Does /pol/ ruin everything?

This delusion. Do you think intelligence isn't genetic, and that there aren't inherent intelligence differences between races?

Your pic related is complete shit too. He simply rephrases the question that he claims is meaningless and then blames white people for the fact that Sub-saharan Africans never created a written language in the millenia before Europeans bought people that Africans had already enslaved. Nor are his comparisons valid. Europe saw Greece, Rome, Constantinople. Multiple incredibly advanced cultures, and there is simply nothing comparable in all of Sub-Saharan history.

>Do you think intelligence isn't genetic, and that there aren't inherent intelligence differences between races?
the thing is there really aren't "races" though. Humans are rediculously closely related genetically. I'm open to there being differences between africans, europeans, etc in IQ due to genetics but the most of the differences we see in IQ are better explained by other factors. IQ is definitely highly influenced by your education and environment

Sorry, I lost the link to the post.

This was on my clipboard history so it might be it:
Basically a topic about which boards hate /pol/ and why. And he said Veeky Forums is justified in hating /pol/.

/pol/ is unironically always right

>the thing is there really aren't "races" though.

Geneticists have no real consensus on what defines race. There are many different debatable models.

Yeah right, because their outdated info graphs and conspiracy theories haven't been proven wrong before... Oh wait.

Nope this is all wishful thinking.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

>The general figure for the heritability of IQ, according to an authoritative American Psychological Association report, is 0.45 for children, and rises to around 0.75 for late teens and adults.
>.75 for late teens and adults

Education has minimal effects on IQ. Environment (Nutrition, toxins) does play a role. But genetics is the single biggest factor by far.

>There aren't 'races'

I disagree with this thinking too. Look at biological term 'subspecies'. It is in itself a concept without clear defining lines, but still useful. There is larger genetic variation among humans than in many subspecies of animals.

If we were talking about any other species but our own, you wouldn't be arguing against it.

Intelligence is partly genetic, the rest is influenced by socio economic factors, cultures and exposure to others.

Doesn't stop the fact that there (and have been) black scientists, leaders, philosophers, monarchs, musicians and inventors, as well as those who out perform other students.

Your bigotry is showing.

my point is that humans are very closely related. races in the sense commonly used on here denotes what are practically different sub species of homo sapiens, which isn't true at all. 50,000 years ago there was a severe bottle neck event in the human gene pool

>Education has minimal effects on IQ. Environment (Nutrition, toxins) does play a role. But genetics is the single biggest factor by far.

Education is an environmental factor.

>There is larger genetic variation among humans than in many subspecies of animals.

And there is more genetic variation between two chimps in different parts of a forest than between different races.

>If there's one thing the rest of us can agree on, it's that smug centrist fucks are cowards who don't have strong convictions.

Wow, sweeping generalizations. On a less inflammatory note, I thought Centrists usually like aspects of the left and right, but disagree with them enough to not pick a side.
As for the /pol/ and /leftypol/, it absolutely baffles me how they think they're better than each other when they both circlejerk to their precious revisions of history.

You also haven't read

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

>Today researchers such as Hunt (2010), Nisbett et al. (2012) and Mackintosh (2011) consider that rather than a single factor accounting for the entire gap, probably many different environmental factors differ systematically between the environments of White and Black people converge to create part of the gap and perhaps all of it. They argue that it does not make sense to talk about a single universal heritability figure for IQ, rather, they state, heritability of IQ varies between and within groups. They point specifically to studies showing a higher heritability of test scores in White and medium-high SES families, but considerably lower heritability for Black and low-SES families. This they interpret to mean that children who grow up with limited resources do not get to develop their full genetic potential.[24]

I don't think you understand how statistics works.

Nobody denies that the far right of the bell curve exists for all races, what we are debating is that where the mean lies. And in every scientific test we see that the mean for each race is different, even in experiments designed to rule out socioeconomic and cultural factors (twin adoption studies).

Facing the truth isn't bigotry. I have made no bigoted statements. You simply are anti-science and wish for reality to conform to your dogma.

As an added bonus, name me black scientists on par with Kepler, Newton, Einstein, or Maxwell.

Sadly this.

I'm centrist, due to me seeing pros and cons on either side, but there is often this inate ideology of superiority to one another as they rely on stereotypes (which sadly, are based on reality)

Both sides however do rely on cherry picked/ out dated information to support their claims.

>Education is an environmental factor.

And one that doesn't influence IQ. You're also playing semantics when I was replying to a poster that separated it from more traditional environmental factors such as the air and water.

