>denial of basic science like gender or evolution among both plebs and politicians
>contempt for academics and scientists (or ones who don't pander)
>We Wuz Kangz and other examples of historical revisionism
>Conspiracy Theories
>Electing Dubya
>Electing a man who loves the undereducated (Trump)
>Chimpingout over nuclear power and/or GMOs
And more.
Dumbmerica wants me to believe in man made climate change when they won't even admit race is a determinant of intelligence.
Idk, but you can probably somehow trace it back to baby boomers
Basically it was filled by Puritans who wanted to escape progress. They advanced so much in science by stealing German and Soviet scientists in the past century, but most Americans are as against progress as their ancestors.
All the nutty Anglos were kicked out of merry old England and left to fester with their silly beliefs and slaves.
>Chimpingout over nuclear power and/or GMOs
>implying Europe isn't way more luddite
all of this is in equal denial in yurop if not worse
if you believe in evolution you literally cannot deny racial differences in intelligence or iq.
How to recongize a /pol/tard:
They try to conflate the Theory of Evolution with IQ.
He's right you know.
Whites and East Asians have much more Neanderthal DNA (up to 5%) than Blacks who have none... and Neaderthals had bigger brains than Homo Sapiens as well as developing and using tools earlier than them.
If you knew history like /pol does there are much more disparities between the races than you realise.
How'd you get from the theory of evolution to differences in IQ in races? You get differences in racial IQ from statistics.
All populations outside of Subsaharan Africa have some archaic hominid ancestry. That includes Amerindians and by extension, Mestizos (who don't score highly in measures of intelligence).
in order for a trait to evolve in the first place it must be genetic and nit environmental
it got passed down genetically in human ancestors, and selected for by tge environment
this is undeniable, and everyone will agree this is the case up until homo erectus, 1 million years ago.
but somehow, people deny that ij the 200k years since blacks split from the rest of humanity, this process has stopped
you can argue about the strength of the vector, but not its very existence
intelligrnce is genetic
clarification for idiots, if a traot is environmental it is not inherited.
lets say that moth coloration is determined by the temperature of the eggs. that means whether a moth is black or white determines whether it dirs or not, but the frequency of death is determined by the egg temp and not genetics. moth coloration variation stays constant and does not change when england gets smoggy
>implying bigger brains means smarter
>implying trace Neanderthal DNA makes anyone's brain bigger
>implying earlier development of tools is due to intelligence and not being an older subspecies
> implying smarter means higher IQ
Wow, so scientific.
America is a collapsing empire. An empire tries to keep its citizens from being educated and challenging the use of citizen lives and wealth in foreign lands.
The only way you can control the sheeple is by keeping them in fear which is born from ignorance.
tl;dr keep people dumb and scared and they will do what you want.
>Electing Dubya
whatreallyhappened.com
>conspiracy theory
because networks of wealthy powerful people don't exists and certainly wouldn't try to maintain their power
If we all came from Africa (which has since been disproved) why did some people migrate north and some didn't? Why did some keep on walking all around the earth to south america when Africans did nothing? its quite obvious that if it wasn't for the help of whites then blacks would still be living in mud huts. It is quite obvious in my mind that whites are objectively superior than other races. If that makes me a racist, then so be it.
Hell, even the Japanese were fighting with bows and arrows when the Europeans found them.
There are 3 main races and every ethnicity or nationality are descended from these 3 main races: Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid.
our brains grew consistently with increased tool usage for 3 millin years
what makes you think such a calorically expensive organ was growing for no reason, and then, what makes you think that reason stopped mattering 200k years ago, which is 8% or so of the evolution of man hint: 8% is a lot
i want to agree with you but your posy has sone false information
the japanese were not fighting at all when whites found them. they had settled into a relatively pacifistic isolated, unified, late stage bureaucracy and had independently discovered many things such as statiatical confidence intervals, futures markets (stocks for.commoditirs) and the like
No, a trait is a random mutation which depending on the environment will either increase in frequency in the population if advantageous or decrease if disadvantageous. Your moth example is also a trait, the trait being eggs that change color depending on temperature.
You're saying that because Africans lived in a different environment it means they're genetically different? Yes, as a population the frequency of genes is different. Not necessarily because of the environment but because they're divergent populations which don't interbreed so they have their own mutations which don't spread to the rest. China and Europe are comparable environments for example but they didn't evolve the same.
The scientific community does not support a race based explanation of differences between races because it's not science. Science is a testable hypothesis which explains a causal effect in the universe. It's science to say that a certain gene which produces muscle growth inhibiting molecules means people with this gene have higher than average muscle mass, assuming no other factors influence muscle mass. It's not science to say white people are smart because you're white.
