Reliable?

Reliable?

>pic related

Other urls found in this thread:

nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/abs/mp201185a.html
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912003741
udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf
psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_and_Public_Policy_(book)
iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2010b.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
asian-nation.org/immigrant-stats.shtml
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social_correlations
twitter.com/AnonBabble

No and IQ is not a reliable method of measuring intelligence.

>IQ is not a reliable method of measuring intelligence
Sure. I mean you can know how to sow a filled, light a fire and survive in the wilderness without scoring good on an IQ test. This being said, SOME types of intelligence can be measured using IQ test.

if you even accept intelligence as being quantifiable.

I don't disagree, but it's CORRELATED pretty strongly with intelligence. "Imperfect measurement" doesn't mean "meaningless."

Somebody with a tested IQ of 130 is not necessarily brighter than somebody with an IQ of 120, and neither of them are necessarily brighter than somebody with an IQ of 105 -- there are some otherwise very intelligent people who aren't good test-takers, or simply aren't that good at quickly solving the sorts of problems that show up on IQ tests.

However, if there's a *population* of people with an average IQ of 90, and a population of people with an average IQ of 110, it's a pretty safe bet that, on average, people from community B will be smarter.

Why? Genetics, nutrition, socioeconomic factors, or all of the above? Yeah, I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole.

The statistical analysis provided is accurate. What is disputed is how it is originated. The evidence suggests intelligenctual achievement is largely innate just like athleticism but there are entire industries built in nurture-ism that you will face insurmountable resistance to the premise and its being accepted.

Yes, but the information is maliciously suppressed because it directly contradicts the west's dogmatic belief in equality.

This is a great point user, I wonder if Capitalism is naturally predisposed to deny any innate qualities because they remove the opportunity for industry to fix the problem. Thanks for the post

No, it's a racist.

I always knew there was a "moral" predisposition to reject nature-ism as it seems cruel that people are playing from behind at birth but I never considered this angle on top of it.

Shit, this is why universities and academia hate it. It undermines them badly.

Warning: this.

They also probably overuse the ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''scientific'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' theory of evolution.

>overuse
nah, it's just misused in a speculative way to explain the iq gaps between races

>What is disputed is how it is originated.
This is true.

The whole nature-nurture debate is one big false dilemma, partly because the different field compete against each other for research money. However this affects both sides. Biologists tend to dismiss social factors and black box them too (for example by ignoring cross-cultural data). The humanities on the other hand often disregard biology all together. The difference is the latter often also dismiss the scientific method, which makes them very easy to attack.

"In the April 2007 issue of Commentary Magazine, Murray wrote on the disproportionate representation of Jews in the ranks of outstanding achievers and says that one of the reasons is that they "have been found to have an unusually high mean intelligence as measured by IQ tests since the first Jewish samples were tested."

His article concludes with the assertion: "At this point, I take sanctuary in my remaining hypothesis, uniquely parsimonious and happily irrefutable. The Jews are God's chosen people."[37]

What did he mean by this?

>What did he mean by this?
It means he has a hypothesis which cannot be falsified, making it unscientific and utter shit. There is no reason to not disregard it completely (unless you figure out a way to observe God, and figure out what people he's "chosen").

>be jew
>be useless
>racemix with western europeans
>suddenly become smartest people on earth
wahey

Only racist hicks think so.

/pol/ would disagree with you through.

good post. one of the biggest reasons why biased IQ scientists found children from sub-Saharan Africa to have such low IQ values is because malnutrition severely hinders brain development. of course there's more reasons.

I do not think highly of this book.

Both are true.

>The humanities on the other hand often disregard biology all together. The difference is the latter often also dismiss the scientific method

I cannot vouch for this. Maybe if by "humanities" you mean exclusively African studies, but in Anthropology, Ethnology, Sociology and so forth I don't get the feeling that the "hard sciences" are ignored at all. Humanities student myself.

Autistic redditor science denying Veeky Forumscucks are all over this thread

>Human intelligence is highly heritable.
nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/abs/mp201185a.html

>The average African IQ is estimated at 79.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912003741

>The average African-American IQ is 85, compared to the average White IQ of 100.
udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf

>IQ is 75% heritable among Whites.
psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

Yes, it is highly reliable. What a lot of people don't realize is that the book summarized what was then and is still now considered the scientific consensus among researchers who study intelligence.

People freaked out and said the book "aimed to prove blacks were genetically inferior" while in reality the book said that it was possible that genes MIGHT play a role in black-white IQ differences they didn't claim that it did as a fact. The 20 years of research since the books publication has pretty much confirmed that it's true btw.

