Why is the racial intelligence divide so taboo?

And that's going to be our downfall

bbc.com/future/story/20151207-the-countries-where-rats-are-on-the-menu

Wow dude people all over the world eat rats for a variety of reasons. Also the political issues in Zimbabwe aren't quite as simple as "lmao stupid blacks," perhaps of you knew a bit of you'd have an idea

Yeah, many times. A lot of my buddies in college and law school were black and they were quite successful. The dean of my school and several professors were black. And I've worked with black clients on a number of occasions

Have YOU ever been arounf blacks?

They lived solely on rats and made it clear they were living like animals.

I live around the densest black population in the US. They're closer to animals than humans.

Please read the entire text on this link. It has studies made based on average black and white iq distribuition comaprisons as well as corrections for socio-economical status. It was made by an university, so it has a degree of credibility. This is the proof you are looking for.
sites.biology.duke.edu/rausher/lec23_05.html

IQ is hereditary.

Yeah, and as i said that has little to do with race or whites being better than blacks, and a lot to do with the political and economic situation of postcolonial africa. You can simplify that as "whites left and things went to shit" but thats like saying that rome left and things went to shit in Europe, therefore celts gauls iberians and romano-britons were subhuman scum.

or like whites left Singapore, Hong Kong, and Macau and everything went to shi- oh wait, these are the most developed parts of Asia

So where was their progress before colonialism?

easy peasy lemon squeezy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_empires

Thanks for this, friend. I especially like this part of it:

>Implication with respect to IQ: There is no good reason to believe that racial differences in mean IQ score are caused by underlying racial differences in intelligence.

>General Conclusion: Anyone versed in these simple principles of evolutionary genetics could have recognized the invalidity of Jensen's and Herrnstein and Murray's logic.

of course I am not a geneticist by training so a bit of it was a little over my head and I don't have the ability to critique the methods, but I could follow the logic and it seemed sound

>Racial Intelligence
Because the simple fact intelligence has nothing to do with race.

Why is the general African populace of the US smarter than the general Africa populace of Sudan or some other African country?

Why is the general Caucasian populace of Canada smarter than the general Caucasian populace of the US or some other white dominant country?

The basic fact comes down to education and the individual effort, you nigger.

>whites leave (often not peacefully) large parts of africa where the primary economic purpose of whites being there was slavery and then later extraction of natural resources (not to mention that the borders created lumped disparate peopole together who before whites arrived had warred or been at odds for centuries at some points)
>the economies crumble and political institutions are lacking
>whites leave major trade hubs which due to their geographical positions would be important anyway after building up port facilities and other infrastructure
>they are successful after periods of riots and rebellions, or are incorporated into china which invests in them for the same reasons white did

wow dude you're right must be black people's fault!

>Canadian whites smarter than American whites

they're not

>Because the simple fact intelligence has nothing to do with race.

Poor whites score better academically than wealthy blacks.

Whites and asians are more intelligent due to heterosis from our ancestors interbreeding with Neanderthals. This not only increased genetic variability but cranial capacity as well as their brains were 200ccs larger than even modern humans.

>Africans inhabit the most resource rich continent on the planet
>coastline everywhere
>don't even need to migrate around half the world, have been there forever
>do fuck all with their time
>beaten by small expeditionary European forces and missionaries

really makes me think

>the colonization meme
A more acurate term for it would simply be domination, or invasion. Whites are not morally inferior to blacks. If blacks have had the capability they would've dominated and enslaved whites too. There was no social progress before the arrival of Europe in Africa, there was still extreme poverty, slavery and disease, it has aways been like that. It is different from the Chinese or Aztec civilizations, in their case there was prosperity before the white man arrival, there was social advance. Blacks blame colonization for their disgrace, but they were never capable of building a functional society.
>but muh african kingdumz
They were nothing but areas with concentrated commerce and slave trade, the wealth gained served only to a small group of local commanders, or "kings". They claimed large areas as part of their "kingdom" but the truth is most of these areas were just conglomerates of tribes. No infrastructure, construction, technology, roads, nothing.
>But we wuz kangs n sheit
Egyptians were not black.

Studies have shown that intelligence is largely genetic, and many genes associated with intelligence can be found in more than 50% of Europeans vs less than 2% in Africans.

