North Africans vs Black Americans?

'African American' is a misnomer; it both implies a panAfrican ethnicity that does not exist, and cites an African cultural heritage that the vast majority of African Americans do not hold, in just the same sense that we don't call historical Etruscans "Colonial Anatolians" .

Under the most heavily corrected IQ models, there's about a 2.5 point difference in IQ averages between families with $20k and $200k yearly incomes.

Environment has an effect, but barely.

Do you truly believe North Africans, who had extremely complex irrigation before most of Europe, managed and maintained Roman cities, who navigated their way to Iceland just to get some blonde slaves, who conquered most of Iberia, are comparable to some scattered tribes who couldn't even invent a wheel?
Mansa Musa actually asked Ibn Battuta, a medieval traveler to design his mosque for him, as none in sub-saharan Africa had no idea how architecture works, and Ibn Battuta barely, that's all you need to know about the difference between North Africans and sub-Saharan Africans, and no, it's not about Genetics, do you believe 200BC germanic tribesmen had higher IQ compared to Contemporary germans? IQ is a just a meme, it doesn't tell us shit about the capabilities of a population under the right circumstances.

I'm not talking about "sub-saharan Africans" I'm talking about the black Americans and their identical IQ to North Africans, yet constant equating to the most primitive of african peoples, which your post proves. What does this reactionary false equivalency stem from?

>if you mix with niggers, your kids won't inherit anything, so better breed with a white woman
So in other words, it was implemented to prevent racemixing.

No, that could not be prevented because the beta/Chad dynamic existed even back then and the desire to have sex far outweighed any notion of racial solidarity. It was simply done to protect wealth.

which north africa are you talking about, only libya is a shithole since their government was kind of destroyed

So called "sub-saharans" are a part of our make-up, but do not define us. Just as "sub-saharan" is a part of the make up of North Africans, but does not define them.

Why then do people push this notion that black Americans and tribal-black Africans are the same exact thing? Is it just to hate on black Americans. What is at the heart of that hate? Jealousy? Fear?

What is there to be jealous of? We just don't like them because they're murderous. I don't even care if they're poor or dumb, just stop fucking killing.

>No, that could not be prevented
It reduced racemixing to a singificant degree.

We get taken care of by the gov. While you guys have to work like bitchass slaves and shit. We ARE America, you guys just live in it, and the fact that you pay for our lives proves this.

and what is the iq of north africans in america?

You have pretty much the same unemployment rate as we do, you just work shitty jobs so you're not making any money, and welfare in America is a joke. You'd know this if you were actually a black American and not some Turkshit LARPing as one.

They are the same. The only difference is just African Americans has better conditions, had they took slaves from any other coast of western sub-saharan Africa, the result would be the same.
North Africa in general has been a facing a huge decline for a few centuries now, Most of rural North Africa, basically half of the population, cannot read nor write.
As I said, I'd like to see how'd North Africans would operate had they had the same opportunities as African Americans.
Yeah, see, I'm gonna bet that America would have been far off better had they deported back the niggers and replaced them with North Africans, they actually have a collective identity that's hard to break, they historically proved themselves as loyal subjects (Volubilis for fuck's sake) and they probably won't be committing the majority of crime being a minority and all that, can't say the same thing about Jigaboos though.

They are a uniquely american ethnic group at this point. Part European part african, and have been in the US for hundreds of years.

>Thinks North Africans are docile saints

>Veeky Forums is 1 person

America needs a couple of nukes, every ethnicity that festers in that shithole nationless state turns into a blob of idiots.

Immigration screening would raise it a bit, but the comparison is of Americans(black) in their home, and North Africans in their home, which gives pretty much identical IQ results, yet black Americans are equated to only the most primitive of africans for some odd reason.

No, the new world birthed new ethnic groups. What's wrong with that?

It created trash.

Nothing, what's wrong is the culture of those new ethnic groups.

Then why are they imitated the world over?

Because they propagated their shit culture trough the world and most people born in the last 70 years, so, most people, grew up consuming said shit culture.

the one drop rule was not widespread.It was practiced in backwater American states. No where else.

They're imitated by bydlo, because it's bydlo culture.

They are far more docile than African Americans.
You're retarded, the European admixture is not a major one, North Africans probably have the same amount, considering the interactions they had with Europeans..
Yeah, here's the thing, North Africans in general have better achievements, they made the first university, their architecture is impressive, they've contributed much to both European and eastern cultures, this is a history board, history is a better judge than a loose definition of temporal intelligence, and history favours North Africans greatly.
African Americans will be remembered as what? The people that destroyed the US? You do understand that Niggers (or spics) will be blamed for the eventual decline of the US, right?

