concerned with how well different IQ average populations can socially mesh. But all recent examples from the past several centuries has shown that it was the higher IQ populations (Europeans in this case) that disturbed the previous established societies.

>>10727595
Are you saying 3rd world dysfunction is the result of europeans building societies too complex for 3rd worlders to handle?

>>10727602
>reading comprehension

>>10727556
>standard for integration in society?
We have our own retards and criminals that we've decided need supervision or expulsion. A lot of ethnic groups would on average fall short of those standards.
>irish get out reeee

>>10727595
>But all recent examples from the past several centuries has shown that it was the higher IQ populations (Europeans in this case) that disturbed the previous established societies.
How is that relevant? Does that mean we shouldn’t think about preventing integration in the future?

>>10727567
>whites are well adapted to foraging temperate forests
actually yes.

>>10727620

It means the integration you should most worry about is from higher IQ populations. Like the Han Chinese knocking on your door and telling you to pay your debts or prepared to get riced.

>>10727643
But given we live in a world free from slavery, colonialism, and constant war, there’s no reason why the higher IQ societies would want to go anywhere near the lower IQ races, right? How does that benefit the higher?

>>10727653

>>10727653

Because the higher usually wants more land, resources, followers or overall greater social influence. In China's case the more countries who use or depend on their products or are indebted to them the more influence they have.

>>10727667
but the Chinese do not want blacks living among them

>>10727680

And yet the Chinese are in Africa. Giving them money to build their cities and embassies, in exchange for resources. Taking up residence and establishing businesses.

>>10727370
>How Is Intelligence Being Genetic Even Up For Debate?
Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

It's kinda both! The not so known aspect being that intelligence aka everything affects genes which in turn affects intelligence! easy

>>10727370
>same intelligence as primordial ancestors
but they didn't have any money, surely it was all economic

>>10727393
mmm, no I would imagine it would be more like when you graph the differences in male and female sprinters, there will be some female sprinters the best of the bell curve will be better than say 80% of the male sprinters, but none will be better than the best male sprinters.

>>10727381
Who ever invented the term Leftism is a fucking brainlet. This is just another classic case of herd mentality, similar to all political party agendas.

>>10727370
>Human races are like dog breeds

Fuck off SJW

>>10727412
>Different human races are as different as mice are from humans.

K

>>10727370
It seems pretty god damn ridiculous that racists insist that non-racists believe that intelligence has no genetic component, despite the fact that nobody relevant has ever said that, ever. What kind of twisted delusion is this?

>>10727722
That is a lot of words to say "19th century phrenology should be listened to over modern behavioral studies and genetics. Also please ignore the variability of IQ in populations over the span of a few decades even with Flynn effect applied because a few phenotypes matter more than anything else in a species whose brain grows for decades after birth".

Funny how you think the reason new scientific findings are just revisionism on some more truthful science from the last despite how empirical stuff like variable IQ, brain growth and the genetic bottlenecks our species has had in just the last hundred thousand years are. Or how it's known that dogs have much more variable genetic variation than primates do.

>>10727750
no one wants to actually tackle the content of arguments anymore. everyone has to paint others into nice little political boxes.
despite the fact that the intention behind policies mean dick all.
You can create great policy with the worst intentions in mind. Likewise (and more often) you can create the worst policies with the best intentions in mind.
Intentions, "dogwhistling," "libtards," are used by mental chimps to justify throwing their shit at the other side.
Everyone is more interested in the intentions behind the goals, rather than what the actual policies (and understanding who is actually getting subsidies/taxed) themselves.
It's because the benefits to these federal programs are privatized among special interest groups, but the costs are socialized so no one feels the full-brunt effect of policy decisions they vote for.
These unaware distortions lead to people voting against their best interest, and appealing to the party "good feels" goals instead.
So remove the proverbial goldmine and decentralize the government. Implode the federal government, make people more concerned over their local elections and social programs, rather than vice versa, and the problems would be sorted out. Your vote would actually matter.

>>10727797
Where did he say that?

>>10727742
This actually makes the most sense to me, but I feel like it wouldn't be a socially acceptable argument even though it's most likely the truth.

Alright lads, im back to the thread wonder how its gone in my absence...
>>10727458
>you racist sister fucking caveman
yep
okay
Didnt know what i expected honestly
>>10727484
>issues with IQ
This is a fair critique however in misses my point in OP.
Regardless of if we can accurately measure intelligence, it is obviously a genetic trait as all other traits are.
We can get into the weeds of why this is the case but in a nuttshel.
If we believe the brain functions as all other biomater on a living organism does (ie through genetic coding determined by darwinistic selection) then intelligence must inherently be genetic.
And it is also shall we
Drastically unlikely?
that members of species evolutionarily isolated for thousands of years to the point where the skin pigment, bone structure and musslce mass dirverged evolved the EXACT SAME level of genetic intelligence.
It seems like a rather unlikely hypothesis to me.
>>10727556
>>10727556
Whether or not we should base social policy upon the outcomes of scientific research is somewhat beside the point but if you're worried about re-segregation i wouldn't.
Even if the strongest proponents of genetic intelligence were undeniably proven right it would still mean that roughly 40 percent of each countries white population would be barred from voting and with the way the west sucks the pervial dick of democracy i dont se that as a likely out come.
At best you'd probably get racially based immigration laws and in this day and age, with demographics the way they are, that would be a strech by any standard.
This argument however was not supposed to be policy based but science based.
The question of "what do we do" with this knowledge is up to political debate.
But the question of "is it true or not" is a scientfiic one.

>>10727818
The comparison was him trying to imply that genetic determinism exists between races because different animal species show differences too. It's a really stupid fucking comparison needless to say, as human groups don't deviate much at all genetically and many human populations have been doing intermixing for ages. Exogamy is a common phenomenon in our species and we wouldn't even have civilizations without it.

It also means we have a lot of genetic flow within our species so the long spans of time needed for speciation just aren't there. Viable offspring are regularly created from so-called mixed race couples so it's even closer than it is between horses and donkeys.

>>10727566
>>10727566
>muh europeans started the shit
One could honestly make the argument that the entire basis of western european imperialism militarism was the hunnic, roman and moorish invasions of the early christian period.
The question of "who is responsible" is kinda a fucking butterfly effect i suspect you dont really want to pull on.
But regardless of that these social issues are suppose to non important for this thread
merely the question of why the existence of "genetic intelligence" is disputed
>>10727567
>hur nigs dumb
lol no anon.
>hur jews lie
Questions of the JQ belong on pol not fucking sci
>hur leftism is religion
I leave this up to r/atheists
but i will say this
any belief system that doesnt allow you to accept the finding of science should be under question
>>10727595
>But all recent examples from the past several centuries has shown that it was the higher IQ populations (Europeans in this case) that disturbed the previous established societies.
So... you think we should segregate for the sake of the non-whites?
fuck man.

>>10727401
Minnesota Transracial Adoption study supports the environmental hypothesis more than the hereditarian hypothesis.

>>10727801
>It seems pretty god damn ridiculous that racists insist that non-racists believe that intelligence
has no genetic component, despite the fact that nobody relevant has ever said that, ever.
>>nobody relevant has ever said that, ever.
>>> nobody relevant

Go to your local college campus
find the head of social sciences deparment
ask him if human intelligence is at all genetic
and report back with your findings.

>>10727851
She said of course there is a genetic component to intelligence.

>>10727851
It's less a question of intelligence being genetic and more a question of if intelligence within our species is genetic.

And by all definitions we are a singular species because viable offspring is commonplace no matter the race.

>>10727830
Anon you made several true statements hear
yet none of them disproved my hypothesis.
You amdit that racial groups are genetically divergent, you believe this to be slight, thats fair in the grand scheme of things i suppose, but my statement that human intelligence is genetics is...
false?
look anon you believe, i am sure, or at least i sincerely hope, that humans have different genes which give them different skin colors.
I would also likewise hope that you would agree that humans also have different bone structure between races.
I suspect if you looked an albino african american you would still know he wasnt of caucasian decent.
I likewise also suspect you believe that different races of humans have different predispostions for heart disease
different sized appendixes
different eye colors
different average muscle masses in parts of their body
all i would remind you formed from thousands of years of evolution.
Now your hypothesis, at least so far stated, is thus
>"Despite all those differences human beings did not differ in their genetic intelligence one iota from each other"
...
you se my reason for skepticism?
i hope you can adress this and look forward to hearing your response
because it would seem likely to me that georgraphically isolated organisms with a common ancestor, who obviously evolved divergent traits, would also evolve divergent genetic levels of intelligence.
I look forward to your response, likely with more then a few claims of racism lol.

>>10727856
damn it
you got me.
>>10727859
se>>10727875

>>10727880
>damn it
>you got me.
I did. So why do we keep having threads like this? Why do racists keep strawmanning the narrative?

>>10727893
I fixed it

>>10727901
What’s the narrative?

>>10727875
Skin color is phenotype. As is stuff like appendixes and eye color. The variations you mention vary a lot within a population, they're not really the major differences that can deviate on a species level and change generationally. Intelligence tests show intelligence rapidly changing by the decade as well. Developing countries in IQ surveys consistently show intelligence which catches up to developed countries. That shouldn't happen if intelligence is racially determined or that one's ability to learn is limited racially.

Phenotype differences don't include sweeping structural elements such as our brains growing for decades after we are born. As an aside, Skull shape I should note, does not correlate to intelligence. If you believe it does you minus well read horoscopes as phrenology is basically astrology for those who don't like hippie shit.

>>10727907
Are you saying also that smarter than average parents wouldn't more likely have smarter than average children?

>>10727909
If you took that baby and put that baby in an isolated environment, would they do any better than if you took a baby from a dumber family and did the same?

>>10727920
So you think IQ has no genetic component, so according to you any of us should be able to obtain a 200+ IQ then ?

>>10727906
They want you to think a genetic component to intelligence is "a point of contention" when it isn't. That way, they can further push a narrative of racism.

>>10727954
No, you said “racists keep strawmanning the narrative.” What narrative?

Pascal’s wager, but for genetic intelligence differences among races. How unfortunate would it be if racists were right and humanity becomes dragged down by the lower races.

>>10727964
There is none. They're strawmanning a narrative that otherwise wouldn't exist.