Also, blacks making 200k have similiar test scores to whites making 20k.

Asians and especially Jews have a history of oppression, yet they're the smartest groups in both native countries and western countries, as immigrants or not.

Mixed race folks also have a median IQ in comparison to the higher IQ whites and lower IQ blacks, even though histroically mixed race folks should encounter the most prejudice / alienation.

>Also, blacks making 200k have similiar test scores to whites making 20k.

Source?

blacks also have more testosterone in comparison to whites. Why do men occupy 93% of prisons if biological differences such as gender or race are nonexistent according to your typical uni professor? The answer is that there are biological differences, and in the same way that testosterone levels can influence even one isolated behavior among many (it's also correlated with lower intelligence), I don't think it's this impossible leap that many make it out to be that there could be a reason why

The richest black cities have more crime than the poorest white cities

Or how even blacks that come from better off economic backgrounds have rediculous crime rates

They didn't have the same amount of animals able to be domesticated as those in Eurasia, that plays a major role in the culture and power.

Both of you should accknowledge that your experiences don't mean anything. Quit your anecdotes. However, blacks do have lower IQ as a whole, so there is validity in saying that the ones who are successful lie in the 16.4 % of blacks who have IQ over 100 vs 50 % or so of whites who lie in this distribution.

>whites are not morally inferior to blacks
never said they were

>colonization
you're correct, the only place where there was a large scale migration of whites to africa was south africa

>chinese and aztec
well, the chinese were more advanced than europe until maybe the 1300 or 1400s by any metric, but the aztecs were probably more on par with african kingdoms that anything else. neither had the wheel, neither had advanced beyond a tributary political structure with a chief or king at its head, both still held slavery as an acceptable institution, and both were easily dominated by my technologically advanced europeans.

I fail to see, however, what the contingent historical circumstances that led to africa and mesoamerica being host to a large number of quasi-tribal, quasi-feudal societies has to do with "whites" being more intelligent than "blacks." europeans were advanced primarily in sailing because of Mediterranean trade and attempting to circumvent the islamic kingdoms in the middle east, something africans didn't need to do and something that the aztecs certainly didn't need to do.

if you think 95% of europeans living before 1800 were anything other than poor slaves (we call them serfs because we don't like to imagine them as slaves, but they were bound to the land, uneducated and certainly not free in any real sense) that were constantly suffering from terrible diseases and famine, you have no clue about history and should probably read a book or two before killing yourself.

>egyptians were not black
this is a matter of some debate. the nubians almost certainly were and they were incorporated into egypt. there have been mass migrations in north africa both in the roman period and in the islamic period so knowing what the ethnic makeup truly was 2000+ years ago is difficult to say the least. probably they weren't, and if they were they weren't the same ethnic group as other africans (but then, no african country is homogeneous)

hsmt.history.ox.ac.uk/hsmt/courses_reading/undergraduate/authority_of_nature/week_8/lynn_1991.pdf

Hard to say what's "domesticable" until you actually try it for a few centuries. Who the fuck could have conceived that you could tame wolves with time and patience and evolve them into service animals? Same goes for the rudimentary beasts that came to be known as livestock and horses.

Sounds like another excuse senpai. With such a wide variety of fauna in Africa I don't see how they couldn't have figured it out if they had the foresight.

theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com.br/2012/04/sat-bell-curve.html?m=1

...

Also might add studies have shown up to 80% of IQ is genetic. If anything I think this fact is the one that we should be debating the most, of which could determine the validity of the race argument.

You're bringing in external factors that deviate from the original argument that asserts genetic influence on intelligence. There is a very easy way to debunk this is to bring to light the fact that if what OP states were true, Einsteins descendants would be have at least a tiny fraction of superior intelligence. Spoiler alert: they do not. Creatures we often deem intelligent in the biological community, however have the ability to communicate and learn from one another. Intelligence is developed mainly this way.

makes me think, too

makes me think that you believe that history is some sort of linear progression
makes me think that you believe that if you aren't upending your society with new political orders, ideas, inventions, and other things you are a subhuman
makes me think you have no clue about how most humans in history have lived, how most europeans have lived, or how most africans have lived.

