I've been seeing this picture posted a lot lately. I have some questions about it

If you want to understand why blacks are so inferior, go to the biology board
Here we discuss history

Indeed, it needs wood, stones and animals
Are you implying Africa doesnt have that?

qatar is a tiny country built on vast amounts of oil money and slave labor

meant for

Is this an "every day until you like it" sort of thing?

Don't be stupid, it depends entirely on where you are. Africa is not a small place.

The diversity of domesticatable (not tameable) animals native to sub-saharan Africa is extremely small. I'm struggling to think of any now, except for cattle in the Horn of the continent, which traded down the Nile from Egypt. The same lack can be found in North America, Australia, New Zealand, Polynesia, etc.

Do you idiots honestly think African cities are 10 million mudhuts?

Tbh, thanks to looting and inequality a lot of their mega wealth projects are nicer than recent Western ones.

They just aren't helping the common man.

This is in Africa...

yeah why didn't all of Africa just come together with all their wood stones and animals from around the continent and make one big civilization ayy lmao

Lagos

Now why don't you post pics of pre-colonial african cities?

Wow, this Nigerian mall looks so premodern!

...

Like Addas Abiba, which was never colonized?

Zanzibar was an arab colony

Addis Abeba was founded in the late 19th century... Thank you european architects!

Colonization wasn't worth it. It's more profitable to just let your big businesses do their thing and extract resources over there, without getting your entire state apparatus involved.

That's all European architecture, how do you not know that you absolute PLEB

... and Tokyo and Hong Kong used techniques developed in the West to build their skyline.

At least Lagos was built up using African labor and some African architects for large skyscrapers.

The Gulf States literally use almost all foreign labor and Western firms to build shit.

These goal posts are moving fast.

I don't know if you're being facetious, but indeed, the stuff in was built by europeans.

For instance, the statue of the Lion was built by this huwhite boi:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Calka

>moving goalposts

Has anyone tried to domesticate the zebra and other African game? This would go a long way to either prove or disprove whether Africans are to blame for living in straw huts until colonization

>zebras are wild unpredictable anima-

Yeah, but if the point is "hurr, Africans so dumb, they can't even use their resources, the Arabs made Dubai," it's totally relevant.

The lead architect on the Burn Dubai was Adrian Smith. The lead engineer was Bill Baker. Construction management was done by Turner of the USA.

19th-century colonists tried desperately to domesticate the zebra because they are immune to native diseases that made horses drop like flies.

They failed, needless to say

>theconversation.com/why-zebra-refused-to-be-saddled-with-domesticity-65018

>lol taming, domesticating, it's all the same to me bro ayyy lmao

>a shitty generic mall is now considered the sign of advanced civilization
I'm American and even I cringed

> Africa is all mudhuts.
> No it isn't. Developed areas look pretty much like everywhere else in the world.
> LMAO, why doesn't Africa look futuristic!

You asked for African cities. I'm pretty sure Stone Town is an African city.

Plus, Zanzibar was so much more than just an Arab colony.

I mean I'm sure you can figure out on your why what you're doing is beyond pathetic. I'll leave you to it.

>This is in Africa...

that is a cgi render

You are missing the point really fucking hard

> it's all IQ!

Even if true, the Flynn effect has brought African IQ up to white IQs in the 1930s so I shouldn't be the barrier to a functioning prosperous continent.

You already have Gabon and Botswana being wealthier than European and Asian nations and their demographics look way better for growth.

>why won't people let me get away with moving goalposts

I don't think anyone in this thread has tried to claim that any Africa has been more developed than European or Asian states, not at least since Ancient Egypt. What was pointing out was that Africa is an urbanising continent, where only people in the deep wilderness live in these things and how many of these people do you think there are? Pic related is showing the Nuba people of Southern Sudan. Leni Riefenstahl compiled a collection of photographs she took of them in the '70s, and titled it "The Last of the Nuba", because their culture was dying out.

No one is trying to get you to be Afro-centrist, we're just saying Africans aren't living in the stone age anymore. Why don't you people give Native Americans the same treatment?

