Middle Easterners have lower IQ than Europeans

user here's paper on Indians in Norway.

sv.uio.no/iss/english/research/projects/eumargins/publications/theses/sekina-master.html

hmm interesting, thanks. A good work ethic is definitely conducive to creating educated successful individuals.

>hmm interesting, thanks. A good work ethic is definitely conducive to creating educated successful individuals.

Sure thing, wageslave.

It's because you're a cuck and you believe in that Marxist rag when you should be learning the real truth and become a race realist. Until Veeky Forums gets redpilled you're all a bunch of cucks.

poor bait/10
I don't think this is enough evidence. The top 0.1% doing better than the average from a "white country" does not prove anything.

>correlation=causation.
At last i truly see.

Immigrants nearly always outperform natives.

>The top 0.1%
But this isn't the top 0.1%. The guys going overseas to other countries were just poor average Joe's a couple of decades ago.
These aren't doctors or scientists but the children of taxi drivers and sweepers. Our Singapore diaspora was mostly labourers as well and they're relatively successful today.

>Singapore
Chinese colony.

Nope I'm afraid it's not bait faggot. Veeky Forums has a bunch of cucks who just do not understand race realism. That's why I called that user a cuck because he's in such denial. This is a cuck bored. Cuck.

Cuck purge when?
Will the uncucking of Veeky Forums ever happen?

South Indians have higher IQ than North Indians

> cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck

It's funny, anytime immigrants perform better than expected """race realists""" immediately claim they're the cream of the crop even when it's clearly absurd (eg poorly educated refugees)

>self-loathing cuckhold is mad so he decides to desensitize cuckholdry.

What about the average indian IQ in UK only 96

While education certainly plays a role, I think it's pretty obvious that in many cases immigrants from India and other Asian countries are the "cream of the crop", so to say

What about the average indian IQ in UK only being 96*

>96
It's 97 iirc.

Ironically, if you'd kill al brainlets that keep talking about IQ the global IQ level would rise. Also IQ is a meme.

But they are the "cream of the crop", especially in modern times. Chinese immigrants even threw a hissy fit recently about how hard it is for them to get into the EU while refugees are simply being let in. I also seriously doubt the poor refugees flooding in would outperform native Europeans on IQ tests. Ultimately, your argument is is based in your own presumptions and not on reality.

>IQ is a meme
Then create a better way to measure intelligence, or point me to one. Also, if you killed everybody with an IQ below 100.. the average IQ would still be 100. 100 IQ is average, so no matter how intelligent people become 100 will always be the average IQ.

That's better than half of Europe already, but doesn't "Indian" include Paki?
Also source? Year of sampling?

zzz

That isn't proof of education. That could just mean we are accepting the most intelligent Indians to immigrate to America. If they have children together, they also have a high chance to have a high IQ, because the parents were also high IQ to begin with.

So what you linked proves nothing about education. It's still questionable.

>if you kill everybody with an IQ below 100 the average IQ would still be 100

LMAO you fucking retard AHAHAHAHAHHA

This, but to be completely fair there really isn't conclusive data to prove anything at all. And I doubt any research will be done anytime soon, since the subject is rather taboo..

This guy has a dark skincolor

You're basically undermining your own point by noting that Chinese economic immigrants can't get in while refugees are welcomed by the millions.
>Ultimately, your argument is is based in your own presumptions and not on reality.
I'm referring to several instances in which immigrants performed better than expected so racialists automatically handwaved it with "they must've been elites" even though they were poor refugees or lacked any evidence of hyperselection.

So these are the people that endlessly talk about IQs. Holy shit.

I may be one of "the people" but at least I'm not a cuck and as shill like you people.

>not understanding how averages work
Let me explain this for you, slowly. You kill everybody with an IQ below 100. But IQ is measured as a bell curve of the entire population. Thus, while the population is smarter, 100 is still the average IQ. Having an IQ of 100 in this new generation is the equivalent of a 110 IQ in the previous generation. Understand?

Your trying to hard m8

>this is what brainlets actually believe
Hey retard, why doesn't every population average 100 IQ?

IQ relative to how dumb and smart the other people around you are, that what he meant.

It's not.

Why wouldn't 100 average IQ be the universal standard? If that's not the case then every society have a self proclaimed high IQ?

How does that undermine my argument? The Chinese immigrants being let in are more selectively chosen, and more likely to be well educated, thus explaining a higher IQ/average salary than the native population. The mass of refugees entering Europe displays no higher IQ and certainly not higher income. Additionally, there's the matter of work ethic and culture on top of race. To argue that a discrepancy is the result of anything but a multitude of factors is just naive.