imagine that you lived on a farm and there was very little education, you grew one or maybe two crops, and that was basically all you knew from birth till death. that is how both africans and europeans lived for most of post-antiquity. the africans didn't advance as much as europeans for precisely the reasons you laid out. you don't need to trade nearly as much if you are self sufficient, and if you're in the interior the coastline can be several hundred miles away or more - not exactly walking distance for a continent that doesn't natively have horses (inb4 >zebras).

you're confusing the continent with the variety of peoples that inhabited it. Africa wasn't one big homogeneous black society, any more than feudal europe was one big white european society.

also
>beaten by small expeditionary forces and missionaries

by and large europeans met africans and stayed on the coast from the late 1400s until about 1820-30, only then did europeans (and americans - not just the USA but brazil and other nations) stop contenting themselves with buying slaves and having small coastal outposts and start making inroads into the continent.

by this time many of the kingdoms and peoples that lived in the interior had been depopulated by the slave trade (both atlantic and arabic), and the far more technologically savvy europeans could walk over them.

It is called Detroit. Detroit is your evidence. Study what Detroit is, why it is, what it once was, and how it came to be as it is now.

It is also called Africa. Study Africa, and especially compare same with the rest of the world.

It is also known as certain quarters of Chicago. It is Guinea. It is Haiti. This is not rhetoric playing at being evidence. It is evidence.

In this thread, I am astonished at two things. First, that multiple anons seem to be sincerely and vigourously arguing the "race has nothing to do with intelligence" canard, and actually believing themselves to be in the Right, in the Fact, the truth, etc. Admittedly, my next thought with respect to them goes toward whether they have actually spent extended periods of their lives around black people of whatever type. This user in particular pulls the anecdotal stupidity of "I knew some smart black people this one time" as if that is supposed to pass muster.

The next thought which occurs to me, is that people in this thread blindly cite studies as a final authority without any regard to the politics and culture which enabled those studies. Has it occured to any of you that study authors may not want to be on record as saying unpopular things, for whatever reason, and this despite evidence?

Finally, to directly answer the OP: the basic idea is that once humans can find an objective basis to separate themselves, then this leads to ethnic cleansing, holocausts, etc, which are (reasonably) presumed to be unpleasant at some point. This is the basic reason for the present taboo against reality, that first-worlders are just self-aware enough to understand that if they can write others off, there's no point fussing about them anymore. Latent Christian, normal (non-sociopathic) sensibilities prevail.

In Europe the seasons would require a different method of preparation. Whereas in Africa you have dry and wet seasons, in Northern regions you have to think in terms of delayed rewards. Same people arguing this also point towards Asias more extreme Northern weather in comparison to Europe, which could explain why even immigrants from Asia perform better in countries with white identitites.

While European life conditions in the middle ages werent nice at all, the point is that Europe was able to actually build a society with technological and intelectual advancement. It was able to create politics, constructions, roads, economic systems, science, mathematics, philosophy, engineering, while Africans never even learned how to properly practice agriculture. In the middle ages, when the European man had already learned how to build castles and churches, the African man was still living the pleolithic period

Domestication isn't as subjective as one would think. Every single domesticated animal share 5 widely agreed upon traits, and you'd be hard pressed to find a single African animal that adheres to all 5 (diet, maturation, breeding,docility, social hierarchy), especially not at the rate of Eurasian animals.
Not really an excuse, but you can't hate on them when Europeans and Asians had horses, cows, chickens, and all that good shit.

>africans never learned how to properly practice agriculture
this is blatantly untrue. yams and manioc are african crops which were cultivated by a variety of african peoples.

People often say "Why should we even discuss race user, it only leads to more division!"

Right, so when someone claims that pouring more money into the still unsuccessful affirmitive action sinkhole (because their only reason to believe blacks are failing is entirely due to lack of education and economic background), you begin to see that this is just one among many race-related issues the Left are allowed to slip past us because we're too afraid to address a controversial reality.

blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/01/when-genes-matter-for-intelligence/

Correct, you're getting at exactly the right thing: basing social policy in reality. You know, evidence, facts, the sorts of things that scientists are supposed to value.