The thing is not all of Africa is the same, you can't treat the entire continent as a monolith. Kenya is a shithole right now, but Nigeria is doing great.

I'm not a /pol/ack, but come on man. Sam Harris brought Charles Murray, who wrote the Bell Curve, on to his podcast to discuss the IQ gap between African Americans and Whites/Asians. The whole thing is over 2 hours long but you can get a good summary of it in a response article adressed to an article from a vox journalist. The vox article was espousing the same old debunked arguments, and completely missed the point.

Acknowledging scientific fact does not make you a white supremacist, wallowing in their own "blood and soil".

>quillette.com/2017/06/11/no-voice-vox-sense-nonsense-discussing-iq-race/

Listening to what ACTUAL scientists and psychologists had to say convinced me. Read the whole thing.

>Zanzibar was an arab colony
Wrong. Also

>Pictures (photographs) of 17th century cities

>we're just saying Africans aren't living in the stone age anymore.

Which isnt the point of this thread. You are making a counter argument to an argument no one is making.

here we go with the IQ nonsense and 'ACTUAL scientists' - there's more to that story than murray and vox

black iq is indeed 90 tops

flynn put it at 85+ in the 2006 paper
peterdanpsychology.ro/ro/pagina/25/files/docs/black iq gains.pdf
NAEP which is 17 yo, but has the advantage of being representative is 90+

there's also the question whether ameriniggers, who were slaves are actually representative of your actual west africans

anyways i really dislike american niggers, but it's funny to me that their iq is most certainly 85+ and people want to tell me indians, indonesians, arabs, mexicans, and even some white peoples(albanians) are as dumb as blacks - either IQ is flawed or the estimates are faulty

so the black estimate provides a sort of a lower boundry for me in a way, not that 90 is even that low, nig problems are of a different nature than the intellectual one

iq explains 25% of the variation in job performance/educational attainment (at most) - there's A LOT more than IQ out there

nigs are the only possibly problematic race, but their biggest issue is far from being iq

guy you responded to has a point about botswana their birth rate is ~2.5 right now and dropping - freaky i know
botswana.opendataforafrica.org/gysrep/botswana-demographic-trends

I'm not denying IQ differences. The point is that if a group can score an average of 85, then IQ is not going to stop them from building a civilization because 85 was also the average for White Americans a century ago.

1. Like virtually all psychometricians, do you believe that IQ tests are an accurate measure of general intelligence or 'g'? If so, we can continue.

2. Like virtually all psychometricians, do you believe that IQ measures the same things in black and white populations (i.e. a black with an IQ of 90 will perform much like a white with an IQ of 90 on a variety of tests)? If so, we can continue.

3. Like virtually all psychometricians, do you acknowledge the Flynn effect, which demonstrates real differences in 'g' within populations over time? If so, we can continue.

4. Like virtually all psychometricians, do you acknowledge that the average IQ of black Africans is ~81 (Wicherts, et al 2010 -- just for you Lynnposters), African-Americans 85, and black Britons 86? If so, we can continue to the final point:

5a. If you acknowledge the above, then any cognitive "deficiencies" in black populations today must have been largely present in white populations (in America and Europe) before 1950, since contemporary black Africans, black Americans, and black Britons all have higher average IQs than the white populations of those eras.

You must also acknowledge that the average German in Nazi Germany* and average white American in the 1950s (/pol/'s most idyllic eras for the hwhite man) are less intelligent (on average) than almost any black population (for which we have data) today.

5b. If you don't acknowledge the above, there's no point in conversation since your beliefs aren't based in scientific literature.

*Though we don't have IQ scores from that time (Hitler banned IQ tests for being "Jewish science") we can approximate from Dutch and Nordic conscripts, who had their IQs tested.

As to the common refrain of people who have never read the literature: "muh tests have changed!"

The last time anyone made this argument were Rushton and Jensen, before you were even born. They mostly addressed Wechsler.

