Hello Sci

Intelligence

>"Despite popular assertions, a single factor for intelligence, called g [or "general intelligence"], can be measured with IQ tests and does predict success in life"
udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1998generalintelligencefactor.pdf

>A public statement signed by 52 internationally known scholars, all professors or experts in intelligence and allied fields, claimed that "Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience … Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments."
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289697900118

>The landmark book "The Bell Curve" compared intelligence, education, socioeconomic status, and a variety of other factors to see how positively they correlate with social success.
books.google.com/books?id=s4CKqxi6yWIC

>None of the factors correlated as highly as IQ did (positively or negatively) in regards to job success, income, welfare dependency, illegitimacy, and crime.
goodreads.com/book/show/1701353.Terman_s_Kids

>Higher IQ correlates well, often as the best predictor, with job performance (>.90)[ doi.apa.org/journals/bul/96/1/72.pdf ][ udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatters.pdf ], wealth[ books.google.com/books?id=s4CKqxi6yWIC ], income[ eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ772607 ][ jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1085275?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102567265087 ], economic growth, liveability in a US state (.80)[ anepigone.blogspot.com/2007/08/iq-and-livability-greater-intelligence.html ][ ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17032488 ], cooperation, life expectancy (.85) and infant morality (-.84)[ books.google.com/books?id=s4CKqxi6yWIC ][ ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/3/665.abstract ][ udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004currentdirections.pdf ].

Found 74 determinant genes in DNA responsible for IQ development.
nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp2016107a.html

>Results show that DNA can be used to predict educational achievement, especially at the end of the compulsory school years. We found that the 2016 EduYears GPS accounted for 9% of the variance in educational achievement at age 16, tripling the effect size from previous reports. It is possible to identify individuals early in life at genetic risk and resilience, moving us closer to the possibility of early intervention and personalized learning.

>We have previously reported a heritability estimate of 60% for educational achievement at age 16 using a sample from which the present sample was drawn. The present study demonstrated that EduYears GPS predicts 9% of the total variance in educational achievement, thus accounting for only 15% of the heritability estimated by the twin design. However, unlike twin study estimates of heritability, GPS is derived from GWA studies, which are limited to additive effects of the common variants employed on SNP arrays. For this reason, SNP-based estimates of heritability, which have these same limitations, represent the current upper limit for GPS prediction. For educational achievement, SNP-based estimates of heritability are about 30%, and EduYears GPS explains almost one-third of the heritable variance from SNP-based studies at age 16.

>We believe that the substantial increase in heritability explained by the 2016 EduYears GPS represents a turning point in the social and behavioral sciences because it makes it possible to predict educational achievement for individuals directly from their DNA.

Subjective ratings of negative emotional images were higher in women than in men.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26318628

;tldr no the races are not equal and no the sexes are not equal

>But still the fact remains that if you were to make men and women compete on intelligence
Problem is, what kind of testing you use, and whether the aptitude of one gender in one type of test depends on environmental conditioning rather than genetics. This is what's difficult to determine. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence btw, just in case you were about to bring that up.

To really get the answer you would need to inspect things at the molecular level, data which we lack. There is a good reason people don't cite your sources to debate whether a gender is intellectually superior or not. If the answer was there, everyone would know about it, not just you.
Lel, someone took this personally. At least bother to read the sources you're citing and critically examine them, rather than posting incorrect/misunderstood conclusions.

>Blue or grey eyed individuals are smarter and better coordinated.
gave me a hearty kek 2bh, thanks

>Anecdotal evidence

It is funny because I was using my anecdotal evidence as proof of how women are just as functional in modern society as men.

>what kind of testing you use

If you want this shit to be 100% reliable then make it a fight to the death.

For strength make it a fist fight. Last gender standing wins. No rules but no weapons. Anything goes as long as you can do it with your fists or legs.

No professional fighters allowed, obviously. Just bring your average people.

I won't tell you the answer, but you know which gender would fucking beat the shit out of the other.

To test intelligence then something similar but involving strategy. Maybe set up a puzzle where both genders are trapped in a different location and you give them just enough information so that they can deduce where the coordinates of the other gender is.

They have to solve this puzzle, find the location of the other gender and succesfully send a misile to that location that will kill them.

If it takes them more than 3 days then deadly poison gas will be poured into both rooms and all of them will die, so that they are under pressure.

You better believe me that women won't bitch about 'environmental conditioning' when it is a life or death situation.

Obviously no professional RTS players or mathematicians allowed.

Here who would win is harder to tell because the intelligence gap is not as big as the strength gap but I still am very confident about who I think would win.

Tell me, who do you think will win?

Anyways, these are extremes so actual tests would be

2020 olympics will be mixed gender and lets count medals by gender.

For intelligence get 5 people from each gender who know shit about videogames and force them to learn a highly competitive multiplayer game for 3 months and then make them have a match against each other to see who wins.

Thank you all so much for this. -Op.

I didn't bother reading most of them, but seem to fall under three categories:

1) Opinion pieces (from a blog, unrealiable source, or isn't an actual study)

2) They are just plain stats that indicate no argument even relative to what you are attempting to make.