Even the report released afterwards by the American Psychological Association pretty much agreed with the book. The APA report confirmed that all the science in the book about racial IQ differences and about the importance of IQ was correct. The APA only disagreed with them on the genetic basis for it but the book didn't even make any claims about that.

>No and IQ is not a reliable method of measuring intelligence.

WRONG

IQ has been shown to be THE SINGLE MOST RELIABLE predictor of how successful someone will do in life as well as how likely they are to do well at jobs and tasks that are intellectually demanding.

The idea that IQ is not a reliable measure of intelligence is a meme propagated by the media and social science professors who don't like the idea of people being objectively smarter than others. Among researchers who are specialized in this subject like cognitive neuroscientists and others they all agree that IQ is an extremely reliable method of measuring intelligence, that's the mainstream view and it's openly stated in the research literature.

The idea of IQ not being reliable is the complete opposite of what all experts in the field think, see:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_and_Public_Policy_(book)

IQ can measure LOW INTELLIGENCE, IQ test were made to find idiots and retards in human populations so if human group from 100 years ago still consistently scores in the terminally retarded range or african IQ of 68 then it means they are retards.

I dont care if blacks are human they are fucking retarded.

except rushton is completely discredited and not one single person in the scientific community believes this hack

guy was literally published in neo nazi magazines and is gets the money from his research from the pioneer fund

it's not that his findings are wrong, here is a more unbiased source than rushton putting sub saharan IQ at 82 compared to british

iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2010b.pdf

the thing is that rushton, in his entire career, has never been able to prove that differences in IQ are due to racial differences

there are many different factors: nutrition, genetics, general test performance (this is influenced by things like psychological health, stress, noise pollution and many other factors), socioeconomic factors..

the two facts that:
1) there is a difference in IQ between whites and Africans
2) IQ is heritable

do not conclude the statement "differences in IQ are racial". if you think so you simply do not understand formal logic.

>"A 2003 study in Evolution and Human Behavior found no evidence to support Rushton's hypothesized relationship between race and behavior."

source: Peregrine, P (September 2003). "Cross-cultural evaluation of predicted associations between race and behavior". Evolution and Human Behavior. 24 (5): 357–364.

Rushton used credible sources and peer reviewed studies. You are just a wacko science denier.

>guy was literally published in neo nazi magazines

Not an argument you hysterical faggot this isn't reddit. Rushton was mainstream before he fell victim to character assasination for popularising mainstream research.

It's unbelievable how Rushton is considered a hack by the establishment while people like the disgraced jewish social "scientist" Stephen Jay Gould who was literally caught faking data to fit his race denial narrative are still celebrated

No, there is actually good reason to think that evolution might play a role in racial IQ differences now.

There has been a revolution in genomics research since the 90's and among many other important discoveries there have been the following:

1) Researchers using certain methods have been able to determine whether certain genes were subject to evolutionary pressures at certain time periods i.e. whether evolution was occurring in relation to that gene. This research has shown us that evolution continued after humans left Africa and split into different races (and it never really stopped), and also that the genes that were selected for by evolutionary pressures DIFFERED BETWEEN THE RACES - which means the different races evolved in different ways.

2) Another important finding is that it is now know that within the past 15,000 years of so there have been multiple cases of genes (including some that change the brain and increase intelligence) that arise in a single mutation in one person and than are spread rapidly across entire continents because of how beneficial they are.

When you take all this together it is obvious that there is almost certainly a genetic basis underlying racial IQ differences. We know that the different racial groups continued evolving after splitting up and we know that they evolved in different ways. We also know that relatively not long ago in some geographical areas there were genes that conferred larger brain size and higher intelligence that were spread around.

Given that for almost all of the time that the different races have existed there was little mixing between ones far away from each other it's clear that there was almost certainly unique evolutionary changes to the brains of various racial groups which cause them to have slightly different brains, and that this likely plays a major role in racial IQ differences and may be the sole cause.

>Yes, it is highly reliable.
no it isn't. I'm saying this as someone who believes in racial iq differences. It's a shit book, and there are much better sources than it. Shitty research can come to the right conclusions but it's still shit.

> What a lot of people don't realize is that the book summarized what was then and is still now considered the scientific consensus among researchers who study intelligence.

this is not true and a simple google search tells you differently

>Fifty-two professors, most of them researchers in intelligence and related fields, signed an opinion statement titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence"[9] endorsing a number of the views presented in The Bell Curve. The statement was written by psychologist Linda Gottfredson and published in The Wall Street Journal in 1994 and subsequently reprinted in Intelligence, an academic journal. Of the 131 who were invited by mail to sign the document, 100 responded, with 52 agreeing to sign and 48 declining. Eleven of the 48 dissenters claimed that the statement or some part thereof did not represent the mainstream view of intelligence.[9]

leading researches on intelligence were literally split over the issue of the book

these are the three points that were later on almost universally agreed upon:

IQ scores have high predictive validity for individual differences in school achievement.
IQ scores have predictive validity for adult occupational status, even when variables such as education and family background have been statistically controlled.
There is little evidence to show that childhood diet influences intelligence except in cases of severe malnutrition.

nothing revolutionary at all.. also to say "Even the report released afterwards by the American Psychological Association pretty much agreed with the book" is bullshit, they agreed with some of the research, not with the conclusions drawn, as you even go on to explain yourself. so why even make this faulty point?..