Unfortunately for this line of argument, Raven's Progressive Matrices (which have the highest g-loading of all major tests) --commonly cited in reviews -- have remained unchanged since their inception in the 1930s.

In short, 'g' is verifiably lower in white Americans and Europeans of older generations. If we had a time machine and transported them to modern times, they'd correspondingly underperform on intelligence assessments more than Africans, African-Americans, or black Britons... unless you don't believe in 'g', at which point, you're espousing beliefs contra decades of research and there's no point in trying to convince you of anything beyond your own fantasies.

First, a definition: "civilization", as classically defined, simply means a society that possesses both stable urban centers and a true writing system.

Now, some starting points:

1. Civilization only ever independently developed in two places: Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica.

2. Europe NEVER independently developed writing or civilization. ALL European written languages are the direct descendants of Levantine writing systems.

3. The development of civilization directly jives with contact dates with previous civilizations. This is why South-Eastern Europe developed civilization well before Northern Europe. Rome had been civilized for ~800 years before the first Northern Celtic/Germanics EVER put pen to paper. Large swaths of Northern Europe were uncivilized until the 13th century A.D.

Now, in terms of independently developing civilization, Sub-Saharan Africa was at a series of disadvantages, namely:

1. A smaller population (compared to Europe, East Asia, South Asia, etc.) and thus much lower population density in an area roughly two times the size of the United States. Sub-Saharan Africa didn't catch up to Europe in terms of population until about 2000 A.D.

2. A desert roughly the size of the United States separating most of Sub-Saharan Africa from the Levant, the "Cradle of Civilization". By contrast, there was no large geographic separation between Europe and the Levant.

3. Large plains interspersed with jungles, which made interior, far-reaching navigation largely impracticable until European explorers arrived in the 19th century.

Just to make that point clear, for ALL OF RECORDED HUMAN HISTORY UNTIL 15 YEARS AGO, Sub-Saharan Africa had fewer people than Europe. Nonetheless, it has always been more diverse in terms of genetics and ethno-linguistics.

Put simply, having a small but extremely diverse population on a huge continent is not very conducive to the INDEPENDENT development of civilization. Sadly, this diversity greatly assisted Europeans in divide and conquer tactics during the colonial era and some of those policies resulted directly in genocide (as in Rwanda and Burundi). Many of these issues still plague much of Sub-Saharan Africa today and the politicization of ethnicity (i.e. "if you're part of ethnic group A, you vote for party A or you're a traitor!") is a huge problem today and directly results in massive amounts of corruption.

>muh natural resources
Many of the "natural resources that should have magically thrust civilization and wealth upon the blacks" simply weren't valuable or even known until the 19th century or beyond. I've literally seen /pol/sters cite Uranium and diamonds as would-be sources for African pre-colonial wealth. /pol/ seems to be patently unaware that most precious metals were largely disdained until Arab or European contact.

OP and anyone who posts images like his are either trolling or genuinely stupid.

>muh headstart
When humans were migrating out of Africa 60-90kya, there were generally no more than 25,000 people on Earth at any given time. In other words, more people probably go to your local University than there were humans on the entire globe.

In conclusion, /pol/, people don't call you "ignorant" just because you hurt their feelgoods. They call you ignorant because you're genuinely unaware of basic human history.

>If you acknowledge the above, then any cognitive "deficiencies" in black populations today must have been largely present in white populations (in America and Europe) before 1950, since contemporary black Africans, black Americans, and black Britons all have higher average IQs than the white populations of those eras.

t. basic misunderstanding of iq

Really? How so?

Are IQ tests not an accurate measure of 'g'?