>>10727976
The position seems quite simple to me. Races differ genetically in terms of intelligence, hence the consistent observations of racial differences in test scores and IQ (Asians > whites > blacks), even when controlled for income etc. And just judging by behavior, asians are more tame and civil, whereas blacks tend to be rowdy and easily upset. So the argument is that there is no way to help lower races become equal to the higher races in intelligence. Given equal conditions, one will always outperform the other on average. So we have no obligation to micromanage every detail in the education system to make sure all races have the same test scores. The opposite view is that these differences can be done away by somehow leveling the playing field, which is often discriminatory against Asians and whites as there are no genuine ways to improve black intelligence

>>10727983
>So we have no obligation
And that's where you have left the realm of science and moved to politics and philosophy. Please take it there.

Meanwhile, OP has created a false scientific "point of contention" by strawmanning his own narrative in order to spread racism. That's bullshit I won't stand for. Mods need to do their fucking job.

>>10727996
So scientifically it's a fact that IQ differs among races but we shouldn't do anything about it? Or we should do something about it but you think that something is race-mixing until everyone is sub 100IQ?

>>10727996
sjws need to stop trying to get discussion shut down by crying racist and mods need to stop enabling them.
Op's not spewing deranged race hate or inciting violence, he's talking about the ridiculousness of sjws bullying science into denying human evolution.

>>10728089
>Op's not spewing deranged race hate or inciting violence
>he's talking about the ridiculousness of [insert politically motivated strawman]
Gotcha

>>10727446
>blacks have a genetic advantage in that category (see Olympic track running)
That's also related to intelligence in a roundabout way. Faster running needs narrower hips, but the bigger the baby's brain the wider hips you need.

>>10727618
>We have our own retards and criminals that we've decided need supervision or expulsion. A lot of ethnic groups would on average fall short of those standards.
>criminals
explain this to me. how can an individual be, "on average", guilty of a crime that warrants expulsion?

>>10727722
ted kacynski's manifesto is an excellent example of circular reasoning. it holds up very poorly to any reasonable scrutiny. you know it's gold when a section begins with "almost anyone will agree with me on this..."

>>10727825
>Regardless of if we can accurately measure intelligence, it is obviously a genetic trait as all other traits are.
correct, but unfortunately, since we can't define it, we can't tell who has it and who doesn't.

>Drastically unlikely? that members of species evolutionarily isolated for thousands of years to the point where the skin pigment, bone structure and musslce mass dirverged evolved the EXACT SAME level of genetic intelligence.
i don't believe they have the EXACT SAME. i just don't believe the differences are great enough to warrant any action. especially when you take into account that these are intelligence distributions -- it's a certainty that the "more intelligent" race is bound to have many members who are dumber than the average member of the "less intelligent" race.

>Whether or not we should base social policy upon the outcomes of scientific research is somewhat beside the point
the problem is that for many, it's precisely the point.
but from a scientific standpoint, the definition of intelligence is murky, and even if we decide that intelligence is equivalent to iq, the evidence is still inconclusive.

>>10728061
>but we shouldn't do anything about it? Or we should do something about it but you think that something is race-mixing until everyone is sub 100IQ?
Idk, this can't be answered by science. What do you propose that doesn't involve fascism?

>>10728114
>implying eugenics is fascism
people constantly employ eugenics by picking who they mate with, or you one of those SJW's that think that the government should assign mates for better future equality.

>>10727370

>>10728118
Ok sounds good just let people do what they've been doing and mate with who they like.

>>10727446
>On average, whites swim better than blacks
if you mean on the olympic level, this is far from settled.
competing at elite swimming requires significant resources; carefully curated pools, coaches, and especially the equipment (read about "tech suits"; the IOC actually had to set limits on how much of the body can be covered by a swimsuit to limit this advantage).
this is the main reason the united states has the "best" swimmers by far.
now, consider that in the united states, blacks were de facto banned from swimming at least up until the early 70's because they were banned from using the aforementioned resources (this is the real story behind the "blacks don't swim" meme).

In my fascist fantasy the goal of our scientists will be to create a race where all the females are incredibly attractive and all the men are cute twinks.

>>10728112
>individual
As usual group averages for traits like intelligence or criminalism don't tell you about specific individuals.
>can't tell who has it and who doesn't
And this has to be the most retarded of all the retarded things people keep saying. Like we can't tell the difference between science PhDs and brain-dead retards.

>>10728140
I dunno I've met some hard science PHDs who I'm pretty sure need to be reminded to breath on a regular basis.

>>10728135
oh man... read my mind

>>10728130
>only the usa exists
There are five continents full of brown people who have sucked at swimming since before recorded history.

>>10727393
I have literally never heard someone who is willing to acknowledge HBD claim that.

>>10728112
>you know it's gold when a section begins with "almost anyone will agree with me on this..."
Every argument implicitly contains a section like that you low intelligence individual. At some point you have to set down your axioms and just assert that they're reasonable. He's just a mathematician so he's more up front about it. That has nothing to do with being circular, it's actually the opposite.

>correct, but unfortunately, since we can't define it, we can't tell who has it and who doesn't.
Yes i can. People who have fields medals have it and people who can't be taught to add don't. Everyone else i can estimate how close they are to having fields medals or not being capable of addition. I may not always be right but functionally i can produce tests that do a good job of predicting the types of thoughts an individual produces.
>muh language is subjective
Funny how this only becomes a paralyzing insurmountable sticking point when the language is about things that make you uncomfortable.

And if you couldn't point out intelligence you could just talk about specific collections of cognitive skills when they're relevant. People just don't do this because having related cognitive skills in a field is highly correlated so they usually don't have to.

>>10727567
>>hur nigs dumb
>>hur jews lie
>>hur leftism is religion
Those are all irrefutably true.

>>10728154
>HBD
hydrogen bond donor?
no seriously, what's that supposed to stand for?

>>10728135
Based

>>10727926
>so according to you any of us should be able to obtain a 200+ IQ then ?
Anyone can but not everyone will.

>>10728104
It's not really a strawman.

>>10728104
try again after they give Watson his positions back

If intelligence is genetic then how did we advance so much in only a few generations?

>>10728165
>It's not really a strawman.
Only in the sense that you haven't literally constructed a man out of straw.

>>10727381
This is brilliant. What is Kaczinsky's definition of "leftism"?

>>10728161
human biodiversity

>>10727370
yes, intelligence is genetic. you were right all along. we will now implement your final solution of choice. thanks for the enlightenment

>>10728169
>we
Who's 'we'?

>>10728178
Western society

>>10727370
>Debate
>darwinism
found the /pol/itard

>>10728151
>There are five continents full of brown people who have sucked at swimming since before recorded history.
you should reread the post carefully, especially the part about why the usa dominates swimming, even over europe, which is full of white people.

>>10728140
>And this has to be the most retarded of all the retarded things people keep saying. Like we can't tell the difference between science PhDs and brain-dead retards.
when the differences between people are close, we really can't tell the difference.
angela merkel has a chemistry phd. does that make her smarter than roger federer? or did she just happen to focus her energies on more "erudite" subjects?

>>10728157
>At some point you have to set down your axioms and just assert that they're reasonable.
unfortunately, that the axioms he asserts are far from reasonable (typical, of course, for paranoid schizophrenics).
of course we can start a proof by asserting that 1+1=3 and move forward from there. will our conclusions make any sense, though?

>>10728167
He retired...

>>10728164
>anyone can guiz!!11!

>>10728192
Not an argument.

>>10728190
>unfortunately, that the axioms he asserts are far from reasonable (typical, of course, for paranoid schizophrenics).
>i have an opinion
ok. doesn't change the fact that your criticism was retarded and self contradictory

>>10728194
So picrelated is genetically equally likely to become a 200+ IQ super-genius.

>>10728205
Having an extra chromosome is an outlier far beyond any individual genetic difference.

>>10728194
Please adopt a black baby and make it into Terence Tao. You could literally solve racism if you do it. Please do it. Why won’t you do it? What’s the matter huh? C’mon, DO IT. What’s stopping you? In 20 years I expect to see a black kid win the IMO

>>10728172
the spectrum of related creeds that include the feminist, gay rights, political correctness, etc., movements

>>10728210
Is it though? When they breed they create more low IQ individuals.

>>10728172
>>10728217
lmao

>>10728190
>usa has technology therefore genetics don't real
That's retarded.
>when the differences between people are close, we really can't tell the difference
That's still retarded. We can tell the difference down to single IQ points. We could make Merkel and Federer compete in a brainathon and see who comes out on top.

>>10728130
Now explain why whites don’t do so well in the running category

>>10728218
>Is it though?
Yes.

>>10728182
It's if it's not genetic then why was it a certain racial group of a certain species?

>>10728232
It wasn't.

>>10728223
Africa keeps its athletics tracks in tip top condition and selects coaching teams only from the most elite universities.
American whites don't have access to 100m stretches of open ground they could train on and have been riding around on mobility scooters so long they've lost the cultural knowledge of running.

>>10728223
>Now explain why whites don’t do so well in the running category
Cars exist.

>>10728233
Who was it then?

>>10728246
Institutions.

>>10728201
sorry if it seemed "retarded"; i was being brief because this isn't a thread about kacyznski's insane rambling and i didn't want to get off topic.

anyways, my criticism of his manifesto is in no way contradictory.
throughout the document, kacynzski makes reckless assumptions that raise substantive questions, but brushes those aside as "leftism" rather than addressing them.
for example, he claims the leftist, who champions personal civil rights and who denies the reduction of peoples into broad racial categories, is anti-individualistic.
to smooth over this contradiction, he employs unfalsifiable appeals to motive; he asserts that the leftist is really just pretending, to cover "emotional needs" and a "need for power."
this is no different than when liberals claiming that the right is driven by a need to feel superior and an (unearned) sense of entitlement. it boils down to a lazy way to assign a thought process to an enemy without considering the facts.
if you're intellectually honest, you can't accept this kind of argument from either side.

furthermore, kacynzski talks of "diplomacy" and "conciliation" as the way ones' compassionate aims should be achieved, but then he mailed bombs to scientists. it's interesting that you wholehearted accept the contributions of psychologists when it comes to intelligence and iq, but reject their diagnoses of paranoid schizophrenia when it comes to your hero. even though paranoia and schizophrenia are far older and less controversial concepts in psychology.

>>10728220
>usa has technology therefore genetics don't real
>That's retarded.
that's not what i said, though. i said you don't have evidence to make your statement. therefore, anything conclusions you draw from it are hypothetical at best.

guys, look
just look

>>10727378
how do people who argue this poorly take themselves seriously?

