"Scientists claim black people less intelligent than whites" Is it cultural or genetic, Veeky Forums?

Well obviously you are kind of stupid if you don't understand averages and how a substantially lower average IQ would affect a population.

It doesn't matter if it's cultural or genetic or if it exists or doesn't exist

The end of this race to genetic perfection is suicide

>heritable

yo do know that heritability=/= genetics although it's one aspect of it

IQ is not genetic because it can change depending on the ammount of effort a person puts on becoming intelligent regardless of the genetics.

Also, it is true that black people are mostly less intelligent than white people in the USoA but mostly because of shitty "black" culture dumbing some stupid blacks down.

Also, egyptians.

this is bait right?

>IQ is not genetic

IQ has been demonstrated to be heritable for decades now, stop spreading lies.

>that intelligence, like physical ability, can be influenced by race

Stop being retarded.

Intelligence is a fucking trait. Some traits are more or less pronounced in particular groups of people, the same is true of intelligence.

>IQ is not genetic because it can change depending on the ammount of effort a person puts on becoming intelligent regardless of the genetics.

No part of this is true. Education has no overall effect on IQ, neither does "trying to be smarter". You may as well "try to be taller".

>Also, egyptians.
>HURR WE WUZ

Ancient Egyptians, like modern Egyptians, are white (caucasoid).

Hahaha look at this moron, look at him and laugh!

>2009

slowpoke

Anyways, thinking of races as categorically equal in any trait is to assume either that groups are genetically isomorphic and 'race' or 'ethnicity' or whatever are not true concepts and there is no lower-order group taxonomy in humans. That claim seems scientifically false, ethnic groups and "races" clearly look different from one another in ways necessarily tied to environmental pressure. This is how natural selection works, systematic group differences in anything heritable indicates an underlying 'logos' - that is gene stratification, that is mirrored environmental pressure.

So the question really concerns "appreciable differences". Phenotypical intelligence is tied to race differences, the tests predict intelligent behavior and are statistically and immanently valid. It's not like spatial reasoning is normal or slightly depressed, but language skills carry the average down or something (hypothetically). Whether or not this is heritable is just speculative at this point, but cognitive genomics will give us something definitive and it marches on in spite of this culture's dogmas and compunctions.

>Phenotypical intelligence

Phenotype means appearance user.
Phenotype intelligence makes no sense.

>being this stupid, and letting everyone know it

Try googling terms you don't understand before you make a fool of yourself, fool.

>Education has no overall effect on IQ

How the hell does it not? IF you have no exposure to the education, testing culture and encountering the patterns in schooling you have no way for performing tests optimally.

>A phenotype (from Greek phainein, meaning 'to show', and typos, meaning 'type') is the composite of an organism's observable characteristics or traits, such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, behavior, and products of behavior (such as a bird's nest).

Words evoke concepts breh

So you may think, but reality doesn't care what you think. The FACT is, education does not influence IQ in any notable way.

Post your source then.

Hello fellow iron pill

80% of your adult IQ is genetically determined, the rest is environmental (not just education, ALL environmental influences).

...

You haven't posted a source for any of your claims.

Try Google. I'm not interested in spoonfeeding you, this isn't some state secret that you can't find information on by yourself.

You make a claim you have to prove it. That's how it always goes user. The proof of burden is on you.

>it can change depending on the ammount of effort a person puts on becoming intelligent

burden of proof is on you

Really? Because I googled your claim that education has no effect on IQ, and virtually every source I can find claims the opposite, as does my psychology textbook.

>my psychology textbook

you fucked up

t.psychology major

learn the difference between correlation and causation

Do you have trouble reading or something?

It doesn't really matter, because it doesn't impact the functioning of a society (despite what people may think).

Modern societies are, by and large, based on the model of representative democracy. Even if a population is, on average, 10 - 20 IQ points below that of another, in a representative democracy, this wont really matter much. The reason being that while the average might be lower, there will still be many people of significantly above average intelligence present in the nation. These people form the core of a stable nation, as, like it or not, politicians are generally well educated people, who rarely act on the bidding of the people, but rather in what they perceive as the people's interest.

