Why is it so taboo to even imply that one race is smarter than another? I mean they'll say that 60...

Why is it so taboo to even imply that one race is smarter than another? I mean they'll say that 60,000 years of evolutionary divergence had no impact but 400 years of slavery and 'oppression' made all the difference in the world

Other urls found in this thread:

anepigone.blogspot.com/2015/02/state-iq-estimates-blacks-only-2013.html
anepigone.blogspot.com/2015/02/state-iq-estimates-whites-only-2013.html
etymonline.com/index.php?term=barbarian
youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk
youtube.com/watch?v=wOmjnioNulo
youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

how do you accurately measure intelligence? And don't say IQ unless you want to be laughed at.

How about 'the ability to not live in mud huts and die of starvation en masse unless another race sends you air drops of rice and beans'

Ha

"Race" is a group with a lot of people in it. Generally the more people you have in a group, the more stupid people you have in a group. Try to worry your mind with less stupid issues

northern europe used to look like that in ancient times, and if it wasnt for the romans it probably still would. today those "barbarians" actually see themself as the most superior race. the most ironic thing, really.

>>> /pol/

>Used to look like that

>used to

And humans used to resemble bonobos.
But the percentage of stupid people doesn't go up on average. That's why you gauge mean and median. Wealthy blacks do worse academically than poor whites

What's even the point of deciding which race is smarter?

>What's even the point in discerning because hot chocolate and hot diarrhea?

Wasting time and resources on retards only stifles progress

>used to
If a population is genetically superior, it makes sense that they'd have better living standards throughout their history no? Yet we see the East flourishing in arts and sciences during a time in which Western European nations disposed of human waste by throwing it out into the street.

whats the point of willfully denying reality? Because reality might hurt someones feelings? Because your religion is based on "equality" ?

Why are liberals willing to destroy all western civilizations over their cultish beliefs?

Then we agree, there's no point in doing it.

I'm not denying anything. I'm asking what's the point of it.

Asians are more intelligent than Caucasians but blacks are at the bottom of the barrel

Personally I think there is nothing wrong with saying that certain groups over- or underperform at certain things.
However, when you say one race is smarter than another, you imply that it's an intrinsic property of the race rather than outside influences.

Positions in society are highly inheritable, i.e. if your father was a doctor you're more likely to become a doctor as well.
Not even two generations ago your chances of visiting an university when you're black were pretty shitty.
Therefore it is not surprising that the black population alive today hasn't caught up yet.

Also it's important to remember that the 'research' on controversial sociological issues such as race, gender, or porn is almost always of very poor quality.

There's far more variation among individuals than races.
Just like gender and athletics.
The worlds fastest people are men.
Over a dozen men have run a 4 minute mile, and even the high school record is 3:53.43, but the women's world record is 4:12.56.
Does that mean I'm a faster runner than OP's mom?

>Asians are more intelligent than Caucasians
You wouldn't think that by looking at a nation like The Philippines.
The point is that nations rise and fall with time, their current or past state cannot be used as a reasonable indicator of intelligence given the wide array of factors that influence it.

Nearly your entire post is talking about averages, you then talk about an individual

>Nearly your entire post is talking about averages, you then talk about an individual
That's my point.
Glad to see you can keep up.
>There's far more variation among individuals than races.

Oh, and no, I'm talking about extremes, not averages.

>Also it's important to remember that the 'research' on controversial sociological issues such as race, gender, or porn is almost always of very poor quality.
Reminds me of how a sociology textbook I was flipping through said lesbian parents were better at raising kids because gender stereotypes were lower according to this one research in a small canadian town.

But there's not, especially when talking about intelligence. Both the white and asian averages are higher than the black averages. There's going to be more difference between a random white person and a random black person than two random white people or two random black people

It's not taboo if you tell the truth and not involve politics.

When you say Asians are smarter than whites what you are referring to is AVERAGE IQ scores as well as other similar metrics - this doesn't mean you are allowed to not judge white people on individual basis - far more reliable than probabilistically inferring who's who - then we'd just have Asians.

These averages shouldn't necessarily affect policy - we are already trying to build a society where the smartest people (read the guys with the best alleles if you think that) end up filtered away from the rest and succeeding, at least that's the idea.

It literally has 0 implications.

There's going to be an enormous difference between a high class and a low class white person. Same for a black person. It's okay to not like sociology but there's no point in just straight up denying the fact that social position greatly influences your intelligence. That's the whole thing about the "IQ spectrum". If you were sent to a third world country just after being born I guarantee your IQ would be more than 20 points lower than now.

