"Academic Racism": edgelords stay out

I'm saying race exists but that this kind of beta academic autism, attempting to sanitize and justify racism is for fags and that all of these nerds need to be gassed.

yes, that's what makes it a turnoff for me. it's gross.

but also, even if there's a grain of truth to it, are these things that we should be discussing?

>are these things that we should be discussing?
No, we should be out burning down cities, bludgeoning skulls and amassing war brides

Yesterday, i tried to talk about the first argument you mention in /pol/ (i know, i know). And since i'm way too lazy to do it all over again, i'll just copy-paste the whole thing here for you.
"Boy, you guys here in /pol/ know shit about politics, you know that right? /pol/ is literally the reflection of all the reasons why America (as a continent, not just the U.S.A.) is incapable of doing a functional democracy. Basically, to have a successful democracy, you need critical and educated people so everyone understands what they are voting for and what they are against, but, that's literally what Americans lack: critical thinking and an actual education. People here probably distrust scientific studies and statistics, and get their news from Infowars without understanding why is that a really stupid thing to do, just to give an example. I hope you guys think you're "awake" and on the "right side" of history just because someone agrees with your view of reality. Lol. BTW, this includes people from the right and left, not just right, to make things clear."

CONTINUES IN THE REPLY

the reply by another user:

"To have a successful 1 st world country you need to have the average IQ above 95. Here is where you mexicans fail with your subhuman low intelligence.

America is ruined by people like you and negroes."

"If Mexicans are as intelligent as whites why is their country a 2nd world shithole?

Why do africans who have low IQ just happen to live in 3rd world?

Why is there not a single 1 st world country with an IQ below 95?"

My reply to that:

"
IQ is not a meaningful measure anymore, not much at least.
psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1987-17534-001
"The hypothesis that best fits the results is that IQ tests do not measure intelligence but rather a correlate with a weak causal link to intelligence."

Now, you need a lot of citations to sustain whatever you're trying to say. First, where are the statistics for Africans and Mexicans IQ, the source? Where are the studies that demonstrate that IQ defines the conditions of a country? And why does it matter if IQ is a "weak correlation with intelligence"? How do you know the relation is not backwards? Maybe bad conditions influence bad performances in IQ testing, and these conditions are not necessarily due to the people but other variables. There are literally a TON of explanations to your argument that doesn't necessarily imply what you are implying. And that is part of the problem, you people see a weak relation between to things and think it is totally true and there's only 1 explanation.

You see, all this is really complicated, science, politics, democracy, everything. And the problem lies in people being unable to understand what they mean and how to use them, and at the same time acting and voting as if they do understand."

Blacks in general have longer limbs and are bigger, heavier bones and everything. You can google it. Thats why they excel in basketball and running sports.

Literally denying evolution in a way creationist don't. Good job equalitarians.

so politics is complex and IQ isn't a useful metric? thanks for your input

>IQ isn't a useful metric

what a fucking joke

Yep. If IQ isn't a useful metric, think about what it means to all the arguments based around IQ...

I was restating his argument because while IQ is relative, I still think it's a useful metric

This thread is cancer, OP is a faggot, and you are all shitposters for replying to this thread.

Find God then kill yourselves, cunts

Your english is better than most native speakers, feel good

Ashkenazi Jews have a mean iq of 115 they btfo all arguments that say iq is irrelevant.

IQ is the most consistent finding within psychometrics. It conforms to the scientific method and is a reprodicible statistical phenomenon in large populations.

Iq studies are literally the only psychological studies that have been consistently repeatable and falsifiable.

There are other definitions of "intelligence" in psychology, such as the one proposed from an interbehavioral perspective, which divides intelligence in 4 types of behavior based on 2 characteristics. These characteristics are "variability" and "effectiveness". Variability referring to the different ways a task is accomplished, and effectiveness referring to whether the task is accomplished or not.

Non-variable and ineffective behaviors qualify as "incompetent" (i think, i dont remember the exact term).
Variable but ineffective behaviors are qualified as "creative".
Non-variable but effective behaviors are qualified as "productive".
Finally, variable and effective behaviors are qualified as "intelligent".
This is pure psychology.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Robert_Kantor (in case you want to know more about interbehaviorism, it's mostly studied in Latin-america tho, so most info is in spanish)

If it helps for anything, i just finished my career in general psychology.

>2. Blacks commit more crime against white people, proportionally
This IS true. If we're to examine Africa as a whole and compare it to Europe as a whole Africa is much more dangerous. But this is not necessarily the case in every country within Africa and Europe, for instant Burkina Faso is safer than Russia. So clearly there is more to it than race.

>3. Blacks are stronger and faster
This isn't exactly true. Certain blacks are faster like those from the Caribbean or West Africa. Africa and indeed Africans are very diverse and host to a wide variety of qualities.

