Post the book that fundamentally changed the way you view the world

What a horrible way to start a thread like this.

Don't be autistic

>we believe

Is the stupidest and most offensive part of your post. Incredibly presumptuous, too.

How so? The Bell Curve was a book with huge impact and despite all the hysteria and whining was based on sound science.

That offended you?

How is that in any way presumptuous?

...

>sound science

Eh, no, many parts of it was a horribly disingenuous and racist presentation of scientific findings. Its main points are completely bunk, as evidenced by the following APA task force review, whose more modest conclusions are still valid today, almost 20 years later.

apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-67-2-130.pdf

He said "we" as in Christians, not Veeky Forums in general.

This is the most needless clarification I've ever encountered.

>"racist"

opinion discarded

>APA task force review

Just took a glance over that report. It is the typical anti science egalitarian crap using sources from the 70s. I don't care about social "scientists" and their agenda.

Deletion can't come soon enough.

A deep and profund choice. It really has immense explanatory power.

Wow. GLHF. The actual study that i cited is very well founded and reflects the up-to-date (2012) scientific knowledge on the subject. You clearly wish the world was a certain way, and so you discard evidence that goes contrary to this, which is fine, but at least you have a good resource now.

Also, Herrnstein and Murray are social scientists too. So it's not true that you don't care about social scientists because you care about them. It's more correct to say that you only care about particular social scientists who share your opinion.

The point is you can cherry pick studies to fit your agenda and reach your desired conclusion. There are twin studies that contradict each other pick whatever you like. I care about the science and the raw data not the dubious interpretration of social scientists with agendas.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging

www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

I guess you've figured out how the universe doesn't work.

>come down my rabbit hole, I can lead out out of the matrix of social conditioning

www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf

>I don't care about the interpretation of social scientists.
>Here's some other social scientists interpretetations.

lol

Tractatus logico-philosophicus and Ulysses, probably

You're clinging to straws. This "statement" really doesn't conclude on the genetic foundation of the race gap in IQ. It says there is little knowledge on whether it's genetic or environmental. It also acknowledge that environmental effects exists. In fact, the whole IQ gap can possibly be explained by differences in environmental conditions so concluding that the race gap is genetically conditioned is conjecture and highly disingenuous.

I'm not the person you've been arguing with (that was my first post in this thread), and I haven't read The Bell Curve itself but have read related work.

Wikipedia says [1] that Hernstein and Murray argue:

>One part of the controversy concerned the parts of the book which dealt with racial group differences on IQ and the consequences of this. The authors were reported throughout the popular press as arguing that these IQ differences are genetic, and they did indeed write in chapter 13: "It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences." The introduction to the chapter more cautiously states, "The debate about whether and how much genes and environment have to do with ethnic differences remains unresolved."

So I didn't disagree with you to begin with.

[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Race_and_intelligence

(as far as your quoted post's objective content is concerned, although you might be misunderstanding what argument The Bell Curve is making or reading misrepresentations of its arguments)

everyone knows the Bell Curve is right lol
no one wants to admit it but we all tacitly agree

I knew nothing of the world before I read this.

No, we have massive populations that were apart long enough to developed distinct physical characteristics but surely we would never develop differently mentally, can't possibly happen :^)
I knew a smart black guy so there for something something all statistical evidence that corresponds to these groups even after factors like family life education and wealth are controlled for are totally irrelevant.

If you don't agree it's creepy and gross!

I doubt that book changed your worldview. At best, it reinforced whatever ebin beliefs you had before.

Why? Spot is clearly on the cover, dude

...

Nice way to start the thread OP. Don't listen to these egalitarian-multiculturalist retards.

>long enough to developed distinct physical characteristics
those are called "highly heritable traits", some traits aren't highly heritable and they are not different between ethnicities
intelligence isn't very well understood, but evidence seems to suggest that it is not highly heritable

why would you assume the opposite without knowing what you're talking about

couldn't be living in a society that was explicitly racist for centuries, nope

"non"-racists clearly agree with the... I'll say, empirical, practical, phenotypical inferiority of certain races- if they were not inferior then plainly they would be as well off as their white peers.
The disagreement is simply over the cause of this inferiority- whether it is internal, from the coloreds' genes, or external, from the environment.
Obviously it easily be a mix of both. But there is no reason to à priori deny that genotypical inferiority could be a cause of phenotypical inferiority, as non-racists do.
I don't say that the genetic inferiority of blacks and other such races is proven. But it is clearly a strong possibility.

Not even trolling, I read it before I went full patrician because of bioshock. I didn't really accept the 'I got mine, fuck you' attitude but it got me out of a shitty victim complex I had when I was younger

That was actually very funny in many ways.

>but evidence seems to suggest that it is not highly heritable
uhh

Come on that was funny. You're the autistic one

>couldn't be living in a society that was explicitly racist for centuries, nope

woah like every civilization in history

made me think

I have been reading a lot, and my poetry and drama, evolving very slowly for something like 6-7 years. But when I discovered pic related (and in a great Portuguese translation) all the many small cobwebs of connections (rhyme, metaphors, similes, diction) in my brain finally united into a larger new knitting, and I suddenly learned to write in a completely different way, much more exuberant, bold, inventive and beautiful.

Phenotypical inferiority is due to the evil whites holding everyone else down. Haven't you consulted your local narrative authority?

I know (You) think that's witty but it's not.

So is this book legit or just RACIST

If this is so, then the amount of european ancestry in the genes of african americans would determine their average IQ right? It's just that, no matter if 30% of your ancestry or 70% is african, probability of IQ will be unchanged.

