Why don't liberals believe in the IQ test? Because they don't want to admit that there are inferior races?

Yes, we do.
Why can't blacks do the same thing? Oh, of course, they can't admit that they're """"culture"""" is shit.

Of course. Why would I deny the facts?

I'm not as delusional and dishonest as some leftist

You're right I should have said environment rather than culture

>>So there isn't any evidence supporting the hypothesis that it is ONLY environment that determines differences in mean Iq between races

performance of blacks on the SAT test seperated by income bracket shows otherwise.

jbhe.com/latest/index012209_p.html

jstor.org/stable/2999198?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

The IQ study you are referring to used biased sampling

My question, why do liberals have higher iqs than conservatives? do concucks loose brain cells when masturbating to cuckolding?

Interesting. So why are East Asians required higher SAT / Academic scores for the same admissions as whites?

Dunno, I know nothing about the college board but I have doubts to its relation to IQ.
From speculation I'd say it is based on the fact that there are racial quotas in admissions and a lot of Asians perform well.
Only so many slots to fill

Why do we need these threads EVERY DAY

Because Veeky Forums needs to be redpilled scientifically.

there have been multple iq studies showing ashkenazi jews to have a mean Iq of 108-115 and east asians like chinese, korean, japanese to have a mean Iq of 105

don't embarrass us by denying things that are fact

It's probably a self-interested move by universities to secure more funding since they want very-very rich families, who are mostly white, to send their kids there and donate.

I'm against the practice.
I believe californian universities don't do it and accept a lot of asians.

which is good because there are a lot of intelligent asians who deserve to go

Because it's easy to hack an IQ test through multiple retakes. Plenty of people who report higher than 130 take the test a bunch of times, Veeky Forums is a case study on that. A lot of the tests carry the same question type, but switch around the shapes, colors, directions, etc. Used to represent the pattern. Ergo, if you've solved one image overlay pattern, you've solved them all. It only gets easier to solve them the more you encounter them, or consider the idea of image overlay.

Secondly, IQ is based on pattern recog within a time limit, so it's unfair to test someone on recognition of pattern types they've never seen before while another person is isolating patterns based on pattern types they recall seeing in their school years. Ultimately meaning it would only be fair to run tests among the uneducated who have never set foot in an academic environment, so we get a look at pure cognition speed for pattern isolation instead of a combo of pattern isolation and recall that varies on knowledge.

It's really only legit to try and evaluate an individual based on either untimed knowledge or timed isolation speed, but mixing both together is idiotic and a terrible way to do testing for the aforementioned reasons. Furthermore it would be incredibly difficult to isolate if total potential knowledge is genetic, given nobody really knows if they're at the max or not. It would be easier to isolate if cognition speed is genetic, but it would be a useless endeavor. This combined with the fact that we have computers which calculate at speeds faster than any human could hope to is why nobody takes the test seriously in the modern era. It's worth hiring or working with someone who is knowledgeable enough to know not to rob you or hurt you, how fast they can calculate is meaningless if they know which tools to use for calculation and how to solve problems.

Tl;dr- IQ tests aren't ideal for measuring intelligence, and the ideal solution is already outdated.

Now show me the studies of white kids raised in black homes, so we know that the black children's IQs and testing was not affected by being social outliers in their schools.

Care to show the variances accompanying the average scores?

>fact
>poor sub samples in every case
The only thing embarrassing is your inability to understand statistics
That isn't even to mention the biases in the actual selection of subjects.
The Jews that are selected are always university students or children (which they then use a computational equivalent adult IQ)
The same reason why this image is defunked is the same reason why the racial IQ studies are, they aren't random selection. Hence why Israel average IQ is 95

you're welcome to read teh papers or seek the raw data for yourself.
I've given you a link to two higher education journal publications on the findings. I'm sure you can do the rest for yourself

there is no such paper.

but what you're suggesting, that being one of the few black people in a school would cause the mean IQ of a population to plummet from what would otherwise be 100, to 83.7 is very tenuous.

let me repeat:
>So even though the evidence is not conclusive in a "significant at 95% or 99% confidence level" , if you were forced to make an even odds bet about whether you thought that black people had a biologically predisposed lower mean IQ than white or east asian people,on the basis of the evidence available it would be rational for you to bet that black people do indeed have a biologically predisposed lower mean IQ (which is lowered by social circumstances as well).