He knows how "peer review" works and values his job. Any other explanation he could given in that situation would have got him in serious trouble.

LMAO try reading my post you literal subhuman

I wrote only 3 sentences in that it is not his IQ findings are wrong

But rather the connection between race and intelligence. His research data in itself is not necessarily problematic.

You're embarrassing dude. Try reading more than the first sentence of each post.

>You are just a wacko science denier.

Except I literally agreed with the hard science part

God you're stupid

>Stephen Jay Gould who was literally caught faking data to fit his race denial narrative are still celebrated

Gould is a literal hack and NO ONE takes him seriously, neither in psychology, anthropology, not even in the humanities

You know fucking nothing

user, it's sow a 'field' which I would be willing to excuse, but using 'good' in place of 'well' is simply not good.

> wilderness without scoring *well on an IQ test

'Well' is an adverb that modifies the verb 'scoring'. If we're going to have an IQ thread, then let's be very careful with our grammar.

>good post. one of the biggest reasons why biased IQ scientists found children from sub-Saharan Africa to have such low IQ values is because malnutrition severely hinders brain development. of course there's more reasons.

That does not refute racial IQ gaps at all. There have been many IQ studies done on Africans over the years including of middle class Africans going to school in the cities who never starved as a child in some backwater village and they still have an IQ gap with other races.

That also does not account for the IQ differences found between african-americans, latinos, white and asians in the US. Very few of those people experience sub-saharan african levels of starvation and it takes that level of malnutrition to have a major affect on IQ, the research has indicated that simply not eating healthy foods growing up doesn't have a huge affect on IQ unless it reaches african-levels of starvation.

One of the few environmental factors that has been shown to affect IQ is lead exposure but that was only limited to certain areas and does not explain the IQ gaps as a whole and there have been many studies of people from areas with no lead issues and there is still an IQ gap. Also, certain groups being harmed by lead does nothing to explain racial IQ gaps between whites, jews and asians who live in wealthier areas with no lead issues.

The environmental affect on IQ has been shown to be not hugely significant and most of the affect has been shown to be due to personal circumstances like accidents and injuries that affect IQ rather than where they live.

How do you account for high IQ scores within the second and third generations of African immigrant families to 1st world nations?

>Gould is a literal hack and NO ONE takes him seriously

Lol no he was celebrated for decades for supposedly debunking the evul "scientific racism" of the 19th century.

In general, biologically related family members show higher correlations on IQ test subscales than do biologically unrelated individuals who share family environments via adoption.

>b b but muh environment and socioeconomic factors OOGA BOOGA

>Sociology and so forth I don't get the feeling that the "hard sciences" are ignored at all. Humanities student myself.

It actually is ignored a lot but it's hard to understand how often if you don't see how relevant IQ is and how it relates to so many things, Charles Murray has talked about this before.

For example, sociologists point to differences in income between members of different racial groups who have received the same level/amount of education and say that it reflects racism or lack of access to opportunities etc.

In one study researchers looked at that difference and they picked people who had served in the military because they were all given an IQ test at entry and what they found was that there was indeed a difference in income between races who had similar levels of education but when the difference in IQ was adjusted for that the difference in income mostly went away and the remaining amount was not very significant; indicating that the difference in income was mostly due to IQ.

There is a huge amount of sociology that has to do with comparing outcomes and achievements between different racial groups or nationalities. Taking IQ into account is extremely important to understanding what extent of those differences are due to IQ and not something else and without that factor you will never have a clear understanding of whats something is caused by. However, what I just described would be considered anathema by many sociology departments and journals and could get people fired if they tried to use it in their work.

How do you account for the fact that the adoption rate is so low as to be considered an outlier when considering genetic heritability of IQ vs transference to adopted children?

>That does not refute racial IQ gaps at all. There have been many IQ studies done on Africans over the years including of middle class Africans going to school in the cities who never starved as a child in some backwater village and they still have an IQ gap with other races.

true. but what you forget is that the simple fact that an IQ gap between races does exist (I am not denying it) does NOT mean that this gap is racial in nature. there could be hundreds of different reasons. the point is that one has to prove that this gap is racial in nature.

