Why do people act like IQ tests are some universal and undeniable way to measure intelligence...

Because measuring retardedness turns out to be the same thing as measuring intelligence. The fact that this same approach works for both retards and the gifted is generally taken as a good sign that we're modelling something fundamental.

The modern IQ test hardly has any cultural bias. Are triangles part of culture? You can only reduce it so far. At this point people are just upset that neutralizing the prior knowledge aspect of it didn't result in some kind of magical gap closure. If you divide and compare two groups of people one is going to be dumber than the other on average.

It's mainly used by racists to uphold claims of superiority and justify oppression.

So you're saying they may have an argument

Not really. You can divide humans up into an innumerable number of groups, but racists make broad generalisations and lump humans into about 4 or 5 categories and base their entire worldview on IQ tests.

You should stop drinking water, because I hear racists do that too.

IQ test were invented to find tards meaning they are always correct on retarded scores like black people for decades.

How about you go spend a few nights in the Southside of Chicago and meet all the wonderful people there so you can prove all those dumb racists wrong.

not an argument

You cant prove him wrong without going to Chicago though.

What's not an argument is dismissing some statistics simply because racists cite them.

>but racists make broad generalisations and lump humans into about 4 or 5 categories
Humans do the same to nonhuman animals, so how can humans not be apart of this rule?

>Humans do the same to nonhuman animals
Demarcating different species isn't the same as using IQ tests to uphold segregation between people of the same species.

who dismissed statistics on those grounds itt

Marxists believe humans are special creatures that stopped evolving after they became humans.

Why not?
>Chimps are violent
>Bonobos are hedonist
>Whites are calm
>Blacks are violent
>NO SHUT UP YOU RACIST!

Nobody has said anything of the sort about wanting to uphold segregation ITT.

Protip: You can acknowledge that genetics exist without being a white supremacist.

>>Whites are calm
>>Blacks are violent

The only people who give a damn about these statistics are racists. Take a look on /pol/ sometime.

>The only people who give a damn about these statistics are racists. Take a look on /pol/ sometime.

Anybody who doesn't want to be blind to reality cares about these statistics. There's a difference between that and outright obsessing over them like they're the only thing that matters so you can live vicariously through a racial identity.

Your argument is terribly hypocritical and childish. Saying "Go look at /pol/" is basically no better an argument than saying "Go look at Zimbabwe".

Well naturally you can be more or less specific in your categorization but the category holds

>Anybody who doesn't want to be blind to reality cares about these statistics

Discussions about these things are confined to fringe corners of the internet for a damn good reason. Decent people are uninterested in obsessing over IQ scores.

It's taboo now but it wasn't before. Means it could come back into the fore again with time. People and businesses are still highly, highly interested in gauging aptitude for things like open jobs.

The categories used in these tests are useless though. Based on pure sociocultural structures.

The whole field of race and intelligence only sprung up in the late 19th century when opposition to colonialism and imperialism began to rise. It was used to justify existing political and social conditions.

>Are you retarded?
Are you?
>The only people who seem to bring them up are racially motivated or teenagers trying to brag.
Sums up this site pretty perfectly.

Every argument you have made (assuming they are all you) is ad hominem and avoidant of the main point I'm not even the guy you are arguing with and I have taken my time to tell you that your argument is poor

You should not give such arguments of association, but instead say why IQ tests are poor

A connection by mere association is not good enough
That would be like saying starting a fire is always bad because a certain arsonist loves fire and no other reason

If I were you I'd ask for a source that shows IQ tests cross cultural lines and or a source that states Iq is the best measurement of fiscal success

>people only began investigating it when it became a controversy

nothing new

it was a foregone conclusion beforehand, people didn't even regard the colonized as fully human

>Using white people from centuries ago to discredit blacks being violent pscyhopaths today
Just say you are mentally retarded already.

see Hence the need to guard against anything that will lead us back to those times

"whites" and "blacks" don't exist

>"whites" and "blacks" don't exist
Google albino african.

Proves nothing. "white" and "black" are cultural identifiers that constantly change, nothing more. definitions of race vary all over the world and tend towards expansion, at least in the case of whiteness. Poles, Irish, Italians, Jews etc weren't regarded as white until the 20th century

Whatever, the point is blacks still act like mesolithic white people today.

