Anachronistic anomalies

pt. 4

Without accepting this fact, the IQ approximations of Africans do not make sense in the context of their academic achievements in the US compared to black Americans. For example, when one HBD blogger broke down the IQs of black Americans by state using one of Lynn’s methods for estimating national IQs, he found over 30 states that had black IQ above 89, i.e., higher than the black African immigrant IQ found by Richwine. If these black immigrants really have a representative mean IQ from a normal distribution that is lower than the black mean in 30 whole states, there is no way they would dominate the native black Americans so conspicuously and predictably in all academically elite institutions. The black Caribbean immigrant IQ of 83 (assuming it is represented under “Central America/Carribean”), which is lower than Alabama’s black IQ, is even more implausible in the context of their well-noted achievements. Correcting the different states’ black IQ by subtracting 5 IQ points from each state would still not fix the problem of plausibility: if there is even one state with blacks that are definitely smarter than (or just equal to) the black immigrants, it would be the children of the blacks from that state who would be conspicuously over-represented in those elite programs. There certainly would be no Caribbean names there.
The only plausible way to possibly salvage Richwine’s data is to accept that there are such large variations mediated by highly variable environmental factors (rather than restrictive genetic factors) within the African (or Caribbean) immigrant group that their mean IQ is totally inappropriate to use for estimating social expectations for every black immigrant group within the United States. As the UK data below shows, it is very unlikely that children of immigrants from the Igbo or Yoruba groups of Nigeria or the Ashanti group of Ghana, for example, have an average IQ below the white mean IQ.

Part 5.

The most definitive proof of Africans’ grossly underestimated genotypic IQ (80 according to Lynn, or 70 according to Jensen and Rushton, et al) has come in recent years from the performance of African school children in the UK. These results sparked instant reactions in the IQ debate world as soon as they started being reported by the news media, with some strong hereditarians suddenly becoming some kind of neo-environmentalists just to explain why white school children were not showing the kind of academic superiority over blacks that they have become accustomed to in the United States (wrong tests, declining white culture, an alleged war on whites, etc – the same kinds of reasons they always dismissed from liberal environmentalists explaining black underachievement in the US).
The first report that caused some consternation in the IQ blogosphere indicated that black African pupils were apparently catching up with British white pupils on their GCSE tests and that in fact, they had already overtaken them at the lower end: the poor black kids were now performing better than poor white kids

unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Chisala-3.png

Part 6.

unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Chisala-7.png

As the table above shows, some African nationalities, particularly Ghanaians and Nigerians, score way above the England mean (and the white British mean), while others, like the Somalis and Congolese, score way below (but still not as low as the Portuguese immigrants, apparently). The low scoring African groups are the ones that migrated as refugees and/or could not speak English, besides being very poor. Improvements among the Somalians have been impressive, especially due to programs dedicated to teaching them English.
Although the Chinese and Indians are still very conspicuously above even the best African nationalities, their superiority disappears when the Nigerian and other groups are broken down even further according to their different tribal ethnicities. Groups like the famous Igbo tribe, which has contributed much genetically to the African American blacks, are well known to be high academic achievers within Nigeria. In fact, their performance seems to be at least as high as the “model minority” Chinese and Indians in the UK, as seen when some recent African immigrants are divided into languages spoken at home (which also indicates that these are not multigenerational descendants but children of recent immigrants).

Part 7.

Nisbett (2012) suggests that high SES individuals are more likely to be able to develop their full biological potential, whereas low SES individuals are likely to be hindered in their development by adverse environmental conditions. The same review also points out that adoption studies generally are biased towards including only high and high middle SES adoptive families, meaning that they will tend to overestimate average genetic effects. They also note that studies of adoption from lower-class homes to middle-class homes have shown that such children experience a 12 - 18 pt gain in IQ relative to children who remain in low SES homes. A large number of studies have shown that systemically disadvantaged minorities, such as the African American minority of the United States generally perform worse in the educational system and in intelligence tests than the majority groups or less disadvantaged minorities such as immigrant or "voluntary" minorities, as stated by Neisser.

