Why is this such a taboo subject in science?

Asians score best on the IQ tests developed by whites

I would also ask for an all black society that has developed relatively parallel to whites and asians

Alright. Here's your answer: Will you delete the thread now?

Even when socio-economic factors are removed, the gap remains

>adjust by family income
>"we've removed ALL socio-economic factors u guize"
lel
this is what brainlets think scientific evidence is

Can you give us a circumstance under which blacks score anything but dead last intellectually or academically?

Can you justify your methodology or are you just dropping random questions in order to intimidate your audience?

It's not a taboo. And it's objectively dumb do use race as metric for intelligence.

Evidence existing does not guarantee that the evidence is a proper description of reality or that the interpretation of the data is correct.

Because it's an unanswerable question.

First off, you've already heard the counter-counterargument for climate change: "We are due for cooling rather than warming according to the Milankovich cycle. We can see what our orbital eccentricity is like and we have examined various natural forcings on the climate, and none can explain the warming trend. To ignore the effect of manmade GHG emissions is to basic physics and the empirical evidence."
But you see that as a weak argument since you think we haven't explicitly linked those problems to man made causes.

I could pull the same hypocrisy you do and say that you haven't explicitly proven that intelligence depends on race, and we'd still go nowhere with that conversation. I could also bring up how each race is a collection of ethnicities and therefore cultures and because whites, asians, etc. all have work-oriented cultures and have historically helped devlop abstract subjects they tend to do better when it comes to abstract thinking and therefore are better at school, whereas blacks just didn't develop the same way due to the lack of a reason to. What I'm implying is that their culture and therefore upbringing has more to do with their intelligence than their genes or race. Also, I get the impression that you link intelligence with human worth, when productivity would seem to be a better measure according to your type of thinking. However we define human worth can be argued separately in another thread and will have a lot less name calling.

It's a reasonable and honest question. Blacks score dead last universally

>It's a reasonable and honest question.
It's not, it's a deflection from the fact that you don't seem to understand what isolating socio-economic factors mean and that you think sorting by income is enough.

They do pretty well in musical academies.

I understand that income is a factor. Poor X perform worse than wealthy X

But if there's absolutely no condition under which blacks score better than any other race on average then 'equality' becomes a meaningless term of nothing but virtue signaling

>I understand that income is a factor.
Good. Maybe by thinking about it a bit hard you'll understand it's only one factor.

Because we are sick of /pol/ak's coming here with brain dead ass questions relating to IQ. It's become a meme at this point. If you think you are gonna "redpill" a bunch of people on Veeky Forums by posting shitty info graphics and lame ass questions then you better rethink your plan.

That's my point.

There's no condition under which blacks score better than any other race on average, ever.

>If you think you are going to convince us with facts and evidence, you've got another thing coming

You sound like a creationist

I'd like to see this DESU. Can anybody come up with an example where blacks actually tend outperform whites in an a test of the mind?

basketball

> implying shitposting about IQ is on the level of stating facts and evidence

>That's my point.
No it's not.
It's been 5 posts and you still can't understand a simple fucking methodologic point:
sorting by income is absolutely not enough work to isolate socio-economic factors. Anybody who has ever done any sort of demographic studies understands that.

And yes, methodology matters, this is the science board, not your favorite shithole.

Can you name one where whites outperform Jews and Asians?

The OP does not want to listen to anyone's view point. He just posted this in an attempt to "red pill" you.

>i'm so proud of my 3 year old post with a pic cropped from a scat fetish image that i screencapped it and repost it anytime i think it's relevant
lmao

Are you triggered? Better go back to your safe space.

>black majority countries around the world unequivocally shit
>black majority regions within countries usually the shittiest
>score dead last in academic testing
>score dead last in IQ testing
>not much historical achievement of note

so what would you guys need to be convinced

a sky fairy to come down and proclaim it for everyone?

I'm 100% fine with admitting things like "Kenyans are superior marathon runners", reality is just reality

>Deflection by personal attack

Answer the question

The bottom line is that it only further divides humanity, so even though some races may perform better in some aspects than others, we don't discuss it for the sake of humanity.

>leftist shits don't even see the irony in their delusions
lmao

They'll come back with the Jared Diamond "But muh environment" shit as if the ancestors of whites just got to Europe and there was infrastructure

shit tier bait imqho

People who score low on IQ tests can train them selves to score higher on IQ tests with some practice. This kind of debunks the entire idea that IQ=blunt intelligence.

There was, user. They arrived in Europe. Winter was actually balmy and not one of the deadliest parts of nature for man to face, aurochs and wolves walked up to them and offered to be domesticated, and arable land was plentiful and not actually covered in forest and hills.

...