That's because most people once they grow up realize that yes, there are significant genetic differences that exist between certain people that include, but is not exclusively limited to, intelligence. It's super obvious even without seeing statistics. However they accept that, and move on with their lives while idiots and people who have failed in life desperately cling to racial identity as a source of self-esteem because it's their greatest accomplishment in life.

All but the most delusion people realize that if Dogs can over the course of just around 15,000 years be bred by Humans to range from Labradors to Poodles, then obviously humans are also gonna have certain fundamental natural differences between races when they're separated by even longer than that in isolation.

The question is how you personally choose the handle that information and apply it in life.

It's possible for there to be 2 extremes, you know. Announcing that anyone who scores less on X test or metric is inferior and inhuman, and on the other hand asserting that all people everywhere are fundamentally equal and capable of the same.

But race is an incredibly poor way of categorising human beings. People vary in all sorts of ways and you can carve humanity up however you feel like it.

I didn't say everyone is fundamentally equal. I don't claim to have the mental ability of Einstein or the physical ability of Phelps. But I cannot accept any oppression on the basis of traits outside of one's control.

There are many traits outside of your control. Your looks (which will affect a lot), physical stature, health, intelligence. Life simply isn't fair. Natural selection is predicated upon unfairness. If it was fair we would be single celled organisms.

Oppression, no, but anti-intellectualism for the sake of protecting egos and self-esteem? At some point we are going to reach a point where large populations will be unnecessary thanks to technology, rendering some people essentially worthless. What will be the way forward then, a commitment to feeding and subsisting their existence like pets, or focusing on optimizing our own people through control and research?

I know it sounds edgelord tier but I think it could be a reality, you can only hold logic at bay for so long. I could see something like population control for the mentally lacking happening in my lifetime.

>There are many traits outside of your control. Your looks (which will affect a lot), physical stature, health, intelligence
None of that means people should be treated differently.

>our own people
Who's that?

You only take this stance because you think you'd be the one selecting people for sterilisation and euthanasia. You'd be targeted eventually, don't think you're perfect.

I have no problem with using technology and genetics to uplift humanity. Not for arbitrarily deciding who gets to live and die.

I never said race in how it's generally defined is a hardline accurate categorization between people. I'm simply making the point that the IQ differences that seem to arise in trends between races aren't flaws with IQ tests, they're real and shouldn't be dismissed as "IQ tests are racist".

Also, it's important to realize that intelligence happens on a bell curve, so there are for instance plenty of black people who are more intelligent than plenty of white people. Evolution never stops happening.

>You only take this stance because you think you'd be the one selecting people for sterilisation and euthanasia. You'd be targeted eventually, don't think you're perfect.

this

I accept your capitulation.

>You only take this stance because you think you'd be the one selecting people for sterilisation and euthanasia. You'd be targeted eventually, don't think you're perfect.

>I have no problem with using technology and genetics to uplift humanity. Not for arbitrarily deciding who gets to live and die.

This is a whole other discussion completely, but this is generally why Capitalism has thus far proved to be the most effective economic model in history for progressing society and technological advancement. It's works in synchronization with natural selection and spares us from deciding what genes are good and what genes are bad as it does that for us.

We're still too far off from reasonably being able to do that consciously.

I understand your analogy but the bench press would certainly measure the athlete that swims as the pectoral muscles are heavily used in both swimming and benching.

I've found that people who downplay the role of iq in societies are doing so in defense of their blank slate, anti-biological worldview.

>It's works in synchronization with natural selection and spares us from deciding what genes are good and what genes are bad as it does that for us.

Spare me the Social Darwinism. Socioeconomics is infinitely complex and has far too many factors and modes to be boiled down to a replication of evolution. Things like inheritance, taxation and property warp it beyond belief.

usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2007-08-12-smart-not-rich_n.htm

This, only retards think IQ tests are the universal way of showing intelligence.

Name one successful 1st world country in the entire world that wasn't built on the back of Capitalism. There aren't any. Communism, whenever it's been tried, has proven to fail time and time again.

You're so wrapped in "what's fair" or not instead of "what actually works". People need to be insentivized and compete with each other because that's our most basic biological instinct.

