Let's be honest here and address the elephant in the room....
Why won't the scientific community talk about the large difference in IQ between different races, most notably Blacks and Whites?
Countless studies have shown that IQ is directly related to genetics.
Science is racist.
Because scientists don't want to lose their tenure/funding.
Because low IQ people are violent and primitive by nature and scientists don't wanna trigger them. We all saw what happens even if you take their fried chicken away from them.
/thread
>Why won't the scientific community talk about the large difference in IQ between different races, most notably Blacks and Whites?
because there's nothing to talk about really. so whites have higher IQ, so what? would something changed if we were stating this fact over and over again? probably not
>There's nothing to talk about
How about eugenics?
Instead of mixing with blacks and ruining the gene pool, we need to strive to advance the human race via eugenics.
We do...
People already don't mix races generally. The average american is also borderline retarded, so it doesn't matter anyway.
>The average american is also borderline retarded
back to you racist euro bigot
>psychology is bullshit pseudo-science!
>unless its IQ and proving how dumb those niggers are, then its legit
lol, fuck off.
>losing tenure
right
Uh, how is mixing with blacks not improving the gene pool? It raises the average of IQ of blacks and increases the physical prowess of whites. Everyone benefits
How about graduation rates, GPAs, SAT scores and school enlistings? Why do black people suck at those too :-)
>It raises the average of IQ of blacks
And lowers the average IQ of whites
Intelligence is 100x more important than physical prowess.
IQ uses real science guided by empirical evidence.
>he doesn't know the purpose and advantages of sexual reproduction
>he implicitly proclaims inbreeding
kys
>Why do black people suck at those too :-)
But I don't ;_;
I don't know though. Guess it's a cultural problem or something.
No it doesn't because the offspring would be considered black and not white. If anything it raises the mean IQ of whites because the dumb whites' "dumb genes" get exiled to the nigger gene pool.
:^)
Nothing to talk about? Are you serious? So you dont realize that one of the most crucial reasons why 3rd world immigration does not work is because low IQ people do not do so well in higher IQ societies? For the last 30 odd years the leftist narrative has been that people are all the same cumbaya bullshit, which is not true, not only are there fundamental normative and cultural differences between peoples of the earth, there are also biological/genetic difference like IQ. These differences should be all taken into account, sadly so far the west can only accept "social" e.g cultural differences and totally ignores the biology part because "das raycis".
So you don't realize that if this fact would be brought out of the darkness, then perhpaps policies could be shaped in a realistic way, for example in terms of 3rd world immigration, and REAL solutions could be found as to combat the increasing self-segregation of minorities who migrate to e.g EU from poor countries with a lower average IQ.
plz.
wtf I love racemixing now
And it simultaneously rises the mean IQ of blacks. So it's a win/win situation.
Because race isn't a scientific concept, it's a cultural one.
I shouldn't have to say it, but I know the /pol/ shitlords here will go bonkers if I don't clarify. There are genetic differences between people, but they don't correspond to race at all. Race is based on human opinion entirely, not genes.
>interbreedimg
God you're fucking retarded, is this your best argument?
>most notably Blacks and Whites
you mean black and jewish
>and ruining the gene pool
Too late
my cock in your ass
The redneck population among cumskins are incredibly low and the nigger population among blacks are incredibly high.
Do the math :o)
Our brains are more fluid than what you might think. It's entirely possible that high IQ people were born just a tiny bit smarter than the rest, and their parents noticed, and nurtured it.
The main determining factor in whether someone will do well in their studies and in life is actually just cold, hard determination.
>phenotype features commonly associated with races does aren't based on genes
Congratulations, you just went full retard.
Studies have actually shown that your IQ is heavily influenced by your experiences and lifestyle during your formative years, because your brain at that stage is still developing and can be molded. Genes don't set your IQ permanently to a number. They just set the potential and that is a range.
My parents are white and black and I have a tested IQ of 143. They are both very intelligent but I'm smarter than both of them. I mean sure, you can say I'm lying, but since we are on an anonymous imageboard it would serve no purpose to lie. Nothing we talk about here is of any significance.
Anyways. Even if the average IQ of blacks is lower, you do realize a low average doesn't mean each and everyone part of that demographic immediately has that number, right? There are still blacks who do have an IQ of around 100-115, which should be acceptable for the gene pool. If your answer is no, you can go ahead and admit that you simply hate blacks regardless and were just sugarcoating your personal resentment in "rationality" and "facts", so people don't immediately dismiss you as a /pol/ faggot.