>200k years
Holy fuck kys
>futures markets
>a sign of an advanced civilisation
>neanderthal memes when the genes they contributed are either non-coding (ie not genes) or things like body hair and short height
>intelligence is genetic when we know it's both environment and genes and we literally have recorded the flynn effect
there's countless examples of denial and outright falsification (as with lynn) on the side of shills
oh and call me when you admit middle easterners are white
>That includes Amerindians and by extension, Mestizos (who don't score highly in measures of intelligence).
Pic related, amerindian intelligence (one of few sources I can find on it)
mestizos are 50/50% amerindian and white and according to arthur jensen himself the difference there is mostly environment - that doesn't get talked about because it's inconvenient for the right
people choose to focus on blacks instead, because they are a convenient target and sort of imply all gaps are genetic (not even the b-w gap is entirely genetic)
>Jewish IQ: 111. Sample size: 33
>White IQ: 100. Sample size: 2,877
Please get the fuck out of here. You are obviously retarded. Also you are emotionally compromised so no amount of statistics or studies would change your mind. You're probably an edgy teenager than supports Antifa anyway.
My favorite meme is the 'males have a different IQ standard deviation, but i can't tell you what the male deviation and the female deviations are'
>In a 2012 review by researchers Richard E. Nisbett, Joshua Aronson, Clancy Blair, William Dickens, James Flynn, Diane F. Halpern and Claremont Eric Turkheime, discussed Arthur Jensen's 1998 studies on sex differences in intelligence in tests that were significantly g loaded but were not set-up to get rid of any sex differences (read differential item functioning). They summarized his conclusions as he quoted, "No evidence was found for sex differences in the mean level of g or in the variability of g. Males, on average, excel on some factors; females on others." Jensen’s results that no overall sex differences existed for g has been reinforced by researchers who analyzed this issue with a battery of 42 mental ability tests and found no overall sex difference.[54][55]
>Although most of the tests showed no difference, there were some that did. For example, they found female subjects performed better on verbal abilities while males performed better on visuospatial abilities.[55] For verbal fluency, females have been specifically found to perform slightly better in vocabulary and reading comprehension but significantly higher in speech production and essay writing.[56] Males have been specifically found to perform better on spatial visualization, spatial perception, and mental rotation.[56] Researchers had then recommended that general models such as fluid and crystallized intelligence be divided into verbal, perceptual and visuospatial domains of g, because when this model is applied then females excel at verbal and perceptual tasks while males on visuospatial tasks,[55] thus evening out the sex differences on IQ tests.
I wish polturds would realize that difference in performance between girls and boys clearly aren't intellectual (doesn't mean they aren't biological), because we can actually measure IQ
no, you are confusing the very simple example
if the allele to change coloration based on egg temp is already in the population theb the COLORATION does not change generation to generation based on death rates because the genetic trait for coloration is not being directly selected for
for example if you argue that height is purely dependent on nutrition, then height does not change phenotypicslly iver time because outcomes and survival are dependent on environment
we know for a fact that maximal height outcomes are almost purely genetic
divergent is NECESSARILY different. you can theoretically argue that the SCALE of the differences in iq is exaggerated by white nationalists but you cannot argue it doesnt exist ant more than you can argue that homo habilis just needrd a better environment. you look fr back enough and eventually you acknowledge that iq is genetic
>testable
scientists have engineered iq differences in monkeys. they even produced autistic monkeys
there is a testable molecular basis for iq
>>Jewish IQ: 111. Sample size: 33
>>White IQ: 100. Sample size: 2,877
and?
33 is actually very reasonable
let's assume a standard deviation of 15 - that means the confidence interval for jews is 10 points wide - jewish iq is between 106 and 116
still statistically significantly higher
i know you think you can 'eye' the sample size as low or high, but there's mathematical tools to determine if you have enough measurements
you are part of the problem, pic related
Comparing 2,877 people to 33 people is fucking stupid. In order for the experiment to be equal, each samples should be equal.
You are a part of the white civilization's problem you disgusting cunt.
he is probably not white
I know :^)
You're confusing cause and effect. The effect of differences in racial IQ is plain statistics. You hypothesise a cause from effect then test if it's true. Yes, divergent populations end up with different genetic frequencies but you haven't proven this is the cause of differences in racial IQ. If you say intelligence is caused by certain genes, and that since these genes are more prevalent in certain races making them smarter, you need to establish a hypothesis of why these genes cause higher intelligence then prove it.
Making monkeys retarded is not a hypothesis on intelligence. Lobotomies have been done to make people retarded but this doesn't mean we actually understand intelligence.
Maybe Jews weren't important to the study. They probably determined ethnicity after the fact and then found that they should exclude the Jews from their white sample for more accuracy. So you end up with a few Jew stragglers.
Meant for
you say ”lol genetically engineering smart and dumb monkeys by targeting specific alles doesnt.mean you understand how genes cause intelligence"
actually, yes, it does
I give you a perfectly good answer to the OP question here and you still debate this bullshit
People would rather believe in what makes them feel better than what's true.
>Comparing 2,877 people to 33 people is fucking stupid. In order for the experiment to be equal, each samples should be equal.
How can you be this stupid?
Irrefutable
And then /pol/fags have to audacity to talk about denial and being anti-science.
lol
As proven by they don't care about science, only about whiteness.
Have a read.
angelfire.com
>and you still debate this bullshit
this isn't a debate when one side's response is 'lol you're not white'
see
whether the u.s. is a collapsing empire,.ans whether empirea have an interest in dumbing down their people (i agree in both instances) has nothing to do with the genetic basis of iq.
so as far aa that goes, fuck off
itasdemonstrable that the problems the u.s. has in terms of dumbing down its own people are far more advanced in yurop
There are so many fallacies and manipulation techniques on your post.
First, look up the meaning and history of gender.
Also, learn how to greentext, nigger.
sage
its not a debate when one sides ignores the fact that genetic engineering is advanced and ready to roll out commercial iq enhancements in ten years
>If we all came from Africa (which has since been disproved)
Eheheh... Alright I'm out. Take your redpill memes back to
>in ten years
we can explain 5% of the difference in intelligence right now using genes
it's not ready yet, it just isn't
i'd say 50-100 years
No, it doesn't. It's not a hypothesis about what causes intelligence. Everyone knows down syndrome is caused by an extra chromosome but why it causes low intelligence and other deformities isn't entirely known. Likewise we know cutting out certain parts of the brain can make people retarded.
they can explain 5 percent using SNP alleles, which are the minority of alleles implicated in intelligence
18 year old iq of separated twins at birth is 90 percent explained by heritability. the remaining 10 percent is environmental DOWNWARD influence. there is zero percent right tail explanatory power for environment on iq.
maximal iq is determined 100 percent genetically
you are ignoring the fac that they can engineer smart monkeys
the only argument you have is literally by ignoring my argument and posting whatever the fuck you want
>No sources
>Thinks heritability is the same thing as genetic
Stop
heritability is genetic
epigenetics doesnt.mean what you think it means. your degree in postmodern lit doesnt qualify you to say otherwise
>18 year old iq of separated twins at birth is 90 percent explained by heritability. the remaining 10 percent is environmental DOWNWARD influence.
what
heritability explains 75-80% of the variance between two people
heritability is not the same as genetics, because the fraction depends on what the environment is as you would expect from two more or less complementary fractions
you really need to read up on a few things
for perspective on why heritable is not the same as genetic
>Well, average height is also increasing in the population. Does that mean that you could be as tall as me, if you weren’t too lazy to grow?
Twin studies and adoptive studies show that the overwhelming determinant of your weight is not your willpower; it’s your genes. The heritability of weight is between .75 and .85. The heritability of height is between .9 and .95. And the older you are, the more heritable weight is.
blogs.discovermagazine.com
it depends on which population we are talking about and which environment
i think people like you and especially dont deserve to live, because you dare talk about things you have no idea about, not because you are stupid - that's partly not your fault
The environment for twins separated at birth is completely different.
Twins can only have identical iqs if iq is genetic and not environmental.
1+ Internet's good sir!
>The environment for twins separated at birth is completely different.
no it isn't
same country, same looks, same educational system, same uterus
heritability only makes sense within a population
why can't you understand and think you pee brained retard
people like you deserve to be shot in the head because you are arguing with established science. heritability IS genetics, and you faik to make a distinction between stable traits such as iq and weight, and one vs two tailed traits
go ahead, advocate for my death more. youll get a fucking bullet in your head. thanks for turning this violent
country, fetal ENVIRONMENT, and education are ENVIRONMENT
jesus fuck. i got trolled. im done
Epigenetics has nothing to do with it.
>le smart monkeys XDDD
>no sources
>no stats
So this is the power of /r/thedonald
You too, see
>heritability IS genetics
but it literally isn't defined like that
it has something to do with genes, but there's a lot more to it
stupid people, white or black, die in my eugenics program, instead of breeding like rats - see it only makes sense
of course those are environment
and examples of things twin studies do not really account for
that pic literally says
>heritability varies because of frequency of trait causing alleles
heritability goes up or down for iq, correct. that iq can vary precisely BECAUSE those alleles are inherited, and inherited alleles are causative of traits
you can inherit more,.or.lesa, but whatever you inherit, that is your iq