"The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential."That being said, if we are going to continue with the whole IQ factor and why blacks as an average tend to perform badly academically…

The explanation of these findings may be that children of caste-like minorities, due to the systemic limitations of their prospects of social advancement, do not have "effort optimism", i.e. they do not have the confidence that acquiring the skills valued by majority society, such as those skills measured by IQ tests, is worthwhile. They may even deliberately reject certain behaviors that are seen as "acting white." as covered by Neisser 1996 and Ogbu 1978, 1994

Environmental factors are also why blacks tend to score lower on the iq test. Environmental factors including lead exposure, breast feeding, (as stated by Campbell, 2002) and nutrition (as covered by Ivanovic, 2004 and Salojee and Pettifor, 2001) can significantly affect cognitive development and functioning. As stated by Qian (2005), For iodine deficiency causes a fall, on average, of 12 IQ points.

Such impairments may sometimes be permanent, sometimes be partially or wholly compensated for by later growth. The first two years of life is the critical time for malnutrition, the consequences of which are often irreversible and include poor cognitive development, educability, and future economic productivity. (As covered in The Lancet Series on Maternal and child Undernutrition, 2008)

The African American population of the United States is statistically more likely to be exposed to many detrimental environmental factors such as poorer neighborhoods, schools, nutrition, and prenatal and postnatal health care (Nesbit, 2009 and Cooper 2005).

Mackintosh (2011) points out that for American Blacks infant mortality is about twice as high as for whites, and low birthweight is twice as prevalent. At the same time white mothers are twice as likely to breastfeed their infants, and breastfeeding is highly correlated with IQ for low birthweight infants. In this way a wide number of health related factors that influence IQ are unequally distributed between the two group.

pt. 9

>B-but muh Minnesota test.
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.

Remember when this could have been an interesting thread. I miss those days.

pt. 10

>B-but muh race mixing

Studies have employed different ways of measuring or approximating relative degrees of ancestry from Africa and Europe. One set of studies have used skin color as a measure, and other studies have used blood groups. Loehlin (2000) surveys the literature and argues that the blood groups studies may be seen as providing some support to the genetic hypothesis, even though the correlation between ancestry and IQ was quite low. He finds that studies by Eyferth (1961), Willerman, Naylor & Myrianthopoulos (1970) did not find a correlation between degree of African&/European ancestry and IQ. The latter study did find a difference based on the race of the mother, with children of white mothers with black fathers scoring higher than children of black mothers and white fathers. Loehlin considers that such a finding is compatible with either a genetic or an environmental cause. All in all Loehlin finds admixture studies inconclusive and recommends more research.

>B-but muh brain sizes.

Recent reviews by Nisbett et al. (2012b) and Mackintosh (2011) consider that current data does show an average difference in brain size and head-circumference between American Blacks and Whites, but question whether this has any relevance for the IQ gap. Nesbitt et al. argue that crude brain size is unlikely to be a good measure of IQ; for example, brain size also differs between men and women, but without well documented differences in IQ. At the same time newborn Black children have the same average brain size as Whites, suggesting that the difference in average size could be accounted for by differences in postnatal environment. Several factors that reduce brain size have been demonstrated to disproportionately affect Black children (Nisbett 2012)

>we wuz Paracas, Boskop, Qafzeh, Ayy Lmao N Shit

Pt. 11

>B-but muh brainsizes cont.

