It's proven, sub-saharan Africans are a different species

liberals on suicide watch

>absolute brainlet shit state school
you shut your yap. I got my engineering degree from there and every other engineer I ever met from different schools is retarded in comparison.

t. Black guy coming to the realization he's not human.

Sorry but the science is settled.

>the average black IQ is 70
Only according to bogus, stilted meta-studies by Lynn.

Why are you calling it bogus? And if it's not 70 what is it really? And why are almost all blacks encounter nearly retarded?

>Why are you calling it bogus
not the same user, but look at the selection in the graph.

>cherry picking scientific studies that suit one's political agenda
>""""""""""science""""""""""

Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolan, Han L.J. van der Maas, The dangers of unsystematic selection methods and the representativeness of 46 samples of African test-takers, Intelligence, Volume 38, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 30-37, ISSN 0160-2896, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.11.003
>In light of all the available IQ data of over 37,000 African test-takers, only the use of unsystematic methods to exclude the vast majority of data could result in a mean IQ close to 70. On the basis of sound methods, the average IQ remains close to 80. Although this mean IQ is clearly lower than 100, we view it as unsurprising in light of the potential of the Flynn Effect in Africa (Wicherts, Borsboom, & Dolan, 2010) and common psychometric problems associated with the use of western IQ tests among Africans.

Read the whole paper. It's interesting when Lynn rejects a high IQ sample because of reason X, then accepts a low IQ sample that should also have been rejected for the same reason.

Par for the course for Lynn. He also used questionable methods in his studies of Japanese children (using biased samples to produce the "111 IQ") which he then used to justify a series of publications:
Harold Stevenson and Hiroshi Azuma, “IQ in Japan and the United States,” Nature, Vol. 306 (November 17, 1983), pp. 291–292.

>And why are almost all blacks encounter nearly retarded?
You're looking for a retard, so you find one.

This line of questioning, your apparent inability to understand a very clear chart, and your refusal to do your own research all point to lower cognitive function, yet you don't see yourself as a retard.

>A gene was found that indicates early sub-saharan humans interbred with another hominid
Wow, it's fucking nothing

Kill urself

>

So your argument is that lions and tigers are the same species?

Species is not "these two animals can produce fertile offspring together, so they are the same species". Species is "these two cannot produce fertile offspring together, so they are not the same species". We can determine if two animals aren't the same species, but it's completely arbitrary to decide that two animals are. I wish we did have a proper definition and method, though.

Me too, I only lurk here to pick up this gems and show them to my friends on /pol/.

Veeky Forums exists to surve /pol/

Ligers aren't fertile you dumb fuck. Mules neither.

>Perhaps the IQ test is biased towards the current dominant species and higher species would not do well on it because it is not designed based on their specifications.

You're probably a troll but people who make this sort of argument miss the forest for the trees. Even if sub-Saharan Africans designed their own IQ test that they scored either higher or equal to Whites and East Asians, they're still millennia behind us intellectually and technologically. Intelligence isn't an arbitrary cultural construct, and if you think it is, you lack it.

Even Lynn went with the mean that includes the excluded it's still about 75, which is retard tier. An IQ average of 85 is borderline non-functional as well.

And intelligence =/= technological progress

Summed up the left in 2 lines petty nicely.

Tigons are. Not to mention brown and polar bears.

Sums up anyone who puts politics before science, i.e. anyone with strong political views.

>neanderthals and denisovans interbred with non-Africans
>unknown archaic human species interbred with sub-saharans
So, what I got from it was that one group can't talk shit about the other. We all have some weird shit in our ancestry, and we need to suck it up.

>article says homo sapiens in sub-Saharan Africa mixed with some unknown species of hominids (just like Europeans mixed with Neanderthals)
>hurr muh africans are a different speices

3 of the 5 major humanoid types are neanderthal mixed. They build complex civilizations with city populations in the hundreds of thousands or higher, before the industrail age. They all had mathematicians and astronomers.

the 2 with out neanderthal mix were primitive tribal cultures. glorified hunter gatherers.