Before you make yourself look stupid, you should know that the Flynn effect demonstrates secular changes in ALL STRATA OF INTELLIGENCE MEASUREMENTS. See

>2. Like virtually all psychometricians, do you believe that IQ measures the same things in black and white populations (i.e. a black with an IQ of 90 will perform much like a white with an IQ of 90 on a variety of tests)? If so, we can continue.
on the test they'll perform the same
but there is still more to be said about two groups with the same IQ's
in fact IQ means very little in terms of perofrmance
a white group with an iq of 90 will perform better than a black group with an iq of 90 due to the fact that blacks have a larger % of crooks and people that bring things down - there's more to people than IQ

about 4.
black IQ is actually higher than 86 in britain, and your number for ameriniggers is most likely dated see mh19870410.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/recent-data-for-majority-and-racial-minority-differences-in-intelligence-of-5-year-olds-in-the-united-kingdom-lynn-cheng-2013.pdf

not much higher, but slightly, at least in more recent cohorts
pic related is 14 yo

just because flynn effect was potent in whites and more recently irish, italians etc. doesn't mean all groups will get to experience it, necessarily
race has a thing to say here, possibly
but ill say it again if blacks have issues it aint IQ, because there's literally more to people than iq
also
>and Whites/Asians.
kek how did i miss that lmao

...

no we're not, i dont have a team

poltards can hate niggers all day long and make BBC threads and obsess over black people, get tunnel vision and be retarded etc. but they just might have something of a point about blacks and only blacks - not about african soil, or climate or whether it's harsh, because that discussion is over

but i can't understand the IQ fetishism, counting 1 2 3 4 5 points here and there as if it actually matters all that much - it matters, it's just not IT
as you said american iq was 85 not that long ago, life was pretty much the same

i hope botswana proves me wrong and shows up somehow, because that would be a good sign as you know 40% of children in 2100 will be african

by the way, even if 25% of blacks are no good humans(overestimation most likely) and prevent the rest from making a real country, i'd still use words to protect the other 75%, from slander at the very least - i went to school with a few, never had any problems with any of them, one was my friend - that's not something you forget, or something I forget personally

Taming is the first step of domesticating. You think horses just one day showed up and were like "hey domesticate us, human"

>but i can't understand the IQ fetishism
People of european and asian descent tend to favor intelligence. I know it's seen as a "white thang" in the black community and shunned, but intelligence is highly prized in eurasian cultures.

They where in the proces of domesticatie when they combustion engine made it useless

asians have 1 sd above you in math skill
also you didn't even read the whole chain of posts or couldn't understand them

I'm asian. Also I just arrived, I don't really care to read the copy pasting of a nigger apologist who misunderstands the Flynn effect. It's pretty pointless to debate this, as you will never accept the reality of cognitive deficiencies of black populations.

>I'm asian.
proof with timestamp

Why would I bother?

Isn't it the other way around?

European colonials tried because the zebra is more-or-less immune to the tsetse fly but couldn't

How am I "misunderstanding" the Flynn effect?

From Wikipedia:

>The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores measured in many parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day. When intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are initially standardized using a sample of test-takers, by convention the average of the test results is set to 100 and their standard deviation is set to 15 or 16 IQ points. When IQ tests are revised, they are again standardized using a new sample of test-takers, usually born more recently than the first. Again, the average result is set to 100. However, when the new test subjects take the older tests, in almost every case their average scores are significantly above 100.

>Test score increases have been continuous and approximately linear from the earliest years of testing to the present. For the Raven's Progressive Matrices test, subjects born over a 100-year period were compared in Des Moines, United States, and separately in Dumfries, Scotland. Improvements were remarkably consistent across the whole period, in both countries.

These are verifiable, secular rises in 'g' that have been the subject of shittons of literature for the past three decades. The only possible argument that you could make to counter my posts is that IQ is NOT an accurate measure of 'g'.

I don't know why you're trying to deny actual science, especially if you're the guy who wrote:

>Listening to what ACTUAL scientists and psychologists had to say convinced me.

>These are verifiable, secular rises in 'g'
That's where you're mistaken. Whether g has actually risen is hotly debated. You also completely ignore the fact that most gains in IQ were from the lowest portion of the bell curve.

> my posts
They're not your posts, you copy pasted someone else's post.

>...is that IQ is NOT an accurate measure of 'g'.
Even the most hardcore psychometrician such as Lynn acknowledges the limitations of IQ tests.