Welp lads i just flew back from wallmart looking for a gift for my dad for fathers day
and boy
are my arms fucking exhausted
lets se what insightful and intelligent comments were put fourth in my absence
>>10727907
>Skin color is phenotype. As is stuff like appendixes and eye color. The variations you mention vary a lot within a population, they're not really the major differences that can deviate on a species level and change generationally.
Hm,
So you believe that 2 white parents have a chance of creating an a dark skinned child from their sexual reproduction...
Anon....
about your wifes kid......
>Intelligence tests show intelligence rapidly changing by the decade as well. Developing countries in IQ surveys consistently show intelligence which catches up to developed countries.
Anon no one is denything that enviromental facotors impact intelligence
dramatically so i might add.
But the implications of it not being genetic in the slightests, as i have explained mutliple times are preposterous.
It would mean that the human intellect exists in some sort creationist tier "seperate realm of biology", comletely immune to specific darwinistic pressures that geographically isolated groups undertook.
It would mean that the human brain inherently couldnt formed from evolutionary selection since intelligence is supposedly not genetic.
Do you honestly not se the big gapping holes in this.
Do you believe some sort of all knowing diety just imbued us with consciousness?
I actually grew up in a par corp creationist home anon so im probably more forgiving to this point of view then most, but fucking sci is not a place to espouse it.
>That shouldn't happen if intelligence is racially determined or that one's ability to learn is limited racially.
Sure it should.
Unless of course any of these countries, with the same or similar conditions as western countries get average ethnic IQs similar to that of the west or east asia.
1/2

>>10728268
bahahahahaahahhaa
mods please ban again

>>10728232
Language isn't genetic either anon

>>10728249
>my criticism of his manifesto is in no way contradictory.
your complaint was that his arguments were circular. you followed this by mocking a section in which he gave axioms he was reasoning from, seemingly suggesting this was related despite it being exactly opposing your initial complaint

>who denies the reduction of peoples into broad racial categories
lol. declared intention doesn't determine actual effect, apparently

>he employs unfalsifiable appeals to motive
not unfalsifiable any more than any other assumptions about psychology which are foundational for our society. this seems like another instance of you retreating to the subjectivity of human experience whenever someone says something you dislike. you're right that we don't perfectly know things, particularly psychological things, but we have to act as though we do to function and it often works out.

anyways your complaints are mostly missing the point. he was not negatively describing leftists in order to refute their points. he was doing it to describe social forces and predict the path of society. observing the actions of 'leftists' today and the effects they have had on society it seems like he was on to something.

>but reject their diagnoses of paranoid schizophrenia when it comes to your hero
i do not care what labels you want to apply to him. i only care about him as much as i find his ideas interesting and explanatory, and that is independent of the author.

>>10727907
2/2
btw
if there is some other metric besides IQ you wish to use to measure intelligence im fairly open to it.
level of achievement in education?
success on standardized tests?
Even some sort of vague index of the amount of artists would be interesting to compare.
Im not actually for or against white people being ontop of this spectrum (despite both no posts of mine stating this and all the evidence pointing to ashkenazi jews having the highest average intelligence i am somehow still a white supremacist lol)
I just know that it is unlikely as all fuck that human beings who diverged so rapidly from each other in most phisical, aesthetic and even medical traits
maintaned a uniform, un-selected, un-changed, un-diverentiated level of intelligence.

>>10728282
>your complaint was that his arguments were circular
they are. he assumes his axioms are correct, but then ridicules the leftist boogeyman for disagreeing with them.

>not unfalsifiable any more than any other assumptions
and yet, as you apparently agree, unfalsifiable nonetheless.

>i do not care what labels you want to apply to him.
there is a reason these labels can be applied to him. and there is a reason you can't argue against them and why the best you can do is choose to ignore them. unfortunately for you, ignoring contradictions does not make them disappear. and as long as the contradictions exist, the argument cannot be considered valid. i'm sorry.

>>10728270
They think they're in the moral right and they enjoy the feeling of power/being on the winning side/making you feel bad. Making someone else feel bad tells a person they're powerful because the person wouldn't want to feel bad. So it proves power. In the same way that a person can feel powerful by lifting something heavy, because the heavy thing would resist being lifted.
They're not trying to find out what reality is.

>>10728164
Jesus anon, why only stop at humans then
why cant chimps have 200+ IQ
why not silver backs?
Why bears?
or lions?
or dogs?
or fucking goats!?!
Jesus christ
if this is honestly your view of concious intelligence
that genetics dont play a role at all and it is litterally purely a combination of free will and enviroment what the fuck differentiates us from chimpanzees and guerrillas
oh right
ARE FUCKING GENETICS!
>>10727996
>Meanwhile, OP has created a false scientific "point of contention" by strawmanning his own narrative in order to spread racism.
What a god damn dastardly plan of mine
when all it takes is a well places argument to spread my "evil vile racist ideas to everyone's mind"
its almost as if i have the benefit of arguing from a legitimate scientifically defendable position while my opponents do not.
>Mods need to do their fucking job.
"BURN THE NON BELIEVER REEEEEEEEEEEEE!"
>>10728089
Aww thanks anon
but know this board?
ill probably have a lifetime ban after this lol
>>10728112
>correct, but unfortunately, since we can't define it, we can't tell who has it and who doesn't.
Anon to say we know nothing about in intelligence and even its genetic basis is a bit disingenuous to the fields of evolutionary psychology and even biology itself
we know for instance that it requires conciousness
a state that emerges from the ability to choose based on multiple stimulous and instincts
we also know that it IS inherently genetic
as are brains developed over milenia and we can track their progression through archeology
we also know that some people are able to proform more complex tasks then others.
this is a pretty braud definition of intelligence but it should be sufficient for us to begin catagorizing it
admittedly we are standing on the brink of this field and have yet to dip our toes into the possible discoveries
(a state i might add that has much to with most of the scientific community not wanting to touch human genetic intelligence) 1/2

>>10728301
You're doing the same thing right now. How do you have so little self awareness?

>>10728299
>they are. he assumes his axioms are correct
jesus christ. do not talk about formal logic if you don't understand it. assuming your axiom are correct is not 'circular'. it is the whole point of having axioms

>and yet, as you apparently agree, unfalsifiable nonetheless.
we're all skeptics until we have to figure out who should design our airplanes

>there is a reason these labels can be applied to him.
i do not care.
>your only choice is to care about ideas instead of labels on the author
good. maybe you should do the same instead of fixating on the psychology of people who expressed ideas you dislike

>an argument can not be considered valid as long as someone circularly assumes their axioms are correct
you are a retarded pseud. never talk about logic again

>>10728112
2/2
>i don't believe they have the EXACT SAME
welp that is a start
sincerely
i thank you for your intellectual honesty
most of the people on this board who have argued against me seem to lack it
> i just don't believe the differences are great enough to warrant any action.
A fair political belief that i have not challenged once
i didnt make this thread to dog wistle for resegregation
merely to shine light on an uncomfortable fact
a fact which, might i add, if the left does not come to terms with will be used by the radical right to show them as scientifically illitereate fanatics
which
many people in this thread have shown themelves to be
>. especially when you take into account that these are intelligence distributions -- it's a certainty that the "more intelligent" race is bound to have many members who are dumber than the average member of the "less intelligent" race.
All fair points anon
while i cant speak for everyone
i myself leave this for another day,
all i care about is the truth.

>>10728114
>What do you propose that doesn't involve fascism?
no anon
thats the question YOU should be answering if you dont want the fascists to hold onto this talking point.
>>10728130
>On average, whites swim better than blacks
>>if you mean on the olympic level, this is far from settled.
No but it is pretty settled that whites have higher average upper body strength
which is the cheif trait being a strong swimmer requires
so it really isnt all that out of the box
>>10728135
based and redpilled lel
>>10728169
by environmental factors?
No one denies the existence of their relevence dude
YOU just deny the existence of genetic relevence
>>10728175
My final solution of choice is that everyone stops being gay and no longer is ignorant of the basic implications of evolution on human genetic intelligence

>>10728303
>why cant chimps have 200+ IQ
>why not silver backs?
>Why bears?
>or lions?
>or dogs?
>or fucking goats!?!
Not human.

>>10728326
>Not human.
Correct anon, Correct.
And whats the difference between humans and animals?
are.
fucking.
genetics.

>>10728282
i'd like to address this also.
>you're right that we don't perfectly know things, particularly psychological things,
this is extremely far from perfect knowledge though.
what kacsynzki (and, on the other hand, many liberals) are doing is essentially mind reading.
sorry, but i'm not convinced.
perhaps we should look at peoples' actions and not at some secret motives we've imagined (again, a commonly recognized symptom among sufferers of paranoid personality disorders).

>but we have to act as though we do to function and it often works out.
it "often" works out?
so now we're backpedaling from being correct to being """"approximately"""" correct.
it's ok if we read our opponent's mind and come out somehow close to what we imagine as correct?
it's your prerogative to keep thinking this way, but personally, i prefer facts and rigorous logic.

>>10728310
>assuming your axiom are correct is not 'circular'. it is the whole point of having axioms
until you ridicule the opponent for challenging your axioms. at this point, you either defend them, or you submit that your axioms are too strong or that they're wrong.

>maybe you should do the same instead of fixating on the psychology of people who expressed ideas you dislike
the implication, of course, was that the ideas themselves are wrong.

>logic
of course we can always submit that kacynzski is correct in his mental fantasy world, that only he lives in, where his axioms have force. the problem is he's talking about our world, not his.
like i said before, we can start with 1+1=3 and then derive all kinds of nonsense. but the context of kacynzski's drivel (and the bombs he mailed) is the world we live in. therefore, for his document to have any force at all in this world, the axioms need to apply to this world, not his own.

>>10728327
That's a straw man though, it's generally accepted that this argument is about why human races differ in intelligence, whether it's environment or genetic.

>>10728327
The difference is that you can fuck your dog as much as you want and it won't make a baby.

>>10728320
>No but it is pretty settled that whites have higher average upper body strength
source?

>which is the cheif trait being a strong swimmer requires
being a strong swimmer also demands training, doesn't it?
also, the IOC banned full body tech suits. any idea why?

>>10728328
>the implication, of course, was that the ideas themselves are wrong.
Which doesn’t follow at all. The author’s identity may help you understand how he developed his ideas, but it has no relevance to the validity of the ideas themselves. To think otherwise is very dangerous and not conducive to open-mindedness.

>>10728334
>any idea why?
Afraid the German judges would be unable to concentrate because it looks like a gimp suit.

