So has this actually been discredited yet?

Yes. Simply because if it was right MENSA would be full of scientists or other geniuses when it isn't. Did it bring up interesting points? Yeah. It was an interesting study for the times, but it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. An IQ simply isn't the holy grail of intelligence.

>/pol/ loves the bit about blacks having lower IQ
>always ignores the bit about college educated being smarter because "cultural marxism"

>Because that means people will implement shitty polices based on it user that can hurt people

How is social constructivism so beneficial?
How would outright denying reality and insisting upon the idea that we all start equally NOT hurt people?
We keep people who aren't equal to others in a fantasyland about their ability.

>haha, well if you're so smart, why do the smartest people agree with theory A ;)

Maybe because that's not a fucking argument? Smart people buying into a particular philosophy doesn't make it correct.
If you went to a medieval city in Europe, it'd be quite the challenge to find the upper crust of society agree with Darwinism or tell you anything else but scholasticism.
Smart people get meme'd as much as normies do, but by slightly more complex systems of thought.

The handful of geniuses that a generation produces in world history, they have a far less meme tier take on things and actually produce holistic systems of their own, which turn out to affect the following generations. They're far less likely to echo/reproduce or refine current models and more likely to overturn them.

What I'm seeing is a turn towards the right, in the upper crust of the intelligentsia. They're doing it mostly behind the scenes, because there's an almost literal witch hunt for vaguely defined nazi's.

>What I'm seeing is a turn towards the right, in the upper crust of the intelligentsia. They're doing it mostly behind the scenes, because there's an almost literal witch hunt for vaguely defined nazi's.
How can you see it if it's happening behind the scenes?

Because I talk to them.

Also, I'm not talking about a far right turn necessarily.
People like Sloterdijk are the future. Not Zizek.

Not really. It's not really a race book though, which I know you're trying to sell it as (as well as its critics were.)

In regards to class it really did pan out like they thought, the situation you find on elite college campuses perfectly displays it. Those people have nothing in common with the small town Kansas people working in factories or on farms. They might as well be different nations let alone classes.

You write like a complete mongoloid

Can somebody refute pic related?

it discredits itself by using pseudoscience in it's bases.

easy
>IQ
pseudoscience.

Sure!

>2017
>Using opinions found on blogs as your sources instead of empirical evidence

There you go!

Which part? It's almost completely wrong or misleading so refuting it all would take ages.

>I don't know anything about cognitive psychology but I will still make sweeping stupid statements about it: the post

>cognitive psychology
pseudoscience. unless you can explain to me how it utilizes the scientific method?

>unless you can explain to me how it utilizes the scientific method?
So let me get this clear.
You don't believe cognitive psychology is science, which means that you think every single scientist working in the field, no matter where, is basically a hack. Why you believe this, I don't know, but it doesn't matter to the question ahead.
Somehow you think it's possbile that I, an anonymous guy who obviously knows far less about the field than any of those scientists, am capable of reversing your opinion on this matter, despite the fact that literally nothing you've ever encountered in your study of this subject has ever managed that feat. Why would you even ask me that question? It's clear you've figured it all out.

if you're incapable of understanding that you just responded with an ad hominem, I doubt you're capable of explaining how the field of psychology utilizes the scientific method(it doesn't, and people within the field know this).

that's why it's compartmentalized as a "social science", and isn't considered a hard science. psychology is to neurology as astrology is to cosmology. it's educated guesses using the best data available at the time, but in the end, a pseudoscience that is unreliable for obtaining information that holds consistency.

Mine wasn't an ad hominem at all, as I wasn't saying that you're wrong or right at all, I was just pointing out how absurd your demand was.
An ad hominem is something more like this "you sound very stupid since you're unironically parroting LE STEM XD -tier debate points, therefore you're wrong".

true, I assumed that you wouldn't be able to realize that due to my belief that you think I'm wrong mixed with your blatant lack of education as to what is and is not "science". your beliefs of my character and your abilites to influence it are not relevant to psychology and the scientific method. you don't seem to have anything to say on the subject, whereas I have expanded the topic. your post is literally a 100% irrelevant rant, and your second post was you continuing on the subject of that new rant, i.e. red herring.

user, again, yours is just DAE LE STEM rhetoric, it's not interesting, nobody takes it seriously in the field of philosophy of science and not only you actually believe in retarded stuff like
>psychology is to neurology as astrology is to cosmology
but you somehow convinced yourself that this opinion is shared by people in the field, when in fact the only people who think like this are idiots who know nothing about psychology or philosophy of science.
It's hilarious.