>That's just the rational decision

No such thing as superiority in evolution in this context

That twin study in no way logically suggesests biological effects though there probably are. That study isnt evidence. That method is also unvalidated, it begs the question of selection pressure and even so its difficult to specify exactly what the factor is and what variables that includes.

I'm curious, did they include sephardic and mizrahi jews or is it only ashkenazi? If they didn't, when tallying "white" didn't hey lump Irish in with Austrians

Can you take a guess lol

archure.net/psychology/akrosintel.html

Daily reminder that people who care about IQ are all literally this person.

Asians have a very strong culture to succeed in academia. White people care less.

Also are black white asian appropriate divisions or labels?

That's the funny thing though. There is no raw data. It's conveniently missing. And it's funny that you come here posting papers without the data or statistical summaries. Just mean reports.

Furthermore, I do believe it would be interesting to see such a study where a white child is raised in a lower class black home. It would provide excellent insight and double as a control for social pressure on the child due to factors external to family life.

Lastly, it's not rational to assume a biologically predisposed lower IQ for one population when results don't hit specified confidence intervals precisely because it doesn't hit the confidence interval. If there was biologically predisposed lower IQ we would be able to say it with incredibly high certainty, almost near 100%, because it would be literally coded into that populations genetics and thus inescapable. The fact that the confidence interval requirement can't be met, not even the lower 95% huge wiggle room interval, means something is fishy. Unless you're going to sit here and tell me some tinfoil shit like they wuz kangz and within their population a significantly huge chunk of blacks have literally discovered a way to rewrite their DNA and overcome a genetic IQ deficit.

>races
You mean clines.
Basically those are defined as populations who have different frequencies of genes, but pretty much the same genetic makeup.

This implies that being smart has nothing to do with race other than frequency. What this implies is that once we find IQ genes you would have 0 grounds to base superiority on outward appearance when you know the actual genes you can very easily sequence a person's DNA (of any race) and find out what's what.

The above is in my opinion the biggest hole in the political interpretation you guys desperately want to find in the IQ data.

If you look at it objectively without a racial or political agenda even if you take all the data and the race-realism science you will find only two races - a smart and a stupid one.

There are other holes and problems where you can attack based on genetics and psychology, but who cares anyway.

I think this especially holds true when you consider American whites. We have been spoiled too long. Many Asians are emerging from third world countries and poverty, so they are hungry for education and bettering themselves. X-generation whites on the other hand, well just look at what is pedalled in our popular entertainment. Ignorance is glorified, intelligence is belittled. We have been able to get a way with this mentality for no long because our economy allowed us to.

Oh, now you are an environmentalist, are you.
White = 98
Asian = 107

Im fairl certain most people who do those iq tests wont have thought about retaking them alot. Only seems to be a small population of people on the internet. Sci is a biased sample. Also note internet wasnt very big when most of these studies done.

If you don't have a source your image is worthless. Besides, why differentiate between south and east asians and not north and south europeans?

Dude you have a poor understanding. Theres no such thing as pure genetic. U cant isolate genes and environment

If you can't isolate the two, then there's no way to claim a genetic hierachy.

So are you claiming iq isn't at all malleable? That if you separated two identical twins at birth, stuck one with a family that was very cohesive and understood the importance of early education, that this one wouldn't perform better in an IQ test than one stuck with ghetto or trailer trash? Gtfo

Literally go ask stormfront why, they've made all these charts and done the 'research'.

Genetically North and south Euros are the same, when it comes to active genes, but you can trace based on SNPS in non-coding junk DNA.

Are Japs/Koreans/Chinese different from philippinos? My guess is, probably not very much.

Are Arabs genetically Caucasian? Will you be surprised if pic related holds for them too? What about Hispanics?