Holocaust denial and communist denial is the same pole shit that need to fuck off back to their containment board

What the fuck is "communist denial"?

>anti science

Ahh I suppose you are referring to the Minnesota test.

It's funny because

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

Debunks that certain people are smarter than the other.

>golden mean fallacy
>anyone who takes a middle ground stance on any issue believes that the middle ground stance is always the best stance on every issue
when will this meme end

>Debunks that certain people are smarter than the other.

No it doesn't. Have you even read the summary? It claims it's still an ongoing debate that requires more research.

>debunks that some people are smarter than the other

So you think everyone in the world has equal intelligence to Einstein?

>Nobody denies that the far right of the bell curve exists for all races,
>As an added bonus, name me black scientists on par with Kepler, Newton, Einstein, or Maxwell.
Wait which is it?

Actually he's referring to literally every study into race and intelligence over the last 50 years, all of which have proven a consistent, large, gap in the differences between IQs of various races.

Twin studies completely unrelated to race have proven that 60-70% of IQ is inherited. Those two facts alone, taken together, mean that there is almost certainly a genetic racial IQ gap. Its completely ridiculous the depths to which people go to avoid this obvious fact.

Yeah, I'm just fed up with the whole left vs. right dichotomy that won't let people work together on anything.

But I'd be lying if I said I was truly neutral. I lean to the right a bit on a lot of things.

Name a twin adoption study that concludes that race is genetic.

Twin Adoption studies almost universally show that while blacks raised by whites are still of lower IQ, they are higher than before and conclude that this implies that while other sociological factors exist,

For example, this is a study that /pol/ likes to throw around in infographics to show black people are genetically inferior. kjplanet.com/amp-31-10-726.pdf

Actually read it and see if it concludes what they say it does.

>Dodges question
>Still doesn't understand statistics

Because whites are one standard deviation up, they have 15x as many people in the 130+ range per population.

The two statements don't contradict at all, you're just so much in denial of reality you don't even want to try to understand the truth.

*while other sociological factors exist, raised by white families is a major factor in the IQ difference.

>Blacks raised by whites are still of lower IQ

You imbecile, that literally proves that IQ has a large genetic component, as non-race related twin studies have shown. This isn't an "either/or" issue, both genetics and environment can play a role in IQ.

No.

What I'm saying is that no race is smarter than the other as you get geniuses and retards from all sides, regardless of ethnicity.

And as for the ongoing debate, modern research pretty much strides towards socio economic factors mixed with genetics and culture to determine what makes people the way they do.

So by all means, if there is a new form of research that debunks that one race is superior than the other then by all means they'll post it forward.

But it doesn't stop the closing iq gap between whites and blacks.

I wasn't that user, it just seemed like your question implied there were none in that IQ range. My bad. How does Clifford Victor Johnson rank?

How?

There are many other environmental factors besides who you parenting. The difference could be made up of everything else. Reminder that the average IQ of black people raised by white parents 7 years old or younger tested in the US is over 100.

None of those twin adoption studies conclude a genetic difference is the reason why and almost all posit other environmental issues. Why not just take it from the scientists.

>kjplanet.com/amp-31-10-726.pdf

So they roll blacks into "blacks and interracial" so as to obfuscate the results. They then see the gap is somewhat closes (as would be expected from mixed parentage) and go back to overemphasize the importance of environment.

The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (1976) examined the IQ test scores of 122 adopted children and 143 nonadopted children reared by advantaged white families. The children were restudied ten years later.[125][126][127] The study found higher IQ for whites compared to blacks, both at age 7 and age 17.[125] Rushton & Jensen (2005) cite the Minnesota study as providing support to a genetic explanation. Nonetheless, acknowledging the existence of confounding factors, Scarr and Weinberg the authors of the original study, did not themselves consider that it provided support for either the hereditarian or environmentalist view.[128]

Three other adoption studies found contrary evidence to the Minnesota study, lending support to a mostly environmental hypothesis:

Eyferth (1961) studied the out-of-wedlock children of black and white soldiers stationed in Germany after World War 2 and then raised by white German mothers and found no significant differences.
Tizard et al. (1972) studied black (African and West Indian), white, and mixed-race children raised in British long-stay residential nurseries. Three out of four tests found no significant differences. One test found higher scores for non-whites.
Moore (1986) compared black and mixed-race children adopted by either black or white middle-class families in the United States. Moore observed that 23 black and interracial children raised by white parents had a significantly higher mean score than 23 age-matched children raised by black parents (117 vs 104), and argued that differences in early socialization explained these differences.

