Why is Veeky Forums so scared to discuss race and IQ...

We were geographically separated for extended periods of time in different environments. Clearly there are morphological differences between the races. There's no reason to think that evolution spared the brain. All the tests show as much.
There, what more is there to discuss, unless you have some in-depth knowledge on the subject?

/thread

>it's a complex issue and doesn't fall in out domain, so we're not interested in discussing it
That doesn't stop plenty of other discussions about topics that meet the same criteria
We all know the real reason we don't discuss it much.

People post threads about it all the time though

*our domain

Essentially, the brain is plastic enough to make any discrepancies in intelligence marginal,
It is more about the environment in which you were raised and your parents' patterns of thought

>IQ
>meme scientist
Go back to /pol/

I concur. Maybe OP's new and had a couple bad experiences right off the bat.
To be fair, there are a certain number of users who won't touch it, but that's not ALL of Veeky Forums.

The scientific discussion of it is fine, it's just that filthy engineers always want to design solutions to the science, and social engineers' proposed designs tend to be catastrophic.

I was arguing with a /pol/tard the other day, and he brought up that there was some study about how adopted children raised by parents and in an environment of a different race still end up with the same IQ as the other members of their race. He couldn't point me to the study so I don't have any reason to think that there's anything to it, but I'm willing to keep an open mind. Does anyone know of any such study actually existing?

It is a complex issue, but the complexity isn't the deterrent. The deterrent, again, is the fact that everything surrounding race and its intersection with some property x concerns topics (again, social science) in which we are not interested.

In my time on Veeky Forums, there have been a few instances in which we have addressed the question of race and intelligence. I have noted a consistent pattern, however, that whenever the users of Veeky Forums attempt to engage the complexity you mention to an extent that they reject the claim that certain groups are inherently inferior to white people, the thread quickly goes to shit, usually with the OP throwing a fit.

So, yes, in a manner of speaking, the real reason we don't discuss race and intelligence is not strictly what I stated previously. Rather, it's an issue of (a) not being interested in the details of the problem and (b) not being interested in the tantrum to be thrown when the OP doesn't get the "[non-white group here] suck" validation he desires.

>compelling reason
The assumption that all the races are cognitive equals shapes our policy, both domestic and foreign, and perhaps that's helped contribute to some frustrating outcomes because we're unwilling to acknowledge some uncomfortable truths?

>[non-white group here]
You mean blacks. Everyone's willing to accept that East Asians are the smartest.

Yeah see e.g. affirmative action

East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQs, African pygmies the lowest.

This is not true on /pol/. There's an argument there that, somehow, IQ is an apt measurement of intelligence for blacks and whites but not for Asians. The claim is something along the lines that the IQ test somehow misses some special form of creativity that Asians lack (and, of course, which white people have).

Ashkenazi Jews are actually smarter.

To be fair, there is no Asian Shakespeare, or Michelangelo, or Mozart...

IDK man most people on /pol/ I've talked to acknowledge Asians are smarter. Different experiences I guess.

Thoguht they were about equal. Do you ahve the stats?

There have been plenty of East Asian cultural figures akin to our Mozart and Shakespeare. Simply because they do not operate in the western cultural sphere does not mean that they do not exist.

There is no excuse for the inconsistency. It is what it is, and it is among the core reasons why very few have interest in engaging in discussions like these.

Shakespeare is an overrated hack. No one is willing to say as much because he's been enshrined as some great writer when actually in his own time his stuff was written to appeal to the common pleb.
Also, even with our creative intelligence, East Asians still come out ahead.

On the basis of what? Sure, Asians win a lot of math Olympiads, but where are their Fields Medals?

Because its full of niggers

Look racist, modern humans came from Africa. And over the centuries, mankind advanced to explore the solar system and made profound leaps in science and engineering. Africa having the premier space program, best colleges, and all the most prestigious academic journals. They just keep them to themselves so albino brainlets don't taint them.

They haven't been as brilliant, but there are might be socioeconomic and geographical reasons for that.

>Shakespeare is an overrated hack.
Lol yep, I'm on Veeky Forums alright.

>his stuff was written to appeal to the common pleb.
His primary patron was the King of England

Guys like this OP.

Not that guy, but could you perhaps name a few of those figures?
I'd like to look into them

>IQ is an apt measurement of intelligence for blacks and whites but not for Asians
>IQ only works when it supports my racist beliefs

I too, hate facts.

The Chinese poet Du Fu is the one who comes closest. No one else really compares

I'm seeing all sorts of inconsistencies and contradictions here in the thread. Just fucking discuss it already, stop pussy-footing. It's not going to hurt ya.

>they haven't been as brilliant

What is your basis for this claim? You literally have nothing to rely on other than your lack of knowledge of these figures and some elementary idea that "OUR ART IS BETTER!"

Again, this line of reasoning is precisely why threads like these have little value.

Exactly. You tell them.