>I'm referring to several instances in which immigrants performed better than expected so racialists automatically handwaved it with "they must've been elites" even though they were poor refugees or lacked any evidence of hyperselection.

Citation needed

Because they are variations on the benchmark. A benchmark which is set through a bell curve of the general population of a western country.

>the most intelligent Indians to immigrate to America

Lol no many are poor as fuck and have little education.

So you mean we're willingly creating selectively bred classes of superminorities in our country to lead the native minorities into overthrowing the system. While their own countries stagnate intellectually.

Seems smart. Nigerians make more then white people.

>A benchmark which is set through a bell curve of the general population of a western country.
That almost sounds like an accurate description of how IQ is calibrated, keep trying.

statistics of asian income verses that of other races says otherwise

wew

I think he is referring to refugee outliers. That perform well.

>all these people think IQ tests are essentially magic

Shit, didn't meant to quote that first one.

Technically he's right, because the IQ scale, and more generally the normal distribution, always has a fixed mean of 100. Raw intelligence would go up, but the IQ scale would be adjust so everyone would still have an IQ of 100... Of course the base population is usually Britain's, but the point still stands

Not all college degrees are alike.

There's still a lot of poverty (very much deliberately hidden) in south asian immigrant demographics so it's actually a reflection of South Asian in general (massive disparity)

How on Earth did I imply that at all? Are statistics magic to you? Or is it because I implied that IQ tests are a reliable measure of intelligence? Because that was not my intention.

Indian Americans are literally the highest income group in America you stupid shit, they earn almost twice as much as unhyphenated americans. Stop denying reality because of your retarded prejudice.

It's not "poorly educated refugees". It's immigrants who sacrificed to get here, or had the ambition and drive to work to get to a better country like the US for example.

If you look at for example the Syria refugees, they are doing poorly across the board.

Also in my opinion your thinking is completely wrong. Let me give you an example. Indians. They have the second highest IQ in the US. The majority are also very hard workers.The reason they are doing so well, is because we accept only the top people from India to immigrate here. People who show they have a drive, are willing to work, to give something back to the US for getting to be a citizen, who show they can invent, have a high IQ, etc.

It's the same for every single ethnic group we allow into the states. We only accept the best from these countries in the immigration process. So compare that group to our whole native population it will look like, yes they perform better.

But let's say the US was having a very hard time, depression, etc and needed to immigrate elsewhere. The top countries that would accept us, would do the same and only accept the top performing people from our country. So let's say for example Hong Kong with the highest IQ and very high performing individuals. Let's say only whites immigrated btw. If they accepted us to immigrate there and had roughly the same immigration process as the US, it would still look like the US white immigrants were out performing the natives in Hong Kong, because they only accepted high performing (hard working, have money, want to go to school, high IQ etc) US white immigrants.

That's why with Syrian refugees you see a low performance rate. There was no process of elimination, to pick the best, all just accepted. It's the same for illegal immigrants btw. While they still do perform well, because they did have a high drive to come here and work, it's no where near the performance of legal immigrants, who were chose a lot more carefully.

I'm not denying them anything but Indians widely vary on when they came by year to the country and how old they were.

Families fib do worse then ones that are third gen with gen 2+3 with college education under their belts.

That's second or third gen

You know those Syrian refugees are under a compete different circumstance and scenario user. Not really comaprable

>I am not racist. I think all races are equal.
the Jewish brainwashing is strong with this one, Obi-Wan

I agree. I was just pointing out that what he posted wasn't proof at all.

I wish it wasn't so taboo. I really think looking into this more would actually help.

Even if first gen's college degree from India isn't accepted for it's credentials simply being educated somewhere is a huge boost to ones children.

not him but
>completely different scenario
That's kindof the point of the argument. If it suits your liking better you could easily adjust the parameters to a hypothetical where Indians are indiscriminately let into the USA.

>It's the same for illegal immigrants btw.

Their kids are doing well in school since they drill in the "do well and don't end up like us" mantra.

I made a response to this that you can look at if you want.

Tldr; a lot of immigrants aren't as poor as you think, and aren't as stupid as you think either. They have the drive and ambition to get here. The US is very selective in their immigration process, and only chooses the best. People who have money, or want to work, or want to go to school, or showed that they can do something higher than others, or who already have some education, or who have a high IQ etc. So of course they will perform high. That's what is expected of them when we choose them in the immigration process.