Homo sapiens had children together with neanderthals, who were literal sub-humans, and the product was Europeans and Asians. So I'm not sure why certain people exaggerate the "consequences" of race mixing so much when mixing with actual sub-humans wasn't a disaster either. Quite contrary even. /Pol/ pretends after mixing you will always have the middle as a result, but that's not that simple and direct. What happens is that the variety of available genes to combine raises and the product can be something better than we ever had before.
Wrong.
The majority of blacks are less inteligente than whites.
Culture has nothing to do with it.
IQ tests assess a person's ability to detect patterns and solve logic problems.
No language is needed, anybody on earth can take these IQ tests.
Somehow Asians score highest, then whites, but blacks come dead last.
Explain that to me?
Does black culture have an effect on the black brain to detect patterns?
>Our brains are more fluid than what you might think. It's entirely possible that high IQ people were born just a tiny bit smarter than the rest, and their parents noticed, and nurtured it.
Studies show that after the age of +-20, genetics account for about 80% of IQ and cognitive abilities.
Again, go fucking read books
I think there are studies that show the importance of genetics-determined intelligence. And by the way, the ability of determination is also inherited to a large degree
>makes /pol/-tier argument
>mocks contrarian arguments
>Intelligence is 100x more important than physical prowess.
That's an opinion and looking at what society values, even an unpopular one.
>we're on an anynoumos image board so I have no purpose to lie
Wow
So what does intelligence depend on? Assuming it's some special magical property that is not inherited like height, eye color, skin color, skull shape and basically every single human characteristic.
Enlighten us...
Oh yeah you're right, that's why those strong muscular dinosaurs are still around huh?
I guess /pol/ shitlords near further spoonfeeding.
The racial categories we have now don't correspond to genetic differences. It's based on cosmetic and cultural associations.
It's like saying a bat must be more closely related to a falcon than a mouse because the bat has wings and flies. It's not that the phenotypes don't have a genetic basis at all, but that you can't accurately judge genotype based on phenotype.
Correlation != causation.
>ad-hominems
>name calling
>blatant misinformation
Triggered easily are we? :^)
Of course for everyone who isn't a /pol/tard it's intellect that is important and should be an object of eugenics, not skin color. The problem comes when we find that there are certain distinctive populations, in one country or different ones, of which one is generally more stupid than another. This fact should be very important to consider when analysing the social processes, but it is almost always overlooked because muh equality.
>Neanderthals were subhumans
That's false
You know nothing
>The majority of blacks are less inteligente than whites.
There is no scientific category of "blacks" or "whites". This is a cultural distinction.
If you want to classify humans into subgroups based on genes, then sure go ahead. But don't classify them based on your fashion sense and tell me it's based in science.
fuck off olivenigger
>People who are intentional stupid shouldn't be called out for it.
1) Yes they should.
2) I'm still right.
>poltard
What does this mean and who uses these wierd terms?
They were wiped out through natural causes and that can also happen to us right now. There are even more things that could wipe us out today, because of our intelligence.
>this thread again
Skin color and other racial features are determined by genetics. And if we talk about populations, certain genetic features usually come in packs corresponding to the geographic place of one's origin (which lets us talk about races)
You have a low intelligence because your parents have low intelligence and their parents had low intelligence.
Sorry kid but you are a slave to your genetics, so you can thank your dumb ancestors for being dumb. It's not the smart peoples fault that you are the way that you are :-)
If it's a scientific concept, then exactly how many races are there and name each one. Citations please.
This board would be much better if the captcha was a simple triple integral. I suspect a lot of these kinds of threads wouldn't pop up.
>we are all the same
I don't know. If you can't name exactly how many subspecies of spiders are out there, do you think you will disprove the existence of subspecies and they all will have identical characteristics? Do you think thats how science works?
>Skin color and other racial features are determined by genetics.
Sure, you're on the right track.
>And if we talk about populations, certain genetic features usually come in packs corresponding to the geographic place of one's origin (which lets us talk about races)
And then you derail.
Because what people group together as a race isn't related to genetics. People put groups of people with large genetic dissimilarities together and stratify people with fewer genetic dissimilarities.
>genetics can explain physical differences, but genetics can't possibly be related to intelligence
>If you can't name exactly how many subspecies of spiders are out there
en.wikipedia.org
Done, now you go.