Aboriginal Australians mixed with Neanderthals and you have no idea what you're talking about because you're a pseud

Doesn't change the fact that humans as a species have quite a small genetic diversity

Don't try to score a point by arguing against something that wasn't put forward to begin with. Technology is one of the fruits of intelligence.

Abos are Denisovan mixes

>It's a different species because I say so
Guess I'm a different species as well, I always knew it in my heart but this is the confirmation. Fuck you humans

...

infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/01/no-scientific-basis-for-race.html

>Chimpanzees and humans share 98.8% of the same genes! We're more similar than we are different!

>No, you can just ignore that 1.2% difference. Sure, behaviorally there'e s big difference between chimpanzees and humans, but 98.8% is a lot bigger than 1.2% so don't worry about it.

>Well, ya, humans have 0.1% genetic diversity, but what's your point? 1.2% is a lot greater than 0.1%. There's not much going on in there so stop looking.

They're mixed with both.

...

kek

>Even Lynn went with the mean that includes the excluded it's still about 75, which is retard tier.
And if he excluded some of the low IQ samples from, for example, malaria-diseased children, orphaned children, etc. which he included, it would be above 75. Wicherts/Dolan/van der Maas expect an IQ of about 80, well above the 69.5 "discovered" by Lynn.

>An IQ average of 85 is borderline non-functional as well.
False. See for citation.
Once you get the IQ to 80 or higher, psychometric issues (for example, exceptionally poor performance on the "draw a man" IQ test when it was given to Sudanese children who had never used a pencil) and Flynn effect in developed nations (against which these studies are normed against) can "explain away" the difference.
Because he understands statistics, Lynn knew this. That's why he knew he had to massage his data so severely.

Indeed. But technological "progress" is affected by wayyy more things than a population's intelligence.

>Which is better land? Africa

This guy is actually retarded

>And if he excluded some of the low IQ samples from, for example, malaria-diseased children, orphaned children, etc. which he included, it would be above 75.

Who's massaging the data again? If other studies of populations exclude these types of people then that might be a fair point, but I'm guessing that isn't the case. Both the data and their civilizational track record seem to suggest Africa is significantly below average in intelligence. You can put a rosy lens on the data or smear it with shit but either way it's grim.

>On the basis of sound methods, the average IQ remains close to 80. Although this mean IQ is clearly lower than 100, we view it as unsurprising in light of the potential of the Flynn Effect in Africa (Wicherts, Borsboom, & Dolan, 2010) and common psychometric problems associated with the use of western IQ tests among Africans.

To clarify what I meant, an IQ of 85 is borderline non-functional in a highly developed post-industrial civilization. I'm hopeful for parts of Africa's future, but by that I mean hopefully they'll reach Middle Eastern HDI levels within the next 100 years.

youtube.com/watch?v=fjs2gPa5sD0

t. Jared (Africans and civilization go together like a zebra and carriage) Diamond

>A personal blog on Veeky Forums
Can't argue with that.

>also plz ignore that the Middle East, China, and Japan all have comparably arable land to Africa yet managed to develop advanced civilizations

globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/06/how-africa-could-feed-the-world/

What middle east civilization are you referring to exactly?

>The research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that sexual rendezvous between different archaic human species may not have been unusual.
>Past studies have concluded that the forebears of modern humans in Asia and Europe interbred with other early hominin species, including Neanderthals and Denisovans. The new research is among more recent genetic analyses indicating that ancient Africans also had trysts with other early hominins.

Oh no! Ancient populations in Africa fucked a different a ancient population just like the ancient population in Europe and Asia did.

I guess the Abbasid and Parthian Empires are examples. Do you not think there were any?

>Who's massaging the data again?
Lynn. That's the point. Read the study I cited.

It's perfectly fine to reject a sample for being unrepresentative or "bad" in some way. But Lynn's acceptance or rejection of an IQ sample is inconsistent on its face (e.g. rejecting a high IQ sample because it came from a "fee-paying school", yet accepting two low IQ samples from other "fee-paying schools"). The strongest predictor of inclusion was the IQ of the sample. This strongly suggests he cherrypicked data to get his desired result, and, as his studies of the Japanese showed, it's actually a pattern with him.

