How smart are abbos actually

>Hispanics and Abbos decreasing over time

Whatever you believe about inherent ability that reflects worsening education or extremely poor educational availability. Especially with the Japs moving up it signals a polarization of quality of education, although those are some pretty haphazardly related groups. I'd like to see more recent data that reflects modern technology's benefit.

But statistically, it's my understanding abbos are dumb as fuck. If you had a family that migrated to the city and willfully engaged in not being a desertdwelling n'er-do-well the gap would close significantly. Anyone who believes there isn't any kind of racial divide is fucktarded, but it's just as stupid if not more so to think that divide is significant or remotely reliable.

...

>drawing the line through highest and lowest points...
with this kind of graph you are supposed to
draw the straight line to point out average

look at the black population and its IQ in the US
its the same shit but on a smaller scale
they have 83 IQ on average even though they have access to unlimited source of information.

Of course they are less smart than chinese people, but a race isolated can't do a shit. Are you underage, or a brainlet?

They may be dumber.

So, what can we do with this info?

And that's the feedback loop, they got off the cognitive treadmill so to speak because developing that was not parsimonious.

This. Plus, it is a known fact that IQ is a poor measure of intelligence (and not only because it is culturally biased).

We all know it. I don't know why cumskin brainlets keep praising such pseudoscience.

What is the fascination with abos and their IQ anyway?

Also, research article source on that graph?

abbos seem to be killed by doing retarded things not even animals gets killed by.

It's like if they were an evolutive branch that got frozen in time from thousands of years ago.

Okay... source for any of this?

aussies need to make commercials so abbos don't sleep on roads.
youtube.com/watch?v=XA241Lg70fg

It's not a poor measure of intelligence, what are you talking about?
I know we like to laugh at psychology because it's a squishy soft science, but that's probably the single best replicated finding in psychology, results from different parts of the test correlate strongly between them, and with a bunch of other metrics. There seems to be a common driving factor behind it, which is termed the general intelligence factor.

The thing is that intelligence=innate skill
Which is not.

> snakes don't sleep on the road
you can tell that to the rattlesnake I hit that won't be seeing his mate next year.

g factor is uncontroversial. For this aspect we can say a lot about.

The fact that IQ results have a genetic component is also well established. At least half the contribution is genetic, and the rest is poorly understood and not always obvious environmental factors (e.g. influence of parents seems to be negligible).

It's about right user and the khoisan and altai have averages around 65. But they also lack educational infrastructures...but then the inuits of north america lack that same infrastructure too but have averages around 90 IQ.

Actually their average is around 85-87 and considering they came from regions with population averages in the mid 70's low 80's that's still a pretty decent growth that shouldn't be ignored. They've made progress and it shows despite what you may believe.

>The fact that IQ results have a genetic component is also well established. At least half the contribution is genetic
I agree.
>influence of parents seems to be negligible
That's because they don't train the kid mind. Also, the social awareness is a side component which determines the iniciative of developing himself.

We need to know how the brain works already, so we can put oin practice a peaceful eugenics, and a new wave of scientific boost potential programs.

Inuits are smarter because winters offer a penalty to deselect for lower IQs. Its why northern Europeans and north Asians( which come from Siberia) have been pruned towards their averages.

>those edgelord comments
>/pol/ designated video
Cringe.

The only thing interesting about them is that they're some of the oldest continually existing populations that inhabit Australia. Interesting in phylogenetic studies.

Other than that, they're literally tribe people, whose behaviour isn't something extraordinary. I'm guessing you haven't ever visited any true backwater villages in remote isolated mountains. I have. People do all kinds of shit that urban citizens would consider unimaginably dumb.

I'm not even trying to intentionally "debunk" this, it just doesn't constitute good evidence. Was funny though.

You're kidding, right? Psychology is an extremely soft science indeed, and IQ is no different. It's a very malleable metric that can be affected by simply doing a few puzzles beforehand and getting into a specific mindset of puzzle-solving. There's a good reason nobody uses IQ tests to test someone, either in the past or now, and it's not sjw culture.

IF the circumstances were the same for a group of people taking the test (same past, same training, education etc) then we could start looking at the correlation.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZEMiUEtpWd4

dude, you need to browse the abbos threads filled with really stupid shit they do.

ask any aussie living among them and they will tell you they can't understand basic higiene and can't even read.

>can be affected by simply doing a few puzzles beforehand and getting into a specific mindset of puzzle-solving
Source?
Here is mine by the way:
>amazon.com/Intelligence-That-Matters-Stuart-Ritchie/dp/1444791877?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0

IQ is literally the only aspect of psychology that isn't affected by the replicability crisis so psychometrics is the only real science in psychology.

bro, I live in south america.
85IQ people are dumb, but they seem smart enough to work and create a civilization.