>But there's not,
There's not what?
More variation between individuals than races?

>There's going to be more difference between a random white person and a random black person than two random white people or two random black people
This doesn't disprove my statement.
The bell curves overlap quite a bit.
The dumbest white man is dumber than the smartest black man.
Also: does it bother you not to use words like "shitskin" when you post outside /pol/?

>ITT: i feel like my race is smarter than other races and people should acknowledge that to make me feel better even tho there's no proof my emotions are valid as facts

LOL you are completely ignorant of history, aren't you?

"smart" refers to an individual

>The dumbest white man is dumber than the smartest black man.

Again, we're talking about averages. You keep going off on tangents about either end of the curve

Ive often wondered this myself. Clearly not all races are created equal. Why do you think the NBA and NFL are mostly black? Its because in africa survival of the fittest meant running faster that the guy who became jaguar food. Why do you think the vast majority of scientists engineers and mathematicians are Asian or Caucasian? Its because where they come from survival of the fittest means overcoming environmental challenges that you cant fix by being athletic. As far as im concerned if you believe all races are equal in every area, you dont believe in evolution. Watch all of Veeky Forums tell me im wrong because it hurts their feelings.

Its taboo because once you accept this fact, the next step is to start acting on this information. That's fine if it just affects your internal thoughts, but when you start treating people different because of their skin, that's definition racism (not the SJW type of racism). I don't need to explain to you why racism is bad do I? Its better to just avoid the subject and let everyone carry on with their lives, instead of stirring up a pointless shitstorm.

It comes back to the problem of how to measure intelligence. You cant get a very defined idea because intelligence is very elastic. Everything we know is that lifestyle, upbringing, habits, exercise, etc, have much bigger effects. Races are diverse themselves, you're better off referring to specific genes. And we don't know enough about that yet to figure it out. Genes are complicated. Gene regulation even more so, since it relates to all those other factors I listed.

Not that user but I strongly suspect you've never had an university level statistics course.
The argument is that the difference is averages is insignificant compared to the variance.

Hyperbally speaking 100+-20 isn't all that different to 101+-20.

why? Iq is a great low-resolution measure of the ability to extrapolate patterns, i.e. relationships.

and it is by spotting and extrapolating relationships that we're able to understand the world around us and thereby manipulate the world to benefit us.
This is literal mental problem solving and what IQ measures.

the funny thing is you clearly do believe in IQ.
if you were to given 100 people who had just been tested with IQs from 70-80 and 100 people who had just been tested with IQs from 120-130, which group do you think would make the better doctors, layers, engineers?
exactly the group with Iqs from 120 -130.

And yes different races have different mean IQs.
ashkenazi jews have a mean IQ of 108-115 and there is evidence that this is due ot their genes. See the paper "a natural history of ashkenazi intelligence " by Cochrane et al.

by contrast non-jewish europeans have a mean IQ of around 100 while ssubsaharan africans have a mean IQ of 80-85 (when measured in western , 1st world countries like america).

But it's 85 +-20 vs 100 +-20

anepigone.blogspot.com/2015/02/state-iq-estimates-blacks-only-2013.html

anepigone.blogspot.com/2015/02/state-iq-estimates-whites-only-2013.html

as far as i can understand the guy who made these calculation is in support of your pov, even tries to explain away results below in the article

IQ is pseudo scientific psychology bullshit and none of it can be trusted

Come back when neuroscience is advanced enough to answer this question

>be me
>central African
>have diverse city states and Petty kingdoms similar to late feudal Europe
>Europeans and Arabs begin raiding for slaves and raw materials
>eventually have my entire society destroyed by men with guns who enslave my people, redraw my borders, and change my economic mode from agrarian to extractive
>in the process they destroy whatever political/economic institutions that have developed and replace them with theirs, which are obviously not in my best interest
>hundreds of years later have to explain this to an obese American on a Ugandan underwater basket weaving website

>Get ransacked and raided for centuries by people with superior technology

>But, we're equal

Why do you think they never raided Mongolia or China for slaves?

