Why is it controversial to claim some groups of humans have different mean IQs but not controversial to claim some...

Erp i meant there is for populations and not for races. And precisely because it is so arbitrary.

Yeah I agree with you, races generally don't even make much sense

Humans are arrogant apes they hate it when logic proves they arent special snowflakes exempt from the laws of nature. Do you have any idea how many fucktards still think emotions are magic and not just random chemical cocktrails in your brain?

Since Natural selection gave us our intelligence it should be possible for base intelligence of human groups of vary greatly based on how challenging the environment is intellectually. The truth is that humans dont like the idea that a human being could mentally be a wild animal like most black people so they constantly deny deny to keep up that humanity is so civilized and superior ideal.

>Race is more of an arbitrary designation
>races generally don't even make much sense

But why? There surely are at least phenotypical differences. If it is OK to distinguish between dog breeds, then why not do the same with humans?

Sure but then tell me how many dogs there are, how many dog breeds there are, how many humans there are, and how many generally accepted races there are.

SeeThese guys are displaying the human arrogance I am talking about, every single egalitarian does this because they hate reality.

Five races that are then divided into alot of subraces and those subraces are divided into Ethniicities.

Human
Caucasoid
Snow Caucasoid
Anglo Saxon

For example.

The experiments and their corresponding results, regarding the positive correlation of race in relation to the average IQ of an individual, are very clear; and they have been scientifically proven repeatedly (although the results have largely been swept under the rug). Why is it retarded to acknowledge patterns which are patently obvious to even the most scientifically illiterate of people? And, in this particular case, why is it retarded to ignore a pattern that is so intuitively obvious to such an extreme degree, that the average observer knows, consciously or subconsciously, what the results of a study exploring this topic are going to be without even having to conduct the study in the first place?

Because not producing lactase can be traced to the action of one or a few genes. 'Intelligence', as well as being difficult to measure in the first place, is apparently spread over many dozens of possible genes with a maximum effect on standardised test scores of a couple of percent.

Also, while a lactose-intolerant person will never produce lactase regardless of their environment, intelligence is vastly affected by the pre- and post-natal environment, education availability, what time of day it is and how dehydrated you are when taking the test.

For a trait that displays a similar reliance on environment, I invite you to google average height over the past century and keep in mind that that in particular is well known to be affected by genetics while intelligence is not.

If you can divide humans into hundreds of races like you can with dog breeds then fine, but it's likely that for the most part those races will follow nationalities in old world countries at least

A good biologist knows full well the difference between phenotype and genotype. It 'looks' to you like there are so few 'races' of humans but to an anthropologist there are at least five thousand distinct ethnicities and to a molecular biologist those ethnicities may be very far apart genetically, even though they look similar. For example, due to genetic bottlenecking and population dynamics there is far less genetic difference between someone born in Norway and someone born in Spain than there might be between two Africans in villages a few dozen kilometers apart.

Well, nationalities arent biological. So I guess it is fair to talk about races. Humans have races

It is really not a Veeky Forums question. And obviously iq is a term from psychology so it's not an objective thing.

So Controversial Science is literally Hitler?

>knows full well the difference between phenotype and genotype
I am not a good biologist and even I know the difference. Thats why I specifically said
>at least phenotypical differences
I understand this and it is absolutely besides the point

What?
If you were not a newfag, you probably wouldnt parrot lazy bullshit like this. /pol/ is just a better board for discussing ethical/political issues

Yes, but phenotypical differences are only a small part of the total genetic differences and given that the only phenotypical difference most people who bring up this debate seem capable of noticing is skin colour, it's easy to come to oversimplified conclusions. If you want a list of actually scientifically distinct ethnic groups then try here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_contemporary_ethnic_groups

Nice list. This was pretty much what I am talking about. There are clearly different phenotypes in humans. Not just skin color. It is also about facial features, average height, muscle distribution, proportions,...

Exactly. However, trying then to group these groups into 'Africans' or 'Asians' or 'Europeans' is arbitrary and unscientific, not least because the actual boundaries of each continent aren't well defined geographically and because historical population movements mixed various groups together. Furthermore, the actual inner workings of humans remain consistent between ethnic groups barring a few very slight differences - the aforementioned lactose intolerance in populations found in East Asia for example - and this makes sense anyway, because functional parts of an organism tend to be pretty conserved over such short timespans while cosmetic parts can often change wildly without affecting survival chances much.

Your parents must be proud.

Imagine life expectancy being limited. Imagine some people actually spend their limited time on Earth thinking about dumb shit like that.
Weep for the human race.

nationality in a geographic sense.