3) They are by entirely unrespected individuals in the field, ie gottfredson

But this has me cracking up the most:
psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1977-07996-001

>Biological children of the adoptive parents scored even higher.
>The high IQ scores of the socially classified Black adoptees indicate malleability for IQ >under rearing conditions that are relevant to the tests and the schools.

The research concludes exactly the opposite of what you claimed.

>telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12061787/Intelligence-genes-discovered-by-scientists.html
>up to 75 per cent of IQ is genetic
>In contrast shared environmental factors such as home and school environment contributed between 14 and 21 per cent.

False. 100% of IQ is genetic.

>Lel, someone took this personally. At least bother to read the sources you're citing and critically examine them, rather than posting incorrect/misunderstood conclusions.

So you have no counter-argument? Typical lefty

>It is funny because I was using my anecdotal evidence as proof of how women are just as functional in modern society as men.
I know, but as a stranger that doesn't preclude you from using it again to support yourself in an argument. Notice that I said "if you were about to bring that up" rather than "since you brought that up" :^)

As for the tests, I am not debating physical dominance, it is a well proven fact, and all of society accepts it, including women. Intelligence claims are more controversial because the brain is poorly understood, and molecular understanding of the brain is the only thing that can solve this genetics vs environment problem in intelligence.

For example, in your puzzle scenario, who would guarantee that the boys have not been spending more time with puzzles because they were exposed to them in their early childhood in comparison to the girls, which would give them an unfair advantage in beating similar puzzles or puzzle-themed games? This is the problem.

Barring molecular evidence, you need to compare genetic code with genetic code. Blank slates. You would need to set up thousands of identical chambers with many different samples of each gender to be raised there from birth and expose them to the same food and general surroundings in order to deduce what differences each of them have, if there are any patterns worth noticing, and then pick the ones from each gender that follow the most commonly observed pattern of interest/behaviour (which would reflect real world statistical distributions) and THEN pit them against each other in many DIFFERENT types of intelligence tests to determine if there truly is a difference based on genetics. Even THEN there could be factors that slightly skew the results on the part of a gender, like the age when they were tested. So you see how horrifically complicated the genetics-environment problem is. Molecules are the answer, put your faith in them.

>who would guarantee that the boys have not been spending more time with puzzles because they were exposed to them in their early childhood

Here is a solution: get neglected orphan kids to be the competitors.

Honestly I think you are pretending this issue is harder than it actually is.

Get 10 retards, absolute morons equally distributed among genders, and give them a couple of weeks to learn Chess. Then make every man compete against every woman in a thing similar to a round robin style competition but only gender vs gender.

Your thing of 'what if the boys were influenced into doing puzzles' is complete bullshit. To fix this made up bias just put an incentive.

1 million dollars for each member of the gender that wins. This way whatever minor 'childhood advantage' someone has will be minimal because both sides will be fucking training like slaves to get the million bucks.

If Chess is too white cis capitalist then make them play Go.

As much as I like laughing at the nowadays stereotypical "lefty"-blaming polack, I will take some time to explain why I laughed at that article, especially.

>Blue or grey eyed individuals are smarter and better coordinated.
First off, the source is dailymail, a notoriously low-quality clickbait site. Which proves correct again, proved by the bullshit conclusions they spout in the article that were not part of the original research.

Delving deeper, you mention that blue eyed individuals are "smarter". As per the article itself, they say that blue eyed individuals study MORE for exams and thus perform better, not that they are innately more talented, because they don't know that.

You also say more "coordinated". Coordination in biology refers to motor coordination, such as eye-hand coordination that was tested through reaction time trials, and showed BROWN-eyed individuals to be better at, NOT blue. False statement on your part.

Last but not least, the article itself says that these differences are observed but not explained. In other words, useless to your argument. This is the very evidence that we are lacking on the matter, the holy grail of /pol/ science, actual biological proof, not clickbait correlation research.

>posts 40 articles including government and university studies
>lol but this one is kinda not great so ur whole argument is invalid

.........

/leftypol/ please leave

lol, in what universe are neglected orphan kids blank slates?

The point is that we do NOT know how much of an influence even the slightest interference of environmental factors has on the apparent measured intelligence of individuals.

If anyone could just make up that this factor or that variable do not have any significance, then science wouldn't be able to draw any kind of accurate result through the noise. You can't just take a variable out of the picture or put one in and pretend like it doesn't matter. Which is why experiments need to have as many controlled variables as possible accounted for. Which is why determining differences in behaviour or other social problems are clusterfucks and the experiments to draw conclusions are impossible to conduct in any society, which is why we turn to biology for our answers, also why we will wait for biology to get those answers.

>this damage control
wew lad

Another person already debunked some of your sources and their relevance to your redpill argument, but this just goes to show that you copy-pasted a bunch of lists that someone else assembled in a very poor and incoherent manner and didn't bother to actually read any of them or understand why one of them would be relevant. Which is why your "argument" and chain of sources appears disjointed af. Not to mention that expecting people to read all of that and then criticise all of it while having to reconstruct your implied argument in their heads is delusional. Either post your whole argument in one ago with a few citations in the end or gtfo along with your smug attitude.

if you dont have an actual argument then that's fine