>Again, we're talking about averages.
_You're_ talking about averages, sort of.
Your context implies you want people to make judgements about whole races when intelligence doesn't really group by race.
Men are taller than women (on average), but that doesn't mean all (or even most) tall people are men.

even IF this is correct - and desu I think a measured IQ has a lot to do with your lifestyle - what does it even fucking matter?
>we shud stop giving money to the dum people
right, how do you plan on carrying that out? proposing a genetic cleansing to congress? this shit is never going to accomplish a thing other than give neckbeard virgins something jack off their ego to

>if you believe all races are equal in every area, you dont believe in evolution

First , when I say 'hyperbally speaking' I don't mean for you to take what comes next literally.

Second, when you analyse data the first thing you do is to account for any systematic effects, raw data like that will not allow you to actually make any meaningful conclusions.
And when you account for things like wealth and parenting the difference in averages goes down significantly.

>proposing a genetic cleansing to congress? this shit is never going to accomplish a thing other than give neckbeard virgins something jack off their ego to
Even stormfags don't dare propose that, because they want a race war, not an IQ war.

They were actually barbarians.
You can see it in the cartoon as well.

Distance and terrain? It's easier to transport large amounts of good via sea instead of overland, and China and Mongolia are farther away. Maybe if we're enslaving low iq folks we can start with you since you are clearly lacking in even the most basic critical thinking skills!

Also
>invent gun first
>therefore the master race with the divine right to conquer all "subhumans"

>invent gun first

>mud hut dwellers haven't even invented the wheel

>The Romans (technically themselves barbaroi) took up the word and applied it to tribes or nations which had no Greek or Roman accomplishments.
etymonline.com/index.php?term=barbarian

>technology is a linear progression
>Africans not using the wheel and instead relying on rivers to transport goods and people means they are idiots and not normal people making use of their surrounding resources.

>Even stormfags don't dare propose that, because they want a race war, not an IQ war.

user, you should watch these videos:
youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk
youtube.com/watch?v=wOmjnioNulo

>They're not dumb for not having invented the wheel..

>>They're not dumb for not having invented the wheel..
YOU didn't invent the wheel either.
Are you dumb?
See also:
>"smart" refers to an individual

heh, yeah that puts a different perspective on it. If we had a law to sterilize everyone below 100 IQ there would be a higher percentage of blacks and latinos getting it, but a far greater number of whites.
I wonder how many of the people who obsess over the average IQ difference between races are actually above average themselves.

>below 100 IQ
pointless
below 130 at the lowest, 2% of the population is people enough, there's too many people anyway

youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8
>The fittest, most resistant mutants were not always the fastest. They sometimes stayed behind weaker strains that braved the frontlines of higher antibiotic doses.

Humans are like this bacteria. Some are weak and stupid themselves, but have the advantage of being quick to move and can conquer more space faster. Just because one group conquered another group doesn't make them smarter or more fit.

Man I remember being 17

cuck

cuck

Although I agree that it's a shame that the question can't be objectively studied, there are some real reasons why it's not an accurate statement when simply looking at IQ disparities across races.

The reason is that IQ is correlated to the amount of abstract stimuli a child receives during development. Such as exposure to geometry puzzle toys, music, etc. The amount of white families in higher income brackets is higher than the amount of black families -- and the thought is that low-income households provide fewer abstract stimuli to their children; whether by not placing them in competitive school districts or engaging their children at home. Asians, the race with the highest IQ, place massive importance on starting children in STEM, music, art, etc. programs as early as possible. The modern answers to this question lie in meta-analyses of income brackets and the IQ of children within (rather than race), and we all know how Veeky Forums feels about those.


Aside from that, I'm sure heredity and therefore race influences cognitive potential -- but it's nearly impossible to study in a controlled way.

it's not about class or poverty, it's about culture as far as evnironemnt and IQ go, unless you are malnourished

cuck

>this whole thread is about bashing areas of the globe where famine is common
>indeed one poster () literally uses it as evidence of inferiority

But nah I'm sure it's culture you're right user, we whites just have a naturally better culture.

why do you want to scientifically justify your bigotry?

That is likely a factor as well -- again, proving how hard it is to collect rigorous data about pure intelligence across races. Some cultures, like Asian cultures as I mentioned, are a good example of that.

Stay in /pol/ my man. This board is about science. Regardless of what you believe personally, there are currently no rigorous data to make you feel less insecure about yourself. Keep projecting if that helps.

You'd need to examine the outliers and look for specific differences in their DNA. Even so, by definition outlines poorly represent a races average. So using this technique on races is not accurate, but it might give novel insight.

yup, i've heard this fantasy from libs a few times

If only black parents SANG to their children, or had toys... then black people would be equal.