You can look at Syrian refugees on what happens when we don't choose wisely. They aren't performing well at all, across the board, at anything.

I didn't say that at all. I think there is a lot of studies that need to be done clearly. I was just pointing out what that person had said wasn't proof at all.

IQ and ambition are both things that do show us if put together that the person most likely will do well.

Is India a wartorn country?
(don't answer that)

IQ tests are calibrated on some norming sample, generally age-group cohorts in WEIRD countries which is why those tend to score closer to 100.
It's basically never calibrated on the population you're testing. It doesn't magically give you 100 average for "the entire population" whatever the population is (especially not the global population since it's not WEIRD), only if the population you're testing happens to be completely homogeneous with the norming sample (and not just in race but also in the distribution of education, income and other relevant factors.)

>The US is very selective in their immigration process, and only chooses the best.

It literally cock blocks so much Europeans many of which hare educated.

Syrians aren't even comparable those guy slot everything and have nowhere to go.

>implying war is the only societal problem that affects education
>implying there aren't well-educated Syrians that could be selectively chosen to immigrate
Also reminder than a rather decent minority in India is still illiterate.

It's very comparable. The countries are giving them what they need. The natives are very open to taking them in, and giving them jobs. They are on government benefits. It's been a while since they were accepted, and still the majority of them don't even have jobs yet. The majority of them literally do nothing but get government checks.

I don't want to get into an argument over if this is right or wrong, but it 100% goes to show that the process of elimination in the immigration process, does play a huge part on why immigrants perform very high.

Hell, you can look at illegal immigrants vs legal immigrants and see that even though illegal immigrants do well since they do have more ambition then others from their country, legal immigrants out perform them by a lot..and it's because they go through a process of elimination and are chosen because they have a high chance of performing well.

The natives are not open to them at all, and jobs are very hard for them. In france for example any women wearing a hijab has terrible chances of being employed, compared to America where people generally don't give a shit

Because the job market is flooded and, Europeans never hire non-euros if they can, proving your credential is impossible if your university is closed forever back in Syria and any paper proof of it got bombed.

Even if you did have it jumping from refugee camp to refugee camp is sure to fuck you up mentally and you are not working so your skills aren't really shaprened.

Many places actually make it illegal to work as a refugee or asylum seeker until you get approval and that takes a longass time so you essentially have to do ILLEGAL work (Italy, Japan you name it). Uganda (and several ME states with Syrian refugees) is rare in that refugees there can work just like any other citizen of Uganda with no restrictions.

Euros never hire non-euros (they even try avoiding East Euros if they can too) if it's possible.

I've been to France and Germany. The government is open to them, and a lot of the people are open to them.

But regardless it just goes to prove my point more, which you are failing to realize. The refugees are doing bad because there was no elimination process at all. If droves of Africans came to the U.S. with no elimination process, it would be the same outcome as the refugees. If droves of Indians came to the U.S. with no elimination process it would be the same outcome as the refugees.

It's only because of the elimination process in the immigration process that makes sure we are only taking the highest performing individuals. That is exactly why they have a very high rate of performance compared to all of the native born in the U.S.

I want to add, from what I've saw when I went to these places for a while.

>The government is open to them, and a lot of the people are open to them.

Not at all. See

I read what you wrote, but from what I saw when I was there there was a lot of people willing to have them work, or to help them out. It could just be because I was in different parts.

But regardless it still proves my point, that the process of elimination is still important, and why they are performing well compared to natives. You could just look at illegals vs legal immigrants also in the US. You could look at other countries besides France and Germany and even look at Sweden. You can even look at the African immigrants in France and Germany. Even the refugees in Canada are doing bad, and complaining that the government is cutting them off on support.

When they aren't as picky, the immigrants and refugees don't do as well at all. The more picky they are the higher results they get.

>Even the refugees in Canada are doing bad, and complaining that the government is cutting them off on support.

Because getting a job is still pretty hard.

>from what I saw when I was there there was a lot of people willing to have them work, or to help them out.

And a lot of that is just lip service. The bureaucracy in being able to gain permission work is massive so you literally have enforced idleness.

Once again I will tell you this. These people were FORCED to leave Syria so it's not like they wanted to immigrate in the first place.

Also in Canda's case our budget for the refugees was running out so now we are leaving them high and dry so stuff like childcare to help parent out as they engage in measures to learn English and integrate in society is being gimped.

>These people were FORCED to leave Syria so it's not like they wanted to immigrate in the first place.