70IQ (blacks) are way dumber, like children (I live with blacks) but they seem to be able to understand in some basic sense.

BTW mullatoes are 85.

but 60 IQ people?
come on bro, they dumb as hell.

care to show me anything that abbos have made beyond some stone age shit?

>amazon
KEK
>source
Yourself. Pay for an IQ test.
Solve dozens of those hard puzzles.
Repeat test.

I'm more intelligent now!

Which omits a lot of aspects affirming intelligence=IQ and intelligence==innate skill

>race soing something without economic and barter factor between tribes
We all know abbos are dumber, but at least don't use a /pol/ tier argument.

That's anectodical, so pretty much worthless.
It's the book I'm talking about bro, what do you care if it's on amazon or google books or libgen, take your pick.

Training for IQ tests is like training for sports, you'll get better at those mental/physical patterns but you are going to encounter a ceiling set by genes.
You are not measuring what IQ is if you attempt to overscore.

>Everyone can do it
>anecdotical

the other polynesian tribes such as maoris seems to work and function fine in modern society.

so the average of all the points remain constant in time?

you must be a genius!

Why not?
That's how kids minds are trained when they are going to school. Pattern on another subjects make them suspect there may be another hidden pattern, so the thought proccess is repeated in their minds.
So?

Ha. Yes that's pretty much it. That's pretty basic, man, but I guess you're unfamiliar with science.

You're not wrong but that is just not a trait lower IQs are prone to. Some people are JV cognitively speaking. They can be taught the patterns but the process of pattern making is more wired and less instructable.

Nice one.

Bye bye brainlets.

>lower IQs can do
You may be right. The problem is what I said thereWe need to know how the brain works and how to put on practice an ADN embryo based eugenics. So the average human can live better with peaceful methods.

Evidence of what? That Abbos have 60 IQ? Or that they are dumb because of a commercial?
Either post the arguments the book offers or gtfo.

I'm not saying IQ doesn't have a (albeit weak) correlation with what most of society deems as intelligence. If you and another person who lived identical lives were tested and you got a much higher score, that MIGHT constitute evidence that you have genetically more potential for tackling certain problems faster than the other person tested. But even minute actions before testing can affect your score. Ever wonder why those top IQ contenders continuously take IQ tests to get a higher score? The environmental component is far too great for IQ to be used on judging two individuals on how mentally adept they are. It's far from a real science.

>all that circumstances and variables
That's why IQ will always be a raw analysis of "intelligence".
The future is the brain research.

Never said otherwise. Psychology research is completely antiquated and unreliable nowadays. Neuroscience will replace it completely when the time comes that we map nearly every brain pathway.

>intelligence=/=innate
>Brain research
>actual human behavior knowledge
>intelligence comprehension.

>Evidence of what?
Evidence of what was being quoted. I did say some of what was in the book (IQ measures intelligence and has a genetic component), but alone that's unsupported. Much like most of what's in this thread.
>That Abbos have 60 IQ
I've only seen one study reaching this conclusion, was that study ever replicated?

/Thread

What's the point on researching about IQ if it's pseudoscience?

But that's a Marxist canard. You can't have heredity mucking up fan fiction.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Test_bias_or_differential_item_functioning
In particular:
>Differential item functioning (DIF) or sometimes referred to as measurement bias is a phenomenon when participants from different groups (ex gender, race, disability) with the same latent abilities give different answers to specific questions on the same IQ test.[45] DIF analysis measures such specific items on a test alongside measuring participants latent abilities on other similar questions. A consistent different group response to a specific question among similar type of questions can indicate an effect of DIF. It does not count as differential item functioning if both groups have equally valid of chance of giving different responses to the same questions. Such bias can be a result of culture, educational level and other factors that are independent of group traits. DIF is only considered if test-takers from different groups with the same underlying latent ability level have a different chance of giving specific responses.[46] Such questions are usually removed in order to make the test equally fair for both groups. Common techniques for analyzing DIF are item response theory (IRT) based methods, Mantel-Haenszel, and logistic regression.[46]

So, assuming the test makers can accurately determine when people have the same "latent talent", there shouldn't be a problem, but being able to do so assumes they have a method of effectively determining intelligence or skill in similar questions, which is pretty circular reasoning - assuming each type of question is effective, the test as a whole is effective, but the test as a whole is only an effective measure of intelligence if each question type is an effective measure of a particular aspect of intelligence; clearly a circular argument.

That's what experimental sections are used to normalize in standardized testing (g-loaded activity) of all stripes.

and you to