>genetic similarity between twins is same as racial similarity

60-70% suggests the base intelligence of an individual is attributable to genetics only that much. So you have: genes / nurture.

Then you have to account for the difference of that 60% between individuals within certain groups. Those groups can be anything, like large noses or connected earlobes or eye color or geographic location or skin color.
That still leaves 40% of it up to environment. If one group has such disproportionate amounts of wealth that they do not need any more to reach their genetic potential, then it seems justified to want to distribute that wealth so that those born without the capability to live up to their genetic potential get the opportunity to do so, to compete.
That's not to say most people aren't limited already and the super rich may be robbing the populace of a couple IQ points.
The whole problem with leftist movements is they just attack the rich generally and not specific corporations; guaranteeing that innocent corporations become collateral damage and also ensuring those who are rich enough to afford it, to continue to manipulate tax loopholes.
The biggest problem is that the rich hijack the political left and make it so if their corruption is going to be put in check, then they're going to make it target everyone. Targeting the .1% makes them hijack your movement and say instead: target the 1%. This makes people on the right recoil, not wanting to subject an innocent business to such injustices. The Left just falls hook line and sinker to punish broadly instead of investigating and really rooting out corruption, they do carpet bombing instead of precision drone strikes.

I'm not talking about racial studies, I'm talking about twin studies. And twin studies have repeatedly concluded that between 60-70% of your IQ on average is genetically inherited.

Those studies have nothing to do with race, yet repeatedly prove a large genetic component.

(cont)

Rushton and Jensen have argued that unlike the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, these studies did not retest the children post-adolescence when heritability of IQ would presumably be higher.[23][46] Nisbett (2009, p. 226) however point out that the difference in heritability between ages 7 and 17 are quite small, and that consequently this is no reason to disregard Moore's findings.

Frydman and Lynn (1989) showed a mean IQ of 119 for Korean infants adopted by Belgian families. After correcting for the Flynn effect, the IQ of the adopted Korean children was still 10 points higher than the indigenous Belgian children.[129][20][130]

Reviewing the evidence from adoption studies Mackintosh considers the studies by Tizard and Eyferth to be inconclusive, and the Minnesota study to be consistent only with a partial genetic hypothesis. On the whole he finds that environmental and genetic variables remain confounded and considers evidence from adoption studies inconclusive on the whole, and fully compatible with a 100% environmental explanation

>If there's one thing the rest of us can agree on, it's that smug centrist fucks are cowards who don't have strong convictions.
Extremist centrism ends up as fascism.

>How does Clifford Victor Johnson rank?

Well, I will admit that I did not know him off the bat, but looked him up.

Based on my perusing, he is certainly not a poor theorist. As a scientist he certainly ranks higher than say Neil Degrasse Tyson (who like Bill Nye isn't really a scientist but a science communicator).

He's not a Newton, but he is (as far as I can tell perusing his work) as good as your average theoretical physicist today. I would remind you that even throughout history there have been many, many, many scientists that contributed to their fields, but are essentially nameless in terms of history. That's not to say they are unimportant, on the contrary, their work is vital. Only the very rare person that makes a paradigm shifting contribution gets remembered (and indeed many would argue that who we remember isn't entirely 'fair').

The closest thing today we have to one of those people is Edward Witten.

>le holocaust don't real
>africa never had civilization
>*ignores that half of egypt was black and this coincidentally is the part with the most pyramids*
>*says west african civilziations weren't real civilization despite a 14th century king there being the richest man in the world*
>east africa doesn't count because they live near arabs!
>Veeky Forums is a christian board!
>jews are satanic!
/pol/ crossies in a nutshell

Which is why I avoid Extremist Centrism.
Hell, I avoid Extremism in all its forms.

Since there are approximately more the zero communists on Veeky Forums, /pol/tards feel they're immune from being accused of invading /pol/ and are in fact a persecuted minority since this board isn't exactly like /pol/.

I actually want to add here something I read recently (I need to confirm it's veracity, but the source was good). Essentially we find the people who often make important contributions aren't the 200 IQ super-mutants. We actually find it's people in the 120-130 range. So intelligent, but not crazy outlier areas. Richard Feynman would be an example.

