We are fucked

the west is falling and crumbling down. Let the dark skinned superior men and women guide you. Just curl up and masturbate.

What's the point of progress if you don't live?

Pretty sure the world average is 100.

Also:

>100 is defined as the white British mean

Get the fuck back to /pol/.

If you aren't reporting every race baiter from /pol/ in this thread, you deserved to be bludgeoned even more than they do.

Op, you are wrong. We've had countless threads about this stuff.

IQ levels keep rising. If you don't like africans, you'd be happy to find out all the other groups are moving forward and catching up and are just as capable as your europeans and east asians.
Africans are moving slower, but genetically speaking there hasn't been discovered reasons (read genes) they should lag behind.

I suspect you are just butthurt. You should read the other thread we have up right now, where it's shown that the potential of the races isn't all that different, genetically speaking (yes, even africans).

copied from there

I have analyzed ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Phenotype/Locations?db=core;name=Educational attainment;ph=26069;r=6:98136357-98137357;v=rs9320913;vdb=variation;vf=5140739

This is educational attainment, I have yet to analyze information speed processing and cognition. Still, some interesting results.

To compare races I took the frequencies of the favorable alleles for each race, multiplied by the effect. If the effect is negative I just took the inverse frequency.

The function is:
def compare_pops(snps):
af = 0
mx = 0
ea = 0
eu = 0
sa = 0
for s in snps:
effect = s.effect
if effect > 0:
af+=s.AFR*effect
mx+=s.MXL*effect
ea+=s.EAS*effect
eu+=s.EUR*effect
sa+=s.SAS*effect
else:
af+=(s.AFR-1)*effect
mx+=(s.MXL-1)*effect
ea+=(s.EAS-1)*effect
eu+=(s.EUR-1)*effect
sa+=(s.SAS-1)*effect
print "Africans: ",round(af,2)
print "Mexicans: ", round(mx,2)
print "East Asians: ", round(ea,2)
print "Europeans: ", round(eu,2)
print "South Asians: ", round(sa,2)

I got:
Africans: 1.09
Mexicans: 1.14
East Asians: 1.16
Europeans: 1.19
South Asians: 1.13

Those are very small differences. The below function will illustrate just how small they are. Though there are other ways to calculate these things, you won't get much different results. Browse the genome browser and see for yourself.

I also did this function:
def compare_inds(snps):
sm = 0
re = 0
for s in snps:
sm += abs(s.effect)
re -= abs(s.effect)
print "Smartest: ", sm
print "Dumbest: ", re

and got
Smartest: 2.5408
Dumbest: -2.5408

basically those SNP's should in theory account for 70 iq point difference between absolute retard and smartie, since each SNP has an effect of ~0.025 SD and to translate to IQ you multiply by 15 (one of the studies says that's how it is calculated)

Damn, son. I would seriously consider sending these results to psychology departments around the U.S. We may be able to make a fair number of race-obsessed professors retire with this stuff.

Flynn effect literally stopped in all developed countries around 2005. Retarded populations are exploding. Learn how to do a weighted average you fucking retard.

>Ayo muh fugga bix nood iq don't meenz shieeet. I iz gettin's smartah evruh day. Gibs-me-dats!

>shitty education
There's been an increase in the IQ in the West, go read about the Flynn effect. The reason global IQ is dropping is because of the growth in the low IQ developing world. This is causing educated westerners to take up a smaller percentage of the global population.

All I am doing is looking at what's the most relevant.
GENES in relation to intelligence.

This isn't 1950, we have access to genetics, GWAS etc. And it will become more prevalent. The reason I don't really believe major differences will be found is:
1)On a lot of the SNP's Africans do have the best frequencies, on others other races win.
2)As it's been said many times humans aren't really diverse anyway, so what can you really expect.

But leave it to people to "extrapolate" IQ scored from thin air.

I agree, man. I agree. I think the folks at MIT and stuff are pretty fucking retarded not to use your methods to settle this issue once and for all.

Thiat isn't exactly true given how IQ tests have been historically created and defined (with a target audience of westerners).

Flynn effect stopped in 2005 for developed countries. I am so sick of this pro-communist meme. Ever heard of a sigmoid curve?

>pro-communist meme
What?

Listen, there will be dumb people and intelligent people. 2 races in humans; the long smart ones and the dumb short ones. We (i.e tall folks) will be treated as royalty whilst the short folks are mere peasants. :-)

You are seriously misinformed.
Even if it stopped in 2005 it means nothing for undeveloped countries. In fact if it was still going on in the 90s then 'wtf' should be your reaction.
Just because it stopped in one place doesn't mean it's not going on in other places. And it is going on everywhere, even in Africa, though at a slower pace there.