You're taking an observed phenomena, which is the rise in IQ scores, and twisting it to arrive at conclusion which befit your ideology.

All jokes aside, how much more times a day do racists think about black dick compared to non-racists?

You're the same guy that I've often argued with or you have the same talking points.

As to 'g', the only people who USED TO make that argument were Rushton, Lynn (lol), and Jensen, which I addressed here: >You also completely ignore the fact that most gains in IQ were from the lowest portion of the bell curve.

Not true. If it were true, the bell curves should be correspondingly narrower. This has NEVER BEEN DEMONSTRATED. EVER. If I recall correctly, this idea was pushed in the late-80s/early 90s, but has since been discarded.

You're pushing a view held by a very tiny minority of psychometricians because it befits YOUR ideology.

Everything that I'VE posted falls within the majority/mainstream thought on the subject.

Go ahead, find ONE meta-analysis after 2005 suggesting that the Flynn effects DOES NOT OCCUR for both fluid and crystallized abilities.

>Even the most hardcore psychometrician such as Lynn acknowledges the limitations of IQ tests.

Are you arguing, then, that IQ tests (especially Raven's) do not accurately measure general intelligence?

Just so you know, when it comes to scientific research on topics such as this, there tend to be studies that suggest varying conclusions.

What I imagine you're doing is finding certain studies that fit your worldview and parading them as THE definitive science on the matter, even if they're a minority view (like a pothead who wants to prove that weed is like, good for you, mang). What I'm doing is taking the general consensus/mainstream position.

>As to 'g', the only people who USED TO
I never claimed that tests changed, I do believe that people have gotten better at taking tests (which was one of Flynn's explanations, btw...)

>Not true. If it were true, the bell curves should be correspondingly narrower. This has NEVER BEEN DEMONSTRATED. EVER.
Maybe if you spent less time copy pasting posts and actually reading the literature you'd have a clue.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289604000807

>Everything that I'VE posted falls within the majority/mainstream thought on the subject.
You posted a copy paste of a butthurt nigger indulging in pseudoscience to support his egalitarian worldview. Give me a break.

>Go ahead, find ONE meta-analysis after 2005 suggesting that the Flynn effects DOES NOT OCCUR for both fluid and crystallized abilities.
Aaaaaand now you're strawmanning.

>Are you arguing, then, that IQ tests (especially Raven's) do not accurately measure general intelligence?
As you should know (but probably don't, because all your knowledge probably derives from infographics), Raven's only measures a small subset of overall g. In fact one peculiar thing to note with the flynn effect is that it only affects some subsets of g, and not others, especially the subset which deals with pattern recognition.

It's true that scores in certain subsets of IQ tests have risen, especially in pattern recognition, and it is probably due to a mixture of real gains in intelligence due to improved nutrition, as well as better test taking abilities due to living standards in education.

The thing is, this cannot be extrapolated to "prove" that the black white IQ gap can ever be closed, because blacks have also undergone the Flynn effect (in the USA), and african scores are so low that even if they have still not started their Flynn effect, they could not even catch up with american blacks.

And as you should know, the Flynn effect is over in western countries.

No, you're just copy pasting posts from nigger apologists who don't know what they're talking about.

Anyways, this discussion is pointless, because I'll never be able to convince you, and you'll never be able to convince me, so I guess we'll just have to wait it out and find out whether niggers will get their shit together and become a space faring civilization or if they will be the downfall of civilization worldwide.

>sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289604000807

Fluid intelligence. Give me something better.

>Aaaaaand now you're strawmanning.

What? If you could find such a study, everything I've said would be blown out of the water. My entire point is that there's a verifiable increase in average intelligence, which you affirm:

>It's true that scores in certain subsets of IQ tests have risen, especially in pattern recognition, and it is probably due to a mixture of real gains in intelligence due to improved nutrition, as well as better test taking abilities due to living standards in education.

