/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3542839]

You are now aware.

[Anonymous No.3542854]

You should have gotten a falcon.

[Anonymous No.3542867]

[Anonymous No.3542892]

"It sounds plausible - but someone already tested it and it's WRONG".

Just about sums up the argumentation in this "paper".

[Anonymous No.3542911]

http://unamusementpark.com/

>Using the white-to-black ratio of 13.7 in Wisconsin, it follows that in 2010, compared to whites, blacks in Wisconsin were

>20 times as likely to commit murder,
>6.9 times as likely to commit forcible rape,
>39 times as likely to commit robbery,
>6.9 times as likely to commit aggravated assault, and
>11 times as likely to commit one of these four crimes.

Shouldn't be too surprising to anyone not in denial about blacks being savages.

[Anonymous No.3542916]

Its generally agreed that BLACK CULTURE has a stronger impact than genetics, although both have a role. The major problem i see with this publication is that it relies heavily on IQ.

I personally guarantee you that if we destroyed black culture, any "gap" OP talks about will get dramatically smaller.

[Anonymous No.3542931]

>>3542911
No, they're simply disadvantaged.
Same happens to white people who live in poverty their whole lives.

[Anonymous No.3542939]

>>3542931
Are there any studies that compare crime of whites and blacks in the same economic groups? I get the impression blacks will still have significantly higher crime rates.

[G2V !!7Y4HhVx6gWf No.3542945]

>>Arthur Jensen

I never asked for this

[Anonymous No.3542959]

>>3542939
yes, but they claim these aren't fair either because the system is racist and will give white kids a chance in court or some bullshit

[Anonymous No.3542996]

>>3542839

This claims poor white kids score higher on SAT than rich black kids..... O Really????
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.3543008]

>>3542996
i'm a poor white kid, and i scored a 2200

[Anonymous No.3543015]

>>3542839
this pretty much dittos for women no?
smaller brains, emotionally controlled etc?

[Anonymous No.3543042]

>>3543008

oh really.. your parents earn less than 20K?????

[Anonymous No.3543053]

>>3543008

I'm going to need to see your actual SAT results and your parents tax returns for the last five years, or I'm afraid I'm going to have to assume you are lying.

[Anonymous No.3543063]

>>3543015

so you are a racist and a misogynist... congratulations!!

[Anonymous No.3543081]

Statistics don't take into account culture differences. Black people are often more extroverted, talkative, prone to showing off and bragging. Children spontaneously mimic the attitudes and values of grown-ups in their environment. Behaviors are not genetically transmitted.

[Anonymous No.3543129]

>>3542839

No sources.
Unnamed experts.
Outdated statistics.
Psychologists instead of Cognitive Scientists.
Concerned exclusively with Blacks as if they are the only "Race".

Your picture reeks of Deception and Racism Op and you should be ashamed.

[Anonymous No.3543172]

OP remembers the good old days where the niggers were put in their place. What bout dem indianz?

[Anonymous No.3543183]

>>3543081

>Behaviors are not genetically transmitted.

Then why do certain breeds of dog have innate behavioral traits, like sheep dogs, dobermans, etc?

Or do you want to clarify your claim? Perhaps it's that human beings are unique and separate from the rest of the animal kingdom in this regard?

[Anonymous No.3543211]

God made us in his likeness, surely he would have made us all special.

[scipop No.3543220]

>>3542839

Ok, I'll bite and pretend this document was verifiable, had sources, references, and was published in a journal and peer reviewed.

Now what?

[Anonymous No.3543233]

>>3543183
>Then why do certain breeds of dog have innate behavioral traits, like sheep dogs, dobermans, etc?

Because they were bred artificially? When has a human population ever been bred in captivity?

[Anonymous No.3543239]

>>3542996
>>3542839
Arthur Jensen and , J. Philippe Rushton, the IQ "experts" who supplied the testing results for 'unamusement park's' scribble above, have been ripped by (among others) Stephen Jay Gould.

Wikipedia provides a very nice list of cites for refutations of OPs authors' claims.

Also note that upon visiting unamusementpark.com, one finds any number of links to stormfront-like websites, think tanks, and 'conservative' blogs.

I wouldn't put much store in OP's post.

[Anonymous No.3543249]

>>3543233

>Because they were bred artificially? When has a human population ever been bred in captivity?

Your claim was that behavioral inclination CANNOT be transmitted genetically. My example proves that wrong. It doesn't matter that the breeding was done by humans, the transmission was still genetic, and it proves behaviors can have a genetic basis.

Now, if behavioral differences can be bred for, who is to say that they cannot arise via natural selection? They won't be as exaggerated, but they're there.

[Anonymous No.3543266]

>>3543249
>Your claim was that behavioral inclination CANNOT be transmitted genetically. My example proves that wrong.

But how is the dog's instinct to guard sheep connected to human behaviors? And what behaviors are we talking about? You being racist, I presume the behaviors you want to single out are the blacks' supposed inclination towards violence and criminality in general as defined by our (post-)industrial society.

But why would these behaviors have evolved over thousands of years, and more importantly, where is the historical and anthropological proof of them?

[Anonymous No.3543284]

>>3543183

maybe if you actually knew anything about dogs..you wouldn't ask such dumbass questions.....sheep dogs have been bred for hundreds (or thousands) of generations to suppress exactly ONE natural instinct.

your Racism is almost certainly an expression of you feelings of inadequacy

[Anonymous No.3543285]

>>3543266

>But how is the dog's instinct to guard sheep connected to human behaviors?

We are not unique or separate from the animal kingdom. We are subject to evolution in the same ways. The variety of innate behaviors in dog breeds proves that living things in general can have behavioral predispositions with a basis in their genome. This has obvious implications for human races.

>And what behaviors are we talking about? You being racist, I presume the behaviors you want to single out are the blacks' supposed inclination towards violence and criminality in general as defined by our (post-)industrial society.

You've already assumed I'm a white supremacist. I'm not. Though I am caucasian I recognize that asians and ashkenazi jews are on average more intelligent. I also recognize culture's influence. The only way I differ from you is that I also recognize that genetics has an influence as well.

>But why would these behaviors have evolved over thousands of years, and more importantly, where is the historical and anthropological proof of them?

They didn't, they evolved over millions of years. It's non-blacks who diverged, behaviorally. Blacks (who are actually about 12 distinct racial groupings) remained the same because they stayed put. The various caucasians, asians, north/south american natives and so on are a more recent evolutionary development. We've had about 120,000 years to diverge, and here's something even you can't deny, we interbred with neandertals. A very different strain of hominid. So already, that creates a clear distinction between caucasians and blacks that cannot reasonably be denied.

[Anonymous No.3543286]

>>3543284

>>your Racism is almost certainly an expression of you feelings of inadequacy

Your reliance on ad hominems is almost certainly an expression of your insecurity in your argument.

[Anonymous No.3543294]

>>3543286

I'm not trying to argue with you. I AM attacking you personally. Racism is a symptom of a disordered and illogical mind.

[Anonymous No.3543296]

>>3543294

>I'm not trying to argue with you. I AM attacking you personally. Racism is a symptom of a disordered and illogical mind.

It may well be. That does not preclude it from also being correct.