North Africans= Arabs+ black africans
Black Americans= Anglos+ black africans

Black Americans are only a few hundred years old, so it is to be expected that they have not achieved as much historically, even then they have been major contributors to the most powerful nation that has ever existed.

Wrong on both group

One drop rule occurred very late and only really regarding the please case. It wasn't really a strict thing

Jesus christ I'm literally talking to a retard...
North Africans has nothing to do with Black Africans or Arabs, they are a completely separate ethnic group consisting of both Eastern Neolithic farmers and Mechtoid Iberomaure--
North Africans, genetically speaking are mostly berbers, they are an ethnic group that populated North Africa since ever, they have nothing to do with Arabs, Black africans never made it past the saharas until recently, if we're talking big history here.

Remember to sage you dumb faggots

>North Africans= Arabs+ black africans
brainlet

>Black Americans= Anglos+ black africans
bit less of a brainlet but still a brainlet statement

>let me tell you about your country and its racial composition

While it's true that north Africans are mostly native North African we only need to look at the Tunisian study showing clear genetic heritage from subsaharan Africa 20k years ago maternally.

Also the Berber populations are not genetically homogeneous, we've never been homogenous and it's silly to say that the blonde and light eyed ones are the truest Berbers.

That's just dumb.

Again, more retarded comments from some dumb afrocentric, North Africans are not blonde, I was refering to how they had European admixture, but they do have lighter skin than Arabs.Berber populations are homogeneous, though they have a large cluster, North Africans never interacted with sub-saharan Africans until much later in classi history.
mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/eurasian-origins-of-the-berbers/
Read this, this is an actual post made by someone not completely instane, who actually uses sources and not feelings.

No

>This conclusion points to an ancient African gene flow to Tunisia before 20,000 BP. These findings parallel the more recent findings of both archaeology and linguistics on the prehistory of Africa. The present work suggests that sub-Saharan contributions to North Africa have experienced several complex population processes after the occupation of the region by anatomically modern humans. Our results reveal that Berber speakers have a foundational biogeographic root in Africa and that deep African lineages have continued to evolve in supra-Saharan Africa.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21082907/

Also Mathilda is such a cherry picker it's hilarious.

Sure.

>IQ range
If you think about history in terms of IQ then you're setting yourself up to be memed upon

Only insecure brainlets care about IQ

>Also north africans and black Americans are in the same IQ range
blacks in america have way better education chances

I hear about "muh genetics IQ link" on Veeky Forums all the time. It's odd that all of a sudden it IQ now comes down to how much education one gets.

Intelligence is heritable, but in most places on earth, people are
at least mildly malnourished, to the point where intelligence is more a function of childhood nutrition than anything else.

It's in industrialized countries, where people have the resources to live up to their full potential, where genetics really starts to matter.

Even then, it isn't clear that phenotypes are a reliable proxy for genetic quality.

>we
You're not fooling anybody Jamarcus.

>Points out that according to /pol/tards genetic IQ gospel Americans(black) are on par with moorish peoples.
>"Uh..uh IQ depends on how much food one eats as a child".

wtf? Is really going on here?

Well, that's typically the case in the developing world.

If you're born in Mozambique and grow up on next to nothing, your brain will not develop as well as somebody born in burgerland.

So it's dumb to compare IQs between regions and attribute differences as being due to race, when there's such an obvious, substantial confounding variable.

I feel like /pol/ tards will only ever accept opinions from their echo chamber

So that's why black africans have lower IQ's than Europeans, and it's not genetics after all?

You're taking his word for granted. No, American niggers don't have the same IQ as North African. He's a LARPing Amerimutt.

Measuring iq using illiterate subject groups

Explain this.

And this

If I had to guess, I'd say it's a combination of poor nutrition, and poor child rearing.

The number of words a child hears before the age of seven is correlated with IQ, and poorfags spend less time reading and speaking to their children.

There's also the role of things like malaria, dysentery, and a million different types of worms.

You also have an IQ advantage for being the firstborn child in a family, which has been measured in both first world and third world countries. Because of this advantage, bigger families means lower IQs, because each individual kid is less likely to be the first one.

