The bell curve

who actually even takes IQ seriously? it's the most arbitrary meaningless thing to talk about.

It can all be explained by brain drain. Every time a smart outlier occurs in the evolutionary ghetto, they leave because they recognize it's a shit place to stay. Over time, all the smart genetics are ejected from a small population, until all that is left is a horribly retarded and inbred population, which then dies off.

Are you sure about that ? It's one of the factor that dictate the most how you'll live you're life, high IQ is often related certain political views, life style, education level, income ect. IQ isn't useless in anyway

It's one of the few thing out of physiology that's actually credible.
youtube.com/watch?v=fjs2gPa5sD0

I don't think that's how that works
>all the smart genetics are ejected from a small population, until all that is left is a horribly retarded and inbred population, which then dies off.
I think that with the fact that the average IQ is higher every 10 years, it isn't really a "problem" the only think some might consider one is the fact that the wealth is getting bigger...

How can culture contribute to IQ?

IQ is what creates the culture in the first place, notice how animals have no cultures because compared to humans they are supreme retards.

kek

so you got btfo in and made a new thread

and somehow Veeky Forums is scared of discussion, right

adaptive introgression from other humen

Iq increase is caused by generations of selection for it may be environmental pressures(adverse climate) or cultural pressures like people's being restricted to high iq occupations

I was more looking for an evolutionary explanation to this

But how do you explain then the difference between Africa and Europe ? There's hasn't been a real environmental pressure in Europe since a long while... Excepte if you think that the economical revolution was one...

>average iq is higher every 10 years
The g factor (general cognitive ability across tests - 50% of your intelligence) isn't affected by the flynn effect though, we've just been getting better at the tests. Reaction times which are moderately correlated with intelligence have actually decreased somewhat in the last 50 years
Nice article on it here analyseeconomique.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/explanation-behind-the-non-g-gains-in-the-flynn-effect-introducing-the-measurement-invariance-model/

Culture doesnt stop smart negros from breeding.

Climate obstacles on the way to Europe

So what is the 3 point increase every decade ?

But the smart africans are not as smart as the smart euros. And culture can make smart people have significant fitness advantage (example: ashkenazi jews in medieval times)

Problem with this is that it's just a "well it sounds nice and plausible" sort of explanation but really we don't know what are the causes for the gap. More understanding of the genetics of intelligence is needed.

Yes they are, for a nigger to be smart they have to have the same level of intelligence as a smart Euro.

Jews arent smart due to culture, they are smart due to inbreeding.

They have genetic adaptation to those careers that they had to do because of antisemitism

inbreeding is due to culture (jewish traditions)
and they also had to go to certain occupations that favor intelligence because of culture

Yes and that culture existed due to jew intelligence.

>inbreeding decreases IQ

??? there is no reason to believe jews were anything exceptional back then.

Random inbreeding, jews actually made sure to pay attention to which genes were becoming expressed more.

Indeed but their culture is due to their intelligence.

they weren't literally fucking cousins

How long would it take to make a genius through selection

inbreeding doesn't necessarily decrease fitness
example:iceland

drcate.com/icelands-genetic-secrets/

Inbreeding fucks you up if your DNA is crap and filled with rare mutations that cause birth defects when expressed, if your DNA has no rare mutations then inbreeding does nothing bad to your child even if its from your own sister.

If you come from a smart family I would recognize fucking any of your intelligent cousins to make the intelligent genetics more expressed though we live in a world where women care more about cave men mentality than intelligence so most likely your cousin would agree to fucking your asshole siblings instead of you.

well look at the ashkenazi jews for an example
the selection begins at medieval times and the prominence of jews starts showing up at 19th century
with controlled selective breeding you ought to be able to do it faster
of course, this isn't necessarily all good for you (see: ashkenazi jews and tay-sachs & gaucher's disease)

We already have about ten of these threads. How about you stop posting new ones?

Notions of genetic did not come about before the 19th century, so I assume you mean that Jews practiced endogamy and were aware of issues of inbreeding? I admittedly do not know a lot about Jewish inbreeding cultural norms, other than the Hebrew Bible being no smarter than the Quran on this and that Jews today are very aware of inbreeding issues. Can you please educate me?

Doesn't matter worth it also how do you convince a large population to do this

Just sterilize anyone with an IQ under 87 and eventually those genes will become expressed less in time.

The problem is women they cannot stop fucking idiots making their moron genes more expressed. Even intelligent muscular men are often outcompeted by muscular idiots.

you guys only like discussing this because apparently the research favors your race
>there's a lot of motivation for bias here

attribute your quotation

Actually this reasearch favors all humans if we apply it globally

>The same kind of culture exist for blacks living in white countries, but it's even worse.

Blacks in all black countries are dumber than ones in white countries though.

