The Bell Curve

All measurable traits have both genetic and environmental componenents - that much is clear from the evidence.

There are measurable differences between ethnic groups with respect to intelligence tests - that has been observed.

HOWEVER. Assuming that the difference in performance between ethnic groups is based in genetic differences is an unsupported opinion. Intelligence is a highly polygenic trait with enormous environmental effects, and there is no extant evidence tying differences in intelligenes specifically to genetic factors. The alternate hypothesis, that differences in performance on intelligence tests are due to environmental factors, is equally valid.

Support for the genetic hypothesis above the environmental hypothesis says more about the person making the claim than it does about the reality or the science.

They can never form a coherent argument against the Bell Curve. They just cry "das racist!" all the time.

Egyptians were never Arabs, the Arabs came from the Arabian peninsula.

Studies have found an association between race and IQ, and attempts to remove it by changing test questions to remove cultural bias have not been successful.

However, IQ scores are known to be influenced by both genes (about 75% in the adult) and upbringing. Factors like prenatal nutrition and exposure to lead can lower a child's IQ, and are more common in poor areas. An intellectually enriching environment may also improve scores on IQ tests. Furthermore, average IQ scores have been rising with time in many countries, apparently as a consequence of environmental factors -- the Flynn Effect.

All of which is to say that science doesn't yet know to what extent the racial difference between IQ scores is inherited and environmental.

drive.google.com/file/d/0B_q6VhhkczIYSXBabkZtRWlPTVk/view?pref=2&pli=1

Why does Veeky Forums need to disprove anything? Other people more qualified have already done so. Literally go here

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Critical_response

and read up on the criticism section.

Also, the authors never said the differences are genetic, which is the holy grail of /pol/, they concede that it is a combination of genetics and environment and the problem remains unsolved, so I don't know why you consider this book hat important in the first place.

But genetics are a major factor. They're just not the only factor.

>ch is the holy grail of /pol/, they concede that it is a combination of genetics and environment and the problem remains unsolved,
No they don't. They believe it's 100% genetics/race.I bet you can go over there right now and theres already 3 threads about black people and IQ

Strong reading comprehension. By "they" he meant the researchers not /pol/.

>That grammar

The Bell Curve must be pretty accurate after all.

Please be bait. It can't be that all of you are newfags that fell for one of the most obvious and recognizable memes on Veeky Forums, r-right?

>not knowing WE WUZ KANGS

AYO HOL UP.

Almost nothing in the book has anything to do with race.

It's one relatively short chapter in an ~850 page book.

>Disprove psychology

LOL

I'd not put the mean IQ as 100, but 0. It makes a lot more sense. 100 is such an arbitrary number and it makes people think that there exists a lowest possible IQ (0). It is also easier to compare. It would be 13 and −13 instead of 113 and 87.

>"people think"
>easier to compare
>arbitrary number
The people who have an interest in searching for knowledge, analyzing the truthfulness of it and embracing it aren´t hindered in their efforts by lack of an oversimplification of an oversimplification.

If a persons´ understanding of the concept of IQ rests on "simplifying" the grading from (roughly) 70-130 to 0-60, no measure available will help him/her grasp the definition and consequences of a (roughly) bell-curve shaped distribution of IQ among members of a sufficiently large populace.