>>10728330
>That's a straw man though, it's generally accepted that this argument is about why human races differ in intelligence, whether it's environment or genetic.
Anon
im gonna be honest with you.
I haven't gotten this fucking pissed at a block of intellectual rock since the fundamentalist Christians were still online debating evolution,
Intelligence,
Like all other traits.
Is influenced both by your genetics AND your enviroment.
Without genetics, you litterally would not have a brain
since your dna would not know to form the nuro structure that gave rise to your conciousness
this is true not just for you
but for all people
of all races
the thing of it is
all those "races" represent geographically isolated people that evolved seperately for thousands of years
so much so that they're fucking skin color, bone structure, average muslce mass and disease immunities diverged
and you are telling me they ended up with the exact same genetic blueprint for their mind?
despite vastly different conditions??
Conditions SO drastically different that they genetically modified basically every other trait????
>>10728333
>The difference is that you can fuck your dog as much as you want and it won't make a baby.
Oh i se
so because a wolf can knock up a great dame they are genetically identical?
and i suppose have indentical genetic intelligence as well??
FUCK.
This is why i drink late.

>>10728328
>until you ridicule the opponent for challenging your axioms. at this point, you either defend them, or you submit that your axioms are too strong or that they're wrong.
this is not true. you are a retarded pseud. never talk about logic again. and stop using words you don't understand. if you literally took 10 minutes to read a wikipedia article on logic you would stop saying these asinine things about logical reasoning that have no basis but your feelings.

> the problem is he's talking about our world, not his.
he made accurate predictions.

>>10728341
>so because a wolf can knock up a great dame they are genetically identical?
Unnatural selection is a bitch.

>>10728347
indeed.
kek

>>10728305
This is the guy he responded to. Its easy to mask your own flaws by claiming them onto your 'opponents.' Both of the posts we critique are shallow, shiny fronts with no logical backend. He responded to me with an in depth explanation as to why certain people feel empowered behind back anecdotes, analogies, metaphors, etc. with weak logical foundations, and you responded to him with "no you." So far everyone on your side has cartoon responses that a more serious person wouldn't feel comfortable posting after a reread.

>>10727813
>"19th century phrenology should be listened to over
Again, not stated in the manifesto, just a strawman. Uncle Ted's point is merely that leftists will resist any and all suggestions that some people are superior to other people by any metric, because leftists find strength itself unsettling. Kaczyznski himself repeatedly makes the point that he is not himself suggesting other races are inferior, he's just trying to discuss the psychology of the leftist.

This is also a typical leftist response to Ted, to insert extra words and ideas into the opponent's argument before responding to it; to deliberately have bad faith, because everything is assumed to have some evil hidden motive on the other side. The leftist is not inclined to notice that this rhetorical tactic could be used on anyone, over any issue, to similar effect, which reveals it as a tactic, not as a way of discerning truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY&t=1m45s

To me it's interesting how much this worldview intersects with narcissism as a culture. Narcissists tend to be extremely interested in hypocrisy. If a narcissist is someone who has chosen to project a particular image of who they are, they must assume others are doing the same thing, and this is what makes hypocrisy so orgasmic; they've caught somebody else out and can shred their identity for the pleasure of it. They never consider that maybe not everyone is playing the same game as themselves.

Hence, the ease with which the leftist (who is deeply embroiled in all aspects of the mainstream, including narcissism) reads bad motives into everyone. It's not hard to believe that every argument is a facade when that's true for you too.

>>10728343
>You are wrong {in fancy talk, with appeal to own authority}

You have no authority to tell someone they are wrong if you can't tell them how. Its actual psued behavior to say their is a flaw yet refuse to point it out at all. You should be ashamed and embarrassed and I bet my life that's your IRL kink.

>>10728360
>back anecdotes...
bad*

>>10728337
since we mentioned kacynzski's past occupation as a mathematician as if that vets his conclusions, we should be fair and mention his diagnosis as well.

>>10728343
>this is not true.
no, you're just being duplicitous.
take set of random assertions, labels them "axiom" as if lending them a shield impenetrable to question or criticism.
then, if anyone questions whether the axioms actually hold in the real world that the manifesto itself addresses, accuse them of not understanding how to reason.
that you think you aren't transparent as fuck is funny. but also a little sad.

>your feelings
and now you're doing what he did. mind reading.

>he made accurate predictions
did he?
did he also predict he would get caught?

>>10728365
if he could tell me how i was wrong he would do so. the fact that he can't is telling enough.
it's ok, i don't mind helping someone think through their own positions.

>>10728371
>take set of random assertions, labels them "axiom" as if lending them a shield impenetrable to question or criticism.
it does not. axioms are still a foundational requirement of argument and dipshits repeatedly questioning axioms does not make an argument invalid. you may disagree with the consequences of an argument based on disagreement over the axioms. you were not doing this, you were making false statements about the requirements for an axiom and the validity of an argument based on them because you do not understand what axioms are.

>>your feelings
>and now you're doing what he did. mind reading.
yes. i am making assumptions about the source of your retardation despite not having absolute knowledge of it. despite your nonsensical and baseless beliefs this does not somehow affect the truth of separate statements not predicated on your retardation which i happen to be making in the same post. your dumb ass randomly calling shit circular unless someone calls you retarded does not affect the validity of any argument not including that statement

>did he?
yes. he predicted modern leftist behavior and the effects it has had on society

>>10728381
>if he could tell me how i was wrong he would do so
i am repeatedly telling you statements you are making about logical reasoning which are not true. you could verify this by learning about logical reasoning if you wanted. i am not going to waste my time teaching an idiot who called using axioms 'circular' so they can continue to make more nonsense up while bragging that no one is willing to teach them for longer than they are willing to make up new bullshit

>>10728365
"how" a statement is wrong is not meaningful unless it involves an incorrect application of inference rules. if someone stands around repeating that "the sky is green" or "that guy is not a retarded pseud" you can't tell them "how" they are wrong. even if you want to waste your time explaining that their usage of words is nonstandard, and what other people mean when contradicting their statements, and what empirical evidence makes you believe your claims, you can never demonstrate "how" they are wrong

you also might be a retarded pseud for not recognizing this was happening and chiming in to regurgitate something inapplicable. however since you haven't demonstrated it as much as that guy i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and waste some time explaining this to you. of course if you decide to sit around contradicting every statement i make i can't prove "how" you're wrong

>>10728279
The ability to acquire it sure is though otherwise we'd have talking dogs and pigeons and there'd be no race gaps in verbal test scores.
>>10728303
>why cant chimps have 200+ IQ
But anon you can't say they don't without accounting for social factors. If instead of making goats live outside with nothing but dirt to think about we integrated them into our classrooms and gave them 25 years of proper schooling they just might end up piloting the first mission to mars.
>>10728341
>evolved seperately for thousands of years
Also because a lot of intelligence genes are X-linked and it's so important for our survival it evolves a lot faster than other traits do.

>>10727370
Intelligence is genetic, obviously, our genes vary from other animals and so does our intelligence. It is far less obvious to suggest intelligence significantly differs genetically between human beings since it's essentially impossible to quantify intelligence in any objective way, that is compensating for environmental factors. I don't care how racist you are or want to be, there's no way to contest the aforementioned.

>>10727370
Refusing to account for the ability to gain knowledge. You are anti-science

>>10727393
This is a textbook definition of a strawman argument.

>>10728838
>impossible to quantify intelligence
Why do people keep saying this?
We obviously can quantify it, that's what iq tests etc do. And it's accurate or else all the different measures of it (iq, educational attainment, job performance etc) wouldn't correlate.

>>10728274
pathetic

>>10727370

OP, consider that nowadays there's higher and higher visibility of such diseases like autism. Some say that it's because of testosterone and older fathers/parents.

But what do you expect will happen to a small kid, who is pit in front of mobile phone or tablet repeatedly every day for a long time since his first years? Kid will stop talking or socializing.

Same applies to other aspects, including intelligence or in other words - ability to adapt to environment. If your environment is full of violence and retardation you will be expecting only this from life and adapt to be the most violent muscle tard nigger around.

>>10727370
> But intelligence must have a genetic component
> So therefore intelligence is 100% caused by genetics and is linked to race
White logic.

>>10727370
Science exists to push humanity forward and improve the lives of mankind. Nothing is lost if we believe intelligence to not be genetic. However, there could be many negative repercussions for society if it was proven it was, especially if it was correlated to race like you are attempting.

>>10728476
>Also because a lot of intelligence genes are X-linked and it's so important for our survival it evolves a lot faster than other traits do.
[citation needed]

>>10729442
Intelligence is one of the more genetically influenced behavioral traits, moreso than even agreeability or neuroticism, and it varies among human populations considerably. Any behavioral trait is going to be significantly genetically determined, the most genetically determined behavioral traits especially intelligence, showing evidence of varying dramatically between biogeographically isolated populations indicates that there is a “racial” component to the variation seen and that its likely driven by differences in allele frequency. That’s sort of basic induction at work and if you have an alternative hypothesis that explains these phenomena in a concise way it would be good to present it.

>>10729303
You clearly aren't very intelligent since you selectively cut out the part of the post you're replying to that answers your post. IQ tests do not compensate for environmental factors.

>>10729606
>Intelligence is one of the more genetically influenced behavioral traits
[citation needed]
>moreso than even agreeability or neuroticism
[citation needed]
>and it varies among human populations considerably
[citation needed]
>Any behavioral trait is going to be significantly genetically determined
[citation needed]
>the most genetically determined behavioral traits especially intelligence
[citation needed]
>showing evidence of varying dramatically between biogeographically isolated populations
[citation needed]
>indicates that there is a “racial” component to the variation seen and that its likely driven by differences in allele frequency.
[citation needed]

>That’s sort of basic induction at work and if you have an alternative hypothesis that explains these phenomena in a concise way it would be good to present it.
How about school makes you smart.

>>10729611
They don’t have to because the differences in performance are consistent across socioeconomic groups among people of the same ancestral background. Rich blacks underperform relative to middle class whites and asians in spite of the huge social advantages wealth offers in 21st C america. Being rich is more important than any other status one could have besides being an attractive person and even with this taken into account the performance of blacks on iq tests is inferior to that of asians, jews and whites. Most environmental factors are random, as in they are dev noise+unforseeable life events like being struck with illness or financial misfortune and cannot be properly mitigated against with social programs. The rest is a mix of legitimate “environmental” effects and indirect genetic/genetic nurture effects where the genes of the parents create the environments the offspring inhabit. Also as people become more autonomous during development they begin to select environments that correlate with behavioral tendencies, for instance athletes tend to select friends that are similarly athletic, attractive people select environments which reward them for their attractiveness and allow them to be around other attractive people and smart kids tend to spend their time reading textbooks, doing projects for stem competitions and learning on their own time while most students including higher SES students do not do this. A black kid whose parents give them extra support academically and who in their free time works on building their skills in mathematics and science is likely higher iq than their peers, and their parents are likely also higher iq than most blacks and educated professionals who passed down good genes to their children.