Jews are smart due to a few reasons.
First is being outcasts. They refused to adapt to the culture and country they wanted to live in, so they were frequently kicked out or banned from participating in society. This forced them to take to jobs that were more suited to wanderers and outcasts. Merchants and usurers.
The second reason is that due to this harsher life, dumb jews would die off, since intelligence was the difference between getting killed in a bad deal and/or going broke and starving to death, or succeeding.
Third reason is that jews are pro selective breeding. They inbreed sometimes yes, but they also breed in intelligent non-jews as well. A world controlled by jews is one where all intelligent non-jew bloodlines ultimately breed into jew bloodlines.

WHO CARES!?!?!?

I'd be interested to find out what each of dots on your scattergraph is supposed to represent, OP. My assumption would be that each dot is for the average IQ of a given country and if that's the case, which countries have been grouped into the various regions (e.g. arctic?) and which countries are the the outliers in each group (e.g. the dot above the 100 IQ line in the African group)?

To answer the question, though, the most plausible explanations of human evolution is the recent single-origin hypothesis, which states that modern humans evolved in East Africa and only started to disperse and therefore evolve divergently within the last 100,000 years. Most of the early migration went to Western and Southern Asia it probably wasn't until the past 40,000 or 50,000 years that humans would have migrated to Europe or East Africa. Initially, genetic changes would have been largely negligible, such as a reduction in skin pigmentation, so it's not even until around 30,000 years ago that distinct mitochondrial haplogroups like U5a1 or X are predicted to have originated. This gives us a fairly small timescale in evolutionary terms for large differences in human biodiversity to have arisen.

Of course, intelligence is a nebulous concept and there has been and is a long lasting and ongoing debate surrounding how it should be defined. The number of ways and the extent to which evolution has created differences in brain function between various human sub-populations is still very hazy territory scientifically.

(continued...)
The combination of these factors, the lacking definitions of "race" and especially "intelligence" in the debate, the absense of published research on the topic in recent decades and the low quality of that which has been released (from both sides of the debate: from the "race realists" and the "only skin deep" crowd") has left me in a position where I don't see an adequate quantity of evidence to believe either conclusion. I suspect there are some differences between racial groups with regard to intelligence, but not to the extent that many like to claim since I doubt there has been enough time for larger differences to develop.

The cultural aspect is something which definitely exists, but it is obviously incredibly difficult to quantify and therefore know the the extent to which is affects resultant IQ scores. It's also an element across different social classes and well as different ethnic groups and so on.

I genuinely think IQ is a useful tool to some extent because of its predictive capacity - a must in a scientific setting - however, I think the meme that "a good IQ score only shows you're good at taking IQ tests" shows a grain of truth because IQ doesn't always seem to correlate with what I'd refer to as a person's intrinsic intelligence, and there are many aspects of intelligence that IQ fails to capture well, such as linguistic ability, or creativity, or memory, and so on. Clearly IQ must be just one of several measurement techniques in our psychological understanding of intelligence, but it's just that our other experimental procedures are still waiting to be developed. IQ holds more than many other aspects of psychology in its degree of scientific rigour, but that actually isn't saying a great deal when you compare it's methodology to those in the hard sciences.

So, as always, both ideologues are wrong and it's both nature and nurture to some degree.

>both ideologies are wrong

Except hereditarianism is correct because it's literally "it's both nature and nurture to some degree." with a genetic etiology of greater than 0.5. There was never a "side" that was genetic determinist and it was always hereditarians versus rock-brained environmental determinists.

IQ is entirely explained by socioeconomic factors.

Wealthy countries with better living standards have higher IQs with the exception of China which routinely cheats on its testing.

IQ

Wealth per capita

Human Development Index

Perfect correlation.
Checkmate stormfags now GTFO

You have 80 IQ.
Coz its the other way around, because of high intellect and IQ they have better standard.

as you can see IQ is highly variable and it's impossible to really attribute and class of IQ to cany particular race

You can barely test for IQ. Even if it's a thing it's a poor metric for intelligence to have someone sit and take a standardized test.

No it would lead to very fucked up shit for the people that the research is about, people would misunderstand it or in many cases maliciously pervert it and abuse it for their own gains or beliefs.

look at how bad Science pretty much help support jim crow policies in America.

Actually they only got intelligence in areas that they didn't get evicted or persecuted in. Jews were very uneducated when they came to American but their treatment back then during initial migration in the US vs Europe is night and day.

Even if they faced discrimination due to religion it was better then the shit they got in Europe. Most modern smart stereotypes of Jews are from American Jewry especially after they became the center of the world Jewry after what happened in Europe.

#JewLyfe

>gets blown out in one thread
>starts another one
mods?

No

sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070424204519.htm

harvardmagazine.com/2017/05/is-epigenetics-inherited

think
think more
then think some more.

pic related

read more, think more, and type bullshit less.

I'm basically agnostic on this issue given the lack of reasonable evidence presented by either side. What have you seen that makes you so sure the genetic etiology is greater than 0.5? I lean towards the hereditarian position of thinking it's both nature and nurture but I certainly wouldn't be prepared to make that claim.