Also, since you're such a lolcow, let me just point this out, you started by saying that IQ is pseudoscience (lol) then went on about the inability of psychology to obtain information that holds consistency. The irony of course is in the fact that IQ research is consistently replicated throughout time, in different countries, in all of its aspects.

I fail to see the relevance of this post. are you able to explain to me how psychology is a science or not? you haven't even refuted my post. you made an argument from authority, you quoted a portion of my post and then attacked my character.

based on subjective metrics of what constitutes "intelligence", subjective ideas as to how to obtain these metrics, from subjective proportions of the population obtained from subjectively selected areas. it's a guess piled upon a pile of opinions, only semantics can make it seem like something it is not. an IQ map could be a map of people's willingness to engage in a test, and have nothing to do with intelligence. equally sound.

not even the guy you're sperging with but please define intelligence

Why? You know what it is. You're just going to make pretend you don't using babbys first Socratic method. Don't tell me you can't tell if someone is intelligent or if they are a mouth breathing moron within the first 10 seconds of talking to them.

Serious question. Is this book worth reading? I have been meaning to buy it since freshman biology and I never got around to it.

why? it's not relevant to explaining how psychology is supposed to be scientific. could you please define what a "horse" is, for me?

I want to know what it is in your opinion

>why?
Because I need to know what his opinion is
>could you please define what a "horse" is, for me?
A member of the equus ferus species, that was quite easy desu senpai

This. Facts are only good insofar as people I don't like aren't aware of them.

I can look at two different groups of people and determine which one has (classical) intelligence or not.

There are routines of intelligence like speed of symbol identification, speed and accuracy of manipulating symbols, putting together disparate shapes into a coherent whole, description of the meaning of words, etc.

In practice, I respect individuals but also respect group stereotypes. I have no problem with intelligent black men and women. I have a problem with living by an area where black men and women, in general, live.

And intelligence produces assortative mating. There's a UNIVERSE of difference between intelligent black men/women in gated communities and your stereotypical hood rat.

If you can't see it, that's your loss of predictive ability and harm reduction heuristics.

All of this is really great but why did you have to go and put that (classical) thing in? please explain

Can you repeat the question?

Because intelligence is such a politicized word that "other types of intelligences" were created to assauge the butthurt of those who can't stand the unfairness of life.

"Emotional intelligence, kinesthetic intelligence, etc"

Those might make up fine metrics but they're different from what we, classically, respect and identify with when the word 'intelligence" is being used.

I'm with you all the way but why do you bend over to the notion that there is more than one intelligence form? You need to be more confident in your opinion

Should we just genocide everyone but Asians?

Asian mean is higher but stdev is smaller which is why there are few asian geniuses.

Asians produce high quality but stagnant societies.

Only because I'm a sperg and can understand how muscle movement and reaction could be modeled as an information system with very complex parts.

And this is actually interesting, if not a bit enlightening. Discrimination on a tribal level is far better than academic discrimination on race. It allows information and RL discrimination that is able to see who has a better chance of being "bright'.

Funny you joke about that.
Ever since I was aware I could see Asian GIRLS blowing white women away in math, stem everything.
They were basically as smart as white men.

Not to speak of the Asian men.
I love this meme.

Here's another chart where asians deviate as much as others or more.

Please, not the spread.

If I were to use the word "intelligence", I would have "the ability to use abstractions in a decision making process as opposed to automatic stimulus response" in mind. a semantical argument over the definition of the word is something I'm not interested in, though, especially if my meaning is clear. a word is a crafted tool.

>Only because I'm a sperg
So you're weaker because you can understand more?

>that mean of 90
give mensa more of your money, squint.

CONT.

Honestly I'm a bit impressed with the analysis towards being broken down into tribes.