>Both the data and the civilization track record
A thinly-veiled attempt to steer the discussion away from the data.

>To clarify what I meant, an IQ of 85 is borderline non-functional in a highly developed post-industrial civilization.
And? These IQ samples were taken in minimally-developed, famine- and disease-ridden war-torn civilizations. The IQ of 80 estimated by Wicherts etl al. would correspond to an IQ of ~95 by British norms.

not him, but what are you trying to say here?

Not "advanced civilizations," not really. Africa had empires too. And then there's the question, if they were so smart, why did they fall?

>being unable to follow a thread
Start here

oh shit it's my uni lol
getting my CS and Math major here

so you believe that the large iq disparity is due to sample bias?

>Lynn. That's the point. Read the study I cited.

The study says even with sound methods the average IQ would still be about 80. I'm not sure what your point is. You seem more concerned about proving that Lynn is a racist and therefore we can throw out the whole thing.

>A thinly-veiled attempt to steer the discussion away from the data.

>We've discovered that Africans have 7% more fast-twitch muscle fibers than other ethnic groups. Maybe that's why they're so good at sports.

Stop steering the discussion away from the data!

>These IQ samples were taken in minimally-developed, famine- and disease-ridden war-torn civilizations.

What I'm saying is that they have these problems chronically for a reason. Europe and Asia both bounced back pretty quick from WWI and WWII, neither of which hardly touched Africa.

Hmmm I guess we disagree on what constitutes an advanced civilization. Abbasid Empire gave us the Islamic Golden Age.

HDI of the remnants of the Parthian and Abbasid Empires are relatively high compared to sub-Sahara Africa.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

Niggers are also more violent than the other races.

The Middle East is mostly categorized in the medium and low range except.... Saudi Arabia??? This confuses me.

>The study says even with sound methods the average IQ would still be about 80. I'm not sure what your point is.
That's because you don't understand norming, the general methodology of these meta-studies, and possibly not even basic statistics.
Reread:
>The IQ of 80 estimated by Wicherts etl al. would correspond to an IQ of ~95 by British norms.

>You seem more concerned about proving that Lynn is a racist
Actually, I never said anything about Lynn being racist. I did imply his methods are dishonest, but I backed it up with a mountain of evidence which you have yet been unable to refute.

Thus your charge that I wish to prove Lynn is a racist is both straw man and argument from motive. Seems the endpoint of your mental contortions was a descent into fallacies.

>random quote about fast-twitch muscle fibers from some other random thread
Please keep the discussion to Lynn's IQ studies, please.

>chronic problems
Don't misunderstand. I'm not saying whether there is or isn't a racial difference in intelligence. Just the fact that this IQ data does not suggest it. We can continue with your alternate line of reasoning, but first let's conclude the discussion at hand. We cannot move on until it is settled because you seem to be trying to corroborate studies which have been proven invalid, which obviously makes no sense.

Reminder that proto-Eurocucks and Ur-Mongs chose the right over the left

>>The IQ of 80 estimated by Wicherts etl al. would correspond to an IQ of ~95 by British norms.

No, I guess I don't understand norming. Please explain how the average African IQ is actually +1SD higher than what Lynn measured.

Rindermann's 2007 study corroborated Lynn's study. No, I didn't read through the whole thing, but Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence) says:

"Rindermann's analysis found many of the same groupings and correlations found by Lynn and Vanhanen, with the lowest scores in sub-Saharan Africa, and a correlation of .60 between cognitive skill and GDP per capita. According to Hunt, due to there being far more data available, Rindermann's analysis was more reliable than those by Lynn and Vanhanen. By measuring the relationship between educational data and social well-being over time, this study also performed a causal analysis, finding that nations investing in education leads to increased well-being later on."

emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-g-factor-of-international-cognitive-ability-comparisons-the-homogeneity-of-results-in-PISA-TIMSS-PIRLS-and-IQ-tests-across-nations.pdf

>Thus your charge that I wish to prove Lynn is a racist is both straw man and argument from motive.

lol it's called rhetoric

>I'm not saying whether there is or isn't a racial difference in intelligence. Just the fact that this IQ data does not suggest it.