Rushton and Ankney do not use raw measurements of cranial capacity, instead they attempt to adjust the values using a mathematical formula that's meant to compensate for the effect of overall body size on brain size, but the formula they use is disputed by other scientists, see cpsimoes.net/artigos/art_reply_rushton.html :

>Two additional points need to be made. Rushton and Ankney (1995) suggest that cranial capacity estimates for Mongoloid-, Caucasoid-, and Negroid-Americans are 1416, 1380, and 1359 cm3, respectively, indicating larger differences than Rushton's (1992) valu es given above for these groups (1464, 1468, 1449cm3). The former values for the three groups represent cranial capacity estimates which are based on values corrected for body parameters (Rushton, 1992). To perform this correction, Rushton used slopes for the log/log plot of brain against body weight which are not appropriate for within- species comparisons (Harvey, 1988). For comparison of individuals drawn from the same species, a slope which is almost horizontal is appropriate, and should be close to t he .08 determined empirically by Reed and Jensen (1993). This is borne out by other available evidence. Wickett et al. (1994) state that for their sample of white women, it would appear that the size of the brain is largely independent of body size (p. 836). Similarly, Jerison (1979) found no significant association between body weight or height and brain weight for men within the age range of 29 to 41 years of age. A conservative conclusion is that there is no legitimate reason for using steep slopes in comparing brain/body size relations across races. As a result, statements about brain size differences between races should not rely on adjusted values, and it is not appropriate to conclude that higher IQ's in Asians are linked to larger brain size.

Pt. 12

Brain sizes cont Rushton's attempt to apply r/K selection theory to different groups of humans is seen as ignorant by actual evolutionary biologists (Rushton was a psychology professor, as far as I know he had no training in evolutionary biology), see scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1327&context=articles and in particular the section titled "Selection Scenario for Race Differences in r and K" which says:
>Rushton’s (1989) third argument was that harsh arctic conditions during the ice age favored a K reproductive strategy and that exposure to these cold conditions was greatest for Orientals, followed by whites and then blacks. This argument disregards the very literature on r and K selection that Rushton used to build his theory. Current theory about r and K selection has its origins in the work of Dobzhansky (1950), who suggested that natural selection operates differently in tropical than in temperate areas. He argued that mortality in temperate climates is affected by physical factors, such as severe storms, that are independent of population density. In these relatively unstable environments, natural selection favors those that take advantage of favorable short-term conditions by having many, rapidly maturing offspring. In contrast, tropical areas have more stable climates where mortality is population dependent. These conditions favor those that invest time and care in a small number of offspring. McArthur and Wilson (1967) labeled these two types of selection as “r selection” and “K selection,” respectively. These types of selection are not limited to temperate and tropical areas-r selection operates on any opportunistic population in unstable, rarefied environments while K selection operates on any equilibrium population in stable, population dense environments (Pianka, 1970, 1978).

Pt. 13

>B-but Rushton says its ALL genetic.

You mean the guy who linked intelligence with penis size with stats he got from playboy magazine. Pity that the other sources which I have used have debunked this bullshit.And to debunk the heredability theory , which is made by Rushton and Jensen
>Mackintosh (2011), pp.338–39 acknowledges that Jensen and Rushton have shown a modest correlation between g-loading, heritability, and the test score gap, but he does not accept that this demonstrates a genetic origin of the gap. He points out that it is exactly in those the tests that Rushton and Jensen consider to have the highest g-loading and heritability such as the Wechsler that has seen the highest increases due to the Flynn effect. This suggests that they are also the most sensitive to environmental changes. And in turn if the highly g-loaded tests are both more liable to environmental influences and as Jensen argues the ones where the black-white gap is most pronounced, it suggests in fact contrary to Jensen's argument that the gap is most likely caused by environmental factors. Mackintosh also argues that Spearman's hypothesis, which he considers to be likely to be correct, simply shows that the test score gap is based on whatever cognitive faculty is central to intelligence - but not what this factor is.

Nisbett et al. (2012), p. 146 make the same point, noting also that the increase in the IQ scores of Black test takers is necessarily also an increase in g.
James Flynn (2012), pp. 140–1 argues that there is an inherent flaw in Jensen's argument that the correlation between g-loadings, test scores and heritability support a genetic cause of the gap. He points out that as the difficulty of a task increases a low performing group will naturally fall further behind, and heritability will therefore also naturally increase. The same holds for increases in performance which will first affect the least difficult tasks, but only gradually affect the most difficult ones. Flynn thus sees the correlation between in g-loading and the test score gap to offer no clue to the cause of the gap.