I have my own personal theory as for why this is (people too far out on the bell curve simply can't really effectively work with the rest of society, and progress requires teamwork). But it seems pretty true. Look at the 'smartest man in the world' today by IQ tests. None of them have really contributed. One of them wrote a long philosophical treatise he claims proves God's existence and many academics have claimed it incomprehensible gibberish.

And to add on to that because I think I understand more of where you're coming from. As I said previously, science moves on the back of many nameless nobodies who nevertheless were smart and necessary. If most of your society does have an IQ too low to do such work, your outliers are limited in what they can personally achieve as well. Science is a cultural phenomenon, and culture is a creation of the masses. Imagine how different our culture would be if the bottom half of the curve dropped out. Media, movies, politicians, all of this stuff designed to have to appeal to a majority that doesn't strive to higher thinking would change drastically to appeal to people who actually enjoy complicated plots and substantive arguments.

But instead we have politicians that can justify policies by saying "It's 2016" and their constituents eat it up because that appeals to them. And movies that are just remakes of earlier movies. And songs that are three words repeated for several minutes.

>Your bigotry is showing.
Alright go back to fucking Reddit or Tumblr or Veeky Forums or wherever you fucking came from you cunt. Jesus Christ, you're on Veeky Forums and you're getting flustered at people being ""bigots""

This meta whiny bullshit should fuck off.

/pol/tards have their little ideology and cannot interpret history or philosophy in any way other than through the lens of their ideology

For example many of them cannot understand philosophy in terms that are not left vs right (and isn't even aware what it means to be left or right changes every 8 years). Or they may understand everything as a meta narrative about white race vs other races. Likewise Jews in history must always be the bad guy in their narrative. If they are Christian than Christians of their nomination are always the good guys and philosophers that speak ill of the religion are bad guys.

It's not just that they have their own meta-narrative but they can't view things in any other way.

>What are major points of contention in Veeky Forums that /pol/ people try to infect?
I spot /pol/ by their memes and shitposts, not by the topic they discuss.

In general though they come in a few different classes, the most dedicated are the Christcucks, there's only a few but they're prolific and probably the busiest shitposters in this board. Then you've got /leftypol/, annoying retards like your average /pol/ack, they can be found shitting up any thread related to Karl Marx. Thankfully they stay in their Marxist threads for the most part so they can be easily avoided. The worst group in my opinion are the cuckposters. An insane horde of underage /pol/ and /r9k/ virgins who rabidly shitpost about niggers/women/jews/degeneracy/muslims, whatever. They love to talk about sex and violence and get most of their opinions from ben garrison cartoons. To be ignored, don't give them ammo for shitposting. The most respectable group (thought that's not saying much) are the Evola and Spengler lovers. They are actually polite and willing to have a discussion unlike most /pol/acks, but they are very emotional and driven by longing for a fantasy past, they hate the modern world and are very unreceptive of anything that suggests that modern life isn't actually awful.

this is an excellent way of putting it

Ben Garrison isn't an actual Stormfront white supremacist you know.

I'd like you to tell me how Jewish domination of media isn't a reality.

I'll wait.

Unfortunately, few of the Evola lovers have actually read him.

>that happened while Africa was being exploited and colonized
>most of Africa wasn't colonized until the 1880's
>industrialization began for most of Europe in the early 19th century
He had some valid points and then he fell off the wagon.

We all love a good nigger/Jew joke, we don't mind discussing the Holocaust/Hitler on occasion but not all the fucking time with the same fucking infographs

I would definitely say that so far Veeky Forums has been quite dissapointing. It is like the people who felt uncomfortable of the /pol/ influence gathered here for a "safe space" and then proceeded to shoo away those with a different opinion. Even moderate ones. I dont like /pol/ edgy humour but a board with unironical communists who scream about the pol boogyman is not good either. I also have the feeling that most of the people here are smug second year american college students. I hoped this would be like /int/ before it turned to cancer with generals but it has not.

>LE CHRISTKEKS XD
Every time
plebbit is no more welcome than /pol/

It isn't.

Do they dominate Chink Media? Japs? Indians? No.

Then it isn't.

>They whine about blacks not accomplishing anything (which is true)
Fixed for you.
Inb4 peanut butter

>every right winger is stupid (case and point being Milo Yiannopolous and Steven Crowder)
You could at least have chosen none memes to prove your point. There are tons of brilliant right wing thinkers and polititians out there.

>most of the differences we see in IQ are better explained by other factors
Then why the poor areas of China before industrialization scored higher than most of Europe? The meme that Africans have low IQ all over the world due oppression is dumb.