Social policy presently performs contortions so as not to admit the observable truth of the inequality of man, and this in order to preserve his dignity. Hypothesis: it does so at the expense of the happiness of future generations.

if you had a clue about the disparate circumstances that led to detroit, various african countries which have a lot of problems, chicago, and so forth, you wouldn't compare them all and find blacks to be the sole issue.

let me give you an example - blacks in detroit and chicago were, for more than 100 years, redlined out of living in certain areas. it was difficult for them to get business licenses, hard for them to attend higher educational institutes (or even public schools for that matter), and they were systematically excluded from jobs that paid a decent wage.

they were clustered together in undesirable areas, prevented from getting decent and honest work, and treated as second class citizens. and then when the factories and whites moved out (this is for detroit specifically), the state government (which has districts gerrymandered so as to have as few blacks as possible in it) diverted funds to different areas, or gave funds back to localities to spend how they will. of course, those majority black localities don't exactly have large amounts of tax revenue, exacerbating already extant disparities.

tl;dr if you stop people from having the ability to succeed at every turn for a long time, it will not be a surprising result when they aren't successful.

Eccentricity is not always inhereted. By that I mean high IQ related mental disorders such as high-functioning aspergers (some purport Einstein had this), paranoid schizophrenia, and Bipolar don't have 100% inheretebility.

Why is relevant? The brain is not 100% replicated from parent to child. Studies give up to 80% of IQ being due to genetics. Your anecdote of Einstein and his children is irrelevant. Even accidents can give people over 140 IQ, but they're outliers.

The general trend is that IQ is very strongly correlated with genetics, and that since economic backgrounds only correlate so much, you must find me another example besides muh higher education due to mommy and daddy's money to argue that IQ isn't genetic.

>Delayed rewards

This is precisely why I think many cultures from northern climates developed superior societies. Adversity built them.

Im not talking about wether they practiced it or not but wether they perfected the technique or not. African agriculture is mainly itinerant because of continuous erosion of the land caused by lack of any technique to avoid the problem. While the Chinese have developed a way to avoid erosion while planting in fucking mountains, the Africans were never able to create a way of production other then intensive culture of single varieties on flat earth. This is just dumb. Plain dumbness.

This.

I don't find most /pol/-tier discussions productive, but we need to start having a hard, reality based and objective debate concerning racial (and even gender) differences if the left is going to continue to push arbitrary things like diversity quotas, affirmative action, and other "equality enforcement" measures that negatively affect other parties.

Blacks with higher education opportunities still can't compete as well as Asians, Jews, or Whites with lesser education opportunities.

This idea that blacks are failing only due to lack of opportunity is false. Affirmitive action is a failure, and whites with less still manage to succeed and commit less crime in rates that put blacks to shame.

No shit sherlock, we're talking about racial divide not just genetic inheritance

Please give me a source that refutes this outlandish claim

Or maybe environment also had a hand in naturally selecting minds better equipped for problem-solving.. Notice how no matter much you put into giving blacks free education, the gibs me dat never ends and those who receive the black exclusive grants can't fucking pass college in rediculous rates.

...

I didn't say that wasn't possible. I used the term "culture" to encompass all factors.

Exactly. This doesn't even have to be a political issue. It's related to biology among things, demographic changes like immigration also can influence how an economic system will perform. The economy of a nation is very important should one wish to discover and create new shit for the lower IQ masses.

.>65,000 years of evolutionary divergence + interbreeding with another hominid species made no difference whatsoever

>300 years of slavery and colonization made literally all the difference

This is what liberals believe

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/bottlenecks_01

the blacks even sold their own into slavery, strange how they're still poor as fuck in Africa.

>if the left is going to push arbitrary things like diversity quotas
in the USA quotas are an illegal means in almost every scenario according to the supreme court

>affirmative action
almost every form of which has been neutered or pared back to the point that colleges can't weight race any higher than socio-economic class in almost all instances, and that's basically the only instance where affirmative action policies are still in place

>other "equality enforcement" measures
such as? if you mean saying "we are equal opportunity, if you're black/gay/a woman/etc you will be treated equally if you apply here," that isn't exactly enforcement of anything

what boogeyman are you scared of? that the workforce or college will look more like the country as a whole (50% female, ~13% black, many hispanics and some asians)? or that local workforces will look like localities (which can vary widely in their ethnic makeup)?

because if you're going to say that you just want >merit to decide or something, then you're still going to be looking at that unless you believe white men are the top tier people and everyone else is worse, in which case a truly equal society would still look like one negatively affecting you because white men are only about 25-30% of the national population

>Outlandish
Oh, is it? Okay well Ashkenazis and Asians perform better in white majority / dominant nations better than whites do. SOoooo even given that whites are only third place in terms of IQ and economic success, how is it that this set of data I already posted in this thread even exists?