You act like researchers don't control for these factors when putting data together. You can score marginally higher but there is a hard ceiling for your ability since it's based on sheer speed and your relative ability compared to another. There will always be someone better at it than you because that is what nature dictates.

Just because you can train yourself to run a faster 100m means the 100m is a meaningless metric of speed? No. You have a cap.

this

>divides humanity

That's like saying my toilet only further divides shit from the rest of my house

Because it would be extensively used to promote racial discrimination, segregation and such.

Just like all the retards claiming blacks are "chimping out" because they are dumb, so they must be put lower than whites.

>Why is this such a taboo subject in science?

its not taboo. its that there is little to be gained by it.

for the sake of argument, let say there is some form of incontrovertible evidence about the biological basis of intelligence as it pertains to race. it exists and is merely out there waiting for a researcher to obtain it.

now, imagine yourself to be a scientist. you spent at least 8 years busting your ass in school just to get the opportunity to study this stuff. then because research of this magnitude and scope is beyond the capabilities of one person you are going to need to assemble a team of guys just like you who have also spent many years in study. THEN you also have to acquire funding, because even if you could talk that team into doing it for free (lol, yeah right) you are still going to have a bunch of other costs associated with your research.

there are no patents to be had from this research. no marketable intellectual property of any kind. so the only pay off is "muh truth" and "muh knowledge". more importantly, the first thing thats going to happen when you publish your results is a bunch of ignorant faggots who haven't spent years in academia and even more years doing the research are going to claim your work and use it to justify some socio-political agenda of stripping agency from other human beings.

so why? why the fuck would anyone do that?

There is a significant body of work that suggests IQ tests are not an accurate tool for comparing intelligence across cultures. Here's the first thing I found with a quick search, but there's much more out there:
"Intelligence is commonly measured using intelligence quotient (IQ) tests, which are meant to be a general measure of intelligence. However, IQ tests only measure a narrow band of the broad spectrum of intelligence, excluding factors such as creativity or emotional intelligence. Some researchers have raised more serious questions about the validity of IQ tests for measuring intelligence, especially across cultures. For example, IQ tests may be inappropriate for measuring intelligence in non-industrialized communities, because they focus on modern, rational-style thinking, a type of reasoning that is common in the modern industrial West but may be alien to other cultures..."
boundless.com/sociology/education-e3dc22c5-f052-43ef-be63-b7fa6fbbce7b/the-conflict-perspective/tilting-the-tests-discrimination-by-iq/

There are rotten apples in most apple batches, and some batches have more rotten apples than others, that doesn't mean we have to throw them all out. We just have to pick through all the batches to choose the best apples.

>its not taboo. its that there is little to be gained by it.

Why do you think police departments use almost exclusively German Shepherds?

Because they're best suited for that task. They don't pretend as if toy poodles could be just as good if they try really hard

From what I can tell, nurturefags are already dividing the fuck out of my country. Since we can't discuss the genetic aspect of it at all, people believe it all boils down to environment and conditioning. So they begin pointing fingers. From this premise white people will be the evil oppressors hurting the black community until they magically reach parity, which will never happen. This notion fucks up politics, academics, society, in many ways.

If you take one group of people, then another, divided along easier to observe classifications, there are probably going to be other latent differences you can't easily perceive, such as group intelligence. It would make sense that one group, composed almost entirely of subjugated slaves from the West African continent, would at least be somewhat different from the other group, composed of a wild mixture of European nationals, right? This isn't even allowed to be discussed, much less researched.

Even if there is a difference, I don't see why one should point it out. Academic research is fine, but if people start using this data to segregate and discriminate then it starts being wrong.
There's nothing wrong with well-constructed research and empirical facts, but you can't use it as an excuse to treat people wrong.
Progress and enlightenment aren't just about knowing all of the facts, it's also about having an ethical society.

see

>dogs selectively bred for different tasks over the course of centuries and centuries of carefully managed breeding programs
>different groups of humans living in similar environments differing mostly just in temperature and aridity, without any sort of guided breeding program
same effects, right?

IQ testing is still a good measure of general intelligence and a predictor of many things including life income and happiness.

I think a comprehensive test of all facets of human cognition/intelligence ability is a fool's errand, we don't even understand half of the brain. In my mind the attempt to dismiss the IQ test on this basis is simply a means to deflect from the argument at hand.

>For example, IQ tests may be inappropriate for measuring intelligence in non-industrialized communities, because they focus on modern, rational-style thinking, a type of reasoning that is common in the modern industrial West but may be alien to other cultures...

And it's impossible that rational style thinking isn't a form of higher intelligence that helped foster European success? If your culture doesn't think or behave rationally it's possible that it is, well, dumber.