> Very few of those people experience sub-saharan african levels of starvation and it takes that level of malnutrition to have a major affect on IQ, the research has indicated that simply not eating healthy foods growing up doesn't have a huge affect on IQ unless it reaches african-levels of starvation.

this is also correct. it only makes a difference when one is close to starvation or lacking essential micronutrients because of a faulty diet.

let me give you a really stupid analogy: white people in the US earn more money than black people, on average.

this does NOT mean that white people earn more just because of racial differences. it also does not mean that black people earn less because of racism. these statements have to be proven.

>Lol no he was celebrated for decades for supposedly debunking the evul "scientific racism" of the 19th century.

in popscience, yes

in the real world of academic research he was critisized for his faulty methodology shortly after his work was published

Still lower than someone from China who grew up in poverty.

It is just a fact of life that on average some ethnicities are a few points lower. Just because some racist trolled you there is no need to throw a massive hissy fit over this, just come to peace with it.

>For example, sociologists point to differences in income between members of different racial groups who have received the same level/amount of education and say that it reflects racism or lack of access to opportunities etc.

you essentialize sociologists into one homogenous group for no reason, they don't all share the same opinion. your point is valid, but don't act like you can shrug off sociology entirely because of it.

many sociologists are aware of the significant effects IQ has on the economic placement of an individual

>There is a huge amount of sociology that has to do with comparing outcomes and achievements between different racial groups or nationalities. Taking IQ into account is extremely important to understanding what extent of those differences are due to IQ and not something else and without that factor you will never have a clear understanding of whats something is caused by.

agreed

>However, what I just described would be considered anathema by many sociology departments and journals and could get people fired if they tried to use it in their work.

prove that, please. I've never heard of this actually happening.

>Still lower than someone from China who grew up in poverty.

post comparable evidence of 2nd generation African migrants to Europe and poor Chinese

making a claim like this simply doesn't get you anywhere, post a source or fuck off

iirc last time I checked contemporary studies they put 2nd generation african migrant children only a few points under british kids

How do you account for the fact that chinese families tend to be the strictest in regards to their children's education and that chinese children suffer much less from the negative effects of the horizontal influence of other's in their pier group than do children of African immigrants. Black immigrants in the US have worse pier influences than do chinese immigrants, for example.

this. racists beat the fuck out...wait...what are you implying about african-american culture vs asian-american culture?

>Out of the 131 who were invited to sign it only 11 said it did not reflect the mainstream view
>less than 10 percent of those contacted said it was not mainstream

The people who did not sign it did not necessarily sign because they disagreed that it was mainstream, they may have had other reasons like fearing being fired or ostracized at their departments. When less then 10% are willing to openly say they disagree that is a pretty mainstream view, especially since when disagreeing would be the politically correct and less riskier option.

>also to say "Even the report released afterwards by the American Psychological Association pretty much agreed with the book" is bullshit, they agreed with some of the research, not with the conclusions drawn, as you even go on to explain yourself. so why even make this faulty point?..

No, it's not bullshit. The APA report confirmed that the science is solid for racial IQ differences and for the separate topic of how IQ affects educational and occupational stuff. The Bell Curve never claimed that the racial IQ gap had a genetic basis but merely said that it was a possibility that could MAYBE be true. The APA report said that "there was no direct evidence for the racial IQ gap being genetic" but The Bell Curve never claimed it was so the APA report didn't even disagree with The Bell Curve on this point and that was a cop-out anyway because even at the time there was a plethora of in-direct evidence that it was genetic. There was no gene discovered that caused low IQ that was only in blacks and so there was no "direct" evidence but many studies involving twins and adoption etc which indicated an at least partial genetic basis were out than but the APA didn't bother addressing them and only wrote of no "direct evidence".

>The people who did not sign it did not necessarily sign because they disagreed that it was mainstream, they may have had other reasons like fearing being fired or ostracized at their departments.

This is entirely true, we can never know for sure.

You can just turn this statement around entirely, though. Maybe they did not want to all-out decline, because it would make them look really stupid if it turned out to be true, you know? Matter of fact is they didn't support it.

>No, it's not bullshit. The APA report confirmed that the science is solid for racial IQ differences

Yes, correct

>and for the separate topic of how IQ affects educational and occupational stuff

To some degree.

>The Bell Curve never claimed that the racial IQ gap had a genetic basis but merely said that it was a possibility that could MAYBE be true.

It is heavily implied, but not alright stated, yes.

>The Bell Curve never claimed it was so the APA report didn't even disagree with The Bell Curve on this point and that was a cop-out anyway because even at the time there was a plethora of in-direct evidence that it was genetic.