>>10729622
>Being rich is more important than any other status
Ha
>Most environmental factors are random
Haha
>and cannot be properly mitigated against with social programs.
Hahaha
>The rest is a mix of legitimate “environmental” effects
Hahahaha
>indirect genetic/genetic nurture effects
Hahahahaha
>where the genes of the parents create the environments the offspring inhabit
Hahahahahaha

>>10729618
Ritchie et al 2017 and 2018 “education, intelligence etc”, Plomin 2015, Dutton “intelligence”, James R Flynn 2011, Nature educational attainment genetics 2018, “Heritability of behavioral traits”, Reich NYT 2018, Human genetic structure Cavalli-Sforza, Estimating human

http://biorxiv.org/cgi/content/short/653279v1

>>10729628
Being wealthy is the clearest predictor of positive life outcomes for all American groups, if you are making above $250k your life is dramatically different in character than anyone with other identifying features you might share regardless if there is any form of prohibitive structure in place regarding those traits. A gay man, woman, black man has a huge advantage over a middle class white if they are a millionaire especially if they are earning their income from a high status profession ie. not playing professional sports.

>>10728285
>ashkenazi jews

Are 'white'

>>10729646
It's weird how you purposely ignore history in your expert analysis.

>>10729660
you can’t separate history from evolutionary models so its not being ignored by any means, if the implication is that narratives from historical analysis are more important than the ecological and genetic development of human populations then yeah that’s not relevant. But you don’t excise historical change or socioeconomic progression from these models they’re all necessary to understand how selection pressures can change and how human population structure evolved. Like if we want to fathom the development of turkic central asia its necessary to use textual and archaeological, anthropological evidence to guide assumptions about the change in structure of those populations but we can do the reverse as well and find points in human history where certain shifts occurred for which there is little evidence in the historical or anthropological record. Its very difficult to deduce the nature of trait prevalence strictly from reading primary sources and digging up material goods, much easier to simply sequence and look for specific alleles.

>>10729640
>Ritchie et al 2017 and 2018 “education, intelligence etc”
One study isn't the same as proof but this is basically what I meant when I said school makes you smart.


How Much Does Education Improve Intelligence? A Meta-Analysis
Stuart J. Ritchie, Elliot M. Tucker-Drob

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797618774253

Abstract
Intelligence test scores and educational duration are positively correlated. This correlation could be interpreted in two ways: Students with greater propensity for intelligence go on to complete more education, or a longer education increases intelligence. We meta-analyzed three categories of quasiexperimental studies of educational effects on intelligence: those estimating education-intelligence associations after controlling for earlier intelligence, those using compulsory schooling policy changes as instrumental variables, and those using regression-discontinuity designs on school-entry age cutoffs. Across 142 effect sizes from 42 data sets involving over 600,000 participants, we found consistent evidence for beneficial effects of education on cognitive abilities of approximately 1 to 5 IQ points for an additional year of education. Moderator analyses indicated that the effects persisted across the life span and were present on all broad categories of cognitive ability studied. Education appears to be the most consistent, robust, and durable method yet to be identified for raising intelligence.

>>10729674
Bro I mean recent history like from 50 or 60 years ago when some people of a certain color were not allowed to have the things you mention as being factors in intelligence.

It's like assuming that people in the middle east evolved to have shrapnel embedded in them rather than remembering that they probably are in or just came out of a war.

>>10729679
That was a really interesting study, Ritchie and co were unsure about the implications though, for one there was another related study on this effect among adults and there was no indication that the observed increase in cognitive performance was at all substantial for interventions past puberty. Ritchie also acknowledged there is doubt as to whether these effects are equal among different groups of students, specifically whether its a “rich get richer” effect for smart students or a remedying of deficits in lower performing students, the other issue is no follow up has been done for these people as adults and there was no comparison for different groups with different intervention points. The likely cautious answer would be early childhood educational interventions have some effect on later life iq but that the overall evidence points to genetics increasingly determining intelligence with age and this is perfectly in like with the current view in behavioral genetics (Plomin) which is that heritability for iq increases progressively and peaks at adulthood with a small decline in one’s 60’s as senescence begins to reduce cognitive function. Im not stating that intelligence is immutable during development, what is being asserted is simply that group differences in intelligence are heritable, mostly genetic and due to differences in evolutionary history for the ancestors of these groups which implies that the trait is quantitative and likely not easily manipulated with simple social preventative/promoting measures or genetic engineering. That’s pretty mild considering what is being alleged in this thread

read this twitter thread the author gives a few of his interpretations and isn’t making a strong claim but im not trying to suggest he is supporting what I said either

https://twitter.com/stuartjritchie/status/928182998373208064?s=21

>>10729684
Evolution typically works on a longer time scale than that. The differences in trait prevalence aren’t going to become significant in 60 years. Blacks were also oppressed for hundreds of years and Africans as a whole have shown marked differences in behavioral traits from eurasian for much longer than that. After a certain point these differences become very difficult to change on the scale of a whole population consisting of millions of people. If for instance it was something that could be easily ameliorated we’d see freakish spikes in iq among upper class white populations from the industrial revolution onwards but that’s not the case, so there is either an upper bounds on phenotypic plasticity for this trait (there probably is) and/or it is something that requires selection to act on the trait for a long time and that means no amount of money can meaningfully mitigate these disparities. This is why I suggested that its not mutually exclusive as an explanation with regard to historical analysis just that one needs to remember that a biological grounding is probably a better place to start than a humanities oriented philosophical view of the issue. Read about gene-culture evolution if this interests you.

>>10729684
When you start giving them free suits of armor and correct for how many explosions they've been around it's pretty suspicious if their children are still full of shrapnel.

>>10729442
>>10729442
> So therefore intelligence is 100% caused by genetics and is linked to race
When did i say this exactly?
>White logic.
Ahh right, the generic lefist response
"mu white thoughts bad"
im starting to think the npc meme was right on the god damn money
>>10729591
Science exists to discover teh truth wherever it leads.
What ever consiquences you speak exist regardless of the fact that human intelligence IS inherently genetic.
You're litterally arguing the same type of point that tenth century theologians argued when they said believing the earth wasnt the center of the solar system would lead to people straying from god.
It didnt matter then and it doesnt matter now
The sun is the center of the solar system
and human beings, like every other animal on earth, have genetically influenced intelligence.
>>10729606
This..
fucking
this.
>>10729649
Yet they are genetically distinguishable from Caucasians...
If only there was a way to catagorgize people who look the same but hail from different regions of the globe...
such as the word "race".
>>10729646
se pic.

>>10729762
Ashkenazi are upwards of 50-60% European on average and it gets even higher with 3/4 and 1/2 Jewish people. In general Jews are probably closer related to neolithic Iranian, Caucasian and Anatolian populations than they are Levantine as they definitely migrated into the Eastern Med well after the region had already been settled. They are without a doubt caucasoid and literally every study of genetic structure for global pops puts Europeans and Middle Easterners (non-Arabian peninsula, Omani, Yemenis, Bedouins) in the same continuous cluster. There are indeed races but there is no middle eastern or european race, but that is why subrace is such a useful category in plant taxonomy and I think it might be situationally applicable for humans. Just furthering this, the J haplogroup frequency is extremely high among Ashkenazim and Jews in general and that is a paternal lineage from West Asia with roots in the same migratory patterns post LGM that R would have. I and J were literally one haplogroup before splitting so its kind of inconsistent to discount the heavy I admixture in euros if you’re being this strict with classifying groups.

I think one reason people claim intelligence isn't predominantly genetic is that they don't have any. By this I don't mean that they're stupid and therefore wrong. I mean that an intelligent person who goes to school with similar people with similar upbringings can't help but notice how different they are from everyone else. Like you look at all the people around you memorizing mnemonics for tests instead of thinking about underlying principles and you go "ok, clearly there's something inherently different between me and them".

In all honesty im glad i did this thread.
It has been more then a little bit of an eye opener for me.
I asked why, and i got an answer.
I never really got why people denied the obvious facts of human evolution and the genetic intelligenctual implications there in
but now i really do se this denial for what it is.
A while back some anon mocked the idea of this thread for catagorizing "leftism as a religion" at the time i sort of laughed it off as a cheap jab
but now i se that this really is the reason behind forced ignorance and censorship.
You people are fucking fanatics.
Fanatics who sincerely believe that if a mainstream understanding of evolutionary psychology and the differences in it between ethnic groups EVER goes mainstream
the sky will fucking fall.
hitler will be reserected from the dead.
and whites will put black people in cages.
You people are god damn insane.
And i thank you for showing your collors to me.
For the rest of my life i will fight against this god damn cult of ignorance the modern left creates around human evolution.
Like all cenoring fanatics you to will loose to the long arm of history
no matter how many heretics you burn at the steak
no matter how many platforms you silence the truth from
no matter how hard you try to cover up acces to scientific information.
You.
Will.
Loose.
And any person who gives a damn about empirical truth will help me in making sure this is the case.

Obviously there is a link between genes and IQ. But some people, such as white nationalists, take it way too far by assuming one entire race is naturally more intelligent than another.

It's especially cringe-worthy seeing double digit IQ white supremacists use this argument.

>>10729718
>When you start giving them free suits of armor and correct for how many explosions they've been around it's pretty suspicious if their children are still full of shrapnel.
As always your analogy just proves you don't know anything.

>>10729784
Its the opposite funny enough, the more educated a person is and the more liberal the more likely they are to deny the genetics of intelligence explain group differences in life outcomes or behavior. People with above average iq can construct and defend irrational beliefs more easily than any other group and will have more useful proponents for their beliefs of similar background. Ivy league sociologists and “geneticists” can get away with this precisely because they are intelligent, low iq working class are far more likely to admit differences in ability in academic and intellectual work and less inclined to pretending to knowledge they don’t have about scientific subjects. This notion that stupid people are the bane of intelligent discourse is a misconception, and product of socially isolated, cognitively segregated elitists. Similar but somewhat tangential to this, women with larger family sizes are more likely to believe in behavioral trait heritability and genetic influence than unmarried women of with no children of much greater educational attainment and socioeconomic background. This has nothing to do with intelligence directly just social incentives permit the one group to believe something stupid and experience, proximity and a lack of social incentives allow another group to be more objective

>>10729794
I think the majority of humanities major genetics deniers were probably memorizing mnemonics. They might not be intelligent enough to see the ridiculous obviousness that their mind works in a different way.