Those markers account for about 1% of the difference in IQ between people/populations, I'm not sure honestly.

I don't know, I am just looking at the data. I'm sure IQ is very malleable at least for some groups who haven't achieved their max.
Whites have and so have Asians. I see no reason why you would ever assume Whites are as intelligent as Asians based on the data I've been shown.

Literally drawing conclusions SOLELY based on stormfront science.

As an ashkenazi jew (statistically superior in all iq tests, and personally with an iq of 150) I'm against it because it's easy to see that there are other metrics of intelligence.

But hey, keep on hating on the jews stormfag, not so easy to holocaust us now that we have the third most powerful army in the world and the most effective secret service.

>implying it's ONE IQ study.

Jews have consistently scored higher on verbal and mathematical intellect than whites.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence

The gap is almost as wide and entirely as solidly undeniable as the black-white gap.

If you buy this sort of data.

I actually misread it but just seen this guy before who cant seem to get away from his stupid pattern recognition shit

He's not wrong. The tests are based on timed pattern recognition.

Dudr ive seen study say difference between north and south italiana. Literally depends on samples

Literally the only thing it takes for white nationalism movements and arguments to completely crumble is to have a person like this say a few words and show pic related - "Barbarians killing the superior race!" and it's all over.

It's impossible to be a white nationalist and take the IQ data at face value, because then you'd have to, rationally, be a Zionist, basically.

Or at the very least some Asian supremacist?

uggggg read the thread brainlet, I know it is hard but just TRY for daddy

The paytern recognition he yalks about is not a big factor. You could say in a sense it is timed pattern recognition but only inthe sense of that is what brains literally do.

a.uguu.se/QEqWpdLGlhO5_4ae8d1ad0bcc0583631c65c64dd084cbe5551123fb2fb5179de3386034e881d1.mp4

exactly, nazis dont believe in iq. Or they admit they are inferior.

>difference
A difference can be relevant or irrelevant. The ONLY difference that would matter would be in frequencies of IQ/g-factor/intelligence genes. Any other genetic difference is irrelevant until you show how it affects intelligence or at the very least correlates, though this is not enough by itself for reasons that should be obvious from a genetic perspective.

ps
White Power worldwide, right (pic rel)

nah nigga not clicking that

>he doesn't know uguu
Please go back to redit newfag

> Israel averages 95

Oh my, here we go again :
Askhenazi 110, about 700 000 of them.
Sephardi/Mizrahi holding 105 - 5 400 000 individuals.
Israeli Arabs, however, 2 500 000 of them, drags down by their 75.

Im literally talking about that.

The only way to reconcile lower white IQs is to say that white nationalism is about self-determination and not some inherent greatness of the white race.

Jared Taylor, a person who you should know who he is if you are in any way interested in all of this business is basically already there.

>I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society. This doesn't mean that I want America to become Asian. I think every people has a right to be itself, and this becomes clear whether we're talking about Irian Jaya or Tibet, for that matter.

To me this is admitting defeat intellectually. Why should anyone limit themselves to 'a race' when they could identify with a group of intelligent human beings in general, be it Jewish, Asian, White (or Black).

You're making a lot of assumptions from very questionable sources pal. Besides the largest deficit between whites (not distinguishing between celtic / germanic) between east Asians is 5 points. Here's one of the authors of the Bell Curve talking about it:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=bUdkzI5YMOk

I wouldn't be surprised if there was variance between ethnic groups.

>whites have hit their max

Some evidence would suggest they did about 100 years ago.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000470

Now I haven't had the chance to dissect it myself (some other user posted a few weeks ago), but I'm willing bet, given the time period, most of the samples were rather ethnically homogeneous. Depending on how you interpret it, it may lead credence to too.

You are not talking about genetics, biology, neuroscience.

If you believe that you have grounds to think northern italians are superior to southern italians based on psychometrics alone, then you don't have a very high standards when it comes to science.

You need to show things, not just speculate when given Y-chromosomes or SNP-s that literally do not matter for what proteins get made.

