Is the relation between race and IQ scores a simple and elegant way to explain differences in success among humanity...

The Flynn effect has leveled off in Western countries.

Reminder the flynn effect is malarky
iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/rodgers1999.pdf
hooktube.com/UA0XGVjQtQM

>Why would you even WANT this idea to be the case?
Its not a matter of ought, its a matter of is.

Most people who bring that shit up here and on Veeky Forums want to apply that shit to social policy to shit on others. Even though in America, Blacks and Hispanic schools are already segregated and underfunded and extremely lacking for example so I don't know why you'd want an official policy on "setting the negro/spic to his rightful" place when upon realization barely anything would change aside from say school officials being honest about their choices.

This desu. Different races have different IQ averages. That's a scientific fact.

Some people will tell you the differences are simply inherent to the race. We don't know that for sure.

That's weird considering there's hundreds of papers on it being completely true.

>Even though in America, Blacks and Hispanic schools are already segregated and underfunded and extremely lacking for example
False

>are already segregated and underfunded
this is wrong

the united States sinks a ridiculous amount of money into the public school system

>what is the Kansas City Experiment

Why didn't the Jews and Chinese invent all of civilization?

DIfferent races have different iq
How much of it is biological,socioeconomical etc is a better question

Jews are a tiny minority and Chinese have low verbal IQ

>Kansas City Experiment

Basically giving a huge influx of cash without a fucking strategy behind it and being sustainbable.

There's a point where throwing more money has diminishing returns and many places failed to deal with structural issues if low performing schools and districts

>Heritage.org

Are these figures limited to non-ESE students? If not, they're worthless. Minorities, for various reasons, are more prone to being labelled ESE while in school; for more severe ESE students, the amounts of money they require can be severe. In smaller rural districts, ADA requirements have forced counties and towns to levy sales taxes to raise money for a handful of students; in some cases, even for a single student.

ESE students can easily, with their various accommodations and staff requirements, cost double a regular student.

There's also the case that funding totals are deeply misleading as to the actual level of investment. The federal government will throw money at schools to implement new teaching technologies, like chromebooks and smartboards, and then fail to provide funds for maintenance. Or, worse yet, for maintaining the heating and air-conditioning. While the raw per-pupil data does appear to undermine the underfunded argument, it doesn't actually speak to the quality of the investment.

Another thing worth considering is that many schools wouldn't make it without fundraising and parent-involvement. The government is NOT the only source of income for a school.

>structural issues if low performing schools and districts
Also known as the quality of the childrens' genetics

Chinese invented the baseline for modern civilization.

Jewish religion dominate the world.

object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa-298.pdf

Okay, provide the per-pupil spending on race showing something different then faggot

>Also known as the quality of the childrens' genetics

>Minorities, for various reasons, are more prone to being labelled ESE
Yeah like composing a higher proportion of brainlets

>Baseline for modern civilization
In what way? Gunpowder?

Just because it's the only data around doesn't mean it's not obviously biased

...

I was thinking physical disabilities more-so than mental or even emotional ones. And, yes, emotional disabilities are very much a thing. ODD kids are truly a sight to behold.

FWIW, gifted is also under the ESE umbrella.

The dataset and methodology are in this post.

You can look at it if you want.

heritage.org/education/report/the-myth-racial-disparities-public-school-funding

But that's not what you want clearly.

>Blacks are just as functional as Whites, we don't have any evidence for that hypothesis - only evidence to the contrary, but let's still throw trillions of dollars at it and see what happens lmao
I'm done with this - if you understand the literature you cannot come away with the opinion that humanity is a blank slate - that is a religious, unscientific view.

Did you read the text at the bottom, somewhat below the graphic? They mention that there can be intra-district differences that the study doesn't pick up, and that different students have different needs.

It's not everything, but it likely contributes.

So your hypothesis is that a marginal and indeterminate funding gap is causing a 15 point IQ gap?

They didn't say it's marginal. And IQ isn't that simple.

On inventions, paper and printing are more important. However gunpowder is up there too.

There is of course the matter of how the government is run and how the military functions. Both operate on meritiocratic system nowadays, but that was mainly a transplant from China.

So how much funding is it then?

>And IQ isn't that simple.
Yeah according to you its a rube goldberg machine of immeasurable social factors that does an endrun around evolution.

Are you the /pol/ version of Steve Shives, because that was some first-rate straw-manning.