Friendly reminder that there is nothing wrong with eugenics

Friendly reminder that a real eugenics program will be interracial.

>This is causing educated westerners to take up a smaller percentage of the global population.

So you're saying education increases IQ?

yep, interracial as in 99% whites and east asians

Lol,no.
See About equal contributions from diverse groups to do 2 things.
1) maximize 'good' genes
2) minimize bad genes as well as keeping genetic diversity high, which is always a problem with this sort of thing

I'm so sorry, but if you really care about IQ that's the way to go.

pro-tip: Africans who live in Europe are still stupid, just not as Africans who live in Africa.

Actually, breeding with low IQ populations would be bad, and interracial marriages have higher divorce rates, so it wouldn't be worth it. It's not like it would be some /pol/ segregation fest, but it certainly wouldn't be your cuckold BBC fantasy, faggot.

You do not understand what a eugenics program means. It means you find subjects and you have them have kids. They grow up you see how they are, some go through some don't.

You are arguing against genetics right now, because you don't like blacks.
Depends. Christian West Africans seem to be doing OK.

Show me proof that the word's IQ is declining. I reversed image searched that picture in the OP, and it traces back to the Daily Mail. As source, they cite the Unversity of Hartfort.

But it turns out the actual source is a fucking *student project* (uhaweb.hartford.edu/BRBAKER/). I.e. not an actual scientific study, just some shit a student wrote.

>C-cuck
Cuck, short for cuckold, is the automated response given by the /pol/ user when it gets confronted with something it does not understand. This confusional state often results in frog posting and further incoherent ramblings about "muh white genocide", or "muh cultural marxism". The /pol/ user will then often retreat to a safe environment, such as /mlp/, although it is on occasion also observed to 'double down' on its muddled and often prolix confabulations. This latter phenomenon is why the /pol/ user is widely regarded as an archetypal sufferer of double down syndrome.

This article was just an example of someone who is wrong, but tried until:
> Evidence found by doctors states that another possible explanation for the decline in average I.Q. is via blood transfusions They found that the blood not only carried a small amount of the person but it also carried the information that allowed them to think. They did a transfusion between two people, one was intellectually very advanced and the other was one person who was considerably lower on the I.Q. ladder. The recipients of the blood became confused over time and their ability to maintain their previous level of I.Q. was indeed noted to be in jeopardy. The result of this experiment was that in blood donation centers all across the countries, the recipient was asked to put their I.Q. into the forms they were required to fill out.

Then it became funny.

kek, and this is the basis on which /pol/ loses its shit

typical

UK has skills based immigration faggot. BMEs are still overrepresented in academic failure and prisons, hence all the leftist whining about how the white Anglican man keeps dem poor BMEs down 'n' shieet.

You don't know what you're talking about, and this makes me think that you are a shitskin UK citizen who is butthurt about his Pakistani parents being first cousins.

>Depends. Christian West Africans seem to be doing OK.

This is how I know you're not worth talking to.

>Show me proof that the word's IQ is declining.

It's primarily do to an African population explosion and the properties of weighted average, nothing genetic like in Idiocracy the movie. There are some dysgenic effects in play, which have been documented in Iceland, but they have only been in play for like 1 or 2 generations.

>It's primarily do to an African population explosion and the properties of weighted average, nothing genetic like in Idiocracy the movie. There are some dysgenic effects in play, which have been documented in Iceland, but they have only been in play for like 1 or 2 generations.
You state this as fact, but I'd like to see the source. As in, articles. Show me peer reviewed articles.

Well, ok then. You seem very reasonable.

>Those are very small differences.

Not at all. You looked at like a two dozen genes (tho low hanging fruit really) and already the differences are on the order of several %. However recent research utilizing whole genome sequencing supports the long suspected view that intelligence is one of the most polygenic traits, and many thousands of genes contribute.

>Not at all. You looked at like a two dozen genes (tho low hanging fruit really)
More than a dozen. 87 SNP's in fact.
And it's the low hanging fruit since those are the ones that contributed the most so they had p values lower than 5%. Basically they are the most significant ones and easiest to discover in GWAS. And fortunately enough for the world's IQ Africans do 'win' on a lot of the SNP's. Same goes for all the races.

>However recent research utilizing whole genome sequencing supports the long suspected view that intelligence is one of the most polygenic traits, and many thousands of genes contribute.
Two things - the SNP's above explain about 30% of the variance in educational attainment. (one of the studies cites such a figure)
Total GWAS have found that about 50% of the variance is explainable by genetic variance.
In other words even if all the undiscovered smaller contribution alleles are in favor of your favorite race(won't happen) you'd still get a pretty measly genetic gap.