You don't have to though, claiming truths and misinterpreting it.

What baffles me is that if you merely hint at those truth publicly, you're going to get wrecked because of the mass of people unable (conditioning) to make a difference between the actual truth and the misintepretations by bigots.

Calling bullshit. /pol/ isn't a better board for anything. If OP is legit (a big "if") then this board is appropriate: it's a science question. He does need to learn to be more specific and ask his question in a less /pol/ fashion, however. That's why everyone here thinks you're trolling, OP.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence#Conclusions
Damn, I didn't know Wikipedia was that red-pilled.

/pol/ is shit

the only thing it is better than is /r/politics

/pol/ often is biaised and may cherrypick studies going their way. You could hope Veeky Forums goes beyond the meme and actually offer facts and studies or anything in an effort to debunk it (or the contrary).

The only one parroting here is you with the usual meme used indiscriminately whether a question is bullshit or legitimate.
Here, this question is legitimate.

Because you don't call dumb people dumb. Dumb low IQ people are usually primitive apes and they attack people like the primitive apes that they are rather than accepting facts.

I mean disregarding if it's a fact or not, there are social constrains when you label a certain chunk of the population that way.

Don't ask /pol/s opinion on this.

They will be perfectly fine with it when they're compared with blacks, whom in average have 15 less IQ points than whites, but will get mad when compared to Jews and East Asians, with both having at least 15 more IQ points than whites.

It's always the same story. pol looks down on blacks for being inferior, but forget about Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians being superior to them.

I never ever saw /pol/ deny the fact that jews and asians are smarter than whites. only dumb SJWtards do that. They respect asians for being education oriented and generally being smart and hate jews because they are racist/zionist and they use their heads to shit in everything for profit.

You are completely full of shit. Please provide even one source that demonstrates east Asians "having at least 15 more IQ points" than whites. The most I've ever seen is 5. I have heard Arthur J himself say the deficit is no more than 2 or 3, and that other studies show it is nonexistent.

science doesn't care about your feelings

see

Excuse me, it was Murray, not Jensen. An excerpt of the interview can be found here.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=bUdkzI5YMOk

Your claim that Jew's are also at least 15 points higher on average is again unfounded. In that same interview it is stated the difference in average between Jew's and gentiles is 7-15.

With that said, I'm not so convinced IQ is even that great of a measure of intelligence to begin with. I just hate liars and hypocrites. As far as I'm concerned you're just as big of a piece of shit as the assholes on /pol/

There are always people arguing that race is not a meaningful concept.

There is an obvious issue with this. If race has significant correlations with meaningful concepts (such as IQ, muscle mass, cranial radius), then ipso facto race is a meaningful concept.

the asian > white thing isnt really true
asians only let their top students do the important tests and they have a culture where its not square to study

t. Slav

Wasn't following the thread but I think it's cause the biology of intelligence is less well understood than the biology of lactase production in humans.

Well this is still under the assumption that IQ is a valid and deterministic measure of intelligence.

Then please, by all means, return to your echo chamber.

OP asked why it was controversial. You can not answer this question without using morality.

I bet you believe all pitbulls are vicious creatures, right? They have lock jaw and are nothing but killers.

It has nothing to do with the way they are treated at all?

You mention studies swept under the carpet, can you link please? I would like to read them.

One big factor this article neglects is whether wealth and IQ have some correlation. Because when you look at the different IQ's in different countries, it definitely seems to be the case. If you then take into account how much poorer black people in america are than white people, then this might be the reason for their IQ differences.

How can wealth and IQ correlate? No idea, I haven't looked into it enough to tell you. If you look at average IQ/country in Africa, they all are drastically low. I'd really have to know how they got these numbers. Like did the people who took the tests even have a proper enough reading level to understand the questions enough as to not influence the score? Many people in Africa cannot read.
I mean common, the average IQ in Somalia is 68, this is borderline down syndrome. Something went wrong here.

Right, but the question was "why is it controversial to...." and that's the reason why it's controversial; people have used it to discriminate against others.

my nigga

P(my asshole gaping) = 1

I have read this thread and I believe one big error is being made.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Black people commit more crime than white people in America. This is a fact.
We can not conclude from this that black people are more violent in nature (genetically).
Because there is a third factor: wealth. Wealth and crime are correlated. Black people in America are significantly poorer than white people in America.

From this we can conclude that black people are more violent, not because of their race, but because of their respective wealth.