Just more willful denial of reality

Good point. I also wonder if there's an epigenetic force at play -- which your general method could elucidate. Something like: child receives high frequency of abstract stimuli --> gene expression is altered to favor the cognitive load (through neurochemistry or neurological architecture) --> child becomes "smarter." Higher order brain functions are biochemically expensive. Given what we're learning about epigenetics now, I wouldn't be surprised if there is an adaptive system to match cognition to environmental needs. And since epigenetic modifications are conserved, it could provide insight into hereditary intelligence.

You need to reread my post. I never said all races were equal, nor did I imply that they could be made equal through the stuff I mentioned. I was making a point about the downfalls of trying to correlate IQ solely to the cognitive ability of one race of people. Regardless of your social politics, if you respect the scientific process then my point is irrefutable.

>And since epigenetic modifications are conserved
they're not though,most often

you don't take into account that our view of our race is contemporary. Go back thousands of years, what different races showed for themselves would have been very different. you're assuming that what its like now has always been like that.

anyone who says this doesn't understand what statistics means.

well what if you say Races have different IQ's and IQ is a big predictor of performance in many categories. what about that?

why are you so willing to push statements that are hugely lacking in evidence or unequivocal backing.

these are not actually arguments.

common and purely speculative (mis)use of evolution in an argument. Completely unsupported.

if those studies found significant results then your issue would be taken account of. whether the studies are representative, valid or reliable is different question though.

I remember reading that some languages produce sounds that you're brain is incapable of hearing, unless you hear the sound at a young age. These languages are incapable of learning as an adult because you'll never be able to hear the sounds necessary. It's possible that with out stimulation of certain abstract thoughts the brain can't learn to process it even as an adult.

With that in mind I think I think feral children can give us insight into this. In fact a good test for which race is more intelligence is to take a bunch of kids and toss them to the wolves. Then once they become old enough try to reeducate them and introduce them into society. The smart ones will be able to adapt to society better. Do this enough times and average the results and it'll tell you which race is the most intelligent.

Yeah it's disputed in most cases -- still a very young field. The ones I've studied are; typically methylations and certain histone mods. Gotta be careful making absolute statements. My gut feeling (might not count for much) is that certain modifications, ones that fill immediate needs, are not conserved. These immediate mods are probably the most numerous and not passed to offspring. Versus more vital modifications such as endocrine response elements that are conserved almost without fail -- I'm imagining some epigenetic change to influence brain functions would be conserved.

You're poking in the dark.

Gotta start somewhere. That's why I like Veeky Forums. I get to float my crackpot theories anonymously. Can't do it at work.

thats actually such an unnecessary test ha. not even a good one.

>Why do you think the NBA and NFL are mostly black?
Because poor people have to take a shot at sports. Black succesful athletes like Lebron James serve as a further inspiration for poor black young men to aim and thus the cycle is perpetuated. Meanwhile, richer people (and obviously, statistically more likely to be white) have access to more stable and safe careers.

Any Asians here?

How does it feel to be from the smartest race?

How do you feel about the fact that the white supremacy movement has been desperately trying to bring light to the fact that yours is the superior race?

cuck

It's okay for a dog to be stupid. People love stupid dogs. It is not okay for a human to be stupid. They have very hard time to be useful in the modern society. Therefore it hurts peoples' feelings when you call a human or a group of humans stupid. Therefore they're okay with you calling a group of dogs stupid, but get their panties in a bunch when you call a group of humans stupid.

>things that never happened

Northern Europe has never received any developing aid in the last 4.5 billion years. Northern Europe was barren and devoid of population in Roman times, because the nature is so incredibly harsh up there. And due to the lack of population there were obviously not great empires there, only small tribes. Comparing northern Europe to Africa is so stupid that you actually made me lose some faith in humanity. Northern Europe is great because of the seemingly endless ingenuity of humans. Africa is a shithole despite that ingenity AND a nature more rich than anything people in Northern Europe could ever hope for. You're a sad excuse for a person to browse Veeky Forums.

I wonder how the Arabs managed to enslave Africans when they couldn't do the same to western Europe. And do keep in mind that they did indeed manage to enslave Eastern Europe and Africa is far far far far bigger than Europe. Slavery was insignificant in comparison to the sheer size of Africa.