In the case of 'geneticists' that's completely explainable by everyone knowing the consequences of sharing their opinions so only people with rightthink do.

>>10727370
Liberals hate evolutionary science because it differentiates between races/genders.

(Religious) Conservatives hate evolutionary science because it shows clear line of progression between humans and monkeys.

>>10729815
They’re not parcticularly intelligent people but from just talking with a lot of friends and people I know who did not do uni there isn’t nearly the resistance to these notions as there is among educated people. You’re right that its a fundamental inability to understand the evolutionary dynamics that drive these differences but that doesn’t really cover why for instance women of all backgrounds with larger families are more likely to believe in high heritability of personality and behavioral traits, even if its an uneducated or uninformed belief it happens to be true and I would think that this is because just spending time around your own blood would tell you that they are literally a product of you and your spouse’s genes. My friend works with animals on a daily basis and is similarly convinced of these things despite not having even a full highschool education and I’ve noticed people who are involved with animal and plant breeding tend to be more open to it as well.

>>10729824
I'm not claiming belief in the genetic basis for intelligence correlates with one's intelligence. I'm saying people who deny it didn't have enough to make personal observations during their schooling. I used to assume such people were just dishonest sacks of shit trying to hide the truth but now I'm suggesting a lot of the difference might have been their perspective growing up instead of straight dishonesty.

>>10729784
This. The idea that income and other environmental factors are the main factors of intelligence frustrates me, as I grew up with a single mom making below the average yearly income, but I was clearly the smartest guy in the room at all times. After hearing “how did you get so smart?” so many times even in high school, you start to realize that genetics is just that big of a deal. I think a key component of intelligence is memory, because almost all mental operations rely on it. Even mental math requires memory as you recall multiplication answers while simultaneously remembering what you calculated a few seconds ago, so that in the end, you can sum your products. Who can really argue that memory is more shaped by environment than genetics? I’m no neuroscientist, but I would imagine there is a great explanation at the neuron level for why some people create and retain memories better than others, and this trait can passed down genetically, and can differ among individuals, races, and species.

>>10729939

>The idea that income and other environmental factors are the main factors of intelligence frustrates me

While it's nonsensical to deny the importance of genetics it's also nonsensical to deny the importance of environmental factors also. It's been proven that Iodine deficiency can reduce IQ by 12 points and Iodine supplementation can recover/increase by 8 points.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15734706/

It's also been proven that environmental stress can increase cortisol hormone levels. And having this occur throughout pregnancy can increase the odds of low/very low birth weight. This will inturn increase the odds of neurological deficiency, behavior problems and lower IQ by 5 points later in life.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2786250/

>>10729976
Yeah, you have to try really hard to convince yourself that it’s not BOTH nature and nurture that are important. It’s obvious

As far as intelligence goes, yes of course genetics plays a factor. And the distribution does seem to play out in such a way that some racial groups trend higher on average than others.

What isn't taken into account there is the environmental factors that interact with genetics over time.

All you are doing is saying "Look, this is a surface level observation about IQ distribution" without doing any real investigation as to why that distribution occurs the way it does.

Except to make some bullshit edgy political point.

>>10730004
what is your scientific 'real investigation' that empirically determines how much of the racial iq gap is genetic? surely you're not just some faggot humanities pseud circularly asserting racial equality by assuming ephemeral environmental effects on intelligence even after the quantifiable ones have been accounted for

>>10729785
I've skimmed through the replies, and I don't see anyone flat out making the case that there isn't a genetic factor when it comes to intelligence.

Nobody thinks we all have the same capacities, and that all differences are just socially constructed.

Even at the most extreme people think we have some cultural biases regarding what we consider intelligent, and some of our value systems reward certain capacities over others in a way that's fundamentally negative.

You aren't engaging with science or the reality of the actual arguments. But instead are just presenting surface level bullshit to an argument that virtually no one is making.

Maybe, maybe, there are some fringe humanities types that will make the pure social construction argument. But if that's who you are trying to best in an argument about IQ then you're pretty pathetic.

>>10729794
>People with above average iq can construct and defend irrational beliefs more easily than any other group
>This notion that stupid people are the bane of intelligent discourse is a misconception
it appears this way to you because you are a brainlet

Reminder: OP knows perfectly well there is no "point of contention" regarding there being a genetic component to intelligence. These threads get made for the purpose of shifting the convo towards the prescriptive rather than the scientific. They do this to spread racism and/or fascism, attempting to justify it with science. It's political propaganda that doesn't belong here.

>>10730024
All I see is this claim of "x race has x average IQ, other race has Y average IQ. This is all genetic" which doesn't really say very much.

There may, for example, be social and cultural factors that cause sexual success for one kind of person over another in various circumstances.

There are environmental factors that take place in fetal development that may skew a population one way or another. Same with early childhood.

Even very insular groups can suffer from high rates of problems due to higher rates of incestuous couples.

The outcome of intelligence may distribute on average in a way that gives one racial group a higher average IQ than another.

But the real question is how did that distribution come to be, and how malleable is it?

And maybe a deeper question to ask is how much value do we place on something like average IQ level? Men tend to take up more top IQ spots than women do. But very few people are going to then say "men are superior to women" because of that.

>>10730074
I don't think it's always that nefarious. Often I think the belief truly is that they've stumbled on some obvious fact that's just being ignored by a hyper-politicized scientific community that's seeking to subvert reality in the name of an ideology.

Pretty rarely do I think people are actually trying to poison the well, and sneak fascism in through the back door.

I think they genuinely think they've done the research, and it's scientific, and everyone else is refusing to listen.

It's often way more about stupidity than it is about some macheviallian fascist plot.

>>10730074
the point of contention is how much of the divide is genetic. (your misrepresentation of this is made for the purpose of shifting the convo towards political shitflinging rather than the scientific). you can see many idiots in this thread spinning unfalsifiable narratives to explain the remaining gap after the quantifiably explainable part so apparently there is contention there

>>10730080
>All I see is this claim of "x race has x average IQ, other race has Y average IQ. This is all genetic"
then you're intentionally blind. people do correct for environmental factors to the point they are quantifiable. this does not explain the entire gap. your list of vague possibilities is not scientific until you try to make them specific and measure their effect. which leads me to repeat my question: where is your less 'surface level' science?

>And maybe a deeper question to ask is how much value do we place on something like average IQ level
it's only 'deeper' to start throwing value judgements around than to determine what is true to unscientific idiots like you.

>>10728135
This is the final goal
Thicc amazon mommy gfs for all

>>10730102
The original post in this thread uses a meme, and makes the claim that people are arguing that intelligence isn't genetic. That isn't an argument, nobody is seriously making that argument.

The argument that is being had is more about how genetics and environment effect and interact with each other.

From an evolutionary standpoint species due to environmental factors have developed certain traits over others.

This is probably also the case in human populations. Which may explain various gaps in IQ among racial groups.

Maybe I'm somehow misinterpreting the argument being made, but it seems that the "racial IQ gap is genetic" is really trying to make the argument that the distribution is somehow fixed.

That instead of looking at how the distribution came to be we should just accept the current distribution as non-malleable and organize ourselves around that uncomfortable truth.

>>10728393
>>10728343
>if you literally took 10 minutes to read a wikipedia article on logic
>axioms are still a foundational requirement of argument and dipshits repeatedly questioning axioms does not make an argument invalid.
Hi brainlet, get your own shit straight before you try to fix anyone else's. Like take your own advice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
>As used in mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: "logical axioms" and "non-logical axioms"...
>When used in the latter sense, "axiom", "postulate", and "assumption" may be used interchangeably. In general, a non-logical axiom is not a self-evident truth, but rather a formal logical expression used in deduction
Hmm.
I guess just saying "it's an axiom!!!1" doesn't save you from having to defend a retarded argument.

>>10730115
>The original post in this thread uses a meme, and makes the claim that people are arguing that intelligence isn't genetic. That isn't an argument, nobody is seriously making that argument.
Firstly some idiots do and many of these idiots are paid for their ideas in academia. Mostly not science because academic standards haven't fallen that far.

Second the op comic was about breeds. People absolutely make the argument that 0% of the racial iq gap is genetic, which is presumably what op was referring to.

>looking at how the distribution came to be
science
>we should
not science

>>10730121
>I guess just saying "it's an axiom!!!1" doesn't save you from having to defend a retarded argument.
>>you may disagree with the consequences of an argument based on disagreement over the axioms. you were not doing this, you were making false statements about the requirements for an axiom and the validity of an argument based on them

>>10730115
>>10730098
>>10730080
>>10730040
>>10730004
>reddit spacing

>>10730164
>People absolutely make the argument that 0% of the racial iq gap is genetic
No they don't. Especially not anyone relevant.

>>10730179
Not people relevant to doing science. People relevant to impeding science and the questions it is allowed to ask.

>>10730189
>People relevant to impeding science and the questions it is allowed to ask.
No, not really. Random whackos on Twitter have no influence on science.

>>10730195
Go ask university administrators and politicians what their opinions on the iq gap are and whether further studies should be funded.

>>10727393
>It isn't true because some people might stereotype people by their race
liberals everybody

>>10730199
Genetics and the nature of human intelligence are both researched just fine. When you're specifically looking for racial differences, it's because you think there is perscriptive value there.

>>10730074
If you think the goal of discourse is "stopping fascism" rather than "finding things out and talking about them" you're not being particularly scientific.

>>10727381
I really need to get around reading his manifesto.I keep hearing interesting thing from it.
This man was clearly ahead of his time.

>>10730241
>human intelligence is researched fine
>fine
it's presumably not researched as well as it could be (despite intelligence in the most intelligent entities we are aware of being one of the most interesting and potentially applicable things to study) because despite your denials everyone is hyper aware what will happen to someone producing results that imply something negative about a particular race. you can't honestly pretend there is no negative effect to the majority of university administrators and politicians blatantly denying probable reality and shilling unfalsifiable stories.

>>10729606
You can tell when someone watches way too much Jordan Peterson if they immediately go to talk about agreeability and neuroticism

>>10729785
>no matter how many heretics you burn at the steak
>>10729785
>steak
You'll be the first to go in a cage

>>10727370
Don't worry about it anon, race denial has 10 or 20 years left to live, tops. The only argument race deniers have left is "but we don't know which genes cause intelligence", which will be obsolete in another decade as we're rapidly finding all the genes influencing intelligence.