The unfortunate part is that it's hard to tell who is in what tribe. I know Ethopians in Los Angeles are significantly better off than mainstream blacks but if intelligence runs across tribal lines, I'd have to research in what tribes have immigrated to the USA

Japan Turkey tier, thus proving my point. Shanghai and Singapore are not representative of asians.

Stdev is high because of low IQ pinoys and cambodians

Source? Looks like a fake chart

One of the ironies in the world is that strategies with a higher tempo can overwhelm the construction of more stable models.

I can construct a more practical "truth" but be drowned out by social apes.

Tribes and politics are a funny thing. You don't call people stupid(er) and expect them to cooperate. Even if it's the truth.

you should look into the great leap forward and how it may have influenced the chinese genetically. killed innovation while simultaneously rewarding subservience. of course people who are good at jumping through hoops and doing what they are told do well on tests when they are told to.

>pseudoscience
>not even accurate pseudoscience
the IQ system holds an average of 100. that chart places it around 85-90 at best. if you're a dick stroking asian, you aren't even intelligent enough to realize your charts are blatantly false.

White countries have lower or equal stdevs than asians. Look at that chart again. And again.
>creativity
Another white nationalist meme created to subvert their own race science.

Asian research institutions aren't well established. Most Asian intellectual capital goes into industry. Japan alone makes more patents than all of Europe combined yearly, and the average Korean is something like 6-10x more innovative per capita than the average Euro.

52% of American patents are by non residents

Have you taken a look at who writes those "American" and "Canadian" citations?

Not to mention, look at the TOP citations, almost all Asians in the hard sciences.

scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&vq=chm&view_op=list_hcore&venue=UJChSoIuvTUJ.2016

scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&vq=eng&view_op=list_hcore&venue=iGi98NXoUDsJ.2016

scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&vq=phy&view_op=list_hcore&venue=ey6hLIMB9w4J.2016
Oh, hey.

You guys are in total and utter denial when faced with the facts.

First of all, why do you speak like you have a wardrobe full of capes?

Secondly, intelligence is not a binary thing, you cant just have the ability or lack it, your definition sucks balls and I didnt even touch the supposed opposite of your "intelligence".

Thirdly, a word is a crafted tool sure but there is no single craftsman nor is it set in stone. So when people talk about abstract ideas like intelligence they must explain what they mean. Especially if they do not agree with one of the very few things that psychology, in all its pseudoscientific glory, has got right

what "facts"? psychology is a pseudoscience, "intelligence" is arbitrarily defined, and your supporting arguments assume an objective idea of "utility". you ironically lack the scientific and philosophical education to even begin to discuss "intelligence", instead posting charts that have self-contradicting false data and ignoring that when called out on it.

you should become an engineer. there's a bone at the end. good boy.

>but my creativity IQ is higher

>you cant just have the ability or lack it
a bird has intelligence. a rock doesn't. are you retarded?

>Especially if they do not agree with one of the very few things that psychology, in all its pseudoscientific glory, has got right
proof? or is this just your precious opinion?

also I own two capes, some tunics, white robes, and a few circlets.

You don't have to explain your strategy or your construction to someone who won't get it, simple as that. Obviously you don't call them stupid but you treat them like children if you must, if there is something to be gained from them at least. Otherwise why even bother?

>Tribes and politics are a funny thing.
Everything is politics in a sense. Politics is like applied philosophy with economics and biology sprinkled in the mix.

K.
Just remember the "alt-right" race science points to Asians as the master race.
They even have bigger brains when adjusted for body size.
Actually all kinds of intelligence correlate with IQ according to psychometricians.
Funny right.

PS
Oh, shit I totally forgot I had this here chart.

>a bird has intelligence
We have intelligence too. By your definition our intelligence is no different than that of birds or any other living organism, retard

>proof?
Read about the g factor

>Just remember the "alt-right" race science points to Asians as the master race.
are you trying to tell me that an edgy teenage political point of view should influence my judgement?

>They even have bigger brains when adjusted for body size.
you betray yourself as not the brightest bulb if you think this defends asian intelligence in any way.
>our brains are smaller but we are smaller too so that makes us more intelligent overall somehow!

No, but it has been radically and intentionally misunderstood so that people on one end of the political spectrum can get mad.