Unfortunately, you take a wild left turn:

>The thing is, this cannot be extrapolated to "prove" that the black white IQ gap can ever be closed, because blacks have also undergone the Flynn effect (in the USA),

Nobody in this thread talked about the "gap closing" until this post. You're the only person to touch on this imaginary argument.

>african scores are so low that even if they have still not started their Flynn effect, they could not even catch up with american blacks.

First, the average IQ in Africa is 81, 4 points lower than the average black American, and higher than the average Westerner in the 1930s.

Second, the Flynn effect has been demonstrated in Africa -- pic related.

>And as you should know, the Flynn effect is over in western countries.

This is ACTUALLY debated (as opposed to your liberal use of the term).

>"civilization", as classically defined, simply means a society that possesses both stable urban centers and a true writing system
You really need to change this part. Writing is hardly an essential aspect of civilization (as the Moche, Inca and the tropic West African civilizations attest), and there are even civilizations without true cities (Mataram, post-Aksumite Ethiopia). I think a better way of defining it would be the presence of either writing, cities or statehood (society administered by a specialised bureaucracy). There are societies regarded as civilizations which only had one of these things, like early medieval Ireland (writing, but no cities or states).

>Civilization only ever independently developed in two places: Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica
Civilization emerged independently in far more areas, sometimes with no influence from other civilizations (Andes, China, Mississippi) or with only very marginal, indirect influence (Egypt, Crete, West Africa, North India, etc).

>Europe NEVER independently developed writing or civilization.
Crete did, though it seems completely arbitrary to call it European.

I think you miss the most important factor here; the late adoption of agriculture. Independent civilization around the world only emerged after several thousand years of sedentary agriculture. In the Middle East agriculture emerged around 8000 BC, in China and Mesopotamia around 6500 BC, and civilization emerged in these regions around four thousand years later. In West Africa sedentary agriculture (as opposed to nomadic pastoralism) only emerged around 2500 BC, it was not widespread before around 1500 BC, and it didn't spread to the fertile Rift Valley until c. 500 BC. You mention that Africa had a low population, and this is one of the key reasons why. There was enough time to develop only very archaic civilizations in West Africa and not enough time to develop anything more than chiefdoms in Bantu Africa.

I mistakenly deleted some of my post. I originally wrote:

"A proxy for fluid intelligence in late-20th century Spain. You're on a history forum, kiddo. Give me something better.

Also, check the acknowledgements (lol)"

>Be Ghanaian
>See this thread

I just don't get the obsession. Why are /pol/fags so fixated on Africa? Life goes on like anywhere else.

>Bustling cities
>Hicks who live like it's 300 years ago
>Paying taxes
>Masturbating
>Celebrating holidays
>The grind of work and school
>peace
>war
>politicians full of shit

I should also stress that development in Africa was in no way slower than in Eurasia or the Americas. It just started at a later stage. Urbanism in West Africa and statehood both emerged about three thousand years after the spread of sedentary agriculture. Writing didn't but that's true of many regions. Complex metallurgical technologies and naturalistic art emerged at comparatively early stages of development. In Bantu Africa there was also a clear movement toward the development of civilization in the centuries preceding colonialism, for example in Uganda where a highly centralised state had emerged by the 19th century despite being completely isolated from the Afro-Eurasian world.

Parallels can be seen in the Mississippi region, where complex chiefdoms verging on statehood emerged around 1000 AD (shorty after civilization emerged in West Africa) after a similarity late adoption of agriculture. In temperate Europe there was a movement towards urban civilization around 500 BC, about five thousand years after the introduction of agriculture. In Southeast Asia, where agriculture was introduced from China also at a late stage, civilization only emerged due to the economic stimulation and cultural influence of China and above all India.

>Why are /pol/fags so fixated on Africa?

Cool beans. Now get a life.

I have no beef with africans if they stay in their respective countries.

>More than any other country in the world, Ghanaian citizens are chasing that dream. In 2015, the most recent year for which data is available, Ghana, with 1.73 million people, accounted for the highest number of applicants for the US diversity visa program also known as “green card lottery”.
>It’s all the more remarkable because those applications, based on US State Dept. data analysis by Pew Research, would account for around 7% of Ghana’s population of 25 million.