Can you link me some of this evidence? Genuinely interested.

>There was no gene discovered that caused low IQ that was only in blacks and so there was no "direct" evidence but many studies involving twins and adoption etc which indicated an at least partial genetic basis were out than but the APA didn't bother addressing them and only wrote of no "direct evidence".

Afaik even to this day it is not proven that racial differences in IQ are inherently genetic, do you want to make that point?

Thanks for the civil discussion

1) Because the people that are granted the opportunity to immigrate to 1st world nations (not counting the recent refugee/migrant wave) are almost always those with a high degree of educational attainment. In poor African countries the chance to immigrate to the US is seen as the best thing one can hope for and so there are huge amounts of people that apply. The US mostly lets in people who have advanced degrees.

2) The people who get these advanced degrees are almost always in the top percentiles of intelligence for their countries, only the smartest of those countries get Ph.D.s etc

3) Many of those immigrants who have higher IQs than other Africans come to the US and marry and have kids with other higher-IQ African immigrants, because IQ is largely heritable the result of this is a situation where the IQ of their kids and sometimes grandkids are higher than average for Africans and sometimes African-Americans.

4) Unfortunately, these increases in IQ are not likely to be permanent as the next generations of kids of those immigrants and those peoples kids adopt the culture and become African-Americans rather than immigrant Africans. When they are raised here and speak English as a first language they basically become african-americans. The African-American population in the US has an average IQ of 85 and so as those 90 IQ or 100 IQ descendants of higher-IQ immigrants mix and have kids with the vastly larger 85-IQ African American population their kids and grandkids are more likely to have IQs closer to 85 as they marry and have kids with other 85 IQ African Americans.

>rushton
>jared taylor
can /pol/ fuck off

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

>1994

>true. but what you forget is that the simple fact that an IQ gap between races does exist (I am not denying it) does NOT mean that this gap is racial in nature. there could be hundreds of different reasons. the point is that one has to prove that this gap is racial in nature.

There is no smoking gun but the twin studies and adoption studies combined with the recent scientific advances discussed in pretty much confirms genetics plays a major role.

>prove that, please. I've never heard of this actually happening.

It's considered outrageous in academia to mention racial differences in IQ. James Watson faced huge pressure and outrage when he simply pointed out the intelligence gap between Africa and Europe, Jason Richwine wrote his Harvard dissertation on the benefits on basing immigration on IQ and documented the low-IQ in latino immigrants and was denounced by the entire media and there were op-eds in the Washington Post accusing him of racism. Judge Scalia was widely condemned for saying non-white students let into ivy league schools through affirmative action may not be intelligent enough to do well there.

Even the parts of the Bell Curve simply documenting differences in racial IQ scores were widely denounced at the time. People involved in cognition research talk about this stuff without much issue but any time anyone with some level of fame or public exposure talks about this stuff they are attacked and condemned by the media.

People with large differences in IQs still have large differences in educational achievement with others of the same race and racial culture in a way that correlates with the IQ difference between them those people of the same race etc.

>Can you link me some of this evidence? Genuinely interested.

This 60-page paper systematically addresses almost all of the evidence for it being environmental vs genetic and concludes that there is pretty solid evidence that a not insignificant amount of it is genetic.

www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

For the record I don't consider myself racist and I'm not typing all this out to prove whites are better than blacks or whatever. I just think that the truth about this stuff should be accepted and not suppressed.

It would benefit all of mankind if we could learn everything there is to learn about this stuff and it's likely possible that in 50 or 100 years that we could eliminate the issue of low-IQ by editing the genome of the next generation of kids. For example if there was a mutation that conferred higher brain size and more intelligence that spread around Europe and Asia but didn't reach sub-saharan Africa because of geographical obstacles I would support Africans giving that gene to their kids. I'm white but I think I would feel the same way if I was not white.

>muh flynn effect proves that genetics don't play a role or don't matter

Read the thread user the Flynn effect is like 1% of the evidence worth considering when talking about this matter, there is rock-solid evidence genes play a role. Also the Flynn effect in some cases appears to have stalled and IQ levels are not increasing and some studies have indicated this has happened with African-Americans.

Almost all of the research since then has showed it's major points were correct

That doesn't explain the fact that african-americans have disproportionately more low IQ members than do white or chinese americans and that the negative pier related influences on african immigrants would be disproportionately higher than the negative pier related influences of white or chinese immigrants.

African IQ has actually increased like in Kenya for example, but having a like sub 70 IQ would mean you are mentally retarded and can barely function on your own. Most African nations are poor, but some can at least function to a standard similar to developing countries elsewhere. Are these people being tested not finishing the tests or something? Or are the bush people still living in mud huts driving down these nation's scores that bad?