[Anonymous No.3543308]

>>3543296

fuck.. are you Autistic, too?????

[Anonymous No.3543313]

>>3543308

You have no actual argument, do you? Will you take this opportunity to reflect on your behavior and how strongly it suggests that you no longer feel capable of defending your position?

[Anonymous No.3543321]

>>3543313
"Some random asshole on the internet can't refute my elegant arguments, I must be a Genius."

[Anonymous No.3543471]

>>3543220
>peer review
"Robert Sussman, an evolutionary anthropologist and the editor in-chief of American Anthropologist, explained why the journal did not accept ads for Rushton's 1998 book:

This is an insidious attempt to legitimize Rushton’s racist propaganda and is tantamount to publishing ads for white supremacy and the neo-Nazi party. If you have any question about the validity of the “science” of Rushton’s trash you should read any one of his articles and the many rebuttals by ashamed scientists.[50]" ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton

[Anonymous No.3543519]

"Philippe Rushton, a psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario, has taken over the leadership of the Pioneer Fund following the recent death of its former administrator, Harry F. Weyher.

"The Pioneer Fund was established in 1937 by the American white supremacist multimillionaire Wickliffe Draper and others who were supportive of Nazi race policies in Germany. The incorporation papers of the Fund states its policy to support the "procreation of the white colonial stock" and to finance research into "problems of race betterment" and "problems of heredity and eugenics in the human race." ~ http://www.bethuneinstitute.org/documents/racialscientestrushton.html

[Anonymous No.3543520]

The results aren't controversial.

The factors behind the results are.

[Anonymous No.3543529]

>>3542839
>No references to text, articles, or journals.

Stopped reading right there.

[Anonymous No.3543531]

>>3543529
Or, I guess to say, "Reference your shit properly"
And then I'll give a fuck.

[Anonymous No.3543535]

I wonder how expensive would it be to make every single child go through a variety of cognitive performance tests throughout their childhood, adolescence and then adulthood.

These results could then be used to direct resources to help those who need it the most at the beginning of their education where you get the most bang for a buck.

[Anonymous No.3543554]

The issue: Is race strongly correlated to intelligence?

And yet the truth is, even if it is strongly correlated, one should still look for other factors when determining anything in the real world. If the man sitting in front of you for a job is black or white, you would be a fool to assign a job based on that and not on their qualifications alone.

[Anonymous No.3543571]

From Wikipedia

>Heritability measures the proportion of variation in a trait that can be attributed to genes, and not the proportion of a trait caused by genes. Thus, if the environment relevant to a given trait changes in a way that affects all members of the population equally, the mean value of the trait will change without any change in its heritability (because the variation or differences among individuals in the population will stay the same). This has evidently happened for height: the heritability of stature is high, but average heights continue to increase.[6] Thus, even in developed nations, a high heritability of a trait does not necessarily mean that average group differences are due to genes.[6][16] Some have gone further, and used height as an example in order to argue that "even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability."[17] However, others argue that IQ is highly stable during life and has been largely resistant to interventions aimed to change it long-term and substantially.

OP's image is full of shit on a fundamental level. QED

[Unamused No.3544587]

Most of the counter-arguments given here are refuted in the flyer itself, so there's no need to address them. (For example, the idea that poverty explains the gap.) As for references, they obviously don't fit on the flyer, which has led some Internet Geniuses to cry foul. They are, however, available on my site, below the original flyer:

http://unamusementpark.com/2011/05/there-are-innate-race-differences-in-intelligence-a-flyer/

No, J. Philippe Rushton is not a "racist" or a "white supremacist"; he is an honest and competent scientist, which you would know if you had bothered to read his papers.

I see that another Internet Genius has found a Wikipedia page which he believes refutes... something. He is mistaken.

Someone references Stephen Jay Gould, apparently unaware that his famous "debunking" of (very, very old) intelligence research, "The Mismeasure of Man," was recently shown to be fraudulent itself!

Anyway, I guess my point is: go learn something.

[Anonymous No.3544918]

>>3542839

>the info you gave cited black americans not black "african decent" as a whole.
>Doesn't include culture, health, opportunity and motivation which are big factors in the human psyche.

Especially motivation, if the person has no drive, no inspiration to aim for ofcourse they're going to fail and be seen as dumb.

Hell its the same logic with people who can't get any girlfriends or get laid. If you have defeatist attitude, constantly put yourself in situations that prevent you from succeding or focus your energy on something else not related to a prefered goal you are going fail.

I guarantee you if every "black" person who had an innate interest in sports or music put the same energy into the studies of science and math that gap would shrink a considerable amount.

Also it's funny that professional sports and music seem to have a greater pay per person than other professions of interest. I wonder why some american blacks seem so focused on that hmm...or I wonder why black females seem to have a greater presence then black males in college.

But don't mind me, I'm just being observant thats all.

[Anonymous No.3544940]

>>3544918

>african descent

Sorry about that and you know the wall of text.

[Anonymous No.3544973]

>>3544940
But aren't we all technically of "African descent"?

[Anonymous No.3544975]

Why do people readily accept the notion that blacks are "naturally more athletic" or some such bullshit but get offended at the idea that there might be racial differences in IQ too?

[Anonymous No.3544979]

>>3544973
Yes.

[Anonymous No.3544981]

>>3544975
Because they're willing to let black people have excellence in animalistic traits, but not humanistic ones. Which is pure bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3544984]

>>3542839

I can only conclude from this that intelligence is a recessive trait.

[Anonymous No.3544988]

>>3544984
>No argument
Dohoho, funny man.

[Anonymous No.3545007]

sure is culture disguised as race in this thread

[Anonymous No.3545013]

>2011
>Still arguing with retarded liberals
ISHYGDDT

[Anonymous No.3545024]

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.3545037]

>>3545024
>Liberal detected

[Anonymous No.3545040]

>>3545037

[Anonymous No.3545081]

>>3545040
>Implying this doesn't belong on /sci/ despite a peer reviewed, valid and controlled experiment with a large sample size
>Implying this belongs on a supernatural board when only liberals try to classify the racial difference as non-existent and as a figment of the imagination

Nope, not a strawman at all.

[Anonymous No.3545083]

>>3543183
>mfw you dont understand the difference between brain physiologies
>mfw prefrontal cortex

[Anonymous No.3545092]

>>3545081
Are you retarded? Could you really miss the point that badly?

[Anonymous No.3545098]

>>3545040
a scarecrow? Nice comeback, That doesn't even make sense.

[Anonymous No.3545101]

>>3543233
um...in the USA, black people WERE bred in captivity?

[Anonymous No.3545155]

>>3545092
>No argument

[Anonymous No.3545328]

>>3544988

really? you can't immediately see the implication?
most 'blacks' in the U.S. are of mixed heritage... or does the research actually indicate light-skinned blacks are substantially more intelligent than dark-skinned. What about brown-eyed whites versus blue-eyed?

[Anonymous No.3545362]

>>3542839

why 'Not including the GRE'?????

[Ba No.3545372]

>>3542839
Doubt anyone will read this, but have some factual data
The paper you refer to is here:http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

At no point does it control for twins.