Whites don't get free shit on the only basis of being white. Yet even when they followed up on black college grants, the rates of passing college were fucking embarassing.

Is it O U T L A N D I SH still?

graph here

>in the USA quotas are an illegal means in almost every scenario according to the supreme court

Bullshit. All companies use them when necessary. Especially in my field (IT). If you're a woman or minority you are a golden goose and getting hired if you can write a line of code. I've seen it time and time again. "Equal Opportunity Employer" means carte blanche to fuck over white guys and asians if a woman or black turns up.

>almost every form of which has been neutered or pared back to the point that colleges can't weight race any higher than socio-economic class in almost all instances, and that's basically the only instance where affirmative action policies are still in place

Untrue again. See pic. Just because it doesn't get constant press doesn't mean it fails to exist. They've simply put the lid on it because they don't want to rouse people.

>What boogeyman are you scared of

The one I've experience repeated times. Am I scared of it? No. But I have a legitimate gripe. Especially if these kinds of measures are predicated off of possibly false assumptions of inherent equal ability across the board, that "must, MUST" be only ever affected by environment and rectified by all knowing politicians and campus administrators.

>because if you're going to say that you just want >merit to decide or something, then you're still going to be looking at that unless you believe white men are the top tier people and everyone else is worse, in which case a truly equal society would still look like one negatively affecting you because white men are only about 25-30% of the national population

I do, yes. White men are already technically negatively represented in some places like the West Coast where Asians rule, I don't care. Race, gender, should never be a consideration, and if you're going to make it one, let's look at all of the evidence available, not just the shit that's convenient for you. That makes you a liar and a hypocrite.

How about blacks getting free points on the SAT solely on the basis of race? Is that not a big enough advantage to be considered affirmitive action?

That is 100% unequivocally not true

Remember when they took away IQ requirements from military application based on the sole idea that blacks couldn't pass them? Or how they changed height and physical fitness requirements for the police because women were so shrill about their exclusion? How about the Asian who scores only 400 out of the 500 more points needed to surpass the chance that he will be accepted into an Ivy League college over some affirmy black? This is just a boogeyman? Really? Standards are affected..

Now I demand a source for this. Are you saying College Board gives free black points? I highly, highly doubt this.

Is a black student at an Ivy League school an 'affirmy' if he or she has, objectively, the same or better qualifications than the Asian student?

latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-asian-race-tutoring-20150222-story.html#page=1

[citation needed]

that is an interesting chart you put forward, and I'll grant that I don't know a lot about college admissions (and medical school admissions) except that for law school i took an entire class on affirmative action and discrimination and based on reading what the us legal system has to say quotas are illegal and colleges can't admit people solely on the basis of race. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, i'm saying that it is illegal if it does happen.

i agree that in the ideal world people wouldn't consider such things, but on the other hand we don't live in the ideal world. we live in a world of historical prejudices that can't simply be righted overnight, and affirmative action is a way to help right them. studies indicate that black doctors tend to treat black patients better (both in the diagnostic sense and in the bedside manner sense), so I can see some value in admitting black people to medical school even if their numbers aren't the best.

looking at the image you've included, it also appears that in terms of raw numbers, far more whites both applied and were accepted than blacks, so looking at the acceptance rate by race may make the difference more dramatic than it really is.

I don't disagree that we should want the best people for whatever job, but I also believe that a.) the best person for a job isn't always the person with the best test score, and b.) there is value in the long run in correcting for historical prejudices in order to move society towards the true neutral ideal. of course, if it negatively affects (the affirmative action programs i mean, not neutrality) you i can understand why you'd be pissed, but I do think that the logic behind it isn't quite as bad as maybe you've made it out to be, nor is the real world effect.

but again, i'm a lawyer, not a doctor, statistician, or social policy expert.