The stability of a functioning, democratic society is governed by the systemic stability of the governmental class and the forces that maintain the law. Ultimately, this requires very few intelligent people, specifically only those who form the governmental class, and those who maintain authority over the security services (police, military, social services). The IQ of the majority of a society is largely irrelevant, because all they can do is pick from a small selection of intelligent people who then govern their country, appointing other intelligent people to the posts that require their position.

This is one area where the cynical view of democracy (that it doesn't serve the will of the people, but the will of the ruling class, and that the people don't have an enormous amount of influence, as, intelligent or not, they are all swayed by populism) actually shows its value.

This has already been proven to work in countries that are almost entirely sub-saharan African (Namibia, Botswana, Nigeria, Kenya etc).

They may or may not be, on average, lower IQ, but that doesn't matter because they'll still have outliers who are intelligent, who populate the political and corporate class, and who are the only ones with any real power, other than to choose between them.

You're a literal sophomore.

>This has already been proven to work in countries that are almost entirely sub-saharan African (Namibia, Botswana, Nigeria, Kenya etc).

How so?

>it doesn't matter if your population is 20 points lower on average than another population because your government is going to fix everything

you're giving way too much credit to central bureaucracies. Average everyday citizens are the core of their society.

Besides, democratic systems aren't necessarily meritocratic.

I can't find anything. Are you a liar user?

>How so?

In that, while their populations are almost entirely sub-saharan Africans, they are representative democracies, relatively stable and on the road to prosperity (I know Nigeria has issues with Muslims in the north, but that's not due to the IQ of the populace, but rather is nature of Islam). They have issues with corruption and misuse of power obviously, but the same is true of all developing nations, which, should they continue on the path of stability, they will likely outrgrow.

They are not by any means akin to northern European states, but they have formed functioning nations that are economically and socially growing, all in the wake of colonialism (which, while not particularly damaging to these countries, did redraw the borders to press large groups of differing ethno-cultural peoples together into one state).

>you're giving way too much credit to central bureaucracies. Average everyday citizens are the core of their society.
>Besides, democratic systems aren't necessarily meritocratic.

The point is exactly that representative democracy is not a particularly meritocratic system (to varying degrees), as as such it serves well no matter the IQ of the general populace.

As to giving credit to bureaucracies, what I'm saying is not so much about the system as a whole, but rather the way it is governed on a local and national level. People feeling like they have power generally has a placating effect, and when people feel like their interests are being served in governance, they tend toward peace and growth. The point is, whether blacks are lower IQ on average than whites, it doesn't matter, as we can observe that there are plenty of whites in the west that are possessing of such IQs, and are perfectly peaceful when they feel as though they have a voice and their needs are met.

And to go on from that, a stable nation in a globalised economy will generally continue to grow so long as the stability is maintained.

Hitler dubs

>whether blacks are lower IQ on average than whites, it doesn't matter

no but listen it actually does matter.

>(I know Nigeria has issues with Muslims in the north, but that's not due to the IQ of the populace, but rather is nature of Islam

Not it's the fact that Libya got fucked up and became a hotbed of radical Islam and the Northern parts are always being historically neglected during the colonial and post colonial era and population shifts in location.

>no but listen it actually does matter.

In what way?

Does low IQ correlate with crime or civil disobedience and unrest?

Prosperity is achieved through sustained economic growth, sustained economic growth is achieved through integration into the global economy and protracted political stability, both of those things are achieved by well managed representative democracy and regulated free market capitalism. In order to build this system, you do not require the majority of the populace to be intelligent, the result of democratic elections do not matter nearly as much as the process themselves and the idea of power it gives to the people, you only need a small number of intelligent, educated people to govern a stable, growing, potentially prosperous nation. Even if the average IQ of blacks is 10-20 points lower than whites and east Asians, there will still be an enormous excess of suitable people for governmental and corporate roles in the outliers.

This means that there is no real reason blacks can't form peaceful and prosperous nations, and as I have said, some are already on their way there. Remember, colonialism only formally ended a few decades ago (1960s - 1980s), so these nations have had to build self-governance from the ground up in a very short time, with multi-ethnic, multi-cultural states that are rife with historic rivalries.