-The idea of a cultural bias is that the culture has a bias. Stating that they don't when you're part of said culture isn't allowed. The statement Mainstream Science on Intelligence also says this:
>There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ acrossracial-ethnic groups. The reasons for these IQ differences betweengroups may be markedly different from the reasons for why individualsdiffer among themselves within any particular group (whites or blacks orAsians). In fact, it is wrong to assume, as many do, that the reason whysome individuals in a population have high IQs but others have low IQs must be the same reason why some populations contain more such high (or low) IQ individuals than others. Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too.

Think about that. Most experts agree that environment is definitely influential, and that genetics *could* be.

Family income != personal income. A house with 11 mexican immigrants on minimum wage will earn the same amount as a single mother and her daughter. This shouldn't need to be explained.

[Ba No.3545404]

>>3545372
As said before the paper you refer to doesn't study twins. According to your criteria, it can be thrown out along with the MTAS, which- guess what- didn't adjust for twins. You're being vastly dishonest posting this kind of tripe. the MTAS also used black children who had had more traumatic childhoods and later adoption.

I don't argue that there are differences racially, but there's no evidence that they're genetic rather than socio-economic. The fact you resort to tactics like citing documents that don't mention twin studies indicates that you realise your position is weak.

[Ba No.3545416]

>>3545404
there are no differences racially*

[Ba No.3545540]

but who gives a fuck about that, eh?
we don't need evidence when we have prejudicial bigotry.

[Anonymous No.3545561]

>mfw /sci/ is the only board that actually responds to these subtle troll threads, an agreement is never found, and it's reposted again a week later

[Anonymous No.3545576]

>>3542839
Fantastic. What do you want to do about it?

[Anonymous No.3545830]

>>3545561

do you want to just 'okay' and sage them? we can do that.

[Anonymous No.3546349]

[Anonymous No.3546389]

>>3546349
N=130 !!!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

[Anonymous No.3546396]

>>3545830
Stop responding to bad threads.

[Anonymous No.3546411]

I read the bell curve years ago. I have been aware.

Black people have better eyesight, more type 2 fast twitch muscle fibers, higher bone density ect. They also have lower intelligence. This is just the truth.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAszZr3SkEs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Anonymous No.3546447]

The average iq in east Asian countries is higher than it is in the west. This includes some relatively poor countries.

South Korea and china have wayyyyy more poor people than the US but also have a higher average IQ. Explain that Nurture people.

The FACT is that genetics account for 75% of iq and environment is 25% officially we can say that the heritability of IQ is between .5 and .8

[Anonymous No.3546463]

>>3546447

the answer is simple, my friend.. Racism is Genetic..
you probably inherited it from your family being too inbred for too many generations. You just can't help it.

[Anonymous No.3546466]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/10/eveningnews/main20090911.shtml

[Anonymous No.3546480]

>>3546411
except thats not the truth, this is /sci/ not /lit/

[Anonymous No.3546485]

>intelligence is real, objective, and measurable
stopped reading there.

[Anonymous No.3546488]

>>3546480

It is the truth. You can choose to be ignorant all you want but it doesn't change anything.

[Anonymous No.3546489]

>>3546447
A culture that places extreme emphasis on acedemic achievement and that does not allow children the choice of slacking off like they enjoy in the west score better on tests?


I for one am shocked. What a well thought out post. Clearly you are at the very top of your field.

[Anonymous No.3546500]

>>3546488
But its not. You are just saying that it is, you havent proved it, nobody has, unless you have some peer reviewed studies to back up your claims?

I didnt think so.

Somebody here choses to be ignorant, and its you. Ignorant of the Scientific method.

[Anonymous No.3546554]

a year and a half ago i left /sci/ because it was a bunch of "master race" and "Christianity vs Atheism" threads. See you in another year and a half.

[Anonymous No.3546557]

>>3546389
If you have taken any statistics, you would know that 130 is more than enough to compare groups which the difference in means is that high.
130 is enough to say the results are within 2-3% of the actual mean.

[Anonymous No.3546563]

>>3546554
oh, and still thinking that IQ is relevant. And "post your IQ" threads. So, yeah. see you later.

[Anonymous No.3546586]

Why do people not understand what average means? It's like they seriously believe that if one group A's average is below group B's average, than all members of group A are inferior to group B, which is obviously not true!

It's like the moment you try to say that black people have lower intelligence on average, people interpret it as "all black people are inferior to white people".

I mean if I tried to say people who sit in the back of the school bus are dumber than those who sit in the front, would I get the same response of trying to advocate a "front of the bus master race"? Hopefully not.

This is reminiscent of back in the 1500's where people who said the earth revolved around the sun were denounced as "heretics", and even if they were right, what was the purpose in proving it besides to say the church was wrong.
Don't hold reality back just because you wan't to believe something different.

[Anonymous No.3546648]

also, more proof that intelligence isn't affected by culture too much. This is on math rather than intelligence, but the two are close enough.
Recent too, like a week ago.
>Inb4 someone tries to denounce the findings because it is in a race thread.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8693105/People-are-born-bad-at-maths.html

[Ba No.3546650]

>>3546349
MTAS did not compare Blacks and Whites in the same circumstances.

[Ba No.3546663]

>>3546648
>some people are naturally good at maths
>this is evidence that intelligence isn't affected by culture too much

Confirmation bias of the day.

[Anonymous No.3546675]

>>3546663
how is that biased? its simple logic. If people are born naturally good and bad at math, then culture isn't to blame for blacks doing worse at math, because culture isn't something you are born with.

[Anonymous No.3546680]

>>3546663
>>3546675
unless you are trying to say that math ability and intelligence are unrelated, in which case, you are retarded.

[Anonymous No.3546690]

someone please explain how this helps a white 20-something year old mentlegen like myself? anyone? oh so you clipped this out of the science section in 2011's "Rebel Esquire"? kudos, dear boy

[Ba No.3546693]

>>3546675
Some people are born heavier than others. This is not, however, evidence that weight isn't affected by diet too much.

You can't discount all other evidence because you have a single piece of it showing there's one factor that has some effect. I've been in 4 threads like this over the past few days, starting two, and nobody has provided any evidence that there's a genetic factor to racial intelligence.

[Anonymous No.3546712]

>>3546690
I'm sorry if it appears like I am some sort of rebel, if you want, instead we can talk about things that are universally agreed to be true. Although I don't much see what the point of that would be...

[Anonymous No.3546721]

seriously >>3542839 i want reasonable proof that this is beneficial me to learn these facts, what would be your goal for this presentation, say, if you were invited to TED? anything productive?

[Ba No.3546751]

>>3546721
Firstly, it's not beneficial because the reports he cites are according to him worthless, as they aren't twin studies. Furthermore, the MTAS (not sure about the other) did *not* compare blacks and whites with equal backgrounds. For example, Blacks were adopted later.

Secondly,
-if it WERE true it would be important because it would justify racism and be a huge leap from what we have now. It would allow us to consider evidenced studies of eugenic action to ensure higher intelligence.
-There are few, if any, situations in which knowing less is beneficial.

[Anonymous No.3546768]

And just because weight can be effected by diet doesn't mean it has no genetic component to it either. I'm not discounting that environment has some sort of effect on children, I'm just trying to say it is foolish to believe that there isn't a genetic component involved too. And if there is evidence contrary to a genetic component, I would really like to see it.