Yeah, no one is giving out credible sources that back what you're saying...

>tfw kinda racist but still find myself fantasizing about marrying a big bootied ghetto negress and raising a family of mulattos in the projects sometimes

who else /weirdo/ here

The relevant variation is the fast twitch fibers.

so what's your opinion on the usefulness of IQ. not whether or not it's constant but whether it helps find those metrics.

Honestly, if you don't have a degree on a certain field of science, you should reaaaaally doubt what you think about it. In this case, you really should question your beliefs on IQ, because, when you go through the 4 years of getting the degree in whatever science you like, you realize how WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG is the general knowledge of people who don't study it... I used to think in similar ways to you and some other people here, ~in highschool~, but then i went through 4 years of psychology... so yeah, pretty much everything i used to defend totally changed.

My perspective:

First off, if you want to settle any argument absolutely and completely, you need solid and thorough evidence and arguments to do so. Otherwise there'll always remain a doubt here, an 'if' there, especially with a complicated and politicized issue such as this one. And in the case of human intelligence, the hard scientific evidence just isn't there yet. So what would you need to have? Well, you'd need to identify the 52 genes involved in the trait we call intelligence, and understand how each works and all of their interactions, as well as their interaction with the environment. And then the 'easy' part, which would be to characterize the occurrence of this set of genes and across the different races. That may be the only objective and satisfactory way to settle the debate. Since we don't have that...

That it's an outdated measure, and that it's causing a lot of problems right now. A clinical psychologist does not use 1 single test to determine whether a person is "intelligent" or not, you need to use a variety of tests that measure different things. IQ is just being polarized and misunderstood by everyone here, mostly because people don't read on these kind of subjects and misinterpret whatever they read online. And... that happens because they were not trained to do so...

Bro I graduated with a double in comp sci and psychology.

The reason my claims in the OP are hard to talk about is because there's unpleasant empirical evidence (like with IQs). The Bell Curve, for example, is considered to be accurate in terms of evidence, but inaccurate in terms of findings. As in yes blacks have generally lower IQs but that doesn't account for variables like education and poverty.

You shouldn't necessarily focus on IQ or whatever the other claims I made were, you should focus on: with this evidence, how can we still combat racism? is it useful to talk about?

That's a great point of view. You just restored a little of my faith in humanity...

Yeah. Plus it seems like there's a lot of ~high IQ~ weed smoking burnouts

Well, i'm mostly arguing the first argument, and since it's based on IQ, and as i said, IQ is not exactly a reliable measure, the rest of the argument becomes mostly irrelevant...
now, about the other 2 arguments, i don't know much about them, i haven't seen statistics on those, but i think you should be critical and check more than one source, including the ones that disagree.

Also, since you have a double in comp sci and psych, i'd highly recommend you to read on Jacob R. Kantor, Emilio Ribes, and Interbehaviorism in general.

the thing is that whites are taller globally but in america it's a different situation. there are studies saying that blacks have a differentiation with fast twitch muscles which lead to more athleticism. Black people focusing on sports is a american culture thing and not a living situation thing. granted for a lot of people struggling in a society that doesn't necessarily make it easy sports can seem like the fast track or the right way out. I know that the black community have too many football players and not enough astrophysicist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
read the criticism section... The Bell Curve isn't even Peer Reviewed... wtf...

>Yesterday, i tried to talk about the first argument you mention in /pol
>Boy, you guys here in /pol/ know shit about politics, you know that right?
Why are you so antagonistic

thanks man, i'll check em out

Not the guy you're talking to and while IQ is obviously no proper metric to measure an individual's intelligence it's a fairly accurate metric when it comes to measuring the likelihood of success within a modern western nation for larger demographics.

IQ correlates with all kinds of things, e.g. income, likelihood to get divorced, likelihood to get involved in certain times of criminal activity, etc.

While achieving a certain score in an IQ test is obviously no imperative to succeed or fail, it makes success or failure significantly more or less likely. If certain demographics score on average much worse in IQ tests it shouldn't be surprising that they also do generally worse in other regards.

it exist but race truly doesn't matter at the end of the day.. culture and race are also two different things, that needs to be emphasized.

>the black community have too many football players and not enough astrophysicist

honestly they have the right amount of each given their strengths.

...we have no choice but to rely on 'soft' evidence, like IQ testing, crime and other sociological statistics. And like History. I don't think there is much reason to deny the physical superiority of blacks, as a whole, although this is likely true. With regards to what History, statistics, and IQ testing have to show, you can come up with your own conclusions. There is one other important bit of evidence to consider, and this comes from biology. When biologists study any organism on Earth with a wide distribution - and man has the widest of all - they invariably find a lot of geographical variation, in a wide array of characteristics. It is evident that humans differ in their color, hair, facial features, head shape, body shape, etc. It is undoubtable that there's lots of variation in things that aren't as evident. Hypothetical examples could be anything from enzymatic pathways to immunological function, to anatomy of any organ to the physiology of the liver. Why not intellectual capabilities?