You should be happy to find out that the IQ gaps across the world are mostly environmental.

I could post the articles, but because you are a communist ball washer, you would just keep raising the burden of proof. If you are genuinely curious, you can google around to figure out if I am bullshiting you or not. The Icelandic study is interesting. "education genes"

I don't need a citation for the nigger population explosion. That's just common knowledge, you faggot.

Now fuck off back 2 reddit.

>I could post the articles
Just do it faggot. Citation or gtfo, that's how it works.

>I could post the articles
Do post some articles. I am interested too.
>but because you are a communist ball washer, you would just keep raising the burden of proof.
Let me guess, your sources suck?

I asked for backup of the claim that the world's IQ is declining. That's the premise of the current thread. You should be able to provide an article to back up that statement without going off on some full autismo rant.

fourmilab.ch/documents/IQ/1950-2050/

Let me say this. I am not defending the blacks, they are just a 'lucky' bystander.
My defense is mostly of Indians, Mexicans and such populations, which are 'safe' as far as SNP's go.

That's not peer-reviewed. Are you new to science?

I doubt there even is any peer reviewed study done about global average IQ over time. This will have to do.

>I doubt there even is any peer reviewed study done about global average IQ over time.
Then you cannot make that claim.

>This will have to do.
Even that website heavily criticizes its own methodology. Did you even read the full thing?

>Then you cannot make that claim.

I surely can make that claim as a hypothesis supported by certain reasoning, even if it is not a peer-reviewed study. In fact I just did. Now argue the point or leave.

>I surely can make that claim as a hypothesis
But you don't present it as a hypothesis. You present it as a fact.

See, he just rejects sources, even if it's the best available, by raising the burden of proof to unreasonable levels. This is why I didn't bother.

I never raised the burden of proof. I asked for peer-reviewed articles from the start. I never got any.

>peer review
>unreasonable
how new are you?

>The mean IQ of 185 countries, measured and estimated in Lynn and Vanhanen
>lynn
but of course, of course

Richard Lynn admitted he falsified the majority of his research. That's all you need to know

Can I see a source on that?

An example.
>italianthro.blogspot.com/search/label/IQ

Basically the guy intended to show that southern italians are dumber than northern italians by 10 points. The agenda is to show that southern italians are dumber because they are swarthier and are slightly different.
Turns out, it's bullshit. The blog mention studies done to see whether Lynn is right - and he isn't.

Some more examples:
>"The majority of the data points were based upon convenience rather than representative samples. Some points were not even based on residents of the country. For instance, the “data point” for Suriname was based on tests given to Surinamese who had migrated to the Netherlands, and the “data point” for Ethiopia was based on the IQ scores of a highly selected group that had emigrated to Israel and, for cultural and historical reasons, was hardly representative of the Ethiopian population. The data point for Mexico was based upon a weighted averaging of the results of a study of “Native American and Mestizo children in southern Mexico” with result of a study of residents of Argentina. Upon reading the original reference, we found that the “data point” that Lynn and Vanhanen used for the lowest IQ estimate, Equatorial Guinea, was actually the mean IQ of a group of Spanish children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain. Corrections were applied to adjust for differences in IQ across cohorts (the “Flynn” effect), on the assumption that the same correction could be applied internationally, without regard to the cultural or economic development level of the country involved. While there appears to be rather little evidence on cohort effect upon IQ across the developing countries, one study in Kenya (Daley, Whaley, Sigman, Espinosa, & Neumann, 2003[5]) shows a substantially larger cohort effect than is reported for developed countries."

On his too low sub saharan african IQ:
>isiarticles.com/bundles/Article/pre/pdf/72545.pdf

>Equatorial Guinea, was actually the mean IQ of a group of Spanish children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain

Kek, fucking what?

Yeah I found those too in my brief google expedition, as well as a study by Wichters et al who tear apart Lynn's work (sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289609000634).

I know that Lynn's research methods are questionable at best, but you said that he admitted to fraud. That goes quit a lot farther than simply being accused by others of questionable research practices.

Richard Lynn is fucking terrible at his job. I think he's working for the lead industry or something. If I'm not mistaken he's claimed lead is harmless and liberals are making up all the brain damage studies

He used a study of retarded kids in Spain and used it as the basis of his IQ guess for niggers. If this was done by leftists you would be accusing George Soros of corrupting science

Oh, it wasn't me who said that.

Obviously he's never said "NVM GUYS I SUCK LUL".

>blogspot

Literal trash.