Then it'll be inevitable that someone notices that these genes are not distributed evenly among racial groups, and that some racial groups have more of them, and others less of them.

>>10729628
>if I say haha it's not real

>>10730199
They'd accept only foreign students if the could dweeb

>>10730457
Compounded with that, Africa's population is set to quadruple in the 21st century and they are already overpopulated and underfed. Combined with global warming this will trigger a mass migration out of Africa.

Normies will be redpilled about race realism pretty quickly when millions of sub 70 IQ Africans come knocking at their door.

>>10730481
>racial paranoia.

God, white people on this board need ro get some help. I can understand regular racism but this shit here is silly.

>>10730491
I'm not even white, but I am realistic about racial matters.

Anyway, I would be very glad to be proven wrong.

>>10730500
About what racial matters?

>>10730515
The inevitable collapse of democratic, industrialized societies due to demographic changes.

>>10730541
The USA didn't collapse and it's half brown people.

The cognitive (but not physical?) genetic potential of all races must be equal in order to uphold the tabula rasa concept that underpins all of modern liberalism and it is critical that we defend this at all costs. Unfortunately for us, genetic IQ difference is by far the most parsimonious explanation of the racial inequalities that we see in the real world. And the evidence does not seem to be weakening as time goes on. To prevent this from getting out of hand, all academics that study these differences must be censured and have their lives and careers destroyed. Commenters on online forums must be mocked and derided, and declared racist. Do your part today. The future of liberal democracy depends on it.

>>10729976
>While it's nonsensical to deny the importance of genetics it's also nonsensical to deny the importance of environmental factors also
this is true.

>>10730040
>I've skimmed through the replies, and I don't see anyone flat out making the case that there isn't a genetic factor when it comes to intelligence.
se the guy who litterally said anyone can be 200 pluss iq if they "work hard enough.

Why do people keep thinking that dog breeds have anything to do with human races and ethnicity? Dog breeds are the result of animal husbandry by other humans. Some breeds of dog are retarded because WE made it like that.

>>10730195
That is so naive. Do you think boomers are capable of telling the difference between organic outrage and a tiny but vocal number of twitter accounts? Especially when their millennial subordinates are in ideological agreement with the social media accounts?
Do you think that universities are immune from funding concerns and won’t quash research if their financial backers would pull funding?

>>10730541
That's really not possible.

>>10730577
Not true if you're talking about people in the 40-70 year old age range (who still run most of the conutry), but it's true for newborn babies, so we'll see in 50 years how things are going. Places with white minorities do already exist however, and they're complete shitholes (Detroit, Baltimore, etc.) so I'm not hopeful.

>>10730591
Environmental factors can only lower IQ, not increase it. In other words, it's impossible to close the white black IQ gap through manipulation of the environment.

>>10730616
Whether natural selection is enforced by humans (in the case of dog breeds) or differing climates and diets (in the case of humans) is irrelevant.

>>10730646
Why? Civilizational collapse followed by mass depopulation has definitely occurred in the past (see: the Roman empire).

The Germanic barbarians built their mudhuts in the midst of the remains of Roman palaces, it is possible that brown barbarians will build theirs in the midst of what used to be New York or San Francisco.

>>10727750
>just another classic case of herd mentality
Yes, the worst thing about old Ted is that he is such a thoughtless conformist. Can you try to make a statement that at least pretends to correspond to reality in some way?

>>10730651
>Environmental factors can only lower IQ, not increase it.
Not in all cases anon.
Increased nutrition during child development raised IQ across the board
now you could say there is NO OTHER enviromental manipulation we could use to close the IQ gap
other then say starving white children at a young age.
but that does not change the fact that your statement is incorrect as an ultimate axium

>>10730646
It's what happened to Rhodesia the second the blacks gained power

>>10730745
>Increased nutrition during child development raised IQ across the board
You're looking at it the wrong way. MALNUTRITION causes a DECREASE in IQ. You can't "increase" an average diet to an "augmented" diet which would have IQ boosting effects.

>>10730751
Brah Rhodesia always had blacks in the vast majorito, they literally would not be able to farm/mine/build infrastructure without the massive african labour pool and the government depressing wages. Ian Smith literally started shit with his UDI.

>>10730762
Diet and especially maternal diet during pregnancy has a huge effect.

>>10730655
>The Germanic barbarians built their mudhuts in the midst of the remains of Roman palaces, it is possible that brown barbarians will build theirs in the midst of what used to be New York or San Francisco.

Yet that is clearly not the case lol.

>>10730651
Dog breeding is not natural selection at all. Xololicuntli's are naturally selected though but most breeds not really. Dog breeding has a lot of inbreeding, trait selection that may not work in the wild and quick maturation of digs on top of most dogs being in estrus 2-3 tines a year (Basenjis, dingos and now guinea singing dogs are once a year like wolves)

>>10730170
What is reddit spacing? I never post on reddit, and I've been on this site since about 2006.

How do I avoid reddit spacing? Is it the double spaced paragraph thing? I just think it's easier to read.

>>10731553
>"This is another factual claim that is simply not true"
What does that even mean? It's either factual or it's not true, it can't be both. Who the fuck wrote this?

>>10727370
Real question. If liger's exist, does that mean that lions and tigers are the same thing?

Nobody can define race. It’s literally a subjective determination based on how people look.

>>10728164
>Anyone can but not everyone will.

I come into contact (work) with human beings on a daily basis that clearly do not have the potential to have triple digit IQ. They are completely oblivious to the world around them with very little capacity for introspection..

They have no intuition and literally cannot function without step by step guidance for very simple tasks.

Having been raised dirt poor myself, I have to reject any notion that intelligence is purely environmental and that everyone has the potential for higher mental faculties. It just doesn't bear out in any practical scenario.

>>10732296
How people look is objective you fucking idiot.

>>10732296
This is so intellectually dishonest sidestep for anyone who has read basic metaphysics. Nobody can define what is table either when we really start splitting hairs and seeking answer to what is a feature in the first place and other such questions. It's hilarious how it manages to trip braindead shitlibs into thinking they have arrived into some kind of ultimate checkmate.

>>10732276
Absolutely

>>10732359
So, lions and tigers don't even exist, they're all ligers.

>>10732310

Not him but is it? Our senses allows us to both measure and interpret the world we live in. But it is only one particular way out of many that life can measure and interpret said world.

You view how people look as "objective" because that's all you know how people can look. To other species it's a different story all together.

>>10732331

So you admit he's right then. If nobody can objectively define a table then nobody can objectively define race. Only subjectively can we define it. It doesn't mean that subjective definition doesn't have it's usefulness but to act as if it's an objective fact is fallacious. How is it that we can admit that "time" is both relative and subjective without anyone getting mad about it but not race. Time didn't start becoming not useful for daily life when we understood it's existence it simply became redesignated as a tool.

>>10729784
not every person claiming that intelligence isnt genetic believe it themselve.
it is often just a white lie destined to boost confidence and encourage try hard.

>>10727412

>>10732331
It is absolutely not intellectually dishonest because we have the technological ability to examine DNA and genetics with very high resolution, yet nobody arguing for these so called genetic differences wants to play in that field because it completely dismantles their argument. Point to me the gene sequence that makes you whatever race you think you are. If it’s not that easy, it’s because race is nebulous as fuck and to try to differentiate is a fools errand.

>>10732331
>metaphysics
We’re not talking metaphysics here, we’re talking stone cold empirical science where rigorous definitions are an expectation.

>>10732436
Somebody is going to say we can use DNA to predict someone's self-identitied race, and not realize how dumb that is.

>>10732449
no one but you tards cares about self identification

The race and IQ thing has been settled for decades, the IQ disparity between whites and blacks is likely over 50% heritable, probably closer to 80%.

1. It doesn’t matter if IQ actually measures “intelligence” or not, quibbling about what intelligence is totally missed the point. We have a test with high predictive power for many outcomes in life and different racial groups perform differently on it. Whether you want to call what this test measures “cheese” or intelligence makes no difference and this is something only dumb people get hung up on.

2. Whether race actually “exists” or is some totally made up thing that wypipo use to oppress others is again irrelevant. You could imagine a group of 100 people in a room being split up into groups in the most arbitrary or random way you want, this wouldn’t change the fact that you could measure traits within these groups (such as IQ) and compare differences in these traits between groups, and then ultimately decide whether these differences (if they exist) are due to genes or environment.

3. The IQ subtests that have the largest black white gap also have the highest general heritability.

4. It’s very clear that denial of racial differences due to genes is 100% driven by left wing political dogma.

>>10732496
>denial of racial differences due to genes
Who says there is no genetic component to intelligence? Who said it? One Anon in this thread who is likely a troll? That counts as left wing political dogma?

>>10732505
You still don’t know what you’re talking about. We’re talking about the difference between racial groups. That difference is either a function of genes or environment, or some combination of both. We already know that intelligence is determined by genes, the question is whether differences in intelligence between groups are due to genes or something else (or both).

>>10727370
plus you catch autism by genetics shenigans
autism tend to slighty alter your intelligence
QED

>>10727556
Ah, another """"""""""mAsHin lEArniNG"""""""""" fag

Dad why those dogs who doesn't belong to any breed seems to never fall ill?

>>10732496
Your second point is intellectually lazy and outs you as someone who is looking for a reason to find contempt in his fellow man. Instead of trying to find a gene(s) that make someone more/less intelligent you are simply looking for a group that has those genes to be dominant so you can distance/relate yourself to those groups. This is because on a gene by gene basis, you can’t tell the difference between individuals genetics, and what pokes the ultimate hole in your viewpoint is that genes can be racially indifferent IE white people can have the dumb gene and black people can have the smart gene. You are straight up refusing to look at the issue with any technological granularity because it dissolves your own bias.

>>10732496

>We have a test with high predictive power for many outcomes in life

Which is totally based on an economical demand bias. The test is predictive of outcomes in life because those outcomes are rewarded by fulfilling said demands of the economy. The economy demands engineers, programmers, actuarists, mathematicians, scientists and doctors. I assume it is uncontroversial to state these positions have individuals who on average score high on IQ tests.

Being in any of these positions grants you above average money/ resources to afford above average nutritional sustainment, medical maintenance, mating pools, child care and education. So it makes sense that those who score high on IQ tests, capable and/or interested in the above subject matter would do well in the economy. Thus the IQ test receives high predictive power.