And there is plenty of evidence that suggest that genetics plays a role in racial intelligence. You just seem to think that if the evidence doesn't prove it with 100% certainty, it can be discounted entirely.

First, dog breeds have different average intelligences, and it would be foolish to say that was environmental. I understand that this does not prove that human racial intelligence is significantly different, however, it does suggest that if dog intelligences can be changed within 300 years of forced breeding, there is no reason to suggest that human's wouldn't change with 200,000 years of natural evolution.(FYI, human evolution is faster than other species usually because humans have more of a role in which humans live and which ones die)

[Anonymous No.3546803]

Meant to link this >>3546768
to this >>3546693

[Anonymous No.3546810]

you let me know when the government will apply studies like this actively (or even individual states, given that you believe all public schools are not controlled by govt. funding) for the benefit of people, instead of as an obvious waste of time. also the way this evidence is compiled is complete crap, what will we do? make sure that there are less black teachers/supervisors/authority figures because misleading statistics show them as incompetent? and so on? these are the answers this data leads the common mind to, tell me how its helpful.

[Ba No.3546835]

>>3546768
>And just because weight can be effected by diet doesn't mean it has no genetic component to it either.
This doesn't mean it's proof that doesn't have much of a dietary influence, does it?
As always, as the claims racial intelligence differences are wholly or partially genetic require evidence. There's the additional consideration to take that whatever theory is assumed true will have strong consequences for large number of people, and that therefore we need to excercise caution before concluding anything pre-emptively.

>And there is plenty of evidence that suggest that genetics plays a role in racial intelligence. You just seem to think that if the evidence doesn't prove it with 100% certainty, it can be discounted entirely.
What evidence is there that doesn't support the socio-ecconomic argument to the same extent? I haven't seen it posted here.

>First, dog breeds have different average intelligences, and it would be foolish to say that was environmental.
dog breeds have massive genetic differences. Compare a great dane and a dwarf terrier, or a pit bull and a labrador. You don't get massive differences like you do in dogs in humans.

>I understand that this does not prove that human racial intelligence is significantly different,
Jolly good.

> however, it does suggest that if dog intelligences can be changed within 300 years of forced breeding, there is no reason to suggest that human's wouldn't change with 200,000 years of natural evolution.
300 years? I think you mean 3-5000.
Forced, selective breeding is for the specific purpose of increasing ability: Dogs that are even slightly out of line weren't bred, and only the absolute best were continued. Also, selectively bred populations are tiny compared to humans. Macro-evolution occurs significantly faster in small populations, and would almost certainly have an effect.

>>3546810
Oh dear.

[Anonymous No.3546842]

>>3546693
>evidence for genetic component for intelligence

There isn't any.

Alfred Binet said that his tests were designed to measure "practical" intelligence, which makes them culturally-biased. From this it would seem to follow that slum dwellers being tested with a "standardized" test are put at some serious disadvantage.

This thread has descended into illogical incoherence, as OPs source was trashed as the rubbish it is almost immediately in the thread.

[Anonymous No.3546845]

>>3546810
We would stop affirmative action and likewise things and instead judge people based on their qualifications.
More qualified people would go to prestigious colleges, get higher up jobs, and things like that.
Not to mention, there would be more done to minimize the race IQ gap, if we know the cause of the problem, it is much much easier to solve it.

Just because you aren't capable of coming up with benefits to knowing the truth about something, doesn't mean there are none.

And i should keep this clear, proving it is in no way an attempt to bring back racism, segregation, slavery, or judging individuals on their race alone. It would be purely for gains in knowledge to be able improve society.

[Anonymous No.3546846]

>>3543233
humans are often bred "in captivity" I heard one anthropologist say that just about everyone who has never been a slave is still a hunter gatherer.
Animals (domestic and otherwise) have inate behaviours.
Look up bower bird for a really impressive example.
The ones bred into domestic animals are not "man made" just promoted by us because the animals with them are useful to us.

[Ba No.3546861]

>>3546845
>We would stop affirmative action
No. Again, people seem to be assuming that if there's a genetic component there can't be a social one.

[Anonymous No.3546873]

>>3546842

you sir, are an idiot.

Do you know how IQ tests work? There are a series of problems that require logic and creativity to solve, and how many of them and the difficulty of them determine the IQ that is measured. E.G. if you score better than 90% of people, your measured IQ is 120, better than 97.5% of people, it is 130.

However, this is only measured IQ, not actual IQ. Just because you score better than 90% of people on that one test, doesn't mean you are smarter than 90% of people.

However, this does not mean that measured IQ and intelligence aren't related. Get it now?

and FYI, logic is culturally biased.

[Anonymous No.3546884]

>>3546861
Doesn't matter at that point though. If they were raised in a bad culture, and aren't qualified for the job, they shouldn't get the job. All affirmative action does is make it so less qualified people get into positions because there are less of those types of people in that position.

[Anonymous No.3546889]

>>3546873
*logic isn't culturally biased

[Ba No.3546892]

http://www.feanor.net/z0r/shock/whiteblack.swf
If anyone's interested in a summary of the discussion so far.

I'll say again what I want:

A comparison of Blacks and whites in the same socio-economic position finding a difference between the two in terms of success in education, rate of crime, wages, IQ, or non-adjusted SAT score.

[Anonymous No.3546919]

>>3546892
oh, okay. delivered.
>inb4 culture is used to explain the difference since money is ruled out.

[Anonymous No.3546928]

>>3546892
also, another good test would be a comparing income per year versus accumulated wealth for different races.

[Ba No.3546935]

>>3546919
As I said in a previous thread, Family income is not a good measure of individual wealth. Households with larger numbers of residents will earn more overall, and in general minorities have larger family groups inflating their positions on this chart.
>>3546928
That just demonstrates fiscal responsibility, not necessarily intelligence. I'd still be interested to see it though.

[Anonymous No.3546937]

>>3546892
and if you want, it doesn't have to be white vs black, it can be asian vs black, or white vs hispanic, or really anything. The thing I'm trying to point out is that not all races have the same average intelligence.

[Ba No.3546943]

>>3546937
I agree completely. My point is that there's no evidence that it's genetic.

[Anonymous No.3546952]

>>3546937
There's no such thing as a white person. There are persons who have white skin, but there is no such white person.

So whenever you compare a group you're not talking about white people, you're talking about those persons who have white skin who live in an area who have been brought up a certain way who have gone to certain schools who have lived a certain time who have been exposed to certain media and who have had all sorts of other things happen to a group with different characteristics.

[Anonymous No.3546961]

>>3546935
well, what do you want then? you can't have personal income for SAT because the people are too young to have a career yet, and you can't have personal income vs IQ because apparently IQ doesn't prove anything.
You can't compare races and crime, because appearently culture discounts that. You can't compare races and high school drop out rates because of culture too.

Basically everything you are demanding you have deemed to have some sort of flaw that makes it not prove anything.
Name all the variables of one test that would convince you that there is a genetic factor to intelligence for races. Because I don't want to find one that matches only to be told there is a variable that is unaccounted for that makes it useless.

[Anonymous No.3546997]

[Anonymous No.3547002]

>>3546935
Also what bugs me, is that if the thing pointed to all races being the same, you would probably use it as evidence that there is no genetic factor. How about you take it from my end, and assume there is a genetic component, and try to prove their isn't one.