Hunt (2010), p. 415 states that many of conclusions of Jensen, and his colleagues rest on the validity of Spearman's hypothesis, and the method of correlated vectors used to test it. Hunt points out that other researchers have found this method of calculation to produce false positive results, and that other statistical methods should be used instead. According to Hunt, Jensen and Rushton's frequent claim that Spearman's hypothesis should be regarded as empirical fact does not hold, and that new studies based on better statistical methods would be required to confirm or reject the hypothesis that the correlation between g-loading, heritability and the IQ gap is due to IQ gaps consisting mostly of g.

>dumb inferiority complex

u wot m8?

it is you making these assumptions

Boskop is an African superhuman genius

Paracas is an Incan superhuman genius

Peking Man is the source of super hi-iq Chinese food

>Flynn effect
Stopped reading there. The Flynn effect has nearly ended in African-Americans, and ended decades ago in Danes. This indicates that races have a maximum potential IQ.

80,000 year old Mungo guy of Australia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Mungo_remains

Your logic is astounding. /sarcasm. Reread your post and tell me if you smell bullshit.

Sorry had to go away for a while

Neisser (1996)>"There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential."
Therefore, a high heritability measure does not imply that a trait is genetic or unchangeable, however, as environmental factors that affect all group members equally will not be measured by heritability and the heritability of a trait may also change over time in response to changes in the distribution of genes and environmental factors

In regards to the IQ gap the question becomes whether racial groups can be shown to be influenced by different environmental factors that may account for the observed differences between them. Jensen originally argued that given the high heritability of IQ the only way that the IQ gap could be explained as caused by the environment would be if it could be shown that all blacks were subject to a single "x-factor" which affected no white populations while affecting all black populations equally, as covered by Jensen (1998)

Jensen considered the existence of such an x-factor to be extremely improbable, but Flynn's discovery of the Flynn effect showed that in spite of high heritability environmental factors could cause considerable disparities in IQ between generations of the same population, showing that the existence of such an x-factor was not only possible but real, (Flynn 2012)

Today researchers such as Hunt (2010), Nisbett (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.

>B-but muh Spearman hypothesis

Jensen's MCV has been criticized with regards to the claim that it supports the later formulation of Spearman's hypothesis. Dolan et al. (2004) argue that MCV lacks specificity: that is, that instances not including g differences could create a positive correlation between the magnitude of the group differences and the g-loadings. Dolan et al. (2004) note that they are specifically criticizing MCV as a way of proving that group differences largely or totally represent g differences; they don't argue against Spearman's hypothesis as originally formulated and they do not argue that the larger body of evidence does not support Spearman's hypothesis as later formulated. Hunt and Carlson summarize criticism:
The essence of these objections is that the method of correlated vectors does not consider alternative hypotheses concerning the latent traits that might give rise to the observed difference in test scores. When a more appropriate method of analysis, multigroup confirmatory factor analysis, is applied, it has been found that Spearman's hypothesis (i.e., that the difference is due to differences in general intelligence) is only one of several models that could give rise to the observed distributions in test scores (Dolan, 2000). These findings render the method of correlated vectors ambiguous—which is not the same as saying that the Jensen-Rushton position is incorrect. Our point is that the argument for the default hypothesis is an indirect one. It would be far better if a direct causal argument could be made linking racial/ethnic genetic differences to studies of the development of the brain.

Flynn argues that the most g-loaded and heritable tests are those that have seen the highest increases due to the Flynn effect. More generally, Flynn (2010) has criticized the basic assumption that confirmation of Spearman's hypothesis would support a partially genetic explanation for IQ differences. He argues that environmental causes for average group IQ differences would cause the differences to be greater for more complex tasks.
Here's another link which displays nutrition has a significant effect on intelligence
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19251490/

>B-but Those kids are too young to have any sort of culture. The researchers are just throwing that in their so they get lynched for "scientific racism"!
The kids "ranged in age from 18 to 72 months", and even at 18 months most kids have started talking so obviously plenty of absorption of culture has happened by that age. The paper also mentions that kids in Kenya are punished early on for any kind of disruptive behavior:

>However, children are expected to contribute to household maintenance through participating in daily duties such as child care, fetching water, and herding cattle. For a variety of social and economic reasons, children are expected to do so without causing any disruptions (LeVine, 1988; Oburu & Palmerus, 2003). In addition, discipline strategies vary among households but range from physical punishment to verbal threats and behavior modification—with physical punishment or restraint being most prevalent (Oburu & Palmerus, 2003).