>Northern Europe has never received any developing aid in the last 4.5 billion years.
hmmm
>Northern Europe was barren and devoid of population in Roman times, because the nature is so incredibly harsh up there.
no, having 4 seasons is the best environment for agriculture, the soil in northenr europe is much better than the soil in africa

europe's geography is without dispute easier to live in than africa's - 2 seaons simply fucking suck

>europe's geography is without dispute easier to live in than africa's - 2 seaons simply fucking suck
That's so insanely stupid. Damn. Did you know that 4 seasons means that nothing grows for 75 % of the year? In winter even drinking water is solid. You have sun for about 6 hours a day. Even less in the northern parts.

Passing out outside is lethal for about 6 months of the year. It's extremely hard to walk around for about 3. Everything is dead for at least 6.

It's so ridiculously much easier to live in most parts of Africa. Your ignorance is astounding. Modern Siberia is uninhabited which should be a clue to how harsh the nature is, Africa is full of people, butt apparently this is too hard for you to understand. Please tell me you haven't had a European education, because that would be just sad.

4 seasons beats 2 seasons, because 2 seasons implies a lot of rain - humus is washed away - bad soil -> no good crop species

4 seasons means you get a real spring and summer (fruit), autumn -> year long sustainable harvest is collected as long as you put seeds

yeah winter has it's negatives, because it's cold, but meat lasts longer in the cold, can be stored

The coldest winters are not in northern europe due to gulfstream and ocean effects, the coldest winters are in the inner continent due to being inner continental climate and it's not Siberia tier either

The vast vast majority of africa is either 2 seasons or desert

>I haven't opened a history book since high school: the post

Good god you are retarded. Do tell me, why is it that the norther you go, the less people there live? If it's so nice there, shouldn't everyone live north? Why is it that African countries have such population densities despite their technology being a century behind Europe? Why was the north so empty during Roman times? Shouldn't Rome have started there? Why is the agricultural output of Northern Europe so tiny despite their four great seasons? Why did the northern Europeans develop such intelligent brains when they clearly didn't need them due to their favourable environment? Why are Africans so dumb despite them needing all the intelligence you can have due to the harsh environment? Why is the biodiversity so much greater in Africa than it is in Northen Europe? Is nature racist? Why do so many more animals live in Africa than in Europe. Nature still racist?

You are beyond hope. You are not worth any more of my time. You are unable to see the simplest of logic. You have not gotten a European education. You have not gotten education of any kind.

Ironically if you ever opened a damn history book or thought for two seconds without having the answer already formulated you would easily be able to answer all of the questions you posed

>Do tell me, why is it that the norther you go, the less people there live?
Because the best climate in Europe is in Southern Europe, because that's where the best agriculture developed due to best soil, best crops, also why the earliest civilizations started there etc.
In spite of the Balkans having worse winters than Denmark.

Northern Europe is too 2-season like due to the ocean - cool summer, mild winter, their soil is crap too in comparison to southern europe - only good for potatoes and much of the agriculture product doesn't actually go to feed humans but pigs that then feed the humans.

Go read some geography instead of opening /pol/ next time, will help clear a few things out for you.

i know you've read a history book. it shows.

/pol/ please stop with all the fucking race baiting threads all the time. FUCK OFF. WE DON'T GIVE A FUCK.

This post is correct. So you accept that blacks are on average dumber than whites. What do you do next? Are you just gonna kick all black people out of the country because they're "dumber"?

>What do you do next?
Accept that whites are dumber on average than Asians.

nah. just understand that when the someone goes "why aren't 13% of scientists black?" "why aren't more blacks in this field?" "why are blacks overrepresented in prison?" etc. the answer is not "white supremacy" or "internalized racism" but "of course"

Ok then tell me why black people are more likely to be poor. Racism is no excuse because they get every advantage when it comes to things like college scholarships or acceptance to ivy league schools.

They have been marginalized for centuries and acceptance advantages will not fix issues like the education they receive as children and teens, the intellectual stimulation given by parents, an adequate nutrition, and so on.

Its supported by the evidence i gave in that post. Did you know that people of heavy african descent almost never get sunburn? Its because their dark skin makes them nearly immune to it. You know why that is? E V O L U T I O N. They spent most of their time outside hunting and gathering in the hot african sun and eventually, evolved darker pigmented skin to protect them. Now tell me they havent taken a different evolutionary path than Asians and Caucasians. The darker skin is plain evidence of that. Do you think evolution only goes skin deep?

Pro tip: it doesnt

We may as well just sticky a race thread at this point.

Not until you understand that all that doesn't mean that there isn't white supremacy/privilege and internalized racism that actually exists. They are very much real and does factor into limiting the success of black people.