>I don't like when people call my race less inteligent
truth hurts bud
Oh? What else are day? Provide a source as well.
This is kind of misleading. You're certainly right that the classic view of race (in which humans can be placed into one of a small number of categories - caucasoid, negroid etc) is a cultural construction. This does not, however, imply that there aren't well defined genetic differences between groups that broadly correspond to geography. Using modern genomics I can tell you which Welsh village your grandmother grew up in
>People put groups of people with large genetic dissimilarities together and stratify people with fewer genetic dissimilarities.
That does not matter. Blood types don't stop being real just because people with different blood types can have less genetic dissimilarities than people with the same blood type
This plainly names species and not subspecies. The list of subspecies have to be a few hundred atleast.
I guess we disproved the existence of subspecies didn't we :^)
Fuck off back to All races have the same IQ
Tell me what reasons do I have to lie? To waste my time? Because of..
>DA JEEEEEWWWZZZ
>genetics can't possibly be related to intelligence
You didn't read. Genes are related to intelligence. It's just that genes have nothing to do with race.
Explain why the idea behind this thread is wrong with scientific arguments
>Physical traits can be inherited
>But not intelligence
WOW CONSIDER ME WOKE
Please provide a source that says Blacks have the same IQ as Asians and whites.
>This does not, however, imply that there aren't well defined genetic differences between groups that broadly correspond to geography. Using modern genomics I can tell you which Welsh village your grandmother grew up in.
I never argued you couldn't.
You can certainly classify people into subgroups based on genetic differences, but that's not what race is. Race is a category an untrained layman puts someone in based on his feelings that day, not science.
Soooooo....the black race has black skin by chance?
I always thought dark skin was due to genes?
So dark skin genes arent related to race?
truly fascinating
They do, the only reason Africa is the way it is because of the exploitation and oppression from first world countries.
>please provide a source
>they just do okay like omg I literally can't even
>the black race has black skin by chance?
Yes they do you dumb poltard. When are you gonna learn that correlation isn't causation???
This shows you as many sub species as have been agreed upon by taxonomists. If you think there is a subspecies of spider that exists but hasn't yet been discovered, publish it in Nature.
Until then, the point stands.
smithsonianmag.com
They were physically inferior, they were not able to use javelins, that's why they lost
And also that's why asians, white and jews (khazars) are smarter than niggers: neanderthals were also smarter + africa is an easy enviroment full of resources not even comparable to Ice Age Europe
Talk about circular reasoning. If I ask you "does the ginger race have ginger hair and freckles by chance?!" Does that prove gingers are a race? The fact that red hair and pale skin are found with extremely high frequency in certain populations doesn't mean I can lump them together and claim 'ginger' is a valid cladistics label with any sort of scientific merit. Do you understand how stupid you sound?
In 2010, David Marks systematically analysed the association between literacy skills and IQ across time, nationality, and race. Marks (2010) published a sceptical theory of IQ score variations explaining both the Flynn effect and the alleged racial variations in IQ as an artefact (error) stemming from uncontrolled literacy differences. Marks (2010) hypothesized that IQ differences across time, race and nationality are all caused by differences in literacy because intelligence test performance requires literacy skills not present in all people to the same extent. In eight different analyses mean full scale IQ and literacy scores yielded correlations ranging from .79 to .99.
1/4
Stormcucks are explicitly Stormcucks cause they have no strong academic background
Social outcasts with mental issues have nothing to do all day so they spend their time fightin muh jewsh oppresuhs
youtube.com
look at any pol meetup
>Soooooo....the black race has black skin by chance?
Do you not immediately see the problem here? What about albinos? They no longer have black skin, are they still part of your "black category?"
What about the Treaty of Hidalgo? Where the racial group of people was change by law. Did the law make their genes change as well?
It's called a definition. Having black skin and "black" features is the definition of the black race. Which definition may or may not be stupid, sure, but it's undeniably based on genetics.
Kaufmann (2010) explained the significance of Marks' study as follows. If increasing literacy were really explaining a number of seemingly different IQ trends, then you would expect to see a few different phenomena. First, within a population you should expect increased education of literacy skills to be associated with an increase in the average IQ of that population. Second, IQ gains should be most pronounced in the lower half of the IQ bell curve since this is the section of the population that prior to the education would have obtained relatively lower scores due to their inability to comprehend the intelligence test's instructions. With increased literacy, you should expect to see a change in the skewness of the IQ distribution from positive to negative as a result of higher rates of literacy in the lower half of the IQ distribution (but very little change in the top half of the distribution). You should also expect to see differences on the particular intelligence test subscales, with increased literacy showing the strongest effects on verbal tests of intelligence and minimal differences on other tests of intelligence. If all these predictions hold up, there would be support for the notion that secular IQ gains and race differences are not different phenomena but have a common origin in literacy.