I can't say one way or the other whether race and IQ are correlated, that is, whether phenotypes are a reliable proxy for the genes that encode for intelligence, but there are definitely other factors at work that have been easier to track down and measure than race has been.

Also explain this please

>The 2 races are identified as a black and white

Dropped immediately

I could be wrong, but isn't cm^2 actually the more useful measure of brain size?

...

That's the best you've got? Really?

It's from the 1990s, that can accoutn for why you can't find it online.

The other two belong to a scientific paper from 2012, I'd appreciate your input for those.

I mean the best proof you have is a copypasta using barely a source or citation from a company organization I've never heard of before

>do you believe 200BC germanic tribesmen had higher IQ compared to Contemporary germans?
If anything they had lower because of poor nutrition and it's shown that not eating enough early on causes stunting of IQ growth.

I don't know how those two really lend support to a genetic or an environmental view.

Like, everyone knows that there is an IQ gap, the question is where it came from, and whether it can be changed.

Those graphs just provide evidence that there is an IQ gap, which was already widely known and accepted.

I'm a Senegalese and my grandfather is a "Maure" who speaks Tuḍḍungiyya.

Not every person on Veeky Forums that disagrees with these viewpoints are black American.

/Pol/tards from Alabama who have never left the state let alone country know best because they're whate dontcha know?

You need to prove that IQ is at all relevant to history before you go around making these wild claims. There are numerous problems with the use of IQ as a measurement, not least because it leads to the simplistic sort of thinking seen ITT

Did you miss the part where it said the cranial capacity and the cortical neuron counts are smaller?

The entire paper can be found here.

www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

Nobody has been able to refute Rushton's and Jensen's findings and their 30 years of research into this topic.

Why is it that blacks have never been able to score as well as whites, nowhere in the world? Why is it poor Asians fresh off the boat in Western countries outperform blacks that have lived here for decades?

Look up the Flynn effect. And read James Flynns deconstruction of the findings before you vomit /pol/ bias

You can use any metric of intelligence you want, Blacks score lower in all of them.

Reaction times (a proxy for intelligence) are also the fastest in East Asians, slightly slower in Whites, and the lowest in Africans.

This in incidentally also explains why the best ping pong players are Asians.

Lol now I know this faggot is shilling fud

A quote by Jensen

"Now and then I am asked by colleagues, students, and journalists: who, in my opinion, are the most respectable critics of my position on the race-IQ issue? The name James R. Flynn is by far the first that comes to mind. His book, Race, IQ and Jensen (1980), is a distinguished contribution to the literature on this topic, and, among the critiques I have seen of my position, is virtually in a class by itself for objectivity, thoroughness, and scholarly integrity."

You can use any metric of intelligence you want, Blacks score lower in all of them.

Reaction times (a proxy for intelligence) are also the fastest in East Asians, slightly slower in Whites, and the slowest in Africans.

This incidentally also explains why the best ping pong players are Asians.

>I hear about "muh genetics IQ link" on Veeky Forums all the time. It's odd that all of a sudden it IQ now comes down to how much education one gets.

>Veeky Forums is still one person

wtf are you talking about,you are saying complete BULLSHIT.you think we are still in 1900s ?

my country tunisia's literacy rate:
total population: 81.8%
male: 89.6%
female: 74.2% (2015 est.)

how the fuck is our educational system worse than syria,we send many people to europe to continue studying.

the only true thing is about heavy corruption,which is everywhere in third world countries and even some first world countries

>Did you miss the part where it said the cranial capacity and the cortical neuron counts are smaller?

Again, how does this refute the environmental hypothesis? Maybe being malnourished and uneducated leads to less brain growth. I want you to show causation, I'm already well aware of the correlation.

>Why is it that blacks have never been able to score as well as whites

Igbos outperform British whites in high school maths and college entrance exams.

African immigrants to the US are twice as likely to get a college degree than a native-born white, and make more money overall.

>Several studies have found differences between races in average reaction times. These studies have generally found that reaction times among black, Asian and white children follow the same pattern as IQ scores.[169][170][171] Rushton & Jensen (2005) have argued that reaction time is independent of culture and that the existence of race differences in average reaction time is evidence that the cause of racial IQ gaps is partially genetic instead of entirely cultural. Responding to this argument in Intelligence and How to Get It, Nisbett has pointed to the Jensen & Whang (1993) study in which a group of Chinese Americans had longer reaction times than a group of European Americans, despite having higher IQs. Nisbett also mentions findings in Flynn (1991) and Deary (2001) suggesting that movement time (the measure of how long it takes a person to move a finger after making the decision to do so) correlates with IQ just as strongly as reaction time, and that average movement time is faster for blacks than for whites.[172] Mackintosh (2011), p. 339 considers reaction time evidence unconvincing and points out that other cognitive tests that also correlate well with IQ show no disparity at all, for example the habituation/dishabituation test. And he points out that studies show that rhesus monkeys have shorter reaction times than American college students, suggesting that different reaction times may not tell us anything useful about intelligence.