There's significant complexity which allows for both mostly genetic and mostly environmental gaps to appear between any two groups.
The difference between whites and East Asians is statistically significant. If you remove """""""""verbal"""""""" IQ it's even worse.

>pal

Please do not deny things which are obvious. The only sources I am using is the sources you've been using and seeing posted all around pol. You have to have a political agenda to deny the gap is there and Asians beat us on tests we've created.

Don't deny it please.

Right, so if you're concerned about dissecting ethnic groups, why not distinguish between northern Europeans and southern europeans?

Why are you talking about things when you dont know what im talking about and havent even said yet.

Why not distinguish between celts and germanics?

When you get to the point:
gene -> protein -> organ -> effect on IQ/g/intellect

Only then can you really differentiate between smarts and stupids without using heuristics like skin color or 19th century concepts of race, (not to mention you shouldn't be using those now either, but just use IQ tests as a heuristic/proxy).

It's really sad some white people are trying to draw political agendas from the data, and failing.

It's all so speculative and unscientific.

Are those different races?
If so, then we ought to really define how granular we get.

I have been asking the same questions myself.

Pic related, genetic diversity, have been wondering how we can define groups.

In my opinion the best way is to find IQ genes ad define groups based on who has them and who hasn't instead of hopelessly trying to classify on other (irrelevant) traits.

I know everything you are talking about, as well as the things you haven't said yet. And more.

As far as this topic is concerned anyway.

Thats literally not an argument.

Even that is not very simple or discrete.

hey there murdoch murdoch

I really wish that seemingly the only people interested in this weren't illiterates/autodidacts with a political agenda.

Then we can have a real eugenics/genetic engineering (whatever term you like) movement instead of focusing on issues of tribalism and generally things that do not fit our current level of development.

Though it really isn't the right's fault only. The left isn't different, they really have no real reason to shun or fear these ambitions.

Politics - slowing progress and oppressing human reason as always.

It wasn't meant to be an argument, just a statement.

Here's a fun meme, I'm not trying to discredit you with it or mock you, just have some fun.

I didn't post a twin study

>California is 101
Califonian here can confirm that is bullshit

Adoption study then..

Higher ratio of females in southern Europe skews median to the left even more then proximity of Africa.

I know youre not. Just saying. Tbh from your posts cant even tell what side youre on

Ok, I've posted a few charts in this thread.

I would really ask both sides to look at the charts objectively and putting ALL politics and spooks aside and see what you find.

Good luck.

IQ measures how good you're at being normal.

It's missing from an article in a higher education journal because guess what, articles in higher education journals do not print out entire data sets.

>Lastly, it's not rational to assume a biologically predisposed lower IQ for one population when results don't hit specified confidence intervals precisely because it doesn't hit the confidence interval.

but I'm not assuming it as a conclusive fact.

I'm rationally and correctly saying that in light of there being significant (but not conclusive) evidence that black people have a biologically lower mean IQ than white and east asian people, that therefore , in an even odds betting situation it would be rational to bet that black people had a biologically lower mean Iq that white or east asian people than one tht is the same or higher.

to put it another way, if a coin was flipped 100 times and x >50 of them were heads but that number was only significant with a null hypothesis of p=0.5 at the 93% significance level. would you bet that the probability of heads was greater than the probability of tails , or would you say "well it is not sigifnificant at the95% level so we can't know for sure so let's go back to the null hypothesis and say that heads is as likely as tails so we should choose one of the two options at random" ?

> If there was biologically predisposed lower IQ we would be able to say it with incredibly high certainty, almost near 100%, because it would be literally coded into that populations genetics and thus inescapable.

Hahaha what are you talking about you dumbass?
Their mean IQ IS significantly lower than that of whites and asians. hugely so. The only lack of certainty comes from the difficulty in getting evidence that controls entirely for environment.