Pretty much all of Rushton's work was peer reviewed, but you would still find a dumb reason to reject it. It's pointless. You have your fake news, and you're going to stick to it.

Wow user, you're so intelligent spouting /pol/ memes to support your shitpost.

You seem to be mistaking me with a /pol/tard. What's with everyone going all full autismo when asked for a source on a claim? I was just interested in reading the admission is all.

Too bad. I do wonder why that study of his hasn't been retracted by the journals in question though. These are some serious flaws that should have never passed through peer review, and probably qualify as violations of the integrity of scientific conduct and journal policy.

>dumb
Kek, stay mad /pol/tard. You obviously don't know how a scientific debate works. The best arguments prevail, and if one can uncover serious flaws in a work, then those flaws must be addressed. Rushton never did that, he simply restated his original position. Much like you /pol/tards like to do.

>>blogspot
>Literal trash.
I will repeat myself just for you. I know it hurts.
>The blog mention studies done to see whether Lynn is right - and he isn't.

I will be helpful and mention who the people who did the studies are. Using Raven's matrices no less.
>Beraldo (this issue) and Cornoldi, Belacchi, Giofre, Martini, and Tressoldi (2010) (CBGMT)

>Naglieri
>Naglieri et al. (submitted for publication) studied the differences between the psychometric qualities of the CAS [Cognitive Assessment System] for the Italian and US standardization samples. Although the goal of that study was not to make regional comparisons, they did report that there were no significant differences (F(1, 806)=2.19, p=.11) between the average CAS-Italian Full Scale standard scores (set at a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15) for students from the northern (M=100.5; SD=13.2), central (M=101.2; SD=11.9), and southern (M=103.1; SD=11.6) regions of Italy. The mean standard scores for the students in the north were only slightly lower than the mean for those in the south (effect size=.21). These results suggest that a test of intelligence that measures basic neuropsychological processes, and does not include academically laden verbal and quantitative tests, yields small differences between the regional groups. These findings also amplify the importance of measuring intelligence directly when comparing groups and argue against using reading, math and science test scores as "proxies for intelligence"

Rushton believed black skin color itself made blacks stupid. As in they are dumb for being too dark. He basically believes blacks are the dumb jocks Asians are scrawny nerds and whites are the cool kids

There you go with your fake news and lies.

>scientific debate

Science progresses one dead scientist at a time.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912000840
He literally straight up said skin color controls your personality

>Science progresses one dead scientist at a time.
way to ignore the argument dumbass

Seems reasonable desu, especially if it happens in other mammals. You just reject it because it doesn't fit your communist morals, not because it's bad science.

Did you cry when the wall fell?

Daoism is the most pointless bullshit, Lao Tzu (there were probably more than one) was nothing more than a fedora tier edgelord.

>Rushton
>"altruism gene"
>seems reasonable

>i don't understand what makes skin color
>it's probably some super complicated genetic magic
it's basically 1 tyrosinase gene

Really gets the noggin joggin

Except we can prove its false. Abos are dark and low test. So are Indians. We would Also see high crime rates among dark skinned Southeast Asians. If melanocortin receptors explained cultural differences we'd see this throughout all dark skinned cultures.

>(((peer review)))
Of course they're not peer reviewed, they'd never pass it because (((they))) would never allow it

You're using Richard Lynn's studies. He admitted they were bulllshit now how many times will you post them

>One must be careful when interpreting such information due to muddying variables which may affect IQ such as nutrition, environment, culture or poverty.
Apparently it didn't get your noggin joggin quite enough

>They'd never pass peer review
>Rushton published peer reviewed articles
you /pol/tards should make up your mind already

>progress rests on the shoulders of maybe 500 million people
you need the other billions to keep you fed and warm so you can shitpost though

This board is full of Reddit holy shit

No. Machines do that. Kys.

Vaxxers are full of crap, my family has had autistic traits since as far back as familial memory goes, it is clearly genetic and genetic in most cases; some are liked to teratogens (which only have said affect in utero) and all of those cases are classical autism, not high-functioning or Asperger's syndrome. - Nothing to do with medicine, or the more commonly claimed vaccines.

t. NEET who doesn't understand how much work goes into producing his tendies

T. Burden on humanity
You fucking faggot you will do more harm to this world in a week than 12 starving Africans could do with their lives.

If everyone lived like americans, we would need 5 to 6 earths to sustain mankind.

Who's the real burden?

Bumpis

It really makes you think

I mean 100 was defined as the average when only Europeans were tested right? He's not technically wrong even if he does sound /pol/ish

The world average is not 100

Most scientists define 100 as the mean for the European population. Although sometimes it's narrowed down to just the British population