The same goes for intelligence and race, but it's less clear cut.
As opposed to wealth and crime, wealth and intelligence is harder to show correlation for.
We'd have to look at how the IQ tests are performed. We have to take into account: reading levels, mastery of the language the IQ test is written in, ...

For what it's worth I can only give my opinion: I seriously doubt intelligence between different races is as big as 50 IQ points (look at Japan and Somalia). There are other factors. How much these other factors influence the IQ score is impossible to determine.

This is why this is a controversial topic.

>Correlation does not imply causation.
>From this we can conclude that black people are more violent, not because of their race, but because of their respective wealth.

You lost me there.

Except that blacks are significantly more violent even after you factor in wealth differences.

>1488

You racis get out!!!!

name a single succesful nation with a majority black population

Name a single black nation not raped for centuries.

Ethiopia

Name a single white nation not raped for centuries.

Fun fact, Romans fucked most of Europe for a good 500 years. the mongols kicked thebshit out of Russia and eastern Europe for a generation. Islam conquered chunks of Easter Europe at different time periods.

Nobody gets to claim they didn't get stomped by someone else in the history of the world. China and India got fucked by the British (perhaps worse than Africa), and they got their shit together

Completely missing the point. Any tie of IQ to skin color is purely statistical. Unless you can connect the gene for melanin affecting the gene for IQ, there's no reason to lump the two together. It's like saying white people are genetically bad at rapping because there's more (and better) black rappers than white rappers.

Botswana is pretty legit.

>One big factor this article neglects is whether wealth and IQ have some correlation.
Did you read the article?

>23. "Racial-ethnic differences are somewhat smaller but still substantial for individuals from the same socio-economic backgrounds"

This is pretty much it. Studies (which I can't be bothered finding) have shown that, all other factors being equal, people who believe they're smart are more productive students and workers than those who don't believe they're smart.

So it makes economic sense for corporations to bolster the idea that, for example, blacks are very capable. To claim otherwise is bad for business.

The same goes for many other causes framed as "equal rights" issues---Women are encouraged to be equal to men by working because it lowers the cost of labor by flooding the market with job seekers. Moreover, women are encouraged to use birth control so that they don't have to take too much time off, under the guise that "you should have control over your body!"

There's similar reasons to support immigration and H-1B visas under the guise of "muh diversity".

It's not but then people ruin it by claiming we should euthanize/sterilize low IQ groups.

Nigeria, seriously do you fucking live under a rock?

China and India are countries not continents, it's harder to unite an entire continent than a country.

If you don't completely discount the past the Kingdom of Mutapa and the Ethiopian Empire were quite successful until Europeans arrived.

>China and India are countries not continents, it's harder to unite an entire continent than a country.

Missing the point. suggests that the Nation's of Africa (and perhaps the Caribbean where the population is Majority of African descent a la Haiti and Jamaica) are unsuccessful due to European Colonialism, which is a fallacy, since all nations were at some point subrogated by outside forces, bar none that I can think of in the history of humans. Also, other nations which survived those times (Latin American, South American, Polynesian, India, China, among others) went through the same systematic colonization and rule, and while some are okay, some are failing for a variety of reasons.

The point is both and are making invalid claims, nations rise and fall for a variety of reasons.

Dog breeds vary drastically more than human population groups. They were forced by humans and also have more manipulatable genes. A more accurate comparison would be variations within one breed. Like these dachshunds here.

> Missing the point.#suggests that the Nation's of Africa (and perhaps the Caribbean where the population is Majority of African descent a la Haiti and Jamaica) are unsuccessful due to European Colonialism, which is a fallacy

It's a fallacy for the Caribbean where no established government exist beforehand. But not necessarily for the african nations where there is historical evidence that some african nations indeed had their governments overthrown. Whether or not these same governments would have lead their respective nations to success today is unknown but we do know that colonization did have a part in their lack of "stability" today.

> Also, other nations which survived those times (Latin American, South American, Polynesian, India, China, among others) went through the same systematic colonization and rule
>and while some are okay, some are failing for a variety of reasons.

While it's true some nations are doing okay while others are doing badly. It's not true that they went through the "same" kind of colonization.

To be honest it is was effectively more a "gradient" of systematic colonization and rule. Latin America/South America found itself within the center (losing most of it's regional territories, economic systems replaced, influx of foreign born immigrants, governments uprooted and cultures belittled) while China found itself within the edges (losing regional territories, adopting certain foreign economic policies into it's system, but never having it's governments be uprooted completely nor have it's culture belittled).

>It's not true that they went through the "same" kind of colonization.