>he thinks Ben Garrison is a legit skinhead neo-nazi
he's just a poor poor libertarian cartoonist

Seriously

>go into a thread on the fall of Rome which I wrote my dissertation on
>people claiming it fell due to degeneracy parroting a debunked 250 years old idea
>any well thought out post ignored while vitriol between people with only a cursory knowledge of tge period gets multiple replies
>fake Christians and atheists shitpost continuously in the thread

the fall of Rome or the Roman Empire?
or just the West?

it's like this

There aren't you idiot, thanks to Toba and similar fuckups all humans are pretty much cousin fuckers. Distant-cousin fuckers but we're all one big fucked up family.

He is now kek.

Pretty much this. We'd really benefit from having thread IDs like they have on /pol/

>the thing is there really aren't "races" though

this is a breed

more than any specific form of shitposting it is a general tendency to see all of history as a continuous retrograde piss contest, every event or thing being seen in terms of superiority/inferiority or achievement/failure, as if the protagonists of historic events were supposed to percieve themselves as players in a firaxis strategy game and do their best to reach high score, and in the same sense they simply cannot into complex ethnogenesis

other than that theres this infantile reactionary stance they take about everything, from art to economy to philosophy to religion to just everything, its like a special brand of edgy

another thing is reducing history to being 90% about war and 'great men', but thats not just a /pol/ thing, Veeky Forums does this generaly

realy i blame strategy games, people even admit they got interested in history based on EU or CiV

So? The races are analogous to breeds.

We breed to adapt to our environments and develop different racial traits from other populations as a result. The differences between a Japanese man and an Australian aborigine are just as clear as those between a chihuahua and a great dane.

T - white guilt faggot, black supremacist and proud stepfather of two

If anything this place is becoming /leftypol/, there's like a dozen Marxism threads a day.

Anything that is speaks negatively about Marxism gets a 'go back to /pol/' response.

Believing that the progress of civilisations is purely circumstancial and the genetics of the populations has had no effect on them is just as stupid as thinking that their success is purely because of genetics.

But the sjws ITT don't have a problem with that

This absolutely

'I'm actually superior to both the left and right', so retarded. Some things are objectively bad and some good.

insofar as both are usually manlets, I don't follow.

>What are major points of contention in Veeky Forums that /pol/ people try to infect?

Nordicism, Germanbooism, Hitler did nuffin wrong, le racial superiority.

Something along those lines. Just ignore & hide these posters, there aren't that many anyway.

>other opinions trigger me

No. They bore me.

It's regurgitation of unproven and/or flat out wrong stuff. Horribly boring.

>any opinion that the does not line up with my SJW agenda is "boring"

Since you are linking shitty tabloid articles, I'll link an actual paper which says the opposite of what you are saying, conservatives have shown to be more intelligent than liberals:

>sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614001081

they realy arent, they are different phenotypes of human, neither one of them fits into a handbag

now phenotype might be seen as somewhat analogous to breed, but the problem with race is that as a generalised term its exactly the opposite case, so by race logic a chihuahua, might not be the same as a great dane but it would be the same as a german doga since they are both black with brown, and have a similar physiognomy, so the race way of sorting them would be together, the way racial logic puts sentinelese and nigerians, for example in the same group, even tho thats equaly retarded as the example above

humans exist in phenotypes, or if were gona go by biology, as living beings they all appear as different taxa, these are all different, all over the place, race is just a generalisation based on arbitrary observed patterns, considering it has to do with humans of all things its a dumb generalisation, even the basic way we systematise mushrooms by external traits is way more complex than that

A different mindset, more than anything. /pol/ says race is the fundamental level of humanity but most others disagree.

>thread about /pol/ ruining things
>/pol/ ruins it

>massive disparity in size and shape
>the same as two adult humans of the same size and shape with minor facial differences

>half of egypt was black
how many times do I have to yell at people about the difference between north africa and sub saharan africa?

>>the same as two adult humans of the same size and shape with minor facial differences and huge differences on intelligence

>it's that way because i say it is!

nice evidence you faggot woman

>*says west african civilziations weren't real civilization despite a 14th century king there being the richest man in the world*

That's a pop history meme. Mansa Musa was not the richest man in the world.

>nice evidence you faggot woman
Where is your evidence either? Blacks were mostly slaves under Egyptian rule. The Kangz and Shiet thing is just stupid revisionism like Nordicist theories.

>dogs are all the same intelligence