Yep, plug your ears and ride on.

.4 - .8 heritibility quotient suggests it's not highly heritable.

You are just pulling things out of your ass because we don't have good mulatto statistics.

this and the unbearable lightness of being. plebcore, I know, but there's a reason they're so well known

Look what I found in my ass:

psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1986-24139-001

Was this the book that said poor people are stupid or black people are stupid

>posts about not only being a christian, but CONVERTING to one per his own volition
>called stupid twice
>calls autistic on a reply that's actually funny/clever

classic christians

yeh, because all those non christians on this board /never/ call anyone autistic. a uniquely christian phenomenon

>46 kids total in the study
>No mulatto kids
>White mom's superior parenting have black kids 1 extra iq

I can't begine to fathom how you considered this supported your point

Did his post really go over your head?

if you think my problem was the use of the word 'autistic' you should read my post again.

yeh apparently. could you explain what I missed?

Not all Christians believe the same thing, dumbass.

>Don't know what 1SD means

Really, why do you even try to read this shit. 1SD is 15 IQ points, which is approximately the size of the racial IQ gap.

Europeans traded muskets with Africa for hundreds of years; goes without saying, but the place was obviously a shithole. The Africans use the muskets to kill each other, never reverse engineer them, literally just use them to catch more slaves to buy more guns.

America goes over to Japan with a steam boat in 1854. They're chilling like its 1000AD, no technology, Samurai bureaucracy. In 50 years they're a major player on the world stage. In 100, they're a massive superpower hell bent on expansion and empire.

Japan literally did in 50 years something Africa hasn't accomplished in 400. Probably because Asians weren't kept down by the white man, imho

In conclusion: Niggers took the wrong evolutionary path.

In the social sciences, a heritability of .4 is considered very significant, and a heritability of .8 is considered huge.

How the hell do you present in a "racist" fashion statistical data? I guess when you don't come up with shitty excuses like the APA did (uh it's because of different expectations!)

I really disliked reading. I started by reading some of the classics at school (Farewell to Arms, the great Gatsby). But this book right here just send me to overdrive mode.

Nice speculation bro.

>he states historical facts
>speculation

Whereas I'm sure you believe that the racist hidden power structures are real, right?

His analysis is crude and certainly far from all encompassing, but also not untrue.

Eye colour is a highly heritable trait, .4 - .8 heritability is similar to most psychological traits and are susceptible to gene-environment interaction.

>How the hell do you present in a "racist" fashion statistical data?

You present it disingenuously to paint a picture which the overall data doesn't support.

Wait a minute, do we have a book on a topic like this?

>Eye colour is a highly heritable trait,
Well sure, it has a heritability of 1!

>4 - .8 heritability is similar to most psychological traits and are susceptible to gene-environment interaction.
Nobody claims that intelligence is purely determined by genes, otherwise identical twins should have absolutely equal IQs which is not the case.

However, a .8 heritability is still huge, and means that identical twins have very similar IQs.

Also, please expound on those "gene-environment" interactions. It's funny but not a single shared environmental effect has been proven to affect IQ.

no, racism is a modern western concept
in-group out-group thinking is not racism as such

>doesn't know difference between observation and explanation

it will get better after high school, friend.

But the data shows a black white IQ gap.

>Sophie's World
We were reading that book in my "Theory of Knowledge" class back in highschool, but everybody hated it so much, including the teacher, that we canceled the reading and all projects associated with it. We read some Phillip K Dick instead.

There are a fair amount of books on racial IQ differences but none that does a historical analysis in defense of the data. That I know of, at least

Yeah, but that's not the question. The question is whether it is due to actual genetic differences. It's a leap from acknowledging the IQ-gap to thinking they are inherent in races.

Since childhood I was a kid that used to question things that other took for granted or dismissed as unimportant so I was positively surprised to find out that this sort of thinking can be a sap of philosophy.
I can imagine that most people dislike this book. And that's ok

>Also, please expound on those "gene-environment" interactions. It's funny but not a single shared environmental effect has been proven to affect IQ.

Ok, so you're interested in shared environment? These seem to explain variance in IQ in low SES, but not high SES families:

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0030320

This extends to the level of the cortex:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3197836/

If it's not due to genetic differences how do you explain twin studies?

>Ok, so you're interested in shared environment? These seem to explain variance in IQ in low SES, but not high SES families:
Well that's to be expected. Low SES families tend to be pretty shitty, and of course IQ can be depressed by shitty violent parents who abuse their children.

The fact that the shared environment doesn't have much effect on IQ in high income families shows that IQ is mostly genetic.

>evidence seems to suggest that it is not highly heritable

this is not the case

Pic related stopped me from jumping in front of a train.

>inb4 you should have done it anyway.

This board man, I tell you.

Hahaha, the book whose point is that Africans are inferior human beings because of low IQ as well as anyone else with low IQ. Am I right?

anyone who's read this book knows that it's utter garbage

Anyone who's read this post knows you're an utter cuck

No, the book is about the social stratification of american society into IQ-based social classes.

You'd know that if you had even bothered reading the summary of the book, but I guess it's easier to get your opinions from reddit.

No, I read the book. Pretty much it associated IQ very well with things like poverty and crime. And race. Basically painting the picture that people with lower IQs are worse human beings. That's the message I got. No wonder it pisses people off, like you.

>Basically painting the picture that people with lower IQs are worse human beings.
No, but people with lower IQs are on average more likely to engage in anti-social behavior. Herrnstein and Murray are very careful not to make moral judgements.

>That's the message I got.
Then I guess you're not a very good reader.