*influences on white and chinese immigrants.

>book argues that on average, white people tend to have higher IQ averages than black people for whatever reason

>/pol/ takes this to mean that the book is saying "omg literally every white person is a genius and every black person is a retard and its based entirely on genetics!"

Exactly the disparity of IQ within all human populations, except Abos, and the lack of significantly more higher-IQ individuals produced within a given population as compared with others when socioeconomic factors are controlled for would suggest that the most significant contributing factor to IQ is not the genetics of race, but the influence of culture.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make

>/pol/ is one person

>There is no smoking gun but the twin studies and adoption studies combined with the recent
Besides the Minnesota studies there have been 3 other popular studies: Eyferth, Tizard, and Moore on the same topic. The results between all four are not the same.
>Jason Richwine wrote his Harvard dissertation on the benefits on basing immigration on IQ and documented the low-IQ in latino immigrants and was denounced by the entire media and there were op-eds in the Washington Post accusing him of racism
Having read about Richwine before and looking him up, he is quite abrasive to people who refute him so that might be why he is criticized so harshly. Anyways, I do not think the elites importing migrants for labor care about their intelligence. Wealthy areas are aquite segregated so I don't think rich people care desu. Then there's also a lot of people in politics are either too liberal or empathetic to care

The main problem with any IQ argument is that it doesn't seem to add up.

Did Germanics just suddenly one day up and become intelligent 1600 years ago? No. They picked up where Rome left off. They weren't inventing shit, they weren't doing shit, they were living in mud huts.

Sub-Saharan Africa had no Rome, and to expect them to suddenly and spontaneously develop roman level tech and societal organization is absurd.

When we look at IQ on the American Black level, we see that okay, it's hereditary. Nothing more. Epigenetics is a thing after all, genetic effects can be caused by environment. I sincerely think that given that IQ is affected by nutrition, disease, how well you sleep, presence of mental illness (depression will wreck your IQ score), the stereotype threat, makes me think that it's really not genetic.

He posts a study from some researchers led by someone named Wicherts that goes against what you believe and you just start insulting him. You then bring up Gould for some reason to deflect from his main point. Hopefully you can at least admit both sides of the argument have intellectually dishonest people

>1) Because the people that are granted the opportunity to immigrate to 1st world nations

But why do they do better than any other immigrant group? That seems weird, doesn't it? Why do African immigrants specifically across the board do better than any other immigrant group?

> Unfortunately, these increases in IQ are not likely to be permanent

Source?

> but having a like sub 70 IQ would mean you are mentally retarded and can barely function on your ow
Yes user a dog is as smart as human 3 year old yet functions just fine, blacks are dumb animals high functioning retards.
Germanics were always bright people, the mudhut meme is something asshurt blacks make up when describing Neolithic Europe even though European hunter gatherers had more advanced architecture than blacks.

Why make such claims? It only hurts your point.

>makes me think that it's really not genetic.
What determines your IQ?
How your brain is structured
>What determines your brain strucutre
YOUR FUCKING DNA

Veeky Forums is full of retards these days holy shit.

>>What determines your brain strucutre
>YOUR FUCKING DNA
no not really
t. medstudent

Now Im convinced your retarded because humans can be BORN MISSING PIECES OF BRAIN DUE TO FUCKING DNA.

>Germanics were always bright people

Then where the fuck are all the inventions? You can't just say this and not back it up. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you, it's just that if you want to say that "Germanics were always bright," you're gonna be forced to say "Sub-Saharan Africans were always bright" as well.

> European hunter gatherers had more advanced architecture

Germanics weren't hunter-gatherers...

And architecture is one of those things that is determined by environment. People don't build fucking igloos in Israel, though I'm sure you'd agree that they are pretty damn ingenious. Does that make Eskimos more intelligent? No. They adapted to their environment.

>What determines your IQ?
>How your brain is structured

So your premise is flawed from the start. Back to square one.

just as people can be born missing limbs. does that mean when you lose a fucking limb due to an accident it's determined by DNA? are you supposed to be one of those "high IQ whiteys?"

It's a clear statement. Take IQ in america and IQ of children of immigrant families for example. Negative pier-related influences for second and third generation children of African immigrants is disproportionately higher than negative pier related influences for second or third generation Chinese children. The African-American population surrounding african immigrant children has a disproportionately higher incidence rate of low-iq individuals as compared with the chinese or white population surrounding chinese immigrant children. This is a contributing factor to cultural influences that might affect the incidence rate of high-iq individuals within second generation and third generation children of African and Chinese immigrants and might explain the increased prevalence of high-iq chinese immigrant children compared to African immigrant children.

Do you understand?