Saying much more than that get's into off topic modern political discussion.

I totally agree.

/pol/ only accepts half of it, anyways.

>I knew it, blacks have lower IQs and are thus subhuman inferior monkeys
>Asians and Jews have higher IQs because

straw man, your claim has nothing to do with my definition. we handle abstractions differently than a bird does, yes. but a bird has intelligence, and so does a human. you haven't explained how my definition is incorrect in any way, makes you look a little silly when you call me a "retard", especially after accidentally claiming rocks have intelligence.

>read about g factor
pseudoscience. explain to me how it utilizes the scientific method.

>POLICE POLICE WE HAVE A STRAWMAAAAAAN
If you were intelligent enough, you would have realised that your definition lacks any metric. You can't measure it in any way. It's binary, just on or off. Fucking retard you best be trolling

>pseudoscience. explain to me how it utilizes the scientific method.
Sure here goes it's gonna take me some time though so please be patient

Ackerman, P. L.; Beier, M. E.; Boyle, M. O. (2005). "Working memory and intelligence: The same or different constructs?". Psychological Bulletin. 131: 30–60. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.30. PMID 15631550.
Bartholomew, D.J.; Deary, I.J.; Lawn, M. (2009). "A New Lease of Life for Thomson's Bonds Model of Intelligence" (PDF). Psychological Review. 116: 567–579. doi:10.1037/a0016262. PMID 19618987.
Brody, N. (2006). Geocentric theory: A valid alternative to Gardner's theory of intelligence. In Schaler J. A. (Ed.), Howard Gardner under fire: The rebel psychologist faces his critics. Chicago: Open Court.
Carroll, J.B. (1995). "Reflections on Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man (1981) A Retrospective Review". Intelligence. 21: 121–134. doi:10.1016/0160-2896(95)90022-5.
Carroll, J.B. (1997). "Psychometrics, Intelligence, and Public Perception" (PDF). Intelligence. 24: 25–52. doi:10.1016/s0160-2896(97)90012-x.
Chabris, C.F. (2007). Cognitive and Neurobiological Mechanisms of the Law of General Intelligence. In Roberts, M. J. (Ed.) Integrating the mind: Domain general versus domain specific processes in higher cognition. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Chabris, C.F.; Hebert, B.M; Benjamin, D.J.; Beauchamp, J.P.; Cesarini, D.; van der Loos, M.J.H.M.; Johannesson, M.; Magnusson, P.K.E.; Lichtenstein, P.; Atwood, C.S.; Freese, J.; Hauser, T.S.; Hauser, R.M.; Christakis, N.A. & Laibson, D. (2012). "Most Reported Genetic Associations with General Intelligence Are Probably False Positives" (PDF). Psychological Science. 23 (11): 1314–1323. doi:10.1177/0956797611435528. PMC 3498585

I never claimed it had any metric. that's what makes your post a straw man. there are aspects of intelligence that can be measured, but intelligence itself is dichotomic.

>Sure here goes it's gonna take me some time though so please be patient
you explained nothing. just psoted a list of names, dates and numbers. if you understood how g factor was developed via the scientific method, you would be able to explain it to me. obviously you do not.

Telling someone to read something is not an argument.

didnt let me copy paste all of the scientific method utilization because of spam detection but I went the extra mile and made a picture of the scientific method utilization just for you.

You wont be able to click on the blue letters and save some time but you'll be more than able to print the scientific method utilization and shove it up your ass for better and faster absorption through the rectal lining

>Because that means people will implement shitty polices based on it

No it doesn't.

Either way, it's not like denying reality is going to produce better policies.

I only see a list of names, dates and numbers. do there is nothing in the image about the scientific method being utilized in g factor. if I go to the wikipedia article you are screencapping, none of these references are even related to the scientific method. are you aware of this?

are you able to explain how g factor utilizes the scientific method or are you unable to?

not him, but i'd like to hear what is the mechanistic explanation behind g
something substantive, other than "I'll just rename smarts and call it g-fatcor"

Telling someone to read something is not an argument

That's right goy all of humanity magically basks in perfect equality.

Anyone who questions that is Hitler!