[Anonymous No.3547014]

>>3546961
>Basically everything you are demanding you have deemed to have some sort of flaw that makes it not prove anything.
It's like arguing with religious. Not looking at the facts, or when they do, diminish/dismiss them.

Both use (and seem to think) "without religion/with different races, the world will flood with blood!".

[Ba No.3547015]

>>3546961
You can breakdown the income per working adult in the house, or ideally, you can check IRS records for people who graduated x number of years ago. It'd be possible to compare people quite easily, right now, and without any need for a real study. Of course, data protection law messes that up, so in reality you'd need consent and have to jump through a bunch of loops

IQ is good for giving general measurements of intelligence, just not in a form that can be translated to anything specific. I'd not have much of a problem with mean IQ being used.

Sure, you can compare race and crime. That said, you have to do it in the same conditions for everybody if you want to test any theories about genetic involvement.

>Basically everything you are demanding you have deemed to have some sort of flaw that makes it not prove anything.
Basically every kind of evidence there is you're arguing can't exist. When I've just posted about suitable measurements don't tell me I don't think they're suitable measurements, unless you want me to treat you as if you're being deliberately dishonest.


I'd accept an analysis of SAT scores for two generations paired with current data on employment and wages. If blacks who earn $50k/a have kids with lower scores than whites who earn $50k/a, I'd consider that telling.

>>3547002
Because if you assume it's genetic then you give scientific validation to racial eugenics, whereas if you don't you pay for black people to go to school. If it pointed to there not being a difference when socio-economic factors were eliminated then yes, of course I'd take that as evidence that genetics aren't responsible for it.

[Anonymous No.3547018]

>>3546997
Got an argument with substance?

[Ba No.3547022]

>>3547014
Are you familiar with world history 1918-1945?

[Ba No.3547028]

>>3547015
also: the two generation thing isn't necessary, I just thought it would be a bit more insightful.

[Anonymous No.3547037]

>>3547022
1870 and 1918 were over territory.
1945 was because depression+butthurt with 1918.
There was no internet, no UN, no chinese overlords.

>Implying there is a way to eradicate wars totally forever.

Mars vs Terra is going ot be glorious.

[Ba No.3547043]

>>3547037
Not sure if troll

[Anonymous No.3547049]

>>3547015
heres for crime and race. U.S. here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_and_race
Heres crime and race for the U.K. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_Kingdom

and for SAT, family income would be made up solely by the parents. Having more kids would not reduce the amount made by the parents per hour.

I would love to have an IQ vs race and income, but I can't find any :/

[Ba No.3547077]

>>3547049
>That said, you have to do it in the same conditions for everybody if you want to test any theories about genetic involvement.

Having more kids, especially kids over 16, means you can have more people working and co-habiting. If you have three children who earn minimum wage and can't move out then they're going to appear identical in terms of family income to a middle class nuclear family. I think this may be compounded by the fact that ethnic minorities tend to concentrate in larger cities where housing is more scarce, disproportionately adding to the number of people- and consequently streams of income- in families/houses.

[Anonymous No.3547079]

>>3546961
It's almost like the evidence is leaning one way or something

[Anonymous No.3547084]

http://anthropology.net/2008/10/01/race-as-a-social-construct/
Damn oppressive liberal scientists

[Anonymous No.3547094]

>>3547077
The same could be said for other races as well, poorer money/hour whites have more children too. The only reason minorities have bigger families is because they are more likely to be poorer.
There is a big link between larger families and less wealth.

That being said, I don't believe it is a valid criticism.

[Anonymous No.3547144]

Thoughts on Australian indigenous Aboriginals?

[Anonymous No.3547170]

>>3547144
never had any encounters with em, but if IQ tests are any indicator, they are rather dumb, and therefore, more likely to commit crime and other things destructive to society. I think IQ test placed em at 68, while blacks are 85, and whites are 100.

[Anonymous No.3547189]

What's the worst that could happen as a result of this research?

[Anonymous No.3547205]

>>3547189
Worst case scenario is that it would be wrong(I think its unlikely, but we can continue on with this hypothetical situation). Governments would then be less likely to fix racial gaps caused by racism in the job place, and college placement. I don't believe we would go back to segregation, or counting people of different races as sub human just because they belong to said race. It won't be too harmful to society other than that, as long as people understand the theory correctly and know how averages work.

[Anonymous No.3547207]

>>3547170
IQ tests are cultural.

Give an Abo an Abo IQ test and he will blow your white ass out of the water.

Fucking ignorance everywhere in this thread.

[Ba No.3547212]

>>3547189
people take it as a sign that blacks are less worthy of life, segregation kicks back in.

[Anonymous No.3547220]

>>3547212
What if they become athletes?

[Anonymous No.3547221]

>>3547207
Accurate IQ tests are not cultural. they are based solely on logic, and logic being reality, has no culture. If you can prove to me that aborigines do well on math tests(which are also logicly based), but do poorly on IQ tests, then ill agree with you.

[Anonymous No.3547230]

>>3547212
Not quite, they will probably judge it based on intelligence, where people who are less intelligent are less worthy of life. Of course more black people would fall into that catagory, but it wouldn't be simply because they were black.

[Ba No.3547236]

>>3547220
Iono
>>3547221
What you regard as important logic has little to do with survival in a desert, which native Australians are extremely capable of. intelligence /= logic.

[Anonymous No.3547244]

People with Down Syndrome have a significantly lower than average IQ. They are still treated ok and allowed to go to school, get a job etc. so how is this different?

[Anonymous No.3547252]

>>3547236
all of this depends on what your definition of intelligence is.
I could survive in the desert just as easily, I'd just do it with a house and a job to buy food to transport to me.

[Anonymous No.3547257]

>>3547244
To me, it really isn't any different. not sure why you are bringing it up though.

[Anonymous No.3547262]

I mention aboriginals, not because I'm trying to class them as sub-human or anything of the sort, but because I'm interested in everyone's thoughts on how a semi-nomadic culture that's existed for 40,000 - 100,000 years can adapt to the western culture that Australia now belongs to. I've only had bad experiences personally, but that's personally, of course I will hold no prejudice to an entire race based on my short wanderings. Not that I even think its right to hold prejudice to a race.

[Anonymous No.3547283]

>>3547262
A better question is how long will the non indigenous survive in Australia? Will they adapt well enough reach the 100,000 year mark like the Aborigines?

[Anonymous No.3547292]

>>3547262
how many have you encountered?
if there is one thing taking statistics has taught me, it is that if you think there might be a difference in groups, there is a difference in groups. Statistics is more usefully used for finding there are differences in groups that you observe as kind of close to the same.

If you want to know how they can adapt to society, they really can't unless you breed em so the ones who can produce more offspring than those who can't. So long as the genetic theory is correct. But I'd rather take a correct but disapointing view over an incorrect but hopeful one.

[Anonymous No.3547317]

Racism is not science. Go heil your shitler somewhere else nazi faggot.

[Anonymous No.3547326]

>>3547317
this isn't racism, and name one way in which the main topic of this thread isn't in a scientific nature.