Fair enough. I disagree but that's not an unreasonable position.

You could claim that if you wanted to politicize the findings, then not by claiming that merely because Sub Saharans have a ghost species ancestor makes them special, but that them having a different intermixture of ancestral species than Caucasians and Asians makes us genetically very different.

And that makes everyone a different species just like different types of crows and snakes exist.
Just because we can crossbreed doesn't mean we're more equal, just more versatile than several animals.

You wanna say that to my face, faggot?

I find that it's mainly authoritarian-leaning people who put their left-or-right bias before the facts. Of course, that includes politicians, mainstream media, and those on the far left & far right. That just follows with authoritarians wanting to dictate the facts rather than having the facts dictated to them.

The social libertarians, those who put more stock in the individual and self-determination, are more likely to listen to people's ideas and the science for what it is because they don't just see people as in-groups and out-groups. They also don't see their own selves as bound to a particular group, so suggesting their position or their informants being misinformed doesn't translate into a personal attack the way it does with the authoritarian left & right.

That's just to say that you can have a strong political view but also allow room for doubting. In fact, that's one of the core tenets of classical liberalism.

>Please explain how the average African IQ is actually +1SD higher than what Lynn measured.
Please realize that nobody is debating that sub-saharan IQ test performance is lower than british IQ test performance. That's objectively true. The debate is over the question: is the different due to environment, or innate population differences (genetics)?

Remember "The Bell Curve?" Perhaps you've seen or even shitposted pic related? The widely-cited 85 IQ figure is derived from the 70 IQ figure developed by Lynn's team. The extra 15 points comes from asking, "If Africa was a developed continent similar to Europe, what would the IQ average be?" So they (as stated previously, and even quoted by you) corrected for various environmental issues, psychometric uncertainty, and the Flynn effect in Europe to arrive at 85, still safely below 100, and then pushed the "genetic" narrative.

But suppose they had started from the more accurate 80 IQ? Then the same 15 points puts black IQ at 95, an insignificant difference.

>Rindermann's 2007 study corroborated Lynn's study.
No, it didn't. It alluded to the significant IQ difference between regions. It doesn't corroborate Lynn's data or the 70 IQ figure, nor does it corroborate Lynn's overall claim that the difference is mostly genetic in nature.

>lol it's called rhetoric
Well, it's a type of rhetoric called rhetorical fallacy, and I will continue to call it out when I see it. Your /pol/tier tactics will not work here.

>Fair enough. I disagree but that's not an unreasonable position.
I would say your position is quite unreasonable. You claim Lynn's study is valid purely because you want to believe in its conclusions, even when you agree that his data is invalid because his methodologies were unsound.

>No, I guess I don't understand norming.

T H I C C

Who's talking about equality here? The fact is even if you win the "debate" that each race is a species of their own the fact we can still (and have for hundreds of thousands of years apparently) crossbreed easily means your victory in such a debate is hollow.

All that's going to happen is that biologists will have to redefine species and make a special snowflake spot for the animals who frequently crossbreed to expand their fitness level. Akin to some new age cross-species symbiosis that help each other for survival.

The only real winners here are the biologists who get a new field of study and employment. Because it sure as hell won't help anyone else because now the same data use to prove us different species will now be used to prove we need each other on a survival level.

>But technological "progress" is affected by wayyy more things than a population's intelligence.

Doesnt change the fact that intelligence of a population is a very important factor. You are not going to get a high tech society with average IQ 80, period.

Niggers properly BTFO. Niggerloving brainlets citing youtube "skeptics" in another desperate attempt to discredit IQ testing. Sad!

>You are not going to get a high tech society with average IQ 80, period.

Not him but technically you can, you would just have to tailor make an economy and social infrastructure that optimally min-max the mean and outliers. Kinda like what captialism does already with masses.

>be Sapiens
>enter the Levant
>fuck Neanderthals
>go in every direction
>cross the Wallace line
>fuck Denisovans who are randomly there(this could have happened in other places as well)

That's all there is to know about Sapiens and archaics in Eurasia.
Neanderthalmixing in Europe did happen but left no mark in modern day European genomes.

The day Veeky Forums fell silent.

>different species

Fucking brainlet tier meme right there.

>/pol/tards who don't know how to read

>muh based black man we wuz equal
>fat fuck screeching "/pol/tard".

Pathetic. Veeky Forums btfo. More evidence confirming the reality of races and the impossibility of biologically equal

But this isn't evidence to that end. Shouldn't you at least read the link before you post?

/pol/'s first step is to create a conclusion, and then spam as many tidbits they can find which vaguely supports their claim while ignoring the overwhelming amount of information disproving it.

>Fire is the greatest force on earth! Rome was set on fire and nothing could stop it! I saw a man burn once and he died! The ancients classified fire as the best of the four elements!
>What about water?
>LOOOOOL FUCK OFF YOU ANTI-FIRE FAGGOT

>The social libertarians, those who put more stock in the individual and self-determination, are more likely to listen to people's ideas and the science for what it is because they don't just see people as in-groups and out-groups
Counterexample: Sweden. It's fine if you want to argue that they're not social-liberals, but keep in mind many consider them as such.
Also, I'm convinced anyone, and I mean ANYONE, is subject to these kinds of biases, because it's not so much a matter of politics, but a matter of how our cognition works.

>The IQ of 80 estimated by Wicherts etl al. would correspond to an IQ of ~95 by British norms.
Not that user, but what does this actually mean? Also, in a study that you previously quoted it was mentioned that
>common psychometric problems associated with the use of western IQ tests among Africans
They don't (seemingly) give any quote to back up the claim, so what are those problems? Why are they caused and how are they fixed?

>The Middle East is mostly categorized in the medium and low range except.... Saudi Arabia??? This confuses me.
From the wiki: "The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and income per capita indicators. A country scores higher HDI when the life expectancy at birth is longer, the education period is longer, and the income per capita is higher"

This thread was for refuting or talking about the article linked.
Not talking about your stormnigger experience

Found the /pol/tard

I've always said it.

Negroes are a different species.

Caucasians and Mongoloids are fucking closer to Neanderthal than Negroes FFS.

>muh viable offspring

Plenty of different species can produce such

Reminder:

African Empires were North Africans. Literal black Caucasians.

This thread is about Negroes. Negroes never got out of the stone age. Norther Africans did.

So they found the magical species gene did they?

only a gay muslim immigrant could have published something like that

WE

God this is confusing, fuck the homo genus, interbreeding was a mistake. As proven by the fact that humans with only a tiny percent of other species DNA are doing just fine.

>Not that user, but what does this actually mean?
Read >They don't (seemingly) give any quote to back up the claim, so what are those problems? Why are they caused and how are they fixed?
It's just measurement error, and it's something you can't totally avoid. There are countless examples in the cited paper which you (seemingly) did not read.

You can't "fix" them per se; instead, you can develop or select a more appropriate test, you can try to correct for the confounding factors using statistical methods, and you can honestly discount a study when there's a clear reason why it might have yielded a wildly inaccurate result (the example given ITT was the "draw a man" test administered to children who had never used pencils).

Fair enough user, thanks for the answer. You're right I didn't read the paper, it's just that when you (or maybe it's someone else, I don't know) copy pasted that quote, they didn't give any additional information, and I just didn't know if it was discussed in the paper itself (I don't have a uni computer available right now to check the paper).

Do you remember 3R?

Do you remember Supermales?

scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/the-extreme-warrior-gene-a-reality-check/

>one gene that was wildly different
One gene, out of 19,000 genes?
Wow, that's wildly ... insignificant.

Didn't read. If they were a different species they wouldn't be able to produce offspring with other humans.

he's just projecting, give him a break.