>There was never a "side" that was genetic determinist
Literally just go on /pol/ right now and mention Guns, Germs, and Steel and see how long it takes for some idiot who hasn't read the book to respond with "races differences are entirely biological" or some shit like that. A truly genetic deterministic position has receded into obscurity amongst scientists since the Second World War but is still surprisingly prevalent across the general public.

These are nice graphs. There are elements (certainly not all) of the Guns, Germs, and Steel argument I have sympathy for and these graphs seem to illustrate that. Not to mention how poorly IQ is often tested for and administered (such as the US Army study), how much it can vary, even within a single individual (this actually occurred with the black children in Arthur Jensen's experiment), and other factors like the Flynn effect and so on.

It still seems unlikely to me that different human populations could evolve independently for tens of thousands of years and there' would be next to differences in intelligence, but simultaneously, there are so many other factors at play that it also seems unlikely to me that genetic etiology would be greater than 0.5, like the other poster seemed to claim.

I'll believe that if you get a peer reviewed source for it.

how much variation of IQ is explained by the environment one grow's up in?
It's a good metric. However, I think it'd be better if intelligence were evaluated by at least a few metrics, and not just one.

Genetic determinists were defeated in WW2... that's the only reason it's not a "side".

>needing a source to prove that cigarettes affect the fetus
>needing a source to prove that mothers pass their genes on to their children
it's simple logic nigger, kys if you're this lazy

Haven't seen any try to talk about why it exists...

Nop as far as I know I'm not east asian...

I wasn't able to find the sources of the image I forgot to save it.

And thanks for the answer that's more what i was looking for...

Or country with high IQs have higher living standards... Because of the "high" IQ

Already disproven here

The people of the Pirahã can't count or even understand 1+1 because their language doesn't support such concepts. I think language is one of the most important factors in culture.

They count in Portuguese now.

>arctic
U wot

Correlation =/= Causation

There are other factors at play too including social dynamics, money, education opportunities, and family history

This is like the 6th fucking thread on this today, what gives?

Yeah and those have been controlled for to death as early as "The Bell Curve". I mean, maybe you think it's outdated or flawed source but that's just an example for how long ago the effects of confounder control were examined, which is at least 23 fucking years ago, and the endless debate in 1995/96 means that the topic of environemntal confounders was already a dead horse 21 years ago, so stop pretending that nobody ever thought of environmental confounding factors. Fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuck.

and yet every year the middle class shrinks and disparity increases
maybe 23 years is out of date

? The disparity in IQ is nearly a constant 1 SD since 1950. You're just flat out wrong.

Also, environmental malleability =/= heritability brainiac.

Except that's what you say when it's not causal.
Spoiler: it is

I thought we already had a thread about this yesterday.

Serves these japs right
Paris a shit, the countryside is where it's at

>muh Saphir-Whorf

>social dynamics,
why do blacks have such shit social dynamics then?

>money
why are blacks dirt poor even in their own countries where racism doesnt exist?

>education opportunities
they actually have more than the average person thanks to affirmative action and they still fail

>family history
also known as genetics.

all you really did was push the question back.

This little faggot doesn't know how to fly like a Flynn and sting like Murray

The divergence between niggers and white people happened a long fucking time ago.

I think "racial differences in IQ" is a pointless thing to consider. It's much more interesting to consider what intelligent people have in common (and, race is not universally constant across intelligent people).

What you are interested in and the reality of things are different. Think more scientifically, please.

What you've said literally has no substance. What I've posed is objectively more 'scientific' than what you want to circlejerk about.

Here are your options:
>My suggestion: What makes a person intelligent?
>Your suggestion: LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW BLACKS ARE DUMB

The former has, again, objectively more to offer.

Well, we already know that IQ is a predictor of how intelligent you and others think you are, job performance, and standardized test performance, so I would say IQ is a good starting point at the very least and is a good enough to be used to influence policy. Prove that the former has objectively more to offer.

Lacking definition of race? It's easy? Is he a nigger? If yes, then no IQ. Is he a non nigger? Higher IQ. Next question.

"entirely explained by"
I've seen portions explained, but I have NEVER seen anything near a proof that all (or even most) of the effect can be accounted for completely. I highly doubt it, since IQ isn't researched much and not well understood anyway. Please provide a source that shows that the effect is completely described by what you say (metastudy preferable) Otherwise fuck off libnigger

> What do you think if racial differences in IQ
> if
If you're going to post yet another thread on race vs. IQ, at least make sure you spell check.

> do you think we could explain them through the lens of evolution
Evolution defines superiority through population numbers in a niche. That's it. Not your score on some bullshit, white-biased test, not the Sistine Chapel, not the number of nukes you own. Numbers.

Let's check the numbers:
Africa: 1 billion
Europe: 800 million (including Africans in Europe)

Now, add to this that African populations are increasing, despite civil wars, rampant HIV, famines and international debt. European whites? They'd rather be childless.

So who is superior according to evolution? Clearly Africa.

BTFO. Next thread, skinhead.