Note that the referenced post by stormfags, therightstuff.biz/2015/09/02/race-and-iq-genes-that-predict-racial-intelligence-differences/ involves the author trying to use published data to draw his own original conclusions, as opposed to just summarizing peer-reviewed studies, so that alone is reason to have some skepticism about his analysis. Also, one thing to keep in mind is that the current thinking is that the genetic component of IQ involves something on the order of 10,000 different alleles which individually only contribute some small fraction of an IQ point, see arxiv.org/abs/1408.3421 and blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/08/half-the-variation-in-i-q-is-due-to-genes/#.V4XZQFeOLqF

…so, those 14 alleles in the study cited in the rightstuff.biz post would probably only have a very small effect on IQ taken together.
Still, if we treat those 14 alleles as a random sample from all the IQ-related alleles out there, the fact that the graphs show 13 out of 14 have a greater frequency in whites than blacks might suggest this is true more often than not for all the other alleles. But I see a problem with the idea that they're a random sample: the post specifically mentions that they were found by looking for IQ-correlated alleles in an exclusively sample. Now, suppose that most individual alleles have somewhat different frequencies in white and black populations just due to genetic drift (random changes in frequencies not due to selection), but that in the absence of significantly different selection for intelligence, about half of the intelligence-boosting alleles have greater frequency in whites and about half have greater frequencies in blacks.

But wouldn't it be true in this case that if you searched specifically for alleles that had significant correlations with IQ in a population, your filter would be more likely to catch the alleles that occur more frequently in whites if you looked at a white population, and more likely to catch the alleles that occur more frequently in blacks if you looked at a black population? In that case the sample isn't really random with respect to all 10,000 IQ-influencing alleles, and the fact that these 14 show up with greater frequency in whites doesn't tell you much.

>B-but they enter puberty earlier than us health.usnews.com/health-news/health-wellness/articles/2015/04/17/why-kids-are-hitting-puberty-earlier-than-ever

>H-heh, surely you don't believe in socio economic factors affect other races
medium.com/utopia-for-realists/why-do-the-poor-make-such-poor-decisions-f05d84c44f1a#.szu5juwgb
"Ten years after the casino’s arrival, Costello’s findings showed that the younger the age at which children escaped poverty, the better their teenage mental health. Among her youngest age cohort, Costello observed a “dramatic decrease” in criminal conduct. In fact, the Cherokee children in her study were now better behaved than the control group.
On seeing the data, Costello’s first reaction was disbelief. “The expectation is that social interventions have relatively small effects,” she later said. “This one had quite large effects.” Professor Costello calculated that the extra $4,000 per annum resulted in an additional year of educational attainment by age 21 and reduced the chance of a criminal record at age 16 by 22%."

"“Our effects correspond to between 13 and 14 IQ points,” Shafir says. “That’s comparable to losing a night’s sleep or the effects of alcoholism.” What’s remarkable is that we could have figured all this out 30 years ago. Shafir and Mullainathan weren’t relying on anything so complicated as brain scans. “Economists have been studying poverty for years and psychologists have been studying cognitive limitations for years,” Shafir explains. “We just put two and two together.”
It all started a few years ago with a series of experiments conducted at a typical American mall. Shoppers were stopped to ask what they would do if they had to pay to get their car fixed. Some were presented with a $150 repair job, others with one costing $1,500. Would they pay it all in one go, get a loan, work overtime, or put off the repairs? While the mall-goers were mulling it over, they were subjected to a series of cognitive tests. In the case of the less expensive repairs, people with a low income scored about the same as those with a high income. But faced with a $1,500 repair job, poor people scored considerably lower. The mere thought of a major financial setback impaired their cognitive ability.
Shafir and his fellow researchers corrected for all possible variables in the mall survey, but there was one factor they couldn’t resolve: The rich folks and the poor folks questioned weren’t the same people. Ideally, they’d be able to repeat the survey with subjects who were poor at one moment and rich the next.
Shafir found what he was looking for some 8,000 miles away in the districts of Vilupuram and Tiruvannamalai in rural India. The conditions were perfect; as it happened, the area’s sugarcane farmers collect 60% of their annual income all at once right after the harvest. This means they are flush one part of the year and poor the other.