[Anonymous No.3547371]

>>3547317
It is not unscientific to question the notion all races are genetically the same intellectually. And it is not racist anymore than it is heretical to say the earth revolves around the sun. However, what IS unscientific, is to blindly and unquestioningly believe something (such as all races being the same intellectually) if there is no evidence to support it.

[Anonymous No.3548150]

>>3546650
Yes it did, that was in fact the whole point of the study.

[Anonymous No.3548292]

We already have far too many people on the planet.
Blacks account for one billion (!) of the human race.
Seeing as how they're less intelligent, commit more crimes and are more infected with diseases, why not simply kill them all?

[Anonymous No.3548331]

>>3548292

social engineering might work a lot slower than eugenics, but at least you don't become a remorsefully crippled spineless culture afterwards.

[Anonymous No.3548596]

Question to discuss:
In America, 100 white woman are raped each year by black offenders while less than 10 black women are raped by white offenders each year. Why is that?

Stranger 1: We're all screwed up!

Stranger 2: Because black folks live in areas where crime is more prevalent

Stranger 2: Therefore, black folks are often more likely to commit crime due to factors outside their race

Stranger 2: Also, black women are often not considered as attractive as white women, on average, because they do not conform to the cultural stereotypes of femininity

Stranger 1: Yeah but white folks live in similar situations

Stranger 2: I could go on.

Stranger 1: Although probably not nearly the same amounts

Stranger 2: Absolutely, that's true, but not as many, AND poor white folks are often fairly racist

[Anonymous No.3548616]

>>3548331
I don't understand the logic of this question.

[Anonymous No.3548621]

>>3548331
I don't understand the logic of this statement.

[Anonymous No.3548630]

if you can measure intelligence by ONE number...

who is smarter, the person with the 800 Math and 300 Verbal (old style SAT) or the one with 550 Math and 560 Verbal?

[Anonymous No.3548677]

Blacks and whites (and even asians, oh no) are different, at a cultural and at a genetic level. That's what "race" means.
If anybody here thinks that it's impossible for these differences to show themselves in intelligence, then they're prejudiced.
If different amounts of intellect can be detected between different races of dogs, then why not between different races of humans? After all, humans are just smarter animals, no?

It's crazy to think that evolution would spread intelligence equally between all human races, when it's the thing that made us smarter than our ape cousins in the first place.

[Anonymous No.3548686]

>>3548630
Those are two numbers.
To answer that question, you'd need a formula to combine those numbers and a whole bunch of other numbers into one number and then compare those two numbers.
You dickhead.

[Anonymous No.3548697]

>>3548677
Why not actually LEARN about biology rather then just making up whatever sounds good to you in your head?

[Anonymous No.3548710]

>>3548686

you can't even pretend you have a formula.. like the vector magnitude one.. and you call ME a dickhead? GTFO my /sci/

[Anonymous No.3548765]

>>3548630
There are no people with 800 math 300 verbal.
The two correlate HIGHLY.

[Xlore !!oIaXoksOFZm No.3548812]

>>3546349
>>3542839
I'd like to know where they go and what kind of idiots they test for these averages?
I am 3/4 white and 1/4 black, grew up with a poor white mother in about the same conditions a poor black family would live in, and i've taken multiple IQ tests and i vary between 121 and 138.

I love when people try to rationalize things with tests and other random things when the human brain is a complex thing that not even the most intelligent people can fully comprehend.

[Ba No.3548880]

>>3548150
No, it did not.
>Waldman, Weinberg, and Scarr (1994)
>A further complication is that race and preadoptive experience were strongly confounded in the Minnesota study ( Scarr & Weinberg, 1976 ). At the time they joined their new families, for example, the Black adoptees had had more prior placements, rated of poorer quality, than their White counterparts. This was especially the case for the children with two Black birth parents, who were not adopted until they were, on average, about 32 months old. Because any later IQ differences between these groups may have resulted from differences in preadoptive experience, the Minnesota data provide no clear evidence for the genetic hypothesis. But it is only fair to say that they do argue against certain versions of the environmental hypothesis (pending the necessary Flynn effect corrections): The mere fact of growing up in a middle-class home apparently does not, by itself, raise one's score on intelligence tests given at adolescence.

Getting tired of posting this.>>3548765

[Ba No.3548901]

>>3548630
Brotip: Averages

>>3548677
>If anybody here thinks that it's impossible for these differences to show themselves in intelligence, then they're prejudiced.
If anybody here thinks that's evidence that they are (which seems to be the case for some), then they're prejudiced.

>>3548880
Didn't mean to link to that, but now I have: That isn't an argument, it's a statment from incredulity. There are a lot of people with under-developed english skills who are quite capable of maths.

[Anonymous No.3549017]

>>3548765

coefficient and source

[Anonymous No.3549034]

>That feel when I'm one of those smart black guys
>White father: Lawyer
>Nigger mom: Doctor
>Doing engineering and perfect grades have landed me an exchange year at ETH zürich where I'll probably get a double degree

Feelsgoodman.jpg

[Xlore !!oIaXoksOFZm No.3549074]

>>3549034
>calling your mom a nigger.

Either she still retained niggerish traits after becoming a doctor, or there's a lot of self hatred going on with you.

[Anonymous No.3549087]

>>3548880
>>3548880

>This result gave some support to the environmentalist position, but even this consolation was to disappear when a follow-up study of the children was published in the fall of 1992. The children were given intelligence tests again in 1986, at an average age of 17 years. It was to be six years before Dr. Scarr and Dr. Weinberg published the results. Normally these data would take a month or two to analyze and write up and a year to publish, and the results would have appeared in 1988. The four-year publication delay is excessive and is probably due to the fact that Dr. Scarr and Dr. Weinberg were worried by what they found.

>The results showed that adoption had no beneficial effect whatever on the IQs of the black, inter-racial, or white children. Their average IQs at age 17 were 89 (black), 98 (inter-racial), and 106 (white). Different IQ tests were used from those in the earlier 1976 report, but they were still approximately 10 years out of date. Three points must therefore be added to the average IQ of the group to which the black children are compared — blacks in the northern states.

>The IQ of northern blacks (adjusted up by three points) was 91 in 1986, so the black adopted children actually had lower IQs (89 vs 91) than northern blacks brought up in their own communities. The same absence of any effect is found for the inter-racial and white children after adjustments are made for the fact that the children were from northern states and that the test norms were obsolete.

[Anonymous No.3549091]

>>3549087

>Note also that the difference between the reported (unadjusted) IQs of black and white children reared in identical environments is 18 points (88 vs 106), slightly greater than the average difference between blacks and whites that has consistently been found since the First World War. Even if adjustments for obsolete test norms and northern origin of the children were not necessary or appropriate, this 18-point difference is very difficult for environmentalists to explain. If rearing environment rather than race accounts for racial differences in IQ, why do these differences remain even when the rearing environment is the same?

>There is only one conclusion to be drawn from these results: being adopted by white college graduates has no beneficial effect whatever on the intelligence of black, white or inter-racial children at the age of 17. Since the results show that the rearing environment has no effect on the IQs of adopted children, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the factors responsible for these different levels of IQ are genetic. Not only do they vindicate the conclusion put forward by Dr. Jensen in 1969. They show that Dr. Jensen underestimated the genetic contribution to the low black IQ. The study by Dr. Scarr and Dr. Weinberg indicates that genetic factors are responsible for the entire black IQ deficit, not for between two-thirds and three-quarters of it as Dr. Jensen had suggested.