Which is the point. And there is plenty of jobs for the refugees that come to America, and Canada. There is plenty of things for them to do. The issue is these people don't have the drive (which you just pointed out yourself) or the ambition to do so.

The immigrants we accept to the U.S. are people with drive, ambition, money, wanting to work, already have a job lined up, wanting to go to school, have high IQ, or family that have jobs waiting for them, or a plan for school for them.

That is the point on why they perform so high. So to say "they perform higher than the natives" is just misleading when you don't point out the whole picture. The point is we are taking the highest performing people from other countries and immigrating them her, so of course they as a group in the U.S. are going to out perform all of the natives.

If a country just immigrated our high performing white individuals for example, you would see the same results.

>people FORCED to leave Syria
no. All of Europe didn't flee to America after ww2.
>finding a job is hard
Perhaps because they're a mass of uneducated workers in a society with relatively few occupations for uneducated workers? That really just proves the other user's point: masses of immigrants with no selection will perform worse.

Thank you. I don't know if I was explaining correctly or not. I'm glad someone is getting what I was saying.

There's Syrina's who are refugees who were vets, students, bakers, dentists in Syria and now it's all nothing you have to start from fucking scratch.

If you have a stellar resume but you have big gap form 2012 it's gonna look bad and all your references are either dead, refugees themselves and god knows where or in Arabic only and your certification is in Arabic.

Syrians aren't uneducated ffs they are a middle tier nation. Syria is more developed then India.

Ww2 can't be comapred to the Syrian civil war.

then, and this may be shocking and radical, ...go to another arab country instead of Germany. As for the gap, I think the situation could be explained to a potential employer. And no, all their references would not be dead, unless they all joined the army.

Hell you probably don't have your certification neither since that got bombed s well.

Their unemployment ate will go down but only over time (Vietnamese now compared to back then are 2.5% less unemployed then native Canadians).

Indian Ugandans were brute forced out of Uganda and could take nothing with them and they underwent the same things Syrians did but in slight different manner. It took long time for them to even be comparable ot native Canadians statistically.

"Middle tier" yeah go ahead and see how many jobs a high school diploma will get you. And I would suspect those that do have college degrees have less problems with employment, though I doubt actual statistics exist for that.
And you're right, WW2 was actually far more destructive and left far more people with no home whatsoever, and yet they didn't say "fuck it" and leave.

>then, and this may be shocking and radical, ...go to another arab country instead of Germany

They do user lol. Those Arab nations are all full and they are spilling into Africa now for quite some time. The number of Syrians in Europe nations is quite small vs the ones in the Middle East. Uganda for example has more South Sudanese refugees (1 million) then any nation in Europe

>And no, all their references would not be dead, unless they all joined the army.

I never said they were all dead at all in my post. How are you supposed to contact the manger of the poultry farm you did Vet work for if you can't even contact him.

>And I would suspect those that do have college degrees have less problems with employment,

They have employment problems though see. It's like arguing circles with you

Then why do these peoples go to Europe? If they have better prospects in neighboring countries with a more similar culture where they'll more likely be accepted?
>inb4 those countries are full
that's b.s. and you know it's b.s., the gulf states are insanely wealthy and more than capable of taking in the "quite small" (as you put it yourself) portion that would otherwise go into Europe.

>Then why do these peoples go to Europe? If they have better prospects in neighboring countries with a more similar culture where they'll more likely be accepted?

Those countries are full. The refugee camps are FULL.

in Gulf states Syrians aren't considered refugees

They don't have employment issues for the refugees in Canada. Businesses and private individuals literally sponsor the refugees, and give them jobs or get them jobs. In Alberta I think they have like an 80% employment rate with the refugees because of how they set of the refugee program there.

They are still far behind the normal immigrants and the natives there. Even if that over time settles a bit, they will still be behind because they didn't only bring the best from Syria, they also brought a lot of unskilled workers in, and the stuff I named before. You name a few things like Dentists, vets, students, etc.. but that's a small number compared to the majority. That small number of high skilled workers and students is what Canada would usually accept in their immigration, but instead they got that + a huge amount of unskilled workers, so they won't perform as well as other immigrants, even over time.

The inability to apply your credentials from Syria is certainly an issue, but the main topic of this argument is that of letting in a vast number of people with no selection verses selecting an educated elite to enter your country. In that case, the inability of those that do have college degrees to make use of this in a new country does not hinder the argument, partly because the majority of the refugees entering Syria do not have college degrees. In addition your entire argument stands on a presumption backed up with no statistics thus far, though I will admit statistics on this topic may be difficult to come by.