When will Stormniggers fuck off already?

Eskimos are intelligent, blacks would never construct igloos.
>your intelligence is not based on your brain structure
How stupid are you? Einstein had more glial cells than the average person and yet you think brain structure doesnt control intelligence.

How does this disprove your DNA doesnt have absolute control over your brain structure?

>Eskimos are intelligent, blacks would never construct igloos.

Prove it.

Protip: You can't.

> Einstein had more glial cells than the average person and yet you think brain structure doesnt control intelligence.

Maybe if we had a copy of Feynman's brain, we'd be able to go further with this conversation, but one example does not mean that it's necessarily true at large.

Feynman's IQ was 120 something and his contributions to physics were just as important as Einstein's. It's examples like that that make me question just how important brain structure even is to the whole problem. I think education, encouraging early interest, etc. go much further towards making intelligence than innate ability.

I'm not disproving that, I'm pointing out the absurdity of your proof.

By the way, it's on you to prove that brain structure is determined fully by genetics. Unless you're including epigenetic impact, which I don't hink you are.

Maqsud, Nenty & Dinero, Okunrotifa, and Wicherts have all done data on National IQs. Wicherts who was the most recent says his data is closest to the three reports I posted than Rushton and Jensen's. A country like Nigeria was found to have an IQ of around 68 Or 70 by Rushton and Jensen but low 80s by the other four reports. It is still low compared to Western Nations, but it is much higher than suggesting the average Nigerian is mentally retarded. The scores would be more similar to other developing countries. My point is Rushton and Jensen are not infallible.

Surely you are false flagging.

>But why do they do better than any other immigrant group? That seems weird, doesn't it? Why do African immigrants specifically across the board do better than any other immigrant group?

Their average IQ is lower than Asians and Jews including immigrants.

> Unfortunately, these increases in IQ are not likely to be permanent
>Source?

That's how genetics works user. After a few generations those people cease to be immigrants and just become African-Americans. If they lived among a population with similar IQs then their kids and grandkids IQs would mostly remain the same but as time goes by and more and more of them marry and have kids with other African-Americans the IQ of their kids and grandkids will closer resemble that of the average African-American IQ.

The IQ of a child is based on genes from both parents and so if every generation of kids descended from these immigrants has one parent with the african american average IQ of 85 than over time their IQ will get closer to 85.

There are genes that influence brain size and brain size is known to be associated with IQ

Dna doesn't have absolute or exclusive control over brain structure. Proof of this lies in the lack of capacity of humans to learn a language if not exposed to language before a certain age(around 12). This lack of capacity directly suggests the underdevelopment or lack thereof of certain key brain structures that are involved in language acquisition. Pic related is a feral child named Genie whose parents locked her in a dark room for most of her childhood and hardly said a word to her, except to curse or scream. A tragically beautiful women, of course irreparably retarded by her environmental circumstances and a reminder of the significance of nature vs nurture on IQ.

>Their average IQ is lower than Asians and Jews including immigrants.

Why do they still achieve higher education at a higher rate than Asian immigrants and make the same amount of money?
asian-nation.org/immigrant-stats.shtml

Does IQ not matter?

>That's how genetics works user. After a few generations those people cease to be immigrants and just become African-Americans.

And so their genetics change, and they become less intelligent? Am I reading this right, or did you point out the absurdity of your own argument?

I thought you said they marry into their own group (african immigrants?) As I said, is there any data proving this phenomenon, or is this speculation on your part?

>3) Many of those immigrants who have higher IQs than other Africans come to the US and marry and have kids with other higher-IQ African immigrants, because IQ is largely heritable the result of this is a situation where the IQ of their kids and sometimes grandkids are higher than average for Africans and sometimes African-Americans.

According to that chart African immigrants have a lower family income than Asians are more African immigrants are living in poverty and use public assistance.

There are several reasons as to why they have more advanced degrees. One, which is something that a number of analysts and people who discuss this topic have noted is that it has to do with how our visa system works. Many of those immigrants were people who came here as foreign students and then after studying here for a long time managed to qualify for American citizen.

With how our visa system works it creates an incentive for them to stay here and study as long as them can because if they graduate with a bachelors and don't continue their education than typically their visas expire and they are required to return home. Because the conditions in so many African countries are so shitty they would much rather stay here than return to Africa so many foreign African students just stay as long as they can by going to grad school etc because it allows them to stay in the country.

In countries that are not as poor such as Asian ones where many have a large middle class and living standards are way above Africa there is not as much of an incentive to stay in the US by studying because the conditions in their home countries are not so bad.

Thus, this system we have regarding visas and education creates an incentive where the worse someone's home country is the more likely they are to try to remain by going to grad school.