...

but you can learn anything and still be effective in time so IQ really doesn't matter at the end of the day what you're talking about falls mostly on background history and context.

no that's never correct obviously there needs to be a paradime shift on what people think are beneficial and having a bunch of sports players while having a few scientists, historians, political leaders, etc. is a bad thing and it's not a basis of strengths because again race isn't the same as culture. These sports players molded their bodies for sports and the same can be done with the mind.

Again: we're not talking about an imperative in the sense of "he has scored badly in an IQ test thus his life is going to suck", it obviously doesn't work like that. However, if we look at a large group of people and they all score below average, then a significant size of them will have a shittier life than a comparable group that all scores above average.

All the IQ does is provide you with a prognosis.

I'm gonna find me a beautiful white woman (or latina) and raise some wonderful mixed children in a comfortable living environment. no friend, you're not weird

If you had 3 rooms of mean IQs ,95,105, and 115 who does it make sense to educate for the most complex tasks like STEM and administration? Thats essentially how the military uses its exams as de facto IQ test. The SAT was formerly based heavily on this and thus carried the same properties.

I PARADIMED YOUR MOM KID

and only the most survivable came to be slaves because shit was tough then, come on. Dying in the bush. Dying inna boat. Pickinna cotton. Tryna runnaway dem dogs.

Yeah... uhhh... pic related

I meant, after that rant, lol. But yeah, i get what you mean.

So you don't find it plausible that the kind of problem solving ability that an IQ test asks you to perform is useful in a real world context?

The fact that some people see correlations where there is no connection need not mean that there is no such thing at all.

>IQ is just being polarized and misunderstood by everyone here, mostly because people don't read on these kind of subjects and misinterpret whatever they read online.
This. There are plenty of actual scholars ( for example, not people backed by a racist organization like the authors of The Bell Curve) who have written extensively about the problems with IQ as a meaningful test and how everyone misinterprets it. It's really not hard to access this information. The problem is, it's easier to go with the simplistic explanations and believe whatever bullshit you're exposed to first, so that's where most people are stuck.

Oh, the picture just means that correlation doesn't mean causation. And, my position on IQ tests, is that is way too generalized. I'm not saying it's useless, i'm saying it probably measures something way more specific and that it might not be as useful as the general population thinks. I mean, look at all the criticism of the "Bell Curve", it wasn't even peer reviewed but it's still what a lot of people base their views on...

Thanks!
I officially like Veeky Forums more than /pol/ now, even tho /pol/ is hilarious sometimes.

>1. Blacks have lower IQs, Asians have higher IQs
They sure do.
No, IQ is not a perfect measurement.
Poverty does play a part, I don't know how much it affects it though. China has far higher levels of poverty than Western countries and has a higher IQ.

2. Blacks commit more crime against white people, proportionally
In America they do. Not really a question of race realism, more like whites are an easier target and/or they don't like white people.

Not really related but, blacks are far more likely to have the warrior gene.

3. Blacks are stronger and faster
Certain blacks are faster due to higher concentration of fast twitch muscle fibers.
Europeans are stronger.

The point is, if you hand out a test that involves analytical problem solving to a group then those who are good at it are also more likely to succeed at other things that usually involve such skills, e.g. graduating college, getting a good job, etc.

That's what the IQ test is for. To give you a general idea of the cognitive abilities of a subset of the population.

>>IQ is imperfect right? and also, poverty can affect this realm as well
>>again, poverty? seems weak desu
Genetics and upbringing play about equal parts in one's intelligence and other personality traits. Look up twin studies.
>>they were bred to be, as fucked as that is
Then how come current-day Africans have such great athletic performance (in certain categories of course)?
Interesting perspective. But I'm not afraid of violence or forceful rhetoric, I just don't believe in anything beyond the material world which we inhabit. America has failed not because of metaphysical reasons but because it isn't an organic nation-state, but a state based on abstract ideas, which naturally lead to degeneration.

Except IQ tests don't actually measure cognitive abilities, they measure the ability of people to solve very specific kinds of problems. People that are more exposed to those kinds of problems do better, and ones that aren't do worse. Growing up well-off (or having certain things drilled into you a lot as a child) in an industralized economy means people do better on those tests because they're more used to the kinds of problems that make up IQ tests.

The most famous example of how the tests can be "rigged" is how they were used on immigrants coming through Ellis Island in the 1920s. Tons of farmers coming from Europe were turned away or classified as retarded after being given IQ tests because they hadn't experienced those kinds of tests before.