Not to defend the retards over on /pol/, but you can't just pretend Africa isn't different. It's remarkably underdeveloped, a fact which is rooted in history and ought to be explained historically, especially since most people would rather just explain it in a way that supports their own political views (racism, anti-Imperialism, Marxism, etc). It's something that really needs to be discussed, but this is clearly a shitty place to do it.

Too bad, it's a free country

This is really good, however, I don't want to go around defining things, which is why I use the classical definition: cities and writing. While I also disagree with the scope, it usually prevents too much squabbling.

Cretan hieroglyphs may or may not be true writing.

As to your second point, "I think you miss the most important factor here..." That's really fucking good, and I'll certainly include it in my updated copypasta for Africa threads.

I dig it, but too detailed and debateable. It would muddy the point of civilization's diffusion.

Thanks for the tips, senpai.

I'm glad it's underdeveloped. You people would have the whole rainforest clearcut to mine rare earth metals for your iShit devices all day long like the Chinese are doing now.

>Not to defend the retards over on /pol/, but you can't just pretend Africa isn't different. It's remarkably underdeveloped
africa is just what other countries are, just with people that are louder, have poorer schools, more crime, shittier hospitals
it's basically a cheaper shittier version of the same civilizational model

the explanation is both historical and imo racial - they just have more disruptive individuals per capita

>Raven's only measures a small subset of overall g.

You really need to learn how this works. Ravens is THE BEST widely used test for 'g'. Various subsets correlate (with different coefficients) with 'g'.

Nice to see you care more about pristeen wildlife (which certainly isn't being poached to extinction because of poverty) and forests (which certainly aren't being cut down due to a poverty-driven population explosion) than you do about the welfare of hundreds of millions of people.

I don't know shit about genetics or intelligence so I won't go much into race, but all I can say is that when looking at the course of history I can't see any populations having some inherent, unchanging superiority or inferiority separated from other factors like culture or economy. The Irish lived in straw huts, had no cities, barely even had pottery, and lived in a state of constant tribal warfare in the early middle ages and even into the early modern period in some areas, and yet because of cultural influence from the continent they had advanced machinery like water mills and pole lathes and Irish scholars abroad like Eriugena were among the most brilliant in Europe. Finland was fairly recently completely uncivilized and yet Swedish influence turned it eventually into one of the most successful societies on Earth. The Mycenaeans showed none of the intellectual fervor of the classical Greeks despite being the exact same people. I could go on, and there are of course countless examples of societies going the other way. Even if they exist, inherent non-cultural qualities just don't seem to matter much in the course of history.

>The Irish lived in straw huts, had no cities, barely even had pottery, and lived in a state of constant tribal warfare in the early middle ages
What? The Irish have had pottery since the early neolithic. The Irish in the early neolithic were probably more advanced than pre-colonial africans.

>The Mycenaeans showed none of the intellectual fervor of the classical Greeks despite being the exact same people.
What? The greeks were an indo-european people who migrated south after the collapse of the mycenean civilization.

Africans had pottery as well.

Kek

Considering the sheer amount if obsession around black bodies and sexuality that racism revolves around way more then a gynecologist/urologist with a black majority patient base

More proof that stable authoritarian societies are the seeds of intelligence. Most of that growth came from China. Without the PRC, China would be a shithole third-world country by now with a large intelligence divide between social classes. Africa needs industrialization in order for economic growth, which will allow for better schooling, and a general increase in intelligence.

What's your point?

Which one?

>Africa needs industrialization in order for economic growth, which will allow for better schooling, and a general increase in intelligence.

Just like every other country.

Real talk: do you believe that you could industrialize Papua New Guinea and that Papuans will then start winning as many Fields Medals as europeans?

Nigeria is the best economy in Africa and in the top 20 of the world. Kenya still has election-based violence.

Recent one didn't have any.