>Why do you think police departments use almost exclusively German Shepherds?

why do YOU think that? considering how wrong it is

>without any sort of guided breeding program

get it through your head that no matter how much evidence you can come up with for this topic you aren't going to be able to use that to justify stripping agency from people.

there aren't going to be any camps, there wont be some great genocide or anything else that goes against the values of an egalitarian society. stop trying to use science to justify your agenda.

This is the main reason. If we focused on finding genetic disparity imagine all the newspapers publishing their reports and half of the american "civilization" going

>muh fucking dumb niggers they're fucking animals

Europeans and Asians got the benefit of not one but two separate large scale admixturing events post-Africa while sub-Saharan Africans got none. They just sat around inbreeding

Did these groups of humans live in "similar environments" for 60-70,000 years of divergent evolution prior to the last few centuries of modernity?

>you aren't going to be able to use that to justify stripping agency from people.

Mentally deficient people can be denied driver's licenses but they can't be denied the right to vote or procreate.

You say any of that as if it's a good thing

this

in response to the OP I would like to suggest that we test everyone for IQ, as IQ is apparently so important for society

so lets remove all the low IQ people from society
that should end /pol/ pretty quickly

Memes aside I doubt their average IQ is less than the general population, which is very stupid. Your average person isn't aware of internet past Facebook and BuzzFeed.

thats the society we live in. if you want to change that, go to /pol/. has nothing to do with science.

science doesn't like when it's shown to be an unreliable foundation for 'truth'. common sense > science. science is great for technological innovations but everywhere else it falls flat on it's fucking face and this bothers depraved modern nihilists who want to be able to explain everything away in order to shut themselves up in their heads and not look at reality directly.

I admit this thread isn't an ideal sample

>science doesn't like when it's shown to be an unreliable foundation for 'truth'

only the scientifically illiterate think science has anything at all to do with absolute truth. that is the domain of philosophy and religion. anyone who works in a STEM field knows that everything we do is a "good enough" approximation thats mostly founded in instrumentalism. "truth" is irrelevant.

Reality is deterministic

then stop involving yourself outside of technology.

This is incredibly dumb, what's even your point? If we established that blacks are statistically less fit for studies you would bar them from academia?
Universities entrance exams are done on an individual basis, we don't judge a candidate's racial of socio-economic background, but his own performances. There is nothing to be gained from considering his origins.

Otherwise we would just expel whites from universities and only accept Jews and Asians.

Amusing how nothing you have posted so far resembles an academic argument OP. And no, vague pub discussions like are in no way "scientific evidence".

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

Start reading. And don't try to make a pithy criticism before you make sure they haven't addressed the possibility of it.

>would bar them from academia?

No, it should be accomplishment based. The current system is not achievement based. Blacks can score lower while asians have to score higher than ever before to be admitted into a college

"whats the point of knowing that people are difference and that genetics matters?"

give me a break.

if the scientific community had 1 iota of integrity they'd be compiling the book on each racial and ethnic groups specific qualities and proclivities.

but they don't have one iota of integrity.

But Rushton and Jensen fully recognize that studying inter-group variations tells us nothing about intra-group differences?

In America, maybe.

That doesn't mean they score better anywhere else

We have a high percentage of intelligent black immigrants but that's deceiving because those immigrants are the top 1% of the country they're immigrating from

Notice the smart ones leave the first chance they get

Where do they say that

p. 239
This paper is miles away from the "hurr nigger are just dum" drivel we've heard ITT.

>No, it should be accomplishment based.
that's not at all what was implying.

>muh college admissions

aside from native american, there is no legal definition of race in the US. if you think that checking a different box on your application will increase your chances of getting admitted or receiving a scholarship, go for it. there is nothing stopping you. you are whatever you say you are.

Because different rates of achievement wouldn't always be blamed on white people. It would significantly improve race relations.

They didn't discount the application within a similar environment such as in the United States.

>However, within-groups evidence does imply the plausibility of the betweengroups
differences being due to the same factors, genetic or environmental. If
variations in level of education or nutrition or genes reliably predict individual
variation within Black and within White groups, then it would be reasonable to
consider these variables to explain the differences between Blacks and Whites

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

People already use research on the differences between sexes to fuel sexism, why the fuck would people fuel racism with research on racial differences?

People can barely wrap their heads around the substantial amount of evidence supporting global climate change. They'll cling to any study that is wrong (see literally the entire antivaxx movement) and the media will just shoehorn any sort of paper that is released.

Until anti-intellectualism dies and this era of alternative facts ends then this shit will never come to pass. Until people can tolerate each other's differences without starting a race war you will never see any aggressive push for this kind of research (which does exist and it's not as taboo as you think)

>muh income based comparison
>muh Minnesota TRAS
wew at least you don't lack predictability

maybe, at some higher social level. thats speculation and not enough of an individual incentive. i know that if i spent 8+ years in academia i wouldn't do that kind of research for free. nobody else will either. maybe when you actually have an academic career you will think about it differently.