So how did they do in the experiment?
At the time when they were comparatively poor, they scored substantially worse on the cognitive tests, not because they had become dumber people somehow—they were still the same Indian sugarcane farmers, after all—but purely and simply because their mental bandwidth was compromised."

Aside from looking for sources, I have some criticisms of some of these. The first of those images seems to be by someone who doesn't really understand statistics–what is meant by "the area of overlap between races", given that at pretty much any IQ score found in humans, you can find both blacks and whites with that score? And what does it mean statistically to say "most black people and most white people show no statistical difference in their score", when for any given IQ score the fraction of the black population with that score and the fraction of the white population with that score will differ at least somewhat?

Further more, be free to watch The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education page at jbhe.com/latest/index012209_p.html – note the style of white on blue lettering is the same as in their other graphs like the ones at jbhe.com/latest/index021209.html –
serc.carleton.edu/sage2yc/broadenparticipation/stereotype/stereotype.html
Or perhaps be free to read these articles.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6223968.stm and the second comes from the article at dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2670433/Black-pupils-achieved-biggest-rise-test-exam-results-ethnic-group.html

As written in this article humanvarieties.org/2013/05/03/hvgiq-bermuda/ , the author writes that the graph "shows the Achievement Quotients for all four groups, normalized against the UK TIMSS results". Not sure what procedure he used but he gives as a source for the Bermuda data p. 11 of the file at humanvarietiesfiles.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/2006-riley-alls.pdf (maybe he averaged together the scores on the four types of tests shown in fig. 13 on that page, then used the "UK TIMSS results" to normalize the numbers in some way). To further expand on how Environments can lead to poor IQ as a result of unhealthy areas, be free to read motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health
>B-But the statistical evidence clearly shows that Brits do better than blacks?
What statistical evidence are you talking about? The second graph in shows that black from Sierra Leone, Ghana, and Nigeria all do better than whites at the GCSE. These graphs don't really address the scores of all whites vs. all blacks in the UK, but the article at theguardian.com/education/2016/apr/04/white-children-falling-behind-other-groups-at-gcse confirms that blacks do better overall than whites.
>But That's without mentioning that GSCE scores don't correlate with IQ!
The correlation is 0.81 (1.0 being a perfect correlation, so that's pretty strong): drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/11/iq-and-gcse-results-in-england-r081.html

>Or that socio-economic adjustments group Irish travellers with the poorest of Brits - both of whom are a minority of delinquents!
But the poorest of blacks are also included, so why shouldn't it balance out, especially since poverty.org.uk/06/index.shtml shows a higher proportion of blacks are poor in the UK? As for the Irish travellers, they are a tiny minority of the population (about 0.5% of the UK population according to itmtrav.ie/irishtravellers ) so excluding them would presumably make very little difference, and anyway there is probably very little genetic difference between them and other whites in the UK.

>Heh, well, I'd be interested in how you explain away the fact that there are more blacks out of work and in jail!
To what degree would that difference decrease if you control for income? Poorer people of any race are more likely to be out of work or in jail. In the U.S. I know blacks still do have a higher crime rate even when you control for income, but I wonder if that would be true in the UK given the higher levels of academic achievement.