Because, while there's likely some correlation between race and IQ, it's not as cut and dry as some people like to make it, people who will abuse the information (and no I don't just mean whites) ruin it for the rest of us. Until there's more understanding of the subject it's best to just leave it alone.

at least don't be retarded enough to post af ucking thumbnail

Not everyone in this thread is being like this guy. We shouldn't not have these threads because of a few bad apples.

So what's your stance? Do you just want us to tell you whether or not we should discuss this, as opposed to you just starting a thread about your subject and having us respond? I don't want to discuss discussion.

Anyways, the correlations seen in test scores is due to the material conditions each race is subject to. Less wealth=less opportunity=lesser education=lower intelligence. And if you want to consider IQ scores, and claim that one race is less intelligent by genetics, then I would tell you the same thing. If you subject a race to conditions that would produce less intelligent/educated people, then have their kids grow up in the same conditions, educated individuals will be less and less common.

This proves europeans are tryhard faggots, simple is nicer

Sorry, I'm not white and my IQ shows.

this is because japan was hardcore isolationist. they had a ruling class that rejected diversity and foreign influence.

It's based on my personal experience of their art. I doubt you've read any Chinese poetry.

retard

"We shouldn't have this thread for a few bad apples"
=
If something won't be/isn't perfect, don't even make an attempt at it.

They aren't exactly diverse now unless you count robots as a race that's also on the gender spectrum.

Intelligence is partly genetic and partly environmental. Blacks have a much lower ceiling to what they can achieve intellectually, in average, when compared to Whites and East Asians.

>Why is Veeky Forums so scared to discuss race and IQ?
It isn't. You must be new here. It has been discussed millions of times.
>but all people do is telling me to go back to /pol/
This topic has been brought up so much that we are jaded now, so go back to /pol/.

Blacks are artificially kept down because white "liberals" need a victim class to be a permanent voting block and want to attack anyone else as "racist" for arguing with them.

IQ test data is consistent throughout history and shows that in terms of intelligence:

East Asians > Whites > Arabs / Mestizos > Natives of the Americas > Africans > Australian Aboriginals

All high IQ countries are either White or East Asian majority.

There is no IQ testing ever carried out anywhere in the world where blacks as a group managed to equal whites in intelligence.

Meanwhile Asians or Jews fresh off the boat manage to do so.

What's even more annoying about these poltards also have a very superficial understanding of genetics, probably because they focus only on a small body of literature from the 40's-70's

They are completely ignorant to the existence of second-order effects on genome, for example that that environmental factors like starvation can alter the genome of offspring
nature.com/ejhg/journal/v14/n2/full/5201538a.html

It's quite hard to have a productive discussion with them because they are averse to facts

Autocorrect strikes at the worst time again.

Many of the confounding can be controlled for using. For example, black IQ is still lower than a white child when adopted and raised by upper middle class parents.

East Asians have built objectively superior societies to Europeans, who built objectively superior societies to sub-Saharan Africans. Africans never built societies because they have an average IQ of 70.

It's ok m8. When they resort to such unscientific arguments, you know you're making them nervous.

No it can't. And when you try to prove it using that Minnesota shit I can point out in the study where it says they couldn't control for it. It helps to actually read things.

>that these discrepancies are caused by race alone

Yes, even when evidence shows otherwise.

Again, all you need to do is look at the sprawling metropolis and bastion of science in the heart of Africa. It's too bad the Africans felt the need to hide it with their superior cloaking technology. They just don't take any chances that wiggas gonna come up in their and fuck it up. Shiiiiiiit

I don't see a reason to talk about. Okay, what if sub-Saharan Africans have an average IQ of 70-85? Getting stuck in the mentality that they aren't capable of certain things and are "useless" or something doesn't get us anywhere. I don't like any kind of deterministic thinking, including the thought that we don't have free will.

tl;dr: it might be true but what do we gain out of knowing that?

>East Asians have built objectively superior societies to Europeans

Yea, because suicide, anime, and malfunctioning escalators are qualities of a good society.

IQ is a biased test effected heavily by living conditions.

> I've brought it up in a couple threads
More than a couple. When you post the same, tired post day after day until anyone who would disagree gets tired of presenting the facts, that's not a discussion. It's you being obsessed with winning an argument by attrition.

> told to go back to /pol/ (which I don't even use).
Maybe you should start.

Ignoring the fact they learned how to eat raw fish wrapped in seaweed. Who needs fire when you are on that level.

>Okay, what if sub-Saharan Africans have an average IQ of 70-85?
It's unlikely in the 70's.
Black people in America would never reach 88 if it were. Source on their mean.
peterdanpsychology.ro/ro/pagina/25/files/docs/black iq gains.pdf

Sub saharan african IQ is about 80.
eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ883450

There's also the Flynn effect so they'll improve further relative to other groups.

Finally, under optimal conditions blacks have reasonable scores. Pic rel.
>inb4 selection
Somehow the SD wasn't affected by it, all 3 black groups had the same amount of selection, but no selection took place for other whites and all the other groups - unlikely. Finally the scores of mixed individuals do not regress to some magic absurdly low means. But to the means of their parents, as you would expect.

