What is Veeky Forums's stance on race and IQ?

New Zealand has a shitload more islanders

Abos are more retrograde than even Subsaharans and islanders.

Okay, I'll dumb it down for you...

For argument's sake, let's say Abos have an IQ of 60, and Islanders of 90. Everyone else has an IQ of 100.

Abos are about 2.5% of Australia.
Islanders are about 20% of New Zealand.

Even though the Abos are much stupider, the overall average IQ of Australia is still higher than New Zealand, because their proportion is almost ten times higher.

See? Maths!

>Veeky Forums's stance
Veeky Forumsentists don't take a "stance", retard
>I'm just aware
Lrn2aware fgt pls

Abos have an average IQ of less than 60.

Abos are the most retarded race on Earth.

Just for Comparison the average Black African IQ range from about 60 in Ethiopia to about 80 in USA.

In any 1st world (white or east asian) country, an (white or east asian person with) IQ below 70 is officially considered Mentally retarded.

They can't all be that stupid one of them made the boomerang.

Clearly there must be some genetic component to the IQ gap because of all the converging bodies of evidence (craniomety, worldwide distribution of IQ, origins research, twins studies, transracial adoption studies, brain size differences). But the smoking gun has to be regression differences. Everyone knows about regression to the mean. What most people don't know is that a child of 115 IQ white parents will tend to regress to 100 while 115 IQ black parents will tend to regress to 85. Conversely, 85 IQ white parents will give birth to kids closer to 100 while 85 IQ black parents will give birth to kids around the same IQ. The racial gap seems pretty inelastic. I'm not sure why this is, whether it's a result of selection or genetic drift or what have you, but it's not something you can lampshade with rhetoric. Remember the rule of consilience in science. Individual bodies of evidence may be weak, but lots of them all pointing in the same direction can converge on strong conclusions.

Can you give a source on this

On my phone atm, but Rushton's "30 years of research on race differences in cognitive ability" is a good start. It's a fairly measured review of the literature.

>Rushton's
trash

It's just a review of the literature. Read the primary sources and draw your own conclusions.

Beliefs aren't just about what's true.

People need to believe certain things for society to work, whether it's God or the afterlife or free will or equality.

Do you think only true beliefs are adaptive for society?

Do you think you only believe things because they're true?

You should really look inside yourself and see how much bullshit you probably believe. Bullshit about unconditional love, or the probability of your future success, or how good your past really was, or why you really go to work every day, or how much of your values are genuinely your own and not instilled in you by society.

I dont see how believing in equality is any worse than those beliefs and many others like them.

This. When Veeky Forums grows up it'll get over its edgy "I'm only asking questions bro" fetish. Life isn't a fucking lab, you autists.

>What is Veeky Forums's stance on race and IQ?
A thread like this is made almost every day.
Veeky Forums responds consistently, yet you all keep making the same threads.

Just get over the fact "race" as you define it is an inadequate classification of humans - based on erroneous, outdated science, and your ethnicity doesn't make you intellectually superior to anyone.

>Your ethnicity doesn't make you intellectually superi.....
youtube.com/watch?v=ZAon55ggtcw&t=2342s
>Woah

Okay I'll bite. White Americans are getting out-competed by Jews, Indians and East Asians in various schools and fields in the United States. By your logic that makes them just inherently inferior right?
This of course ignores the fact that the meaning of the term "white" is very much dependent on the person using it.

>american renaissance

Europeans out performed East Asians before immigration, due to immigration and race mixing.
Besides whites/Caucasians are more creative as they made more inventions and contributions to the world.
If immigration were to stop and racemixing to be banned whites would be on top again.

that's cause of money and a history of violence and intimidation
not on a level playing field

>Middle-Eastern peoples have a lower average IQ and therefore are less able to run a successful civilisation, right?

>what is the Baghdad house of wisdom?
>what is algebra?
>what is plastic surgery?
>what is the advancement of medicine by the arabs during their golden age?

>If we banned all the smarter races from science institutions, our race would be at the top of science again!
Wow, a /pol/-tard who can correctly use logic

>due to immigration and race mixing
Citation or logic for any of that?
But even so,
>due to immigration
This is a non-genetic determinant of success, so well done -
you just argued against your own point.

>are more creative as they made more inventions and contributions to the world
Arguable, and this argument seems to assume that these contributions emerged spontaneously out of the "white" (which again is an ill-defined term) mind. This is demonstrably false. Human knowledge has been an exercise of building upon previous breakthroughs, these came from many different groups of people.