>blacks can't solve this problem due to oppression, culture, and enviorment.
>spiders can have hundreds of species as well as subspecies
>humans can't
That sure is a desperate case of cognitive dissonance right there kid :-)
>>africa is an easy enviroment full of resources not even comparable to Ice Age Europe
Reources like easily domesticated animals and forests right?
Kaufman described how Marks tested these predictions by looking at samples representative of whole populations (rather than individuals), and used ecological methods to compute statistical associations between IQ and literacy rates across different countries. Kaufman's (2010) review suggested that Marks' findings were completely consistent with the predictions: (i) The higher the literacy rate of a population, the higher that population's mean IQ, and the higher that population's mean IQ, the higher the literacy rate of that population. (ii) When literacy rates declined, mean IQ also declined, a reversed Flynn Effect. (iii) Unequal improvements occurred across the entire IQ spectrum with the greatest increases in the lower half of the IQ distribution. Interestingly, Kaufman pointed out that the evidence suggested that both the Flynn Effect and racial/national IQ differences showed the largest effects of literacy on verbal tests of intelligence, with the perceptual tests of intelligence showing no consistent pattern.
3/4
>Phenotypes and haplogroups are the same
W E W L A D
The alleged association between race and intelligence and also the Flynn effect both have a similar explanation: literacy differences across race and across time are, Marks believes, the cause of both. Racial IQ differences are converging as the literacy skills within two populations become more equal. Thus racial differences have an environmental cause, just like the Flynn effect. Essentially, both the Flynn effect and racial differences in measured IQ are artefacts of literacy differences. As the literacy of Western populations declines, as appears to be the case currently, then Marks' literacy theory of IQ scores predicts that average IQ test scores is expected to decline, and the Flynn effect will go into reverse, which is exactly what recent studies have found.
4/4
>goes on a butthurt rant about """"stormcucks"""" full of misinformation and ad-hominems
>posts video of /b/tard anons and redditard commies.
KEK. nice scientific argument. Surely shows how much academic background you got lmao
>Blood types don't stop being real just because people with different blood types can have less genetic dissimilarities than people with the same blood type
People who have the same blood type have the same genes with regards to those that create their blood type.
That's the cause dumb poltard.
I haven't read much about this topic, and tbqh, I don't really care to, but from my understanding, I believe that there may be some very minor differences in the brain between different races. If you've noticed, there are a few very noticeable physical differences between the different races. If there are physical differences, then logic can only lead me to conclude that there are probably mental differences as well. Though, I actually don't believe that these differences can be terribly negative. Like, for example, one race may have, on average, a better visual memory than the others after adapting to an environment that requires that.
Differences in the subspecies of animals would also be quite larger, because they aren't as mobile, and they don't wipe each other off the face of the earth like we do.
I think it would be far more benificial to study the differences in the races, and tailor an education system that recognises that, and then have the different races work jobs that are more suited to their qualities rather than to teach all races the exact same stuff. Give them the choice, too.
You also have failed to read.
I never said humans can't have subspecies. People DO have genetic differences, they just don't correspond to race. Race is a layman's opinion, not a scientific category.
>It's called a definition. Having black skin and "black" features is the definition of the black race. Which definition may or may not be stupid, sure, but it's undeniably based on genetics.
This applies to my 'ginger' definition as well. "I define it as this so we should study it" is not a valid justification for making a clade. If you want to argue otherwise you can devote your life to that. But before you waste your time I think you should know that "black" isn't even monophyletic, so it would be a fool's errand.
Yes
Every mammal (with the exception of some predators) is domesticable
And European herbivores were harder to domesticate than african ones (see Aurochs)
Then answer is D, anybody who says other wise is a retarded subhuman
Wild move to call someone presumably white dumb, when your race sucks at solving these. You can practice IQ tests in jail atleast :)
D
>Which definition may or may not be stupid, sure, but it's undeniably based on genetics.
No. It's based on arbitrary opinion.
By that definition people with largely African ancestry, but albinism are now white. People with primarily western European ancestry, but a tan are now black.