They objectively don't. Remember that black guy who got a 2200 on the SAT and ran a clean sweep on Ivy League schools? Our valedictorian, with a 35 ACT and 2300 SAT, didn't get accepted into a single one. If you're Asian you're going to need to be immaculate. Black? Just very smart.

You aren't even being creative in your rebuttal-elaborating historical facts of white exclusion of black land-ownership as if that scores you points, and believing yourselve to be intelligent, versed, Right.

The thing that you are missing is that /other racial groups overcame admittedly somewhat lesser adversity/, and now thrive much better. Yet according to a relatively recent item, for all the section 8 and Obama Administration that the world has to offer, black households yet have a lower average net worth than Indian ones.

nationalreview.com/article/362260/shocking-number-kevin-d-williamson

You are doing the most common and boring thing. It is so common that smarter leftists know to guard against it and try buttressing arguments, but you're just doing the 101 stuff because you are young and you think that it passes muster (it doesn't).

When compared with other human beings, black people, /indeed even browner people given the right circumstances/ are objectively fucking dumb, in a manner that affords a whole rainbow of stupidity! This is both anecdotally observable, and defensible by existing science (and the political qualms against it):

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study (a basic link, but an important one which deserves repeating since you seem to be new to losing this argument.)

scribd.com/doc/140239668/IQ-and-Immigration-Policy-Jason-Richwine (this guy was fired, which goes to my above point.)

blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/should-research-on-race-and-iq-be-banned/ (a hack abdicates the commonly accepted purpose of science, which is to discover observable and reproducible truth, however unpleasant)

When you negate this commonly understood (and factually correct and evidence-based) truth, you make yourself look not like a "cuck" as /pol/ would have it, but most simply, /wrong/.

>single school
>single claim by unsubstantiated source "Ann Lee"

thedp.com/article/2015/03/princeton-researchers-study-how-race-affects-admissions

According to this post, the conclusion was made based off of discrepancies in average scores of admitted students. There is no evidence to support that the school goes, "black? alright, +250 points" as a part of some rote, mechanical admissions process.

I would say medical school admissions are the most severe condemnation of affirmative action. We are talking about putting the health of people at risk because you want to satisfy some kind of high faluting societal ideal of "racial equality", reality be damned.

Rates are all that matter. The sample sizes are high enough so there is nothing to consider in the raw numbers, especially since the disparity in acceptance rate is so high.

>I don't disagree that we should want the best people for whatever job, but I also believe that a.) the best person for a job isn't always the person with the best test score, and b.) there is value in the long run in correcting for historical prejudices in order to move society towards the true neutral ideal. of course, if it negatively affects (the affirmative action programs i mean, not neutrality) you i can understand why you'd be pissed, but I do think that the logic behind it isn't quite as bad as maybe you've made it out to be, nor is the real world effect.

Alright, now let's go off of what you've said. You say the biggest reason is "historical prejudice", which needs corrected. Is that so? What is your evidence for that. Blacks are not exclusive in being prejudiced against, recently or in history. Furthermore, many blacks are recent immigrants from Africa and have no attachment to this phenomenon whatsoever. Further than that, do you conclude "prejudice", whatever that may be, has a greater effect than, say, biological differences? Wouldn't a full standard deviation less in IQ as a racial collective register a significant difference in total tail enders and by extension achievers? That could account for it? What I'm trying to say here is that you're making a heady, race based assumption, without acknowledging the possibility of other factors that are simply blacklisted for discussion even as they may be perfectly valid. Either we are going to be totally race blind, or not, if you pick and choose it is dishonest.

Do a lot of wealthy blacks become rich through white collar jobs or like arts and entertainment and stuff?

The vast vast majority of wealthy blacks are athletes

Do you not understand statistics? Objectively, some black students at prestigious universities are just as qualified as the Asian or white students.

What you're doing is generalizing all black students as being unable to earn a place at these institutions if not for affirmative action; what you're going to do is claim that I'm generalizing by saying that "exceptions" prove that all black students are deserving of their place at these universities, but you'd be wrong. I'm simply pointing out the simple fact that there are deserving and capable black students who earn their way.