I'd continue but I'm just repeating the arguments that Veeky Forums has given you and your ilk countless times. Basically you will not get a justification for your self importance here, nor will you find an echo-chamber for your views.

past

This is going nowhere good and you know it. I'm resisting racism right now.

But the boomerang was accidental. He was trying to make fire.

>White Americans are getting out-competed by Jews, Indians and East Asians in various schools and fields in the United States. By your logic that makes them just inherently inferior right?

It is pretty well established that Askhenazi Jews and East Asians are genetically more intelligent than whites. So yes.

is that average IQ

>59

I knew black people were stupid but not that stupid, lol

>stunted from eating dirt pancakes for 20 years
>dumb enough to think putting dirt in the pancakes would actually help

It's an open secret. Smart people know it, but aren't allowed to say it.

At this point I doubt it's even possible for them to close this IQ gap. And it will only widen as time goes on.

Throwing things isn't really sofisticated technology user.

People seem to look at this map and just see
>dark skin regions dumb
>pale skin regions smart
But how much of this has to do with the quality of education available in those regions of the world, and how much has to do with race directly? I would be much more curious to see the IQ scores of people living in the same economic class/neighbourhood in some developed country with access to schools, and checking for racial correlations.

>But how much of this has to do with the quality of education available
Maybe that's because they are to dumb to have good education available? You're treating low iq as the consequence instead of the cause of a shitty education.

>doesn't discuss education consequences nor methods
Opinion discarded. IQ is pseudoscience anyway.

Education doesn't help if you have reduced educability. Just like how steroids and weightlifting will not out-train a poor frame or ability to put on mass.

The stupid ones here are you. How do you think "white" countries would have scored when they had comparable levels of development.

>>javascript:quote('8995949');

Rank-ordering people by problem solving ability is pseudoscience? Interesting. Is it also pseudoscience to rank-order people by chess ability, or are you just butthurt by the fact that your capacities can be pinned down in such an unflattering way?

>You're treating low iq as the consequence instead of the cause of a shitty education.
Yup, or at least I am not ruling out the possibility of that being the case. Really, I want to eliminate any irrelevant variables. It seems to me that this data set can only lead to conjectures, and we can't draw any final conclusions without removing geography and economics from the picture of race.

None of us said anything to the contrary of that.

But there are studies which take into account the small socioeconomic status, whites still outperform whites.

>Education doesn't help if you have reduced educability
You're still asserting reduced "educatability".

Apart from the fact that you're blaming their blackness rather than their situation.

I don't how often /pol/ raids this board. You will never force me to believe in race differences if I choose not to.

>Apart from the fact that you're blaming their blackness rather than their situation.
Did we? Care to point it out? You know, since I'm stupid and all.

Why did you post a fake chart?

>I'm resisting racism right now
>I knew black people were stupid but not that stupid, lol
>It's an open secret. Smart people know it, but aren't allowed to say it.
>At this point I doubt it's even possible for them

"""Race realists""" genuinely believe the truth matters more than the functioning of society.

Meh. They'll grow up. The average age on Veeky Forums can't be much higher than 20.

Where can I find them?

>blaming their blackness
Nope. Still not seeing it.

They could be purple or green for all I care.
Turns out the genetic groups who tend to be stupid also tend to be black, none of that is their fault. But it's still true and it's still a problem for the rest of the world.

So you're saying race realists are right?

>functioning of society

Yes

idk let's start with the fact that there's basically no evidence for it being anything other than socioeconomic factors

c.f. lead paint, lead fumes (before lead gas was totally banned), and other environmental poisons being more common in urban areas. black people, if poor, are more likely to live in urban areas than white people.

I've literally never seen anything comparing middle eastern people to white people in terms of IQ

>Inb4 civilisation in yet another race/IQ chat

Why is no one addressing regression differences? That proves a genetic gap beyond a shadow of a doubt.

therefore iq is dynamic not static

I could just as easily juxtapose a picture of russia and barbados. Not very scientific.

This is dumbest shit i read all fucking day. How come that Europeans had better socioeconomic factors in the first place? You'll tell me that it's just a coincidence or something. How come that modern civilisation is based on white people(western and nordic europeans).