>Not it's the fact that Libya got fucked up and became a hotbed of radical Islam and the Northern parts are always being historically neglected during the colonial and post colonial era and population shifts in location.

Of course that's a factor, but I'd argue it's got more to do with Islam being an easily exploitable ideology that can very simply be turned into populist extremism (similar to communism and nationalism), making it somewhat inherently volatile in poorer, less educated and developed populations.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Crime

>The 2009 Handbook of Crime Correlates stated that reviews have found that around eight IQ points, or 0.5 SD, separate criminals from the general population, especially for persistent serious offenders. It has been suggested that this simply reflects that "only dumb ones get caught" but there is similarly a negative relation between IQ and self-reported offending.

You said 20 goddamn points m8.

>governmental and corporate roles

Again, I think you're overstating the role of government here. Especially since you've outlined the importance of the free market.

>colonialism only formally ended a few decades ago

c-colonialism was a good thing and the Chinese are already recolonizing

>colonialism was a good thing and the Chinese are already recolonizing
>Peacefully making contracts with African nations rather than throwing money at them and telling them how to live like a paternalist is colonialism
Neat

>Peacefully making contracts with African nations

that's how the slave trade started

I think a small part is cultural, but it's mostly based off of genetics.
You also need to define what "intelligent" means, is it IQ? Is it arithmetic? Mathematics? Literature? Poetry? Architecture? Astrology?
If you base it off of that, then yes I think black people are less intelligent. I think surviving in hostile environments made whites and asians more intelligent than blacks, because they had to be.

>building roads=slavery

>roads=slavery
Yes.

>muh roads

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Crime
>The 2009 Handbook of Crime Correlates stated that reviews have found that around eight IQ points, or 0.5 SD, separate criminals from the general population, especially for persistent serious offenders. It has been suggested that this simply reflects that "only dumb ones get caught" but there is similarly a negative relation between IQ and self-reported offending.
>You said 20 goddamn points m8.

First, I have no idea how big the supposed gulf between the average of whites and blacks is, 10 - 20 points was an extreme estimation, as we do not have any real, concrete numbers for the average IQ scores of many populations.

That said, the correlation implied in your link does not indicate causation. If low IQ was a causative factor for crime, then why are nations like the Bahamas (average IQ 84) wealthy and stable, yet countries like Yemen (avg. IQ 85) and Uganda (avg. IQ 84) completely destitute, corrupt and/or unstable? Why does Botswana (avg. 70) have the same GDP as Belarus (avg. 97), while being more democratic and less corrupt?

>iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

The reality is that IQ, while potentially one factor among many, is not a determining factor in the prosperity or stability of a nation. Culture, system of governance, and economic opportunity are what defines a prosperous nation. Hence saying that blacks being lower IQ on average makes little to no difference when it comes to their ability to form decent societies.

So scienctific facts are racist?

Yes, there's literally no difference between say Sweden (average IQ around 100) and Mexico (average IQ 88). 10 or so IQ-points on average doesn't change a thing :^)

"Does low IQ correlate with crime or civil disobedience and unrest?"

YES. HEAVILY. You haven't looked into these things at all, have you?

The gulf is larger than even 20 points if we are talking about Africans. We are talking around 30 points.

Here's a guideline: iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

Look at the list where they rank countries by IQ. Try to come to any other conclusion than that IQ heavily correlates with how civilized, crime-free and wealthy a nation is.

while it's probably true, until further advancements in neurology there is nothing but pseudoscience on the matter.

>psychometrics
>science
kek

>not science
>inherently non-factual
See how easy it is?

>. 5-10 IQ-points is not a small differen
Don't Serbians have an IQ of 89

never said that
no matter how accurate IQ is, it is not scientific

It's used mainly as a way to measure a child development in comparison to their peers.

I went to Arras, where he was from. It was pretty cool.

Poor people will turn to anything to get help or feel comfortable.

If it wasn't radical Islamist would be a social movement like the Igbos did to voice their display content