>2200 SAT scores

What are you on about? I went to one of these schools, and I had Asian friends who got in with sub-2100 GPAs. I myself was valedictorian with a 35 ACT score. One of the two black students in my department (STEM) ended up graduating with honors (meaning he ended up graduating in the top 5% of the class). You're speaking from ignorance and anecdotes.

>Do you not understand statistics? Objectively, some black students at prestigious universities are just as qualified as the Asian or white students.

Of course I do, and I never argued the opposite.

>What you're doing is generalizing all black students as being unable to earn a place at these institutions if not for affirmative action; what you're going to do is claim that I'm generalizing by saying that "exceptions" prove that all black students are deserving of their place at these universities, but you'd be wrong. I'm simply pointing out the simple fact that there are deserving and capable black students who earn their way.

No, what I'm doing is generalizing the average black student, as this is a general argument. Do you typically argue in exceptions? Not very sound logic, statistically speaking.

>What are you on about? I went to one of these schools, and I had Asian friends who got in with sub-2100 GPAs. I myself was valedictorian with a 35 ACT score. One of the two black students in my department (STEM) ended up graduating with honors (meaning he ended up graduating in the top 5% of the class). You're speaking from ignorance and anecdotes.

I started with anecdotes. I can continue on to factual data if you are so interested. Average black scores are significantly lower. This would mean your exceptional black student would merely match the average Asian.

>If we can do X, why can't we do Y?
Nice logic. Do you happen to work for the FBI?

>we look at Y domesticable animal after the fact that it has been domesticated over thousands of years and compare it to Z animal that hasn't been touched and conclude that Z isn't domesticable compared to Y

This entire shit argument is extrapolation. I didn't want to engage in it in the first place. Shit tier Jared Diamond-core "debate".

They had economic systems and roads at least the Mission to Asante says. Also advancements in medicine and agriculture had been made. Writing came late which could be the main detriment

Egalitarianism is a ruse though user, our society is nepotistic

it is well documented. Try google searching free SAT blacks and bam, no one denies this is the case. They descriminately allow lower performing ethnic groups and women to perform by lower standards by requiring say a black student to score 100 less than an Asian yet have a higher chance of acceptance.

He also had insane extracurricular activities, great essays, stellar recommendations etc...

Biology isn't relevant according to the left, yet African males have an extra muscle in their legs much less found in Europeans that gives them a literal running head start.

This is in the same way we find genetic markers of intelligence moreso in Europeans in rediculous rates compared to an African.

Have meta-analyses found publication bias in studying race and IQ?

>Race realists ask question
>Get mad they don't get answer they want
>Complain
Some people here act as if their viewpoint is completely infallible. Nothing constructive ever comes from discussing it on here. Definitely a discussion for more intelligent people. Who knows what the general consensus will be with all the epigenetics articles springing up on NCBI

People arguing against racial intelligence are deluding themselves.

There are some smart abos, some stupid jews and you can instill a positive culture in both groups but, when it comes to intellectual capability the average jew will outperform the average abo most of the time assuming equivalent cultural upbringings.

The fact this is even controversial is beyond me.

Would the taxonomy of humans be too broad when compared with a German Shepherd and Bull dog? I always thought we would have to look at ethnic groups or something for intelligence.

What you are saying in your greentext is that people are arguing. I don't see how this is significant that people disagree, it's expected really. Also it can be constructive in terms of understanding biology or economics, or psychology.

>There are people who buy into racial intelligence.
Humanity was a mistake.

>race realist
as opposed to what. are you a race ignorant?

time to bust out your edited miyazaki quotes

>low IQ tears
stay buttmad lmao

Wasn't more of the Neanderthals brain devoted to vision and movement than cognition? Is this no longer popular? I don't really follow craniometry

>Also it can be constructive in terms of understanding biology or economics, or psychology
Not on here. That was my point. There is no constructive criticism but rather "You're wrong, I'm right." I don't think anyone came here to listen to different viewpoints. At least that's not what the comments show

Lol but this is Veeky Forums my dude. Expect a few shit-posters.

"I am uncomfortable that open discussion leads to disagreement, so discussion must be limited."

The left, everyone.