Also, don't confuse Capitalism with Anarcho-Capitalism. You can still have capitalism and some government regulations and welfare. It's in fact optimal that the economy be mixed to a certain extent to keep the people who aren't gonna succeed in life comfortable enough to not try and start a revolution that gets you an even shittier system like Communism.

>Name one successful 1st world country in the entire world that wasn't built on the back of Capitalism
Capitalism is just a stage we must pass through

>Communism, whenever it's been tried, has proven to fail time and time again
Socialism worked pretty well in the USSR given its conditions. Made it a superpower within 30 years.

>You're so wrapped in "what's fair" or not instead of "what actually works". People need to be insentivized and compete with each other because that's our most basic biological instinct.
Humans evolved to cooperate with one another. The idea of endless struggle is 19th century projection.

psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways

econweb.ucsd.edu/~carsonvs/papers/41.pdf

the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/43000/title/Gender-Equality-in-Hunter-Gatherer-Groups/

>'s in fact optimal that the economy be mixed to a certain extent to keep the people who aren't gonna succeed in life comfortable enough to not try and start a revolution
Well exactly, the welfare state was designed to quell revolutionary sentiment among the working class after the Russian Revolution.

>Socialism worked pretty well in the USSR given its conditions. Made it a superpower within 30 years.

The USSR spanned a third of Asia with a population at the end of 290 million, it's pretty hard to fuck that up

I don't deny they made mistakes, especially under Brezhnev. Too much military spending, not enough computerisation of planning etc. But for the first ever socialist state it did well, given how much of a mess Russia was in 1917, then the Civil War, then rebuilding, then WW2.

IQ test over 100 are iffy when it comes to measuring intelligence, but if you score under 90 then the test is legit as its way to prove you are a fucking idiot.

As I said before IQ TEST WERE INVENTED TO FIND IDIOTS NOT MEASURE SMART PEOPLE.

The fact that niggers collectively keep scoring in the terminal retardation range(under 70) proves they are absolute stupid fucks.

No they actually score like 85. The numbers used for the below 70 were done wrong.

subsaharans, not american blacks who are biological hybrids.

No it was for sub-Sahara though and as Africa develops and more money is put into education and social quality of life goes up Iq will go up like every part of the world like it did every else in the world.

you got the cart in front of the horse, IQ is driver and the development is the passenger. Africa's brain drain enabled by mass immigration keeps them in arrested development.

>Bench press
>doesn't measure the athlete that focuses on any other muscles save for the arm muscles

.ok

"IQ tests can't possibly correlate with intelligence guys! That'd be racist!"

Vikings entered the iron age, and actually pulled their civilizations foward in time.

Niggers still live in mudhuts and have accomplished nothing.

kekked at your whole >"these statistics don't count because they're racist!" rant

Vikings were useless savages.

That shit makes no fucking sense because if that was the case then South Korea would still be a poor as fuck state.

Better yet if everyone was low IQ then how did development even occur when everyone one was pretty stupid as hell. you points make no sense.

>Socialism made Russia a superpower
man I love memes

So upholding statistics on races of dogs is racidm as they're the same species but different races according to you

Where do they get all this data on IQ if it's so inaccessible. You can't even find a reliable test on the internet.

>tfw reading this thread
Shaking my head to be honest. I didn't realize Veeky Forums was so full of retard high schoolers. Do you guys get your information from Salon.com?

You could start by googling the word "psychometrics".

Africans, with their 65-70 average IQs, are below the threshold for mental retardation. This is a scientific fact.

Either we stop treating retards and give them the right to vote, or we acknowledge the reality and close the borders to African nations.

Russia was a wasteland before socialism. It need a good kick up the arse after the calamity that was WW1. It had no industry.

East Asians excel in tests designed for European culture.

That disproves your "always skewed towards culture that made them" hypothesis.

Humans should be forcibly mixed together until the concept of race disappears altogether.

You're in favor of moving to Africa and starting a mixed culture there?

>It's basically common knowledge already that IQ tests are severely incomplete in mapping of the full spectrum of types of intelligences that exist

It's common knowledge in the sense that the common people think this, not that it's it's true. In fact, intelligence researchers don't accept the multiple intelligence hypothesis, which is basically bunk.