I have never said that people are a blank slate, nor do I believe that. What I said is that you can't toss the regular kids in with the special-ed kids and pretend it's all the same thing. You can't say we fund an average black and white student to the same degree if we include non-average kids who demand more money under the current legal framework. There are certain realities re: the needs of kids with disabilities, and there are realities as to where those disabilities come from like nutrition.

Are you contending that if the funding was equalized to account for whatever particularities you're talking about, Blacks would have the same IQ as Whites?

Argumentum Ad Populum!

Reductionism!

Argumentum ad Hominem!

The Strawman fallacy!

This is fun! I can't believe how smart everyone who reads the Bellcurve is! Those are a bunch of complements you guys! Like, WOW, look at this MAN HE IS MADE OUT OF STRAW Hahaha. Just joking around.

Now check out this one board on Veeky Forums! It's a lot of fun, it's called /pol/. Hold on you guys I'm making a thread there as we speak!

There! All done!

Everyone on board! Toot toot! /pol/ here we come. Don't worry I'm going to hide this thread, but it's only because of how awesome the other thread is!

No. I do not claim to know how things would turn out, nor do I have a hypothesis on the subject. I am merely unconvinced as to the conclusiveness of the existing data given the taboo on researching differences between groups as it pertains to intellect, however measured, and the heritability of IQ. I should also note that I find this taboo to be shameful. Facts are facts, and people ought not to be suspect for following the data even if it leads to dark places.

My own understanding of IQ and genetics is that there is definitely a genetic component to intelligence; however, that it isn't simple like a basic combination of alleles. Beyond that, I have yet to read something that convinces me of any further details, nor do I happen to trust any individuals who advocate for anything beyond a genetic element to IQ.

Lastly, as for equalization of IQ results, if it were the case that such groups exhibited no baseline differences and instead only differentiated by environment and culture, I still think it would take a while for equalization to occur based on multi-generational epigenetic factors. People are not blank slates. They definitely carry some genetic baggage with them, I'm just unconvinced as to how well we understand the baggage.

>Fallacy_fallacy.txt

Seriously stop stuffing words into his mouth. You are extremely desperate to turn him into some strawman.

That book is literally racist pseudoscience, so probably not.

There's no point of going into the weeds if the answer is no.

>I should also note that I find this taboo to be shameful. Facts are facts, and people ought not to be suspect for following the data even if it leads to dark places.

What taboo? no one does it because it's an extremely played out research topic that most people don't give two shits about and most discoveries doing little in the grand scheme of things or pretty obvious that it's like "we wasted $X for 'inconclusive results' "?.

Racial differences in intelligence and heritability of intelligence are two of the most well-researched and documented phenomena in social science.

Intelligence is roughly .75 heritable according to the American Psychological Association (height is .80 for reference), IQ is a good predictor for life outcome (including things like income level for example) and there is a redundant finding of one entire standard deviation gap between Whites and Blacks on IQ tests.

These are thoroughly studied and documented with tons of different methodologies accounting for anything you can think of. The results are always the same.

IQ only matters if you care about things like ((((((((((((economy))))))))))))))))).

Bullshit. I am an economist who doesn't believe in IQ at ALL. And I read mathematical economics all the time.

IQ is a load of fucking bullshit.

Do you agree that the theory of evolution is correct?

Blacks (and White Southerners/historically poor whites) are poorer. Thanks for stating the obvious, you want to instate a policy to fix that and improve it?

Adjusting for poverty doesn't eliminate the Black/White IQ gap

and there's ton of other issues on top of that.
Even then what kind of polices would you like to enact with this stuff?

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15651931

Intellect is a highly heritable as a trait. Upwards of 50%-60%

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic

nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/mp201185a.html

>IQ/g is best single predictor, mental or non-mental. IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals.

livearchive.org/2011/pdf/2004socialconsequences-groy/

>Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less
than $10,000.

jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

No, I am a devout believer in Creationism.

Several schools of thought though are fundamentally flawed because of their combined belief in evolution and IQ

-Evolutionary Biology
-Evolutionary Psychology
-Neuroscience

It's no coincidence that you see these are the ideas that suffer the most backlash on Veeky Forums and elsewhere. It is here where you will find people most vitriolic. Darwin specifically argued for Eugenics himself. You can see this sort of thing is implicit in the system being described.

This book is therefore not a surprising or philosophical insight, it's more of an eventuality that had to occur. Like we were just kind of waiting for it to be published. How deterministic

Hi Randy

Nothing you can come up with will close the black-white IQ gap. Its already been studied and done. This is how I know you don't know the literature. This is an extremely well-studied topic.

Academics who understand the literature and still insist on environmental determinism/environmental dominance fall back on something called "Stereotype Threat" which is literally an unfalsifiable hypothesis which has nonetheless been shown to go away with the introduction of monetary incentives.

>it's well researched
I listened to the Charles Murray/ Sam Harris talk on Waking Up, and Murray definitely argues that this isn't the most well-trodden path because the eugenics movement cast everyone who might talk about racial differences as obviously a nazi. Am I to not count Charles Murray as the foremost expert on the reaction that studying racial differences in IQ might engender?

>tfw you get labelled a board-centered meme character on a board you don't frequent and are left wondering how insulted you should be

Right so this is a religious belief.

I'd have some links if fucking Veeky Forums would quit thinking I'm a spammer

You can count him as a victim of the backlash for sure but that doesn't mean its not well-documented, it is. Murray's co-author on the Bell Curve was the world's foremost expert on intelligence research but died before it came out.

You're right, Darwinism is a religious belief. Much like religion or IQ, it requires a leap of faith.

Genetics are real and do not require a belief in unfalsifiable theories.

It thinks you're a racist bigot who literally belongs in /pol/

I made a thread for you over here

The gap may never close in America but it can be very close to it. AGAIN user as I said before what social polices do YOU want to be done with this stuff?

Oh no, I'm not talking about inheritable traits. I don't doubt that people can pass things down their family line. Characteristics and whathaveyou.

It's just... the fact that it could ever accurately be measured, the idea that you could extrapolate what occurs within artificial selection to a process which takes millions of years, you know stupid ideas which are only justifiable through logical errors.

I'm sure you have a high IQ, so did this filthy MTG playing nerd I met a little while back. I can tell you it means absolutely fucking nothing.

I have a relatively high '''''''IQ''''''' too, before you resort to your retarded ad hominem attacks like you evolutionist retards clearly do. But I would never tell anyone that. I would die rather than support an institution like that. I can see the workings, the beginnings of a machine. A deterministic machine.

not that user but I think it makes a pretty good case for scrapping affirmative action

10/10 bretty gud pasta

AA has helped a lot of minorities in America. Fuck a lot of measures that focus of uplifting the poor that aren't AA exist and people STILL want them gutted.

Meritocracy, not racial discrimination, explains the racial income gap: An analysis of NLSY79

psyarxiv.com/qty3n/

g is .86 heritable, with unique environment accounting for .14 of the variance.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4002017/

Shared environment falls to .0 in adulthood in regards to IQ.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/neu.10160/abstract

The heritability of environment

cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/genetic-influences-on-measures-of-the-environment-a-systematic-review/76ECA7D8F0F92906DBB2AAFBED720F0C

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914005248

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1914335/

cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-biosocial-science/article/spearmans-hypothesis-tested-comparing-saudi-arabian-children-and-adolescents-with-various-other-groups-of-children-and-adolescents-on-the-items-of-the-standard-progressive-matrices/7A56E8BC03414A3918E6F855C6262C0D

researchgate.net/publication/223041017_Spearman's_hypothesis_tested_with_chronometric_information-processing_tasks

researchgate.net/publication/318093048_Testing_Spearman's_hypothesis_with_alternative_intelligence_tests_A_meta-analysis

there's nothing wrong with minorities attending higher education, there are a multitude of institutions with low enough admissions standards that anybody who is smart enough for higher education (even having attended an inner city school) should be able to get in. Where Affirmative Action is a problem is when it places underqualified students who went to shitty schools with low standards (that's a whole other issue and is partially behind the undocumented valedictorian meme) in prestigious institutions responsible for the research and theoretical advancement that will underpin our society for the next century.

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.397.4354&rep=rep1&type=pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjZqb3N6qXVAhWqrVQKHVnrDYgQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNGna2jcmYzp0iEX7TgrktB3pTZJCw

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000226

researchgate.net/publication/265090206_The_correlation_between_g_loadings_and_heritability_in_Japan_A_meta-analysis

link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1016021128949?LI=true

journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00045.x

philipperushton.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Genetic-and-Environmental-Contributions-to-Population-Group-Differences-on-the-Ravens-Progressive-Matrices-Estimated-from-Twins-Reared-Together-and-Apart-2007-by-John-Philippe-Rushton-Trudy-Ann-Bons-Philip-A.-Vernon-Jelena-Čv.pdf

Cash programs don't work on breaking poverty:

straighttalkonevidence.org/2017/09/22/disappointing-findings-on-conditional-cash-transfers-as-a-tool-to-break-the-poverty-cycle-in-the-united-states

Spending more money on schools (i.g. better facility, books, new class rooms, etc) doesn't change anything: Investing in Schools: Capital Spending, Facility Conditions, and Student Achievement

nber.org/papers/w21515#fromrss

IQ predicts crime:

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041783

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961500077X

Personality is .5-.64 heritable and this says how much for each trait:

www18.homepage.villanova.edu/diego.fernandezduque/Teaching/PhysiologicalPsychology/zCurrDir4200/CurrDirGeneticsTraits.pdf

"A one-point increase in IQ is associated with a 4% increase in welfare growth for the average country. Our results support the view that national IQ is an important
determinant of cross-country differences in economic activity and welfare."

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961630318X

>Where Affirmative Action is a problem is when it places underqualified students who went to shitty schools with low standards (that's a whole other issue and is partially behind the undocumented valedictorian meme) in prestigious institutions responsible for the research and theoretical advancement that will underpin our society for the next century.

Those schools do heavy evaluations of those students to see if they can fit into their school. It isn't random user. They pick students that despite having weak schools, try their best to obtain great grades with their limited resources and key thing here is that they make do with what they have and have DEDICATION+WILLPOWER.

Here's the thing with admissiosn is that if your scool has AP classes but you don't take them that looks bad on you so when those students are forced to take reg classes but score A's in them that's doing their best in their environment and many poor kids do bus to better schools to take AP classes in their chosen courses. Those uni's take kids that if life was better then them they'd be doing much more with better resources.

> in prestigious institutions responsible for the research and theoretical advancement that will underpin our society for the next century.

that doesn't mean much in undergrad user. People do it for the degree and few people here and there o research. You think every Yale student is doing PhD's?

RACE AND INTELLIGENCE

pastebin.com/E5atUMwS

BEHAVIOUR AND DEVELOPMENT - IMPACT OF RACE

pastebin.com/Liycd3BQ

RACE DIFFERENCES START IN THE WOMB

pastebin.com/viJfV22W

BRAIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHITES AND BLACKS

pastebin.com/qNBiUfmk

If you have bright as fuck students stuck with low or low mid universities they are basically trapped income wise in what they can get and considering the loads of schools that basically get lol'd at in America this shit matters.

Another thing is that most minorities go to schools nearby them. They aren't going straight to Harvard (a some kids opt to go fora lower uni to be near family) they are going from the local university into a more prestigious state school. AA isn't even unique in what it does. Charity admissions were always a thing.

>Those schools do heavy evaluations of those students to see if they can fit into their school. It isn't random user. They pick students that despite having weak schools, try their best to obtain great grades with their limited resources and key thing here is that they make do with what they have and have DEDICATION+WILLPOWER.
if it's all about the weakness of the schools then why isn't AA income based?

>Both operate on meritiocratic system nowadays, but that was mainly a transplant from China.
Good people do well was invented by a people whose meritocracy consisted mainly of rote repetition, you heard it first here folks

>that doesn't mean much in undergrad user. People do it for the degree and few people here and there o research. You think every Yale student is doing PhD's?
People who go to Yale or similar are much more likely to pursue grad degrees and obtain high level positions in the NGO and corporate world. If we accept the Critical Racial Theory argument that meritocracy doesn't exist then what's going to filter out underqualified people from fucking up everybody's lives? Also university discourse, especially that of undergrads, tends to seep into and shape the public consciousness. Nobody would have cared about the costume fiasco if it had happened at some buttfuck nowhere state school, but it happened at Yale. I don't think it's a coincidence that the growth of CRT and other batshit Social Justice movements coincides with the rise of AA.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

Repetition creates mastery. Promotion of mastery is good for civilization.

>Repetition creates mastery.
That's where the Chinese are absolutely wrong. Comprehension creates mastery and is not always a result of repetition. Often, it is the enemy of repetition.

I hope you're right

I am. The Chinese are second rate as a nation.
However,the west is rapidly becoming third rate, so we'll see how well things go

Genius talent has its own space. But for 99% of the people, repetition creates mastery. Whether it is cleaning houses, juggling, drawing, driving, exercising, writing, shooting, etc.

>writing
Repetition will never make a good writer out of a dunce. The rest of the list consist of menial occupations.

>Repetition will never make a good writer out of a dunce.
Repetition without (responding to) feedback will never make a talented person out of anyone. Even if that "feedback" is comparing your work to others, what makes repetition useful is comparing your practised movements against those of others. Just going through the motions burns those motions into your brain and muscle memory, for better or for worse.