Why are you asking questions like "What landmark study or great researcher proved all races were equal?"

You need to baselessly accept that we're all the same.

Why would you ever feel the need to question that? Are you RACIST?

Other than removing AA and having asians flood all the universities as a result, what other policies you think there's to be found in there

>Everything is politics in a sense.

As I said, I am/was a sperg who counted on the construction of "truth" like a cold marble bust.

Life experience + a hundred psychedelic trips + change in diet taught me the limited utility of such a construction. Almost an intellectual spanking against a cold megalomania.

I feel like an idiot for ever trusting 99% of what my teachers and exemplars said. At the very least, it taught me that good intentions, without good intelligence and wisdom, is a path to innumerable hells.

As I like to say, the smell of hay is worth more than the sum of our moral and intellectual models. We do far better in examining sensual things than in abusing properties of language and symbols in the service of a megalomania.

Well affirmative action is a stupid idea to begin with. The people who excel in a capitalist system should be allowed to excel, and the people who don't should find something else to do.

Part of the reason why universities are so shit now, is because everyone with 90 IQ and above are allowed to go there, when they shouldn't.

>Explain how this isn't pseudoscience
>Links a bunch of pseudoscientific sources
I love it. It's like using the bible to defend it's own integrity. It's poetic.

I agree.
See the UK, they have no AA.

>objective ideas of "utility"
>holding faith in religious "ought"s
>basing these ideas on pseudoscience
I'd be embarrassed.

you in favor of AA m80

yes or no

I don't care, it has nothing to do with my intentions.

Who are you quoting?

I think it's pretty clear that I'm quoting two people.

No it's not pretty clear, because nobody said anything about "objective ideas of utility" or "faith in "ought's""

You realize it was written by a Jew, Hernstein?

>two examples of the word "should"
>one example of the word "shouldn't"
>no "ought"s
all centered around the idea that it is inherently correct for a capitalist system to have as much "utility" as possible, as though "efficiency" is an inherently desirable metric to be obtained in priority. you don't specify it because you naively and religiously consider it axiomatic.

>all centered around the idea that it is inherently correct for a capitalist system to have as much "utility" as possible

No it's centered around the idea that people who don't have the ability nor the IQ to complete an education at a high level shouldn't do it either.

The world needs plenty of plumbers and electricians. Just because you're not as smart as Einstein and do a job that isn't as prestigious doesn't mean you aren't valuable.

>shouldn't
>needs
why?

>why?

Why?

I'm trying to display to you that you have religious ideas of "utility" by having you explain why you think there are things that "should" and "shouldn't" be. putting up a wall of cognitive dissonance is fine and expected, of course, but you won't learn anything.

You call it "religious ideas of utility", I call it being pragmatic, and realistic.

We live in a capitalist world. We live in a world were you have to earn money to stay alive. We live in a world that needs both highly educated people, and not so educated people to stay functional.

What is the problem here? It seems to me that you're just projecting your own nihilism and resentment at the system towards me.

Not discredited as such but IQ tests are deliberately skewed to over-represent white people's """"understanding""" of the world as """intelligence"""".

You only need to look at trends in sports, rhythm and dance to see that blacks have higher intelligence.

Intelligence isn't the same thing as believing in logic and evidence, that's why black people have a greater religious IQ than whites.

pewforum.org/2009/01/30/a-religious-portrait-of-african-americans/

you uphold that outside of your first-person perspective, there is a sort of system that you inherently should strive to protect, uphold, and/or expand. why should you?

>we live in a capitalist world
we live on a rock hurling through space, and some people call it "a capitalist world" from the perspective of one species climbing over each others imaginary units of power in a huge LARP that functions because nearly everyone is playing the same game of make-believe. don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there's anything inherently "incorrect" about it, but there is nothing inherently "correct" about it either. it just is.

>We live in a world were you have to earn money to stay alive.
observably false.

>We live in a world that needs both highly educated people, and not so educated people to stay functional.
false. many people* live in a society* that utilizes* highly educated people(as a machine utilizes cogs and mechanisms) in order to consolidate power against threats*.

>IQ tests are deliberately skewed

idiot, are you implying Jews and East Asians are cheating? Not only racist, but an anti-Semite too.