>To be honest it is was effectively more a "gradient" of systematic colonization and rule.

I agree, Latin America had it much worse. Here is some fun history, pic related is the extent of African colonization by 1850. Notice the lack of Europeans and large size of Arab empires.

Guess when Slavery ended in the British Empire? If you said 1833, you would be correct. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

Spain abolished it prior to that, 1811, Denmark in 1804, Portugal in 1819, France in 1848, Netherlands in 1861.

The places where people were ACTUAL SLAVES had it much worse than any African country under European rule. Was it great? No, but was it better than chattel slavery? Probably.

Africa was not really colonized until the late 18, early 1900s, and only spent about 50-80 years under European rule. The "centuries" of rape some people claim were Trade deals between nations, European and African. Any thing taken from Africa (ivory, humans, minerals) was paid for in goods (cloth, guns) through standard trade for hundreds of years. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_trade

So, no, Colonization is not to blame for Africa's failures any more than the Mongols are to blame for Russia's. Corrupt governments and racist policies (African on European racism which removed knowledgeable workers and gave economic and agricultural power to cronies) failed Africa.

neither IQ or race are very meaningful concepts set in stone and accepted by everyone there are too many interpretations and variables

Because digestive enzymes have less plasticity than the brain does.

This is actually what science-illiterate brainlets believe

Tell us more about your degree in psychology
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
>there is a wide consensus that the racial categories that are common in everyday usage are socially constructed, and that racial groups cannot be biologically defined
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views

because only bad goyim use this assumption :^)

Unlike lactose intolerance, things other than genetics also significantly influence intelligence, e.g. socioeconomic status, quality of education, etc.

2/10 for making me reply

your examples are byproducts of parent intelligence which is inherited. clever offspring (ignoring regression to mean) are born to the socially mobile and have the educability to make use of "quality education"

socioeconomic status does not affect intelligence in a meaningful way, this has been discussed lengthily

Well what he is saying is someone's socioeconomic situation has a higher correlation to crime rate than someone's race.

I honestly didn't think it was that hard to follow.

Let's also point out that the majority of people in jail are there for drug related crimes. Most of which get put into a supplier bracket even though they only small amounts, usually for personal use.

By all means though, please continue to be a sad little man.

Well, only one of those claims (or very similar claims) was used as an excuse to keep a bunch of people enslaved and then commit genocide. Even if it's true, there are clearly some risks involved in talking about it too much.

Criminals are low IQ stock if only for the fact they were able to get caught.

>I'm would be a criminal mastermind if I wanted to be, it's not hard

Sure sparky, whatever you say.

>I'm would be a criminal mastermind if I wanted to be, it's not hard

>I would be a criminal mastermind if I wanted to be, it's not hard

Fix'd, silly autocorrect.

>your examples are byproducts of parent intelligence which is inherited
Except that makes no goddamn sense you moron. Why should the factors affecting a child's intellectual outcome not have affected the parents as well when they were children? The presence of some wealthy, highly intelligent people of color refutes your point.

How about you look at some statistical evidence then?

Except you won't look at any peer-reviewed sources because this whole thread is really just a result of you spending too much time on /pol/ and wanting to spam "nigurz r dum lol XXXDDD" everywhere you possibly can.

no affluent and bright PoC resemble my point. PoCs as a population regress to their biological mean. If environmental determinism was as firm as made out to be, rags to riches stories would not be a thing, despite the fact that many of them were socially mobile despite what may or not have been provided or deprived.

>rags to riches stories would not be a thing
Except they're not a thing. The only reason why those stories are so memorable is because of how rare they are. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and yet you have zero statistical data.

Do you have a single fact to back that up or is it just your usual unverifiable and unscientific da joos bullshit someone else told you to be true

Not past childhood

Liberals

I don't understand why a science bored doesn't link studies presented through Google scholar?

Why use wiki links, that when read are shown to not even be properly proof-read.

But that's none of my business.

>not even be properly proof-read
unprove them then instead of complaining

because Liberals don't understand that you can acknowledge that people are different but still treat them equally

because IQ is a 100 year old psychology test with literally no credentials.

>bcoz Libruls

My point is people have one of the best resources for information at their disposal and it gets used wrongly.

Google scholar links plenty of research papers, some/most of which a fee is incurred to read, but none the less the studies on this subject are there.

What I love about my post you linked is that I didn't properly proof read lol.

why do you love your posts do you have some form of autism?

>love=autism

Cool story bro. Way to take a comment out of context.

>Nigeria
>succesful, first world country