>I'm white and I haven't achieved nothing in my life.
>i need to talk shit about others to feel good about myself

The best values coalesced in those countries. Middle Eastern spiritual philosophy and Greek & Roman political philosophy.
Modern civilisation didn't spontaneously emerge in the minds of white people, it is dependent on many older civilisations.
In different times you could have easily said "How come the Middle East/India/China/Egypt/Central America has better socioeconomic factors?"

Actually, fuck no. I live around monkeys my whole life(gypos), they fucking make my life uncomforatble through my entire childhood by being violent, making noise all the time, stealing shit. I need to talk shit about them because i don't want them to be educated next to my children. Fucking retards don't have enough IQ to finish elementary school here in my country. Why the fuck should they make other peoples lives miserable by being around them?

Have none of you heard of the minnesota transracial adoption study? They recorded the IQ of white, asian, black and mixed race children, all adopted by middle class whites. Not only were there significant differences in IQ (asians>whites>blacks), but mixed children (white/black) were almost exactly intermediate between the black and white children. This was the case even when the adoptive parents didn't know the child was half white. Look it up for yourselves.

This is just silly. Obviously significant differences in group IQ have huge implications for society. Ignoring this will not help anyone.

THIS. Holy shit, this.

The fact that high-IQ black people reliably have dumber children than white people with equally high IQs is ridiculously telling. Call it the Malia Effect after Malia Obama. Children dont regress to a universal mean. They regress to a RACIAL mean, on average. That could be why there hasn't been a single multi-generational "dynasty" of black billionaires the way there has been for Whites, Jews, and Asians.

>muh oppression

Jews were enslaved, exiled, deprived of property, and mass murdered for thousands of years. They suffered far, far, FAAAAR more than blacks ever did. Now they own a significant fraction of the world's wealth despite being a tiny fraction of the world population. Why? Their mean IQ is 112, allowing for a thick upper tail of the distribution and hence more geniuses (24 out of 28 of New York's 170+ IQ students were Jews, as tested in 1954).

Genes not only matter. They're pretty much the only thing that matters.

>how much of this has to do with the quality of education?

How much does the quality of education have to do with how smart the population is? This "objection" is used over and over again, to death.
What is not important is the fact that brown people tend to score lower on IQ tests. There are two things that make this fact of importance.
The first is that IQ predicts life and educational outcomes, even when the IQ test is taken at young age.
Secondly, we know that the variations between IQ are caused by variations in genes, i.e., that IQ is highly heritable, both between group and within group. Bouchard already proved that the general heritability of IQ was 0.85; and subtest heritability analyses prove that between-group IQ heritability is about 0.8.

And even if the gaps weren't genetic, we know that the gaps are not malleable. /pol/ (YES, REALLY) has a case to be made even without the horrible news provided by the genetic etiology of the racial gaps, that the population proportion and influence of brown people over the physical and political spaces in first world countries should be curtailed as much as possible; until advocates of environmental determinism can actually figure out how to make it so that brown people produce their own countries with acceptable standards of living.

Sad but true. Mankind is not prepared for the tsunami of genetics research ahead because the lie of equality cannot be sustained much longer.

>Jews were enslaved, exiled, deprived of property, and mass murdered for thousands of years. They suffered far, far, FAAAAR more than blacks ever did. Now they own a significant fraction of the world's wealth despite being a tiny fraction of the world population. Why?

Look up the history of court Jews in Europe. This goes far in explaining why this particular ethnic group was forced into an industry that promotes wealth.

And yet, people throw out the same cookie cutter objections, without knowing any data about heritability estimates, nor the actual effect sizes of any proposed environmental confounders, even if such estimates have already been written about.

And they ignore the fact that the presence of environmental confounders is itself a function of genetics.

I mean, basically, yeah. Iron/copper/etc deposits in a part of the world that's super fertile.

>how come that modern civilisiation is based on white people

probably because they forcibly exported it with weapons made from those same metal deposits.

A third of all Jews were killed in a few years, but they bounced back without even blinking. Yes, they still moan about it, but if anything they use it as a fuel for greater achievement. Blacks could learn something from them.

I mean, one, that study didn't adjust for the class of the biological parents--and, in turn, their exposure to environmental toxins and access to decent prenatal care/general health education--but, two, it didn't adjust for age of adoption. There could very well be some kind of condition--either cultural or economic--that would cause black mothers who are unfit to give up their children or have them taken away later than unfit white mothers.