Only people who are scared is the same folks who keep posting data from r.lynn as if it's reliable. Same people who will never mention Asians or come up with ad hoc crap to explain away the Asian IQ - like Rushton according to whom Asians are just too brainy and not creative.

This is an anti-scientific attitude.

That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be.

but the truth is painful thing to hear

ALSO, FUCK CHAPTA

Veeky Forums also don't like direct evidence

Derp.

Because there's more to science than """truth""" you myopic twit.

There's also such a thing as social cohesion. Investigating something that THREATENS social cohesion undermines society and therefore science itself.

Even if races could be said to exist, which they don't, and even if they had different levels of intelligence, which they don't, the fact that it's mostly white people pushing this narrative tells me they're just butthurt about Asians and Jews being smarter than them, which they are.

/pol/ in disguise everybody, pls ignore

This, more or less. Some ideas are not good for society, no matter how carefully you approach them. Imagine if you could prove that an asteroid was going to hit the earth in 100 days. Would you say anything and risk panic? Or would you let people live out their lives?

I'm Hispanic and I dont have any problem with it. Only blacks and guilty white liberals seem to.

there's no politeness in saying one race is smarter than another.

Exactly. Why can't scientists be polite like everyone else?

>Veeky Forums does, however, generally understand the notion of confounding variables and the need to separate correlation and causation enough to be able to reject the naive conclusion that these discrepancies are caused by race alone.
/thread
also

>Veeky Forums isn't "too scared" to discuss race and IQ. Veeky Forums as a whole generally accepts that there are IQ discrepancies between certain racial groups.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

...

>It's unlikely in the 70's.
I figured the 70ish statistic was down to malnutrition is sub-Saharan Africa, but decided to leave it in the range so /pol/tards wouldn't get triggered. At the same time I realize blacks in the US are 20-25% European on average.

Warning fellow Antifa, this is a HATE FACTS thread! Silence this bigot!

MIC CHECK

MIC CHECK

MIC CHECK

>threatens social cohesion

You know what really threatens social cohesio? Niggers. Niggers and mexicans. That's why we need an all-white society.

Basically this, also fuck white people and fuck Donald Drumpf

It's not a nice discussion to have bc it leads people to try and justify racism.
What you think of people around you should be based off their behaviour towards you and others, and things like personality/common interests. You may only hang out with people as clever as yourself but before you meet someone intelligence shouldn't really be a factor.

Regardless the amount of people you get to know over your lifetime is such a ridiculously small sample of the population and the way you meet people (work, school, social class, hobbies etc) means your sample is going to be extremely skewed anyway, so any statistical conclusions about a race can't really be taken as a prejudice before you meet someone of that race. The research doesn't offer any obvious benefits to society while potentially causing a divide with it.

From a pure science perspective there may be differences and it doesn't really matter that there are, and so they should be investigated bc that's good science. But it clearly will be used by racists for bad rather than good so I don't mind science being held back in this case.

You get told to go back to /pol/ because asking for research into things like this makes you come of as a racist looking for justification of your belief.

Race is too broad a category for there to be significant differences between races.
Now, if we're talking about different smaller scale populations, then it's almost inevitable that there are going to be differences (I don't think 15 points though) between them.

>if it was attended by the king of england, then it obviously couldn't have been written for the peasants to relate to!
You are indeed on Veeky Forums

post proof, because i always just hear the opposite argument; "proven" by this study (the study was shit, but it's the only one i hear getting quoted in this matter):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyferth_study

Lol, dumb science nigger

lol i am dumb

>No one is willing to say as much because he's been enshrined as some great writer when actually in his own time his stuff was written to appeal to the common pleb

His stuff being written to appeal to plebs isn't a bad thing though?

The reason people don't like to discuss IQ and race is because these threads tend to devolve into clearly racist individuals trying to find scientific reasoning to reaffirm their clearly racist behavior. Another reason which can sometimes go hand and hand with the first reason, is that statistics on IQ relating to race can often be worthless for the discussion at hand.

For example, say if the average black IQ is 80 (I'm bullshitting the number don't worry) and the average white IQ is 100 or so, a person who's clearly lazy as hell would clearly chalk this up to race and race alone. But that's a terrible idea, as such a statistic doesn't take into account other variables, such as income, education on average, or the cultural influence in neighborhoods that are primarily black. So measuring IQ based on race is a fools errand as environment can largely effect one's growth in intelligence.

It's not to say that there isn't something genetic that effects IQ but, it is to say that measuring such a thing based on statistics (which most people do) is a shit idea.

Because we have this stupid thread every fucking day. Fuck off already.

This sounds like you're pulling this out of your ass so can you link me to the study that shows this. Also, there are studies showing that adopted children have reduced intellectual development, that varies greatly depending on where they're adopted from.

***REMINDER - RICHARD LYNN IS A FRAUD***
dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/09/more-massaged-data-from-richard-lynn.html

sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121155220.htm

pic semi rel.