Prior to the industrial revolution when machine operation and computation was not in demand thus not paid very well en mass. A high IQ (if the tests existed back then) would not be as predictive because of the lack of need/ infrastructure for most of those roles outside doctors and specific engineering specialities such as civil and architecture. Back then reading, writing, cartography, agriculture, animal husbandry and hunting were in demand and those didn't need individuals who scored high on a IQ test to gain good outcomes in life.

>>10732523
The racial groups don't matter for the genetic component. There will be people who have the gene and people who don't have the gene, from all races. The only reason to try to make it about racial group differences, is of you're looking for perscriptive value there.

>>10727376
>yikes
oof

>>10727370
> another IQ thread

>>10727378

nice bait

>>10727370
its not.
it is resolved science.
however, there are fuck tons of people that do not believe in science, such as postmodernists, that are very influential in the humanites

>>10732755
Genetics is still in its infancy, the science is far from resolved. Only eugenics retards want to claim MISSION ACCOMPLISHED on the science so they can justify castrating people or putting them in camps or some other horrid thing.

>>10727370
what do you mean by intelligence? to me it's knowledge and capability, both of which increase with studying and reading

>>10732755

"The scary postmodernists are trying to
destroy science"

Stop, please.

>>10732767
It's almost always a justification for some abhorrent policy proposal. Then when the motivations are called out it's always "lefties are afraid of science" it's pretty eye rolly.

>>10732808
no, and you cant make me.
science's enitre job is to discover knowledge.
postmodernism' fundamental ideas are a rejection of knowledge.
the two systems are completely incompatible

>>10732832
No one is rejecting knowledge. Even extreme reality denying philosophies still acknowledge the validity of the scientific method, and the mechanics that appear to govern the observable universe.

The "postmodernists" in academia aren't trying to "reject knowledge".

>>10732869
>academics
>having philosophies besides attempting social engineering

>>10732874

By social engineering do you mean any engagement in politics or persuasive conversation?

>>10732884
yes. they do not care about metaphysics because they do not care about knowledge. they care about making up unfalsifiable stories on the basis of trying to affect politics.

>>10732239
I’ve never read a book that puts spaces between every 2 sentences. Your thoughts are supposed to be connected, continuous. You’re actually making it harder to read your comments because you separate ideas that are clearly meant to be together. It’s an eye sore and disrupts the reading process

>>10733017
You're wrong.

>>10733048
go back to browsing but “never posting” on that faggy site

Have the self awareness at the very to understand that you're not in the least interested in science, and that everyone here is sick of you ideology obsessed faggots trying to justify your biased. For starters, no one that isnt retarded is saying intelligence isnt genetic. Stop trying to start the conversation by attacking some fallacious idea. Go "fight da leff" somewhere else you prageru watching dipshit.

>>10727401
Let us assume people with black skin are one clearly distinguishable genetic group from people with white skin. Let us also assume the average person with white skin is smarter than the average person with black skin. What do you propose with this data, anon? Surely you must have an end goal other than trying to justify discrimination against people with black skin because that doesn't follow from the data at all.

>>10733208
>>10733271
Based samefagging retard

>>10727370
Niggers kek

>>10727843
that

>>10732773
Do you believe that you have the same capacity to stuy and read as the single celled organisms we evolved from?
if not.
then you believe intelligece is genetic.
As our genetic make up is litterally the only fucking difference between us and our primordial ancestors.
when the fuck did they stop teaching evolution in school
>>10732808
Anon with the amount of fucking trash in this thread
with people claiming everything from "the knowledge would cause fucking hitler to resorect"
to
the guy I just responded to sincerely not belieiving in the genetic basis of intelligence
which would call into question how the fuck we have a brain and other such unfathomably sientifically ignorant statements
the queston of whether or not post modernism is a problem might be worth taking more seriously
>>10732819
Why is that whenever someone brings up the fact that the very notion of "equality" flies in the face of everything we know about darwinism (which is based upon selection between unequal evolutionary agents)
you assume we want to commit anoda shoa.
>>10733208
>that you're not in the least interested in science,
Rather fucking presumptious of you lol
but do go on.
> and that everyone here is sick of you ideology obsessed faggots trying to justify your biased.
The funny thing is i wasnt biased untill i learned the science that disproves, even the possibility, of equality.
Not that it makes me hate those who are less ingtelligent then me tho.
Oh no, that isnt their fault.
The people hate are those who are smarter then me, but lied to me at a very young age, and are still teaching people said lies.
That we are all the same
all equal
that inteligence isnt genetic
and with "hard work" you can become just as smart as anyone else.
Those are the people im biased against anon.
Because are the people who have the mind set that burned people at the stake in the last seven centuries.
1/2

>>10733208
> For starters, no one that isnt retarded is saying intelligence isnt genetic.
I aperciate you calling half the thread retarded
maybe with you they'll listen
ive litterelly been doing it for days.
>c. Stop trying to start the conversation by attacking some fallacious idea.
Anon look at the fucking thread
half the responses litterally hold the position i complained about the ignorance of in op
>somewhere else you prageru watching dipshit.
prager u are fucking shills
>>10733271
Or maybe you just give a fuck about the truth.
I dont have many ideals i'll grant that.
But when i give a fuck about supressed knowledge.
You may choose to believe that or you may choose not to.
But at the end of the day it doesnt fucking matter because you are the one lying to the public.
not me.
Want my advise?
be the one to tell them equality is bullshit before someone more charismatic and rightleaning then yourself does.

>>10733288
>two different people can't have similar opinions

>>10733411
>Or maybe you just give a fuck about the truth
Fair enough. Here's another true statement then: There are blacks smarter than most whites.
Go now and spread the message. Unless you only care about the truth when it matches your preconceived biases.

>>10733447
another true statement: everyone accepts that fact while many powerful liars deny racial iq differences thus you are an intellectually dishonest retard for trying to equate those two truths

>>10733447
>Go now and spread the message.
Sure anon.
Tho i should say i do think most society has me covered on this since its drilled into the average persons head every day lol.
As for what i propose btw in relation race and IQ. (tho it has nothing to do with this thread since this is about what is rather then what should be)
I am a libeterian.
And as a libeterian, i dont think the state needs to solve every god damn social issue with a fucking form of blunt tyranny like eugenics.
Personally i would just perfer to not have to subsidize those who are less successful then me.
I dont believer they're should be any "social program" what so ever and dont think the goverment has a role outside of the military, the creation of roads and the protecting of the citzenry from one and other.
But you se anon, the thing about all this.
Is that doesnt matter.
Not in a scientific context.
All of what i just said, are my beleifs.
I could be dead fucking wrong about them, objectively or otherwise depending on what you value.
But the beauty of science is that it transends all of that.
Because when you are talking about things that are factually true and undeniable, then the given opinions of EVERYONE involved inherently dont matter.
We have such a democratic culture that we've actually started to fool ourselves into thinking conciousness determines reality.
Its why people will say things like "races" are social constucts, siting human error in observence of a natural phenimon as proof of their hypotesis
even if all humans everwhere in the world had never come up with the concept of race
race would still exist
because people would have still independently evolved to fit their enviroments
and would be genetically distinguisable
thats why im inerested in science
because it gives humans acess to an almost transendent form of truth
a truth which is true even if the whole damn world says you are wrong.
I suspect this thread will get dropped soon
if it does
thank you everyone and gn

>>10733411
>Anon look at the fucking thread
>half the responses litterally hold the position i complained about the ignorance of in op
Fucking where??

>>10733460
>many powerful liars deny racial iq differences
Fucking who????

>>10727843
Are you Sandra Scarr by any chance?

>>10733271
>appeal to consequences

>>10733817
>Fucking where??
Se,
>>10729591

>>10727436
This is myopic. The major contention is that there are large performance gaps between whites/blacks and men/women, and that since these differences are entirely/mostly due to socioeconomic factors, then market-corrections need to be in place to create the true balance. But that "true balance" isn't even correct.

1) affirmative action
2) immigration policies
3) business regulations

It's not about denying women/minorities "civil rights," it's about the incessant cultural and political attacks on those deemed to be privileged, which results in poor policies on business regulations, quotas, and immigration.

Literally the entire western idea that "immigration is always good" is blatantly false. It will ruin these countries, morally and economically. The immigration influx that is occurring right now will be more devastating rather than invigorating, which is how it is advertised.

Politics is downstream of culture, and a genetic basis for IQ is something that is simply not allowed to be talked about in culture, or academia. Or anywhere, besides these shit tier forums.

>>10729684
>Bro I mean recent history like from 50 or 60 years ago when some people of a certain color were not allowed to have the things you mention as being factors in intelligence.
60 years ago jews were not allowed in a some universities [1]. Now, Jews are the best performing students in the country, and though not the wealthiest group in America, they're close to the top.

Forget about IQ. Look at crime rates, household incomes, any test score, fucking anything in the general direction of intelligence... you find:

blacks < latinos < whites < asians < jews

If this differences between these rankings were due to socioeconomic factors, it would mean that it is the jews and asians who are privileged, yes? But this isn't true. We know that, in the last 50-60 years, jews and asians have faced much more discrimination than whites, but certainly not has much as latinos or blacks.

So why then, would asians and jews not be behind whites, if they truly were exposed to more discrimination than whites?

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1986/03/04/nyregion/yale-s-limit-on-jewish-enrollment-lasted-until-early-1960-s-book-says.html

>>10729976
While socioeconomic factors have a large effect on the averages of group intelligence, genetics play a majority role in this category.

This is the position that no one will ever address.

>>10732296
>Nobody can define race.
na, we can, it's called haplogroups. But race is indeed a "low resolution" or "low precision" way to refer to groups of people. It's juct more convenient that way. People don't like it because it doesn't seem so scientific, but it has merit in studying the differences between ethnicities. Which is what sociology does.

>>10732436
>Point to me the gene sequence that makes you whatever race you think you are.
23andMe does it pretty well. "Race" is low-precision and low-resolution, but it's not inaccurate.
"what someone identifies as"
yeah mixed race can still be accounted for, tard

>>10733271
>Surely you must have an end goal other than trying to justify discrimination against people with black skin
Am I denying the civil rights of nonwhite people by voting against their immigration into my country?
It's certainly discrimination, which isn't inherently a bad thing (see Carl Popper, redditors like you like Carl Popper don't you?)

Is residence in my country a civil right? Am I being morally/ethically horrid by wanting to maintain a high IQ society for maximum quality of life?

>>10729591
>Science exists to push humanity forward and improve the lives of mankind.
seems like a value based proposition. what if I said denial of genetics influence on intelligence would lead to a decline in human progress? because I'd theres a fuckton of evidence I'd like to provide in support of that value based judgement.