>pseudoscience
Yet even cruder tests of animal intelligence than IQ are not considered by any serious person to not be an important branch of ethology. Yet, when a test battery which has significant predictive power over life outcomes, is consistent within people (0.9 take-retake correlation), is language independent (Raven's matrices), and generally predicts technological capacity across the globe, and is also genetic both within and between groups (Bouchard and subtest heritability/racial admixture studies); and the results are unflattering to brown people, then My Oh My, a bunch of people proclaim it to be "pseudoscience"! I wonder what happened?

Yep, very true.

this. also the fact that the bible literally treats literacy among hebrews like it's nothing because those fuckers taught all their kids how to read. there's a reason why ladino and yiddish are written with hebrew characters.

Source on Malia's iq

another damned thread.
WTF

ikr.

South Korea after WWII was one of the poorest countries in the world, about as rich as Ghana at the time. Now its one of the wealthiest and doing just fine. Becoming fabulously modern was an immediate achievement after a century of being Japan and China's bitch.

Its almost as if history has no effect on future success for a gene pool.

Yeah, that's why the Incans, Mayans, Aztecs, and North American tribes were all vying for world domination, it was because of all of the minerals there.

And it's why their only opposition was Bantu Africans and the people who live in Morocco and Algeria, who used their copper and iron reserves to their great adv-

OH. WAIT.

> Only Europe has metal

82 replies, 40 of which are OP bumping his own thread

Some guy's been blowing him out hard, he just makes a new thread and starts bumping that one instead. Might be time for a pastebin or something

>we know that the gaps are not malleable

then why has the gap between black people and white people in the states shrunk by .33 standard deviations since the issue was first reported

It's true that late-placed adoptees had lower IQ (I am by no means denying that there is an environmental component) but the only differed by 7 points. That would mean even if every black child was late placed and every white child was early placed (which there is no evidence for), we still couldn't expect the 17 point IQ difference measured.

In terms of prenatal nutrition, I would agree that there is very likely some effect here. It is also likely that black mothers had worse nutrition/environment. I don't know what magnitude of effect prenatal nutrition/toxins has on IQ, maybe the prenatal environment really was that different. Even so, it certainly warrants more studies, yet there were no followup studies. Why? It has huge implications if there really is a 17 point genetic difference in IQ.

The only thing we can agree on is that the data opens up for two different interpretations, so until we have research that takes that into account we can only know for sure that the data allow for different possibilities.

I dont know the answer, but its not beyond the question that evolutionary selection has caused that. The reproductive difference between smart and dumb blacks doesnt have to be that large to see a 0.33 SD change in a few generations. If +1 SD blacks had 2.5 kids per generation, and -1SD blacks had 1.5 kids, you would see a 0.33 SD increase within a generation or two.

People greatly underestimate the short term power of natural selection.

If we ran an experiment where we raised Blacks, Whites, and Asians from scratch in a completely isolated environment (like a Mars colony), people would try to blame race differences in IQ on genetic memories of slavery or some shit. People are fucking insane when it comes to protecting this myth. It is truly reminiscent of a religion.

Misleading. It shrunk by .3 SD from 1918 to 1950, and then never decreased. The 1.3 SD gap was probably about 55% heritable and 45% environmental; and then conditions bettered for blacks relative to whites from the end of WWI to the end of WWII, so then the gap was 85/15, and has remained pretty much static since then. That's how I see it.

iq isn't interesting it's a brainlet's way of not dealing with people

>incans, mayans, aztecs, and north american tribes

Lived in places where it either wasn't that fertile (most of north america) or where there weren't any of the hard minerals I mentioned. The Aztecs didn't have any bronze, the best they had were chert and obsidian.

Morocco and Algeria don't even fucking compare to Italy and Greece, b. In fact, neither does anywhere besides the Amazon and California, really.

I know /pol/ was bad at reading, but I thought you'd all at least be able to get through a sentence fragment.

M8 I think there is a significant genetic component to race differences in IQ but this is fucking stupid. You think blacks evolved over the past few decades? To deny that there is ANY environmental component to IQ is even stupider than denying there is any genetic component.

It's pretty under-studied considering how socially important it is. I'm happy to concede the evidence is inconclusive, but it's isn't treated that way. Mostly people treat the question itself as unacceptable or preposterous.

>Finland has an IQ greater than 999
What did he mean by this?

>it's not beyond the question that evolutionary selection has caused that

if you actually think this is true you have literally 0 standing to have an opinion on the genetics of intelligence. this is stupid as fuck.

You are literally a brainlet normie if you think IQ isn't predictive or various life outcomes.

Most buzzfeed view you can have tbqh.

...