>B-but n-niggers can't recognize themselves in the mirror at ages up to 6 years

I assume you're referring to the article about giving Kenyan children the mirror test at saboteur365.wordpress.com/2015/08/13/the-mirror-test-white-babies-recognize-themselves-at-15-months-black-children-not-until-6-years-science-video/ which was linked at , but if you look at the original research paper at www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology-2010-Broesch- Cultural Variations in Children's Mirror Self-Recognition.pdf you'll see the authors put forward evidence the kids did recognize themselves but froze up rather than wiping the mark off their forehead because of how they'd been socialized:

>It is possible but unlikely that these children, up to 72 months of age, did not recognize them- selves in the mirror. Although the data presented here do not directly address the question of why they did not show signs of self-oriented behavior, we speculate that these are false negative responses. We speculate that children are recognizing their image with a distinct mark on their forehead but do not know the appropriate and acceptable response. The fact that these children respond with overwhelming inhibition by freezing suggests that they may be expressing social compliance rather than a lack of self-recognition. More research is needed to test our social com- pliance interpretation, by prompting the child “to get it” (Nielsen et al., 2006), by changing the kind of mark placed on the child’s forehead (e.g., sticker or fake familiar vs. unfamiliar insect on the forehead for mirror mark testing), or by further investigating the extent to which social com- pliance varies between Kenyan and North American children.
And of course there is no evidence that black kids in Western countries do any worse on the mirror test than white kids.

The problem with "race realists" is they can't despook themselves from arbitrary societal conventions of "race". They will defend it at all costs, even if that means purposely misrepresenting others arguments. They know that we know human variation exists, but they like to beg the question in an attempt to convince themselves.
The human variation that they cite is precisely the reason race doesn't exist. Humans exist on gradients, where you draw the lines is completely arbitrary and varies from culture to culture and person to person. Even on stormfront they constantly argue over what "white" really is, if there are subcategories of "whiteness", and how "pure" you have to be to be considered truly "white". Yet these same people will insist that "white" exists in some absolute empirical form. The amount of mental backflips they have to do to keep their ideology from crumbling is mind-blowing.

tl;dr blacks are not subhuman, they are not dumb as a race. Read these. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_inventors_and_scientists en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_jurists Fucking kill yourselves you incompetent stormfags. But be free to link me with "notpoliticallycorrect" articles, again and again and again.

the fuck dude, nobody said anything about race and intelligence.

Haplogroup X2 is one of the rarest mtdna haplogroups, but it's one of the most widespread geographically.

The people who have the highest incidence of it are the Druze, Orkney Islanders, and Algonquin speakers, yet it's almost completely absent from Siberia where Native Americans are theorized to have come from. There's no evidence (yet) of the specific Algonquin haplogroup X2a originating in the Near East or Europe, but the thing's still a bit of a mystery.

> ancient druze ancestors of native americans

sounds like the mormons are onto something big

how about modern Liujang Man from China circa 159,000 BP?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liujiang_man

doesnt look like a Qafzeh though

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skhul_and_Qafzeh_hominids&oldid=487907008#Skhul_9

>B-b-but
You spent the entire thread responding to a nonexistent enemy.
How does it feel to be crazy?

Bix nood ooga booga get triggered for life
t. Fucking mixed dude

Nice continuum fallacy bro

>One guy so insecure about being black that he copy and pastes an entire study along with his own annotations, because he truly believes he wuz a kang

Thank fuck im not that guy.

>disregarding the most recent findings
Bruce Lahn and Robert Putnam
Both were suppressed because their findings "disagreed" with the narrative.

Funny how all your citations have one political leaning and seem to come to a single consensus.
I am going to trust the Chinese on this one as their science seems to be less "politicized" at least they aren't stifling research.
Blacks are dumb as a race, its genetic, if you're not a racist then this shouldn't bother you.

biomedsciences.uchicago.edu/page/bruce-lahn-phd
>notpoliticallycorrect articles
please go away.

and the Homo Erectus that existed in China as recently as 10,000 years ago

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Deer_Cave_people

also a hobbit in Indonesia from 10,000 years ago

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis