Real talk. Does the historical failure of African-American communities to achieve success have a genetic component...

>Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on
fifty years of twin studies
scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Polderman-et-al.-2015.pdf

>It's not until the Anglos show

Arab/Persian explorers described Africans as being backwards long before the Anglo.

>I think the real problem is that the few sea faring states failed to build up navy alliances to keep the euros out.

Course they couldn't. Objectively, they were behind other humans by thousands of years.

And in parts of Africa, tens of thousands.

>like why Western Europeans dominated the world but East Asians didn't
Will it also explain why they didn't dominate shit in Bronze Age and why it was the Mediterraneans who dominated Europe for most of its ancient history?

Greek historians describe North Europeans as being backward and retarded and Near Easterners and Anatolians as being civilized, intelligent but effeminate. Were they also right?

>but East Asians didn't
Genghis Khan was white?! That explains Finland then

At the time

Supposedly during this time also you would have to keep in mind. That Iranians were of European stock and continued to be until after the Arab Invasion. (The implication being they had far more similar mentally, physically, and socially to the Europeans.)

>Cherries picked quote about uncivilized slaves
He was talking about the slaves he bought
>Thousands of years behind
In what way they had metallurgy before Egyptians adopted it.

how about this one:
If being slaves for a generations were all it took to end a race the Slavs would never have accomplished anything: the difference is genetic.

He doesn't literally mean becoming an academic i think he means the way that ghetto culture shits on people who do well in school by bullying them for 'acting white' thus doing well in school is discouraged by your peers. There was a black harvard maths professor who wrote about the problem but i can't recall his name

Exactly, compare that to Jews or East Asians which typically put a great deal more pressure on children to excell in school. That's a stereotype of course, but it's often true.

I really think the breakdown of stable families in Black communities is another unfortunate problem that is common in impoverished people.

Really though this is a class problem much more than a race one. Poverty is a disease that's passed down from one generation to the next.

The Jews were never enslaved as a whole group, the Egyptian thing is a myth and Babilonia was not slavery.

If there was a genetic component to dominance and power then we would see similar trends of who dominates who across history. In reality we see varying and diverse patterns based on numerous factors. Western Europeans arguably didn’t surpass China until the mid 19th century, while they were nigger/caveman tier savages in the ancient world, and not even relevant during the Bronze Age. History basically disproves the genetics determine power meme.

>I really think the breakdown of stable families in Black communities is another unfortunate problem that is common in impoverished people.

Yeah, this was argued back in 1965 in the Moynihan Report. It's been criticised quite a bit but it's still interesting to read and concluded that it's more based on poverty than race.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Family:_The_Case_For_National_Action#Influence

No. Africans in a less racist society achieve as good or better academic results as whites.

I'd love to see the politican that pushes for blacks to take poorly paid farm jobs.

Really? What countries are those?

Definitely one of the silly parts of modern cherry picking old accounts of certain cultures. Different cultures have historically been pretty mixed on their opinions of outsiders. Sometimes they can admire them, sometimes they can loath them and call them every horrible thing, and often it doesn't have to have anything to do with how "complex" or "functional" the foreign culture actually is.

This. Even the early impressions of Europeans by native Americans describe them as backwards, savage, incompetent (largely because of their inability to survive particularly well in North America) etc. Everybody says everybody else is a dumb savage.

I've never read that report, but just from the wikipedia article, if it is representing it accurately:

>Writing to Lyndon Johnson, Moynihan argued that without access to jobs and the means to contribute meaningful support to a family, black men would become systematically alienated from their roles as husbands and fathers, which would cause rates of divorce, child abandonment and out-of-wedlock births to skyrocket in the black community (a trend that had already begun by the mid-1960s), leading to vast increases in the numbers of households headed by females and the higher rates of poverty, lower educational outcomes, and inflated rates of child abuse that are allegedly associated with these factors.

Is this basically saying that lack of jobs, lack of economic opportunity, and therefore poverty, is what drives black men to take welfare, which then causes families to fall apart (Because of psychology? Because women can just get welfare too? I'm not sure)?

I'm just wondering if it basically agrees that poverty caused an unraveling of black culture, or if it doing the Sargon thing of saying "if black people just got married they'd magically become more affluent".

>I'm just wondering if it basically agrees that poverty caused an unraveling of black culture

Yeah it's just saying that. Its not an amazing revelation but a lack of opportunity leads to poverty. If i remember right to author blames the lack of opportunity on the legacy of slavery and Jim crow. I'm not sure on how to make the jump from shitty conditions to ghetto culture developing though

Largely a cultural problem. Genetics largely play an important role in starting stats and growth stats, but that needs to be paired with proper education for the person to come to fruition. However everyone starts off roughly similar in skill base.

>Africans
7 STR (1.2x)
7 AGI (1.2x)
2 INT (0.8x)
3 CHA (1x)
1 WIS (0.5x)

>Whites
5 STR (1x)
5 AGI (1x)
4 INT (1x)
4 CHA (1x)
2 WIS (0.8x)

>Asians
3 STR (0.8x)
4 AGI (1x)
7 INT (1,2x)
2 CHA (0.8x)
4 WIS (1x)

UK for a start
telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11987142/Ethnic-minorities-more-likely-to-go-to-university-than-white-working-class-British-children.html

Lower class Brits aren't even people

I'm not reading that but I assume a large part would be that minorities in Britain live pretty exclusively in cities while loads of whites live in the countryside besides the cities. Thus tons of shit tier low education jobs are out of minorities' reach.

>I'm not reading that
Never change /pol/

> Because humans are biological creatures and thus follow the rules of biology like everything else that lives on Earth.

Coming real close to a Nazi there buddy.

We weren't enslaved.

>Does the historical failure of African-American communities to achieve success have a genetic component?
yes.
Sub-saharans have a well-documented lower than average i.q., which persists when all other factors are controlled for.

>one study

>Iranians were of European stock

>le IQ meme

>more likely to go to university
>this means they're smarter.
>not posting the average i.q. of sub-saharans in Britain
>slowjack.jpg
gee could it possibly be a combination of affirmative action, lower standards, and minority scholarships which allows minorities to go to university at higher rates?

>I.Q. is a meme
it is literally the best and strongest single predictor of success in the entire field of social science.
If you dismiss I.Q., then you must dismiss literally everything else and be left solely with your prejudices, because at that point you aren't relying on any data.

It's a fucking single number trying to sum up one of the most complex known phenomena which we don't entirely understand.

>Will it also explain why they didn't dominate shit in Bronze Age and why it was the Mediterraneans who dominated Europe for most of its ancient history?

Yeah actually. It may also explain why Western Europeans are so different from other Europeans and why this strangely overlaps with the Hajnal Line. Something happened to Western Europeans on a genetic/behavioral level a 1000 year ago which lead them to dominate the world.

>It's been criticised quite a bit but it's still interesting to read and concluded that it's more based on poverty than race.

Its also pretty old. With recent studies, its obviously more of a genetic thing. Poverty is a measure of genes.

>Really though this is a class problem much more than a race one. Poverty is a disease that's passed down from one generation to the next.

Wrong, poverty is correlated with behavioral traits. So whats being passed down is not "poverty" it is behavioral traits that create poverty. So its a race thing.

Only if you define IQ as "progress".

Europeans and even Asians have this idea that we are actually going somewhere, meanwhile most tribal Africans are actually comfortable living their tribal life, because it's simply their own culture.

>Poverty is a measure of genes.
lol

It's still the best single number we have to try and sum up one of the most complex know phenomena we don't entirely understand.

Just because we still don't understand entirely how gravity works, doesn't mean we shouldn't use Newton's theories when they work well enough to get reliable results from them.

When it comes to predicting success. I.Q. is king, and no amount of whining about the uncomfortable conclusions that information leads to changes anything.

>Europeans and even Asians have this idea that we are actually going somewhere, meanwhile most tribal Africans are actually comfortable living their tribal life, because it's simply their own culture.
This. tribal culture is much more comfy and less stressful when you have an I.Q. of 80, and aren't worried about anything but the present.

Worse then that. If he denies IQ, he has to deny the g-factor psychometric measures. He has to deny twin studies. He has to deny the heritability estimate of IQ from twin studies. He has to deny genetics. He has to deny behavioral genetics.

>most complex known phenomena which we don't entirely understand.

You could say the same about every science. We studied the atom before we knew what it even looked like but it didn't matter because even if our conception on what an "atom" was wrong, the point is that our chemical methods were still sound and made valid predictions, it was reliable, consistent and it worked.

The same is true with intelligence. We may not really know what "intelligence" is, but we can make a particular definition for it, then measure it, we can quantify a cognitive ability and we can make accurate, reliable, consistent predictions about it. And IQ has done just that.

IQ is the most empirical thing to come out of psychology and it probably wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for people like you trying to scrutinize it so much that you unintentionally shaped it to be so rigorous. The funny thing is that what makes IQ so great isn't even the IQ itself. Rather, its that IQ measures general intelligence. The g-factor. This psychometric measurement is what makes IQ so great. You can measure a person's IQ without actually having to use an IQ test. Moreover, it allows us to investigate the intelligence of animals using the same principal. It has been consistent, reliable, and makes accurate predictions of gauging human cognitive ability. It has so many correlates with life and academic success, it has a high hertiablity estimate. Nothing refutes IQ scores. The IQ racial gaps has not only been shown to be impossible to close, but every single g-loaded test shows the exact same gaps. SAT scores have the same racial gaps as IQ does. So sorry, I'll listen to your "IQ is a meme" when you find a better way to explain all its findings.

Ghetto culture is punk culture. After years of unrest, boredom, and lack of success, a culture that utterly despises the establishment and revels in what minor successes they can achieve rises up. Ghetto culture took a very different turn from punk culture in their respective evolutions, but their root causes are similar.

>affirmative action, lower standards, and minority scholarships
>implying those exist in the UK

That's a good idea, they're practically built for it.
Do I have your vote user?

Most people would be less stressed out if they stopped worrying about the future, regardless of their IQ level.

>The IQ racial gaps has not only been shown to be impossible to close, but every single g-loaded test shows the exact same gaps
>Source: your ass

You could try to make the argument that there is a genetic component, but you would have a LOT of hurdles to prove that.

first, you would have to identify the component. there is no specific gene for "intelligence" let alone a clear definition for intelligence. being able to solve complex math problems is worthless when you are stranded in the jungle. being able to track animals and identify plants is useless in a city.

Then, you would have to distinguish the genetic differences between races, something else that has never been done. just tracking mitochondria, or whatever, does not correlate with any specific intellectual abilities. Nor many physical ones, either. Anyway, a soft definition of intelligence would still cause problems because of how many people with dark skin, curly hair, and broad noses have PhDs, are brilliant artists and musicians, business people, and politicians.

You could try to just do statistical regression on a few factors that indicate intelligence, or success, or whatever. The thing is, you would still find that race is the last influencing factor. Number 1 is the parent's income. the next ones are probably gender, where the kid grows up, what the nation is like, how much schooling the kids get, stuff like that. External factors have a massive influence on an individual's intelligence, success, future wealth, whatever.

Looking at African nations, there are a trillion factors that basically boil down to "Europe fucked their shit up." Colonial powers wrecked existing power structures, exploited native peoples to get cheaper access to their natural resources, introduced extremely repressive versions of Christianity, supported corrupt leaders who would permit their exploitation, established nation borders that split up some tribes and crammed others together...

just that last one is responsible for a lot of shit in Africa and the Middle East. rather than drawing borders around existing tribes, Colonial powers drew them to suit their needs. this means that tribes that were ancestral enemies were forced to live with one another, leading to war and genocide when the foreign powers left.

There are just too many external factors to discount and just say "black people are naturally dumber"

okay, except Slavs look white. They fucking ARE white, but for some reason you white people like to nitpick what corner of the street whoever grew up on. passing white gets you a lot more opportunities, compared to someone who clearly looks black. US apartheid only ended 50 years ago, you know. until then, most blacks could not go to university, much less a good high school. and those that did get an education would be hard pressed to do anything with it. You wonder why a people is poor, when that group is systematically denied the tools to improve themselves and lift themselves out of poverty.

in fact, when they are actively pushed back and impeded from improving, as in the case of the US, South Africa, Haiti, and probably a lot of African countries

the problem is that is what has already been done. it just creates a permanent underclass. besides, humans are naturally greedy and aspirational. People should not be controlled, but given the tools to improve themselves, and have roadblocks to that improvement removed. Tactics like lowering the minimum wage just allows people to be exploited more cheaply. People already work two and three jobs to keep their kids fed. you want to lower their wages even more? that does nothing to empower people to go to school, start new businesses, build better communities, or any of the other things that take a shitload of time, money, and willpower. Something that working a $5/hr, 40 hr/week job sucks right out of you

You really need to read this book. Whites were basically living like animals until they made contact with Middle Easterners and East Asians.

marriage does track really closely with wealth, but I don't think I have ever heard anyone (who is not a politician or bible-thumper) saying that marriage made people more wealthy. if anything, you could say that the traits that make people good spouses also make them broadly successful in the rest of life

define "European stock". I don't see to many blond, blue eyed Persians.

>Slavs look white. They fucking ARE white
You think having the same color makes it so people won't try and kill you? You cant be that naive you have to know that in America the one's who kill black people the most are other black people. Its not the white slav keeping you down its your fellow black brothers who don't want to see you succeed.
Do you think the slavs are loved today? That Russia is beloved by other europeans and americans. The only person you can depend on is yourself stop looking for aid from others because they will never give it build yourself up with your own power .

"Poverty" is a liberal cliché. The real issue is the sense of entitlement engendered by government welfare, which is a first-world thing. In the third world, people who live off their own sweat and blood are never as cruel and barbaric as the average inner-city black. And "poverty" is a misnomer here. The only reasonable definition of poverty is "the want of necessities". Poverty is the absolute lack of wealth, and should only be used to denote the lack of basic human necessities and conveniences. Liberals should use a different word when they talk about relative lack of wealth. Because if we take "poverty" to mean "economic inequality", then the easiest way to end poverty is to destroy the economy, meaning that poor societies have less poverty than rich ones.

>read this book that has been debunked for over a decade.
No thanks

>like why Western Europeans dominated the world but East Asians didn't
Because the Emperor of the Ming Dynasty died and his successor puled back the imperial fleet because he didn't value exploration as much?

this thread assumes I, OP, am saying afro-americans are less intelligent genetically. That is not necessarily the only genetic factor which can be related to a people's success.

Consider MAOA, the warrior gene which predicts aggressive behavior. This is common in blacks. There all manner of genetic causes of this sort which could be at work here in the afro-american population. This is the sort of thing I am interested in- it seems obvious that in an environment where the slave class reproducted under stressors that selection would occur.

For instance, I've heard it argued that afro-americans have athletic traits due to selective breeding for planation labour. That's interesting stuff, but I don't know the truth. Does anyone know of genetic associations of this sort which could have originated from slavery and the like?