When environment is mostly controlled for, like the minnesota study, their mean IQ is still way lower in a way that is hugely significant.

but the only thing not-conclusive is that it's v.hard to totally control for environmennt

>Mean is significantly lower
Post summary statistics plus dataset as proof

I'm not going to spend time hunting down the raw data from to do t test for you when it is known that the population standard deviation in IQ is 15, the mean IQ of the black adoptes was found to be 83.7 , the mean IQ of the white adoptees was found to be 101.5 and there were 22 black adoptees and 16 white adoptees.

having a sample mean lower by more than a standard deviation in a sample of size 22 than of what it should be if the two populations had equal mean and variance is hugely unlikely and well less than 5%

You should be aware of this if you've done any statistics before with normal distributions.

the study has been peer-reviewed and widely cited so if you're going to call foul on the peer review of the raw data, take it up with American psychologist

/pol/ is the inferior race, according to IQ.

I've had this discussion with my circle of liberal friends, and we all have near consensus on the matter:

It's true, just as it's true that blacks are on average physically more disposed than Asians. How do we act on this information that's productive or meaningful? Documentation is one thing, and indeed many support it, but why should we treat people differently?

Because psychology isn't science and thus no definitive conclusions can be drawn about well... Anything.

Well, blacks in addition to their high testosterone and estrogen, also lack the ability for self-restraint. There are very little barriers between thought and action. This is why they commit so much random violence. It's better to avoid them, not from an intelligence perspective but from one of personal safety.

As for "treating people differently", we should have a meritocracy because they sort themselves out. End welfare and affirmative action and these problems would simply not exist.

So in that case you're saying if we take the ultimate police dog, the German Shepherd, and mix it with a Chihuahua, we can create a better police dog?

It's all psychology after all. Biology, evolution, intelligence and behavior being hereditary is all irrelevant.

Show me the data and summary statistics for that and the other claims you have made within this post.

Did you not read my post?

I did. Post the summary statistics and data.
There is no reason for me to consume your claims otherwise. It also can't be the case that all of these studies just happen to be missing all of their datasets and summary statistics. Me just accepting your claims as fact without that would be akin to me taking a blind leap of faith.

Now post summary statistics and data.

Well, men in addition to their high testosterone, also lack the ability for self-restraint. There are very little barriers between thought and action. This is why they commit so much random violence. It's better to avoid them, not from an intelligence perspective but from one of personal safety.

Believing in IQ, ACT, SAT, GRE, and other standardized forms of testing is quite conservative.

It stratifies the population into classes of achievers/able and the lesser. It's reality but the starkest form of it so it scares people who operate off of the premise that we are all literally equal and only affected by circumstance and "luck."

It measures how good you are at basic.

Looking at Asians in America is pretty useless for statistics. Asians that come into the USA are some of the most vetted. For example, there are very strict quotas of how many Chinese are allowed into the USA each year. It is not like you are getting a random selection of Asians into the USA. These are the top of the country. Even if they come in illegally, they have to have the funds to come here in the first place. In regards to legally, much more apply than are let in so the American government picks the top, most skilled out of those.

What about those who aren't immigrants, I.e. on the off chance they were born in the US and hence are us citizens?

>"keep on hating on the jews stormfag"
>"not so easy to holocaust us now that we have the third most powerful army in the world and the most effective secret service."

What element of OP's statement has implied, or elicited within you, the idea that it is, in any way, anti-semitic?

A common pattern seems to arisen again: at least as I have experienced it, the Jewish community's online presence appears to be, constantly, in desperate throws of taking to the rooftops, whilst banging pots and pans together, declaring antisemitism where none has been incited. It is tragic, and dismisses others the liberty of discussion without the childish wrist-slapping behaviour which you have so transparently demonstrated with your post. The sheer ease at which you have shoe-horned the narrative into 'jew-hate' and political talking-points suggests that you do not possess such an IQ, or at the least - at the expense of conventional brain-function. It is not reasonable for you to erroneously chastise OP for putting forward this type of content.

Hmm.. that's funny. Those religions whose tenants are comprised mostly of nordic/germanic peoples are several IQ points higher than those of other adherents. Yet in every iq chart I've seen, we discern between east and south asians, or ashkenazi and sephardic jews, and lump all of the other caucasians into "white".