It is. But does IQ testing measures cognitive abilities? is cognitive abilities even such a thing? you know the whole deal with "cognitions" come from a dualistic perspective full of conceptual mistakes right? There are a lot of things to question about it... a lot of different debates, that's what i mean when i say "this is a complex subject"

Also this.

Veeky Forums obviously much more serious and than /pol/ , /pol/ obviously much more fun and entertaining than Veeky Forums

So far, in this conversation, it appears to be so... i think Veeky Forums might be better than Veeky Forums with everyone there thinking that the only science there is math and youtube videos about chemistry and aliens lol. I'm just judging based on this thread tho, so i might be wrong lol.

read the whole thread, lol.

(OP)
>1. Blacks have lower IQs, Asians have higher IQs
>2. Blacks commit more crime against white people, proportionally

This isn't controversial, everyone knows this is the case.
The question is why this average difference exists.

To be clear, it's a phenotypic difference; we don't have any way to estimate genotypic potential could be if all factors could be controlled for.

Since east asia is more developed than africa, intelligence is more hereditary in east asia than africa (differences in intelligence in africa tend to be more a cause of environmental rather than genetic differences). The differences could have something to do with higher childhood disease load in subtropical climates diverting energy away from development.

>3. Blacks are stronger and faster

In any given capacity, the blacks in the US are not necessarily a representative sample of Africans as a race, same as the Asians that migrate to the US.

...

>1. Blacks have lower IQs, Asians have higher IQs
Kill all non-Asians

>2. Blacks commit more crime against white people, proportionally
See answer to #1

>3. Blacks are stronger and faster
It's not because I'm jealous of BBC, it's just IQ is the only thing that should determined who dies

>I know africans weren't doing nothing during european progress.
>What's Mali empire and Ethiopia

>Each races have differences
Ok.

>So certain races should be massacred, enslaved, or discriminated
pls no

Their bodies were built for sports, honed by participating in them. Same can be said for science, there are people who think and question more than others.

You need to take a look at how blacks are built and their hormonal levels. It has been shown they have more testosterone than other races which equate to higher aggression and bone density.

There are innate differences between the races. Not saying it can't be changed by culture, but a cat still has its hunting instincts even when domesticated.

>As in yes blacks have generally lower IQs but that doesn't account for variables like education and poverty.
Hasn't anyone tested blacks that had an education and didn't grow up poor? Or whites or asians that did? ever? How hard is it to come up with two statistically comparable groups?

>Hasn't anyone tested blacks that had an education and didn't grow up poor?
Yes.

>Or whites or asians that did?
Also yes.

>ever?
Several times. And with different scenarios/groups.

These studies aren't that hard to find. Some of them were even posted in . If you actually care about learning this stuff and aren't just a lazy /pol/tard, do some digging around and it'll turn up easily. But again, like several people have pointed out in this thread, IQ is a number that is pretty much meaningless when it comes to measuring anything besides someone's ability to take an IQ test.

Ok so if it's meaningless, why even bother reading anything having to do with it

Because people (who don't know that it's meaningless, or ignore that) love bringing it up to prove points.

>A psycologist talking about not knowing something
I can't tell if the 30% retestability makes you an expert or idiot on the subject.

>1, 2

Poverty is the effect, not the cause. Notice how black communities are poor everywhere, even if they haven't been under colonial rule for centuries.

>3.

It's true for all blacks, not just American ones.

Did anyone read ?
That was seriously interesting.

I did, and im glad you did too. GJ user! seriously...

>Occupation: Poland/France

>People here probably distrust scientific studies and statistics

as they should be

academia is heavily politicized due to being funded/owned by the state

poverty and education have absolutely nothing to do with crime

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade#1900s

USA 1900
>1.2

USA 1900 GDP
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)
between 98bil to 517bil

venezuela GDP
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Venezuela
515 b

venezuela homicide rate
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
62

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Venezuela
>9 years of compulsory education

they have a better economy than 1900 USA, and a better education system, yet the homicide rate is 1.2 : 62

GTFO BTFO

>Doesn't matter because race is a spiritual, metaphysical entity contained in the blood that flourishes in the correct soil and climate and withers in the incorrect one (see America)

>Burkina Faso is safer than Russia
Sauce.

I travel to Africa frequently and even the natives (the educated ones) tell you that most blacks are dumb as hell. I saw one falling from a building because he was trying to catch a fly. Pretty subreal

Some african countries are actually quite peaceful, like namibia, botswana or burkina faso
African blacks are not the same as american blacks

I know about Botswana. But I have been to Burkina Faso and it was an absolute shithole

What I find most hilarious about the racial science /pol/ loves to spout and cite like the holu bible is that most of it is done by Jews yet they discredit anything else that comes from a Jewish source. So you should never ever believe Jews, unless they're saying something that reinforces your worldview?

No, they are faster/stronger cuz theres more game in africa. At least get it right.