>Curiously, in their paper Dr. Scarr and Dr. Weinberg state that their results “demonstrate the strong effects of the rearing environment on IQ.” Their results provide no evidence whatsoever for this statement. Apparently, the wish was father to the thought.

http://www.amren.com/ar/1994/03/index.html

Liberals cannot into facts.

[Anonymous No.3549109]

>>3549017

[Anonymous No.3549123]

>>3549109

I'm not the person you originally replied to, but 800 and 300 don't even show on that graph -.-

[Anonymous No.3549147]

>>3549123
That is because its showing the states means. It is meant to show the strong correlation between math and verbal scores an outlier like 800 math and 300 verbal won't be present because its a specific case.

[Ba No.3549153]

>>3549091
>is told that some orphans had worse conditions than others
>provides averages for entire racial groups as counter-evidence
Did you read what I posted?

[Anonymous No.3549154]

>>3549074
After being called nigger on the internet and in real life for all my life the word no longer holds any actual meaning to me. It's just a word I use to identify black people on the internet :)

[Anonymous No.3549160]

Hello friends,

I would like to invite you to MusikChan.com, a friendly music themed imageboard with mp3 upload and YouTube and soundcloud embed.

See you there :)/

[Anonymous No.3549161]

>>3549160
>>>/mu/

[Ba No.3549163]

>>3549154
I wouldn't. Some people use it to refer to black people in general, but quite a few equate nigger with black but also an idiot/criminal/whatever. I've seen the term used for whites, too.

[Anonymous No.3549175]

god damn i love OP's image.

whites from the poorest score higher than blacks from the richest? holy fuck.

[Xlore !!oIaXoksOFZm No.3549177]

>>3549163
This.

I view nigger as you would view a redneck or wigger for white people.

There are normal black people that actually contribute something and act Civilized, and then there are niggers that cause the somewhere in the 70 percentile for prison entries.

Either way there will always be people that call all black people niggers.
But i just view them as ignorant retards that don't understand that the meaning of words change over time.

[Anonymous No.3549185]

>>3549153
Yes.

>Seeks to disprove and entire finding by few cases
>Doesn't understand averages and correlations

You claimed that they were not reared under the same conditions when they in fact were.
You also provided a counter research which was fallacious and was disproved again by later studies.

Furthermore, Waldman, Weinberg, and Scarr (1994) have concurred the notion that environment past the 32 month mark does not affect intelligence, so you're only left with the "vital" first 3 years for the cause of the gap, apart from the fact that they did not provide any evidence that the original study group had placed blacks of lower quality in comparison to the average black group, or the populace.

Even if so, they'd actually be claiming that the gap is still environmental in origin despite having scoring the exact same score as other blacks in America and other blacks in Africa, despite their 14 year run of a highly privileged surroundings, and despite the fact that the blacks chosen from the northern states have clearly a far better access to nutrition, health services, education welfare and infrastructure than that which would be required to actually explain the none-existent gap between them and other blacks, be it in America or in Africa.

Your hypothesis simply doesn't hold up.

[Anonymous No.3549186]

>>3543220
>Now what?

eliminate programs that target specific races.

[Anonymous No.3549192]

>>3549177
>But i just view them as ignorant retards that don't understand that the meaning of words change over time.

um. but nigger is still used/interpreted by the majority as a pejorative term against blacks.

at least, i think it is. guess it depends on location.

[scipop No.3549202]

>>3549177

>But i just view them as ignorant retards that don't understand that the meaning of words change over time.
>ignorant retards
>niggers

[Ba No.3549218]

>>3549185
-It's about there being no beneficial effect, not there being no effect
-The adjusted scores for northern blacks were higher than those for adopted blacks, as you copypasta'd
-It's fairly obvious that I'm talking about the fact that the children used in the experiment were adopted later and had had more troubled pasts. To take from that that I'd meant the same for all blacks is absurd. There are probably some factors that can increase the IQs of orphans relative to whites (though again, not enough to bridge the 3 point gap in the case of blacks)
I don't really know how to respond to this beyond pointing out that the initial criticism talked specifically about the infants in the experiment, but the supposed rebuttal didn't.
>>3549185
-3 years is, in fact, 36 months not 32.
-I wasn't aware they didn't have any evidence. If that's the case, then they need their shit slapped. Got a copy of the paper? (I can't find it)
-Your argument seems to be that because there are a lot of factors one of them can't be influential.
>>3549186
FFS
partially genetic != entirely genetic. Affirmative action is correcting for racism, not just for lower socio-economic position.

[Anonymous No.3549224]

>>3549218
>Affirmative action is correcting for racism

instead, niggers should just move out. or deal with the racism and enjoy the benefits of living in a white-majority society.

[Xlore !!oIaXoksOFZm No.3549227]

>>3549192
>at least, i think it is. guess it depends on location.

Yes it does depend on location.
Words don't just suddenly change meaning throughout the whole world and a consensus is made.
The change happens gradually over time in different areas until the whole world catches on.
We are in that process right now.
Hundreds of words are going through that process right now.
Especially in English since its the Lingua franca.

[Ba No.3549228]

>>3549224
That's very much a minority position, thank FSM. The whole "deal with it or GTFO" line completely ignores the fact that a country's sole purpose is to protect its citizens

[Anonymous No.3549237]

>>3549228
i've no idea what you're even trying to do with that.

i want niggers out. that's it.

"countries should protect people blah blah blah" is irrelevant if i don't agree with you. i want my country to conform to my desires.

it's not gonna happen, obviously.

[Anonymous No.3549240]

We know coons are inferior. We just have to convinced the brainwashed zionist masses of it. No chance of that though. Nice article, OP.

[Ba No.3549247]

>>3549237
I, and a larger number of people than those who want niggers out, want the people who want niggers out out. What now?

[Anonymous No.3549248]

>>3548812
Nigger.

[Anonymous No.3549250]

>>3549247
nothing, because for now, it's obviously not gonna happen.

i don't get it. what are you doing?

[Anonymous No.3549253]

>>3548812
you're an exception to a rule. your parents must have been pretty smart.

[Ba No.3549256]

>>3549250
What I'm saying is that if we are to start acting on things like what you're saying, you'll be higher up the list. Ergo, the most rational course for you to take if you want to maintain that position is leave the country yourself

[Anonymous No.3549263]

>>3549256
>is that if

yea. IF.

but it's not going to happen. plus, trying to derive principles from people's beliefs/actions seems a bit arbitrary to me.

[Anonymous No.3549264]

While nigger is a fun word, if you are actually racist you are a moron.

G is not a well defined concept. Intelligence tests mostly test the ability to do well on logic games which is skill that can be learned and is why IQ levels have risen about 30 points over the last 100 for all democratic roots.

Cosma Shalzi, who is smarter than you, has much to say on the issue

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/494.html

[Anonymous No.3549265]

>>3548812
>3/4 human
>claiming that non-humans must be a statistical anomaly or the test is fake

[Xlore !!oIaXoksOFZm No.3549277]

>>3549237
>>3549250
>niggers should get out
>whites brought them over in the first place

Blame the retarded southerners for not bringing them back when they were done. Not the blacks.