I for one, welcome our Rhesus overlords.

But you said IQ is not a relevant metric, why are you citing IQ?

What is your preferred metric for intelligence?

>Professor Jensen pointed out back in 1969 that black children's IQ scores rose by 8 to 10 points after he met with them informally in a play room and then tested them again after they were more relaxed around him. He did this because "I felt these children were really brighter than their IQ would indicate." What a shame that others seem to have less confidence in black children than Professor Jensen has had.

/pol/ has you fuckers shilling and ideology without research

Did you even read that post?

Are you literally retarded, you where inexplicably proven ignorant to the points your are arguing for

>North Africans= Arabs+ black africans
how dumb can you be to be on Veeky Forums but not know the north africans are majority berber or amazigh ?
according to dozens of dna tests i saw, most of us have less than 5% sub saharan african and less than 15% middle eastern(and that is ME not arabs,but i bet you think middle easterns are arabs)

>Also north africans and black Americans are in the same IQ range

Citation needed

the tuaregs used to have a caste society,the original/noble ones are southern berbers.
they enslaved sub saharan africans,and their children became freed men,that is why you see many sub saharan touaregs or black but different from the others touaregs.

Rhesus masterace

All classes of free people have sub-saharan ancestry but it varies.

The blacksmith class are not slaves nor do they descend from slaves, they came with nobles from the West or were seen in the deserts depending on the stories.

The haratin are not all necessarily slaves either though many are.

It's more complicated than people give it credit for.

/thread

>African immigrants to the US are twice as likely to get a college degree than a native-born white, and make more money overall.

citation needed and affirmative action

>affirmative action

Here's the thing about AA is that any guy can point to a minority and say AA o discredit them. Exactly like when university in america gave scholarships to the poor and people Asperger about that.

Hell many top schools in the states don't use it and use a holistic approach to their admissions and people still bitch

2 hours and this shit thread is STILL on the frontpage.

IQ isn't a catch-all term for intelligence, it is merely "a" measure of intelligence, and if you people weren't absolute retards you'd understand that "intelligence" isn't determined by a single specific factor. Both genetics, on the whole and on individual levels, and environment play a role.

Genetics have shown to be partly responsible for mental illnesses like OCD and assburgers. Our brains are made of chemicals, those chemicals are one if not the sole factor determining what we are like, and our DNA controls those chemicals, therefore yes, DNA does affect how smart you are, or at the very least, what your potential is.

But environment is another huge fucking variant, the environment, your nutrition, experiences and stimuli will affect the way your body develops overtime BUT besides nutrition, culture and surroundings are super important too, if people are never taught to be interested in becoming smarter or more cultured, chances are they won't, this is why you have rich societies like the US and Europe with access to all knowledge ever written down by man at your fingertips, still be filled to the brim with absolute morons.

Low-class niggers in the US seem to love clustering together, this breeds an environment that doesn't encourage or reward becoming smarter, it's not like this doesn't happen with white people, hillbillies living on the swamp aren't exactly Nobel winners, but I guess they're just a smaller portion of the population, and if it does happen to be true that the specific breed of west-central African nigger that was brought to the Americas is genetically pre-disposed to being less smart, then you have all the conditions for a low-IQ population to form.

tl;dr /pol/ and /leftypol/ need to fuck off.

niggers never made any civilizations apart from some sand castles. niggers still behave like animals despite how many opportunities with give them. also i didnt say anything about other non-white races, its just a simple fact blacks are sub human. even university educated africans only score 80 on IQ test.

>accuses other people of having low IQ
>incapable of using capitalization or apostrophes
>despite how many opportunities with give them

genetics is one factor
others are nutrition and education

But west/central african genetics does not describe the entirety of black Americans who are also part anglo to varying degrees. This is what lifts their IQ up to north African levels. It's simple. Why are some people so committed to define the unique ethnic group that is black Americans by their lowest common denominator. North Africans are also part "sub-saharan", but nobody defines them as such.