Wouldn't this be valuable knowledge for gene editing?

That's the problem, instead of just looking at the facts, we worry what the facts will be used for.

The fact that research on sex differences, could be used to fuel sexism, doesn't mean that the facts of sex differences suddenly change.

There is a limited body of work with direct evidence because, as the thread's premise states, it is incredibly taboo and career suicide. Doesn't it seem a little odd to you that people would want to vehemently oppose something they already presuppose to be, well, false?

You're predictable in that I knew your method of counterargument was going to be memes and wrench throwing

thats putting the cart before the horse. if we already had the apparatus prior to the research, then people wouldn't even associate it with race and it would be treated as any other genetic disease.

>There is a limited body of work
there are literally tens of thousands of papers on the subject. Just look at the bibliography of the Rushton & Jensen paper.

I'm sorry bub but you just don't look like someone who actually researched the subject rather than someone who's just parroting the usual couple of propaganda bits.

Thanks for sharing, you never went into this looking to have your mind changed and your conclusion is already as dogmatically rooted as you probably expect mine is

>Retard gets told to stop ignoring science.
>Retard responds by complaining about others ignoring social science.
Yep, kill yourself.

Why would "my mind be changed" by someone linking to the fucking MTRAS Wikipedia article?

How many papers have you read on the topic? Did you even go as far as the bibliography of the paper you linked?
Or did you just go "sweet a paper that goes with my opinion better repost it"?

It interferes in the genetic pathological altruistic mental illness of Europeans, white people are absolutely fucking insane and will do anything to look like heroes no matter what even if means destroying themselves.

So the consensus is that somewhere around ~70,000 years ago, groups of humans left Africa and began migrating around the rest of the world. The major families that we know as "races" today are composed of original tribal groups of varying genetic diversity and size.

Europeans and Asians in particular are considered highly "inbred" and were exposed to population bottlenecks and pressures that sub-Saharan Africans simply weren't. Serious environmental differences that affected mode of thinking and planning included winter and cold.

We can clearly see how these differences registered, fairly significantly, on physical appearance, in an adaptation sense.

How is it even controversial that 70,000 years of divergent evolution, in wildly different environments and situations, would have the effect of different selective pressures on cognitive ability? I think the ridiculous assertion would be that it had no effect.

4-5 months of winter, barren environment, no food, deathly cold, would produce a seriously different kind of society that prioritized foresight, "investment", and rational thinking that we relate to intelligence today.

I'd like to hear the argument on how we would end up with 1:1 intelligence given these factors.

It gets answered all the time and the end result is that a lot of the studies are inconclusive and questionable. A main problem lying with the fact that the result of an IQ test is meant to give results for a society in a normal distribution when genetics themselves are not remotely near a normal distribution pattern and if anything there should be a near discrete step like pattern in frequency results for scores almost corresponding to bloodline distribution for a population if it is true that genetics is the utmost key factor. At the very least there should be a huge bunching at the lower end of the spectrum for all races simply due to the stupid tending to breed following k-selection patterns. Then that's when it hits you. These results statistically are bunk. If you dig deeper you find half the results for countries are based on neighboring results from nearby countries deemed to be the same ethnically. You'll find results where adults in the first world who volunteered to test are compared to illiterate third world erst that have been battling starvation and disease their entire lives. You'll find people claiming differences in scores put up by adopted children living in first world nations, while completely ignoring the question of whether or not these kids actually had proper prenatal care, when they were adopted, and what kind of social life they have in their new environment. It doesn't do a child much good to go to a top notch school if all his classmates bully and harass him and you're prodding him with a stick everyday when he comes home until 10 at night.
Now I'm not saying there isn't any validity at all in the results, but a lot of the shit and the way it's presented is statistically questionable.

Likely I feel like the end result is going to be that genetics plays an important role as the structural foundation, but it's not the end all be all. If another person is willing to work harder, they can be just as succesful.

meh, sure I have. Do I want to recite every detail of it on Veeky Forums in order to play your game, not really.

>More generally, there is a need to educate the public about the true nature of
individual and group differences, genetics, and evolutionary biology. Ultimately,
the public must accept the pragmatic reality that some groups will be overrepresented
and other groups underrepresented in various socially valued outcomes.
Organizations such as the APA could play a critical role in changing the zeitgeist.
To do so will not be easy, for it requires overcoming deeply ingrained biases that
operate at several levels of the APA (Redding, 2001). The standard models of
social science from the 1930s to the present have assumed a tabula rasa perspective
that precludes any analysis of hereditary group differences.

Straight from the Rushton paper and my only stake in this argument since I'm fucking tired of nurturefags dominating 99% of the debate

exeunt me