Maybe then i wouldn't have been born and have to deal with the nagging reality that my black genes are bringing me down.
Its funny because White and blacks are both stupid, and neither realize that because of their idiotic ways mixed people will dominate eventually.

[Anonymous No.3549280]

>>3549154

>calls mother a nigger
>refers blacks as niggers online

Really? Has 4chan/ internet affected you so much that you can type that word out of habit? I like to believe you wouldn't be that impressionable.

Also your mom is a doctor and you call her a nigger.

Why?

[Anonymous No.3549283]

>>3549277
i don't blame blacks for their mistakes just as i don't blame dogs for peeing on the floor.

[Ba No.3549290]

>>3549280
>posts serious response
>uses "WHY" image macro

Really? Has 4chan/ internet affected you so much that you can post that picture out of habit? I like to believe you wouldn't be that impresssionable.

sub-text: Yes, and it doesn't matter

[Anonymous No.3549291]

>>3549280
Not the person you were refering to, but some people really have become that jaded to the word. Its going to end really badly when they go for a late night convenience store run and call the wrong person a nigger.

[Anonymous No.3549308]

>>3549290
Most people don't use images out of habit they use them to convey a feeling or an action. The Why.jpg is most often used to consider the action of trying to understand just a complete lack of motive in doing something.

[Anonymous No.3549313]

>>3549218
>-It's about there being no beneficial effect, not there being no effect
Seeing as how the entire environmental argument holds that a better environment would unequivocally mean a beneficial effect - as that's pretty much the last measure of narrowing the IQ gap - it fails miserably in this perspective.
>-The adjusted scores for northern blacks were higher than those for adopted blacks, as you copypasta'd
The reason being that the more intelligent blacks were able to migrate into better prospective cities and states, not the other way around.
>-It's fairly obvious that I'm talking about the fact that the children used in the experiment were adopted later and had had more troubled pasts.
All of them having a sufficiently troubled past to explain the enormous gap despite being taken at a very early age from a reasonable to a prestigious environment?
The notion is absurd.
>To take from that that I'd meant the same for all blacks is absurd.
No I didn't, I was merely pointing out that you seem to implying a general invalidity based on a small selection ([needs proving]) of the original study group.
>There are probably some factors that can increase the IQs of orphans relative to whites (though again, not enough to bridge the 3 point gap in the case of blacks)
As the current study exhausted nearly all known methods of supposedly augmenting their intelligence and failed, you use the term probably very loosely.
>-3 years is, in fact, 36 months not 32.
No shit Sherlock.
>-I wasn't aware they didn't have any evidence. If that's the case, then they need their shit slapped. Got a copy of the paper? (I can't find it)
Good. As long as you can't provide with an example proving that the team had extreme bias towards the selectees as to skew the results of the experiment, it remains an unsubstantiated claim.

[Anonymous No.3549319]

>>3549313
>-Your argument seems to be that because there are a lot of factors one of them can't be influential.
No, none of them have proven to be influential all the way to downright proving that none of them were in fact influential, as opposing theories had held.

>partially genetic != entirely genetic. Affirmative action is correcting for racism, not just for lower socio-economic position.
Mostly genetic is enough to cut off the multiculturalism farce.

While the environmental argument has up until now increased in the extent of its self-convolution, while the genetic one has stood up perfectly to all predictions and cross examinations, I'm gonna go with Occam's razor on this one.

[Anonymous No.3549324]

>>3549247
Bloody revolution commences, let the best faction wins.
Race traitors will be shot without compunction.

[Ba No.3549327]

>>3549308
most people don't use words out of habit they use them to convey a feeling or an action. The Nigger is most often used to consider the concept of a black person.

[Anonymous No.3549330]

>>3549247
Bloody revolution commences, let the best faction
win.
Race traitors will be shot without compunction.

[Anonymous No.3549333]

Why is this so important? What difference does it make?

[Xlore !!oIaXoksOFZm No.3549341]

>>3549333
Whoever wins gets to gloat that they are superior.

Which is funny since these studies should show aAsians as the master race and not whites.

It's basically retardation at its highest.

[Anonymous No.3549348]

>>3549290

Funny thing is I'm usually the anon that post kooky anime and spiderman reactions to some of my post.

But I felt compelled to use a why pic, partly cause I wanted to and partly cause I couldn't find a better pic at the time.

>>3549291

Well it doesn't even need to be in the middle of the night, just saying it in public can bring unwanted attention to yourself.

[Anonymous No.3549355]

society has no effect, EVERYTHING nowadays is still "natural"

[Ba No.3549358]

>>3549313
Beneficial <span class="math">when[/spoiler] <span class="math">compared[/spoiler] <span class="math">with[/spoiler] <span class="math">those[/spoiler] <span class="math">from[/spoiler] <span class="math">hindering[/spoiler] <span class="math">environments[/spoiler].


>The reason being that the more intelligent blacks were able to migrate into better prospective cities and states, not the other way around.
Unsubstantiated claim is unsubstantiated. They were 17, and consequently weren't migrating anywhere.
>All of them having a sufficiently troubled past to explain the enormous gap despite being taken at a very early age from a reasonable to a prestigious environment?
They had had more foster parents, leading to weaker maternal and paternal ties with their actual parents. I can see it significantly influencing intelligence.
>No I didn't, I was merely pointing out that you seem to implying a general invalidity based on a small selection ([needs proving]) of the original study group.
I claimed it applied for the black kids in the study. For me to claim it was applicable for everyone I'd first have to decide that there WAS a genetic component.
>As the current study exhausted nearly all known methods of supposedly augmenting their intelligence and failed, you use the term probably very loosely.
I didn't see any mention of pre-adoption experience being altered.
>No shit Sherlock.
What I'm trying to say is that your argument is that after 32 months is not the first three years. Also, now you mention it this doesn't seem to be against what I'm saying, which is that in those 32 months experience was less comfortable.
>No, none of them have proven to be influential all the way to downright proving that none of them were in fact influential, as opposing theories had held.
wat
>Mostly genetic is enough to cut off the multiculturalism farce.
Nope. Even if it were entirely genetic I'd still be in favour of affirmative action, because like I said affirmative action is correcting for racism not for environmental conditions.

[Ba No.3549365]

>>3549330
>>3549328
>>3549324
3 posts to get it right? Someone needs to be shot, methinks.

[Anonymous No.3549518]

>>3542839

Let me get this straight:
An arbitrary group of people that you call 'white'
score higher on a test that YOU say measures
'intelligence' than an arbitrary group you call 'black'...
and I should give a shit.... why?

[Anonymous No.3549719]

>/sci/fags not accepting well documented science

What else is new?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21826061

Our results unequivocally confirm that a substantial proportion of individual differences in human intelligence is due to genetic variation, and are consistent with many genes of small effects underlying the additive genetic influences on intelligence.

[Anonymous No.3551254]

HURR A DURR

[Anonymous No.3551381]

>>3549518
arbitrary? So one group just arbitrarily has flat noses, big lips, violent behavior, and are stupid...

[Anonymous No.3551746]

>>3551381
>So one group just arbitrarily has flat noses, big lips

so somali people are not niggers then