Lastly, the fact that their individual income is the same and that they are worse in other aspects like family income and poverty DESPITE being more highly educated actually reflects poorly on African immigrants and is indicative of a failure. Their higher levels of advanced education should result in higher individual and family incomes in addition to lower poverty but on all those counts they fail.

>Lastly, the fact that their individual income is the same and that they are worse in other aspects like family income and poverty DESPITE being more highly educated actually reflects poorly on African immigrants and is indicative of a failure

And this is a problem independent of the question at hand. Interesting response otherwise.

>I thought you said they marry into their own group (african immigrants?) As I said, is there any data proving this phenomenon, or is this speculation on your part?

2 seconds searching will show you the vast majority of people marry within their race. I didn't say that they marry within African immigrants but that almost all of their descendants will marry African-Americans because the children and grandchildren of those immigrants will be culturally the same as African-Americans

>And so their genetics change, and they become less intelligent? Am I reading this right, or did you point out the absurdity of your own argument?

It's quite simple

1) When a small percentage of the population (African immigrants) mixes with the native population (African-Americans) over multiple generations, with each generation the children have more and more genes from African-American parents and less genes from parents who are recent immigrants from Africa.

2) The higher IQ of the African immigrants and the average IQ of 85 for non-immigrant African-Americans are likely both mostly due to genes

3) Over time, the generations of people descended from African immigrants will have more and more of their genes from African-Americans, i.e. 1 American parent means their genes are half-immigrant and half-American, if that person marries another black person not descended from recent immigrants than only 1/4 of their kids genes come from the high-IQ immigrant

4) As more and more of each generations kids genes come from non-immigrants they aquire more and more of the genes that cause the 85 IQ of non-immigrant African-Americans until in 4 or 5 generations almost all of their genes are from non-immigrant African-Americans and they end up with an IQ of 85.

First post best post

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social_correlations

Nurture only works on humans, blacks are wild animals they will still act like deranged psychotic maniacs even if you raise them with only white people. Heck the black american is proof nurture has no effect on niggers seeing as how they are an entire breed of niggers that have been taught and nurtured by whitey to act civilized yet cant.

Aside from the issues about whether IQ is a good test of intelligence (it isn't), the book itself is based on bad research and a very heavy amount of bias. It was mostly funded by the Pioneer Fund, which is widely regarded as a white supremacist organization, and the book was mostly intended as a platform for their policies.

No one outside of /pol/ this book seriously, and hundreds of articles and papers have been written about its flaws. If anyone is actually interested in whether or not it has merits as a scholarly work, it's not hard to figure it out.

So is there any other studies that show racial differences in iq based on good research?

Google images brain size world map

>Aside from the issues about whether IQ is a good test of intelligence (it isn't),
Yet IQ is widely accepted as a valid measure of intelligence in the academic community...

> the book itself is based on bad research and a very heavy amount of bias.
What is "bad" about its research? It's literally just charts of data collected by the US government.

You want bias? Read Stephen Jay Gould.

> It was mostly funded by the Pioneer Fund, which is widely regarded as a white supremacist organization,
Oh no, they are literally nazis!

>No one outside of /pol/ this book seriously, and hundreds of articles and papers have been written about its flaws.
Hundreds of newspaper articles written by butthurt gender studies majors.

The truth is, the Bell Curve has not been refuted, and is a good introduction to psychometrics.

All of them. Not a single study has ever shown that the average IQ of whites and blacks is the same.

Feynman's IQ was not 120. He never took an IQ test.

Please stop spreading falsehoods.

You're retarded.

If you tie a child to a bed for the first ten years of its life, his limbs will atrophy and he will probably not grow very tall.

This does not refute in any way that height is determined by genes.

>I've never heard of this actually happening.
Do you live under a rock?

Too bad this isn't the 'academic community'

There are way too many problems with this so-called community. You have here a highly religious, detail-oriented board. That is good enough to show you we are not 'academia', the godless money-based institutional paradigm it is.

Precisely and if you tied a sociologist to a bed for the first ten years of his professional life, he would have to shit in a bucket and the shut in that bucket, spread out on paper is a better read than The Bell Curve.

I don't even understand the point of your post. You're saying you disregard facts which go against the Veeky Forums echo chamber?

Truly showing the high reaches of your intellect, m8.

No, I'm just saying this board isn't the mindless academia echo chamber

>mindless
Applying the scientific method is "mindless"?

I guess you prefer to base your opinion on "muh feelings".

>muh Academia

This sound represents the mindless drone's approach towards life. When confronted with a religious scholarly approach, or even a tacitly conservative approach towards ethics and sexuality, the schoolcuck has something to fall back on.

Kill yourself niggerlover.