Why can we not have a legitimate discussion regarding the intellectual disparity between the races?

Why can we not have a legitimate discussion regarding the intellectual disparity between the races?

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/24/us/affirmative-action.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study#Interpretations
my.mixtape.moe/unttpo.pdf
my.mixtape.moe/mrpyzl.pdf
test.mensa.no/
ufile.io/wvhb6
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Because equality, and feelings matter more than fact.

>niggers are stupid

soo what's the point of that discussion?

Well when it's finally admitted that two groups are unequal then you can finally do something about it.

The first step is always admitting there's a problem

Who says blacks don't score lower on IQ tests than whites? Literally nobody says that. There's nothing to discuss but politics. That's why this belongs on /pol/.

People say it's not based on race

>racism is a problem
>race doesn't exist
Spotted the contradiction, yet?

flat earth doesnt exist, yet flat earthers are still a problem.

Whats there to discuss? Its pretty clear cut.

>you can finally do something about it.
Do you don't care about the scientific truth of genetics, you only care about political goals?

Because your image clearly shows that it's culture and not race that creates the majority of the difference between races.

Do you guys actually enjoy talking about the same thing every single day? Don't you have anything better to do with your time? Who keeps making these threads?

bots

We get it you have a small dick and are insecure about it. No one cares, except you.

Just believe whatever you want. You want to believe that "race" is real, even though it makes no sense if you understand even basic biology and genetics, go for it. You want to believe that the color of your skin is better than the color of someone else's, go for it. You want to believe that a "legitimate discussion" is even possible on a site like Veeky Forums, go for it. You want to believe that such a discussion would change anything at all in the world, go for it. The only time you're wasting is your own, and the handful of minutes it took the rest of us to write you replies.

>>race does not exist
>>acting like it did is a problem
>Spotted the contradiction, yet?
No, not yet, can you explain it to me?

Are none of you going to debunk OPs pic related

t. triggered nigger

>I base my entire opinion of race on a single flawed 1970s study that offered no genetic evidence

holy shit based

stop blaming race, its all environment and up bringing and access to education .

Do people actually believe this?

/pol/. That is literally the reason. Before /pol/ came back we did have threads about it that were decent.

There is no real biological term for race. It's never used in biology because it is far too vague.

It's not allowed to be used because it might hurt someone's feewings

This. Any scientist who supports political correctness should be fired. They clearly don't value truth, only politics.

The conditions for all the children heavily varied Based on when they were adopted, pre natal care and the living conditions of the adoptive parents.

For example most black adoptions for black kids are relative based ones like grandparents adopt grandkids or uncle adopts neice

except whether race is real or not doesn't change that it's a really important topic and probably true.

if IQ differences are real, it can help explain differences in career and education success, family planning, crime. if we ignore IQ differences then clearly it's all white institutional racism.

>All these cucks

Sadly, the issue is of tremendous political and social significance. But let's just ignore it because it contradicts the liberal worldview.

>political
Exactly

Samefag btw

That doesn't mean it's not true

It means it's politics and belongs on /pol/

it's almost like something that be relevant to multiple domains

It's ALSO political

There's nothing to discuss. There's a racial disparity in IQ results. What do you want to do about it? Wait, don't tell me. Take it to /pol/.

Except many in the scientific community are afraid to discuss that. Many people say it's not true. What amount is nature and what amount is environment? These are all important and relevant.

The vast majority of the scientific community still denies that it's race based

because no one entertains a legitimate discussion. The reasoning always amounts to
>lel niggers r stupid!!
and little more. It's only brought up as a means to political validation, not inquiry or discussion.

Well I'm bringing it up as a legitimate discussion

Uh maybe because trying to discuss it politely and rationally gets you indicted by SPLC as a hate monger

and isn't it the races that create that same culture ?

>a legitimate discussion is one that ends the way I want it to
You've already lost this one a million times, give up.

Chart 6 is a quote out of context -- it does not come from the transracial adoption study but from some random book based on Lynn's long-debunked studies.

Issues with the study:
All the black children came from the same area of the US. Environmental factors such as prenatal environment can therefore explain the differences.
Scarr and Weinberg noted that transracial adoption had a positive effect on the black children. Consider the Asian children in the study compared to the Whites and you'll see that adoption effects confounded the study and only further support the environmental view.

>The results of the transracial adoption study can be used to support either a genetic difference hypothesis or an environmental difference one (because the children have visible African ancestry).
-Scarr, "On Arthur Jensen's integrity." Intelligence, 26 (3), 1998

From the actual Minnesota study itself:

>The placement variables, adoptive family characteristics, and genetic background all contributed to the IQ differences among the black/interracial adoptees. Because the social and biological variables were confounded, it is very difficult to make a clear comparison. Although this study has an unusual sample of children, we propose that genetic and social variables are usually confounded in families.

>Indeed, we suspect that genotype-environment correlations are the rule and that they account for a sizable portion of the IQ variance in the general population.

...

>Because the social variables accounted for a substantial portion of the IQ variance among black/interracial adoptees, it is likely that IQ performance is malleable within the range of existing environments. If all black children had environments such as those provided by the adoptive families in this study, we would predict that their IQ scores would be 10-20 points higher than the scores are under current rearing conditions.

Here is the relevant passage for anyone that cares. Unsurprisingly most people who talk about genetic differences credit a sizable environmenta effect. The issue here is people who deny *any* genetic effect.

What CAN be done about that, anyways?

Race quota or the PC term Affirmative Action.

Now we're back in the realm of politics, unfortunately. And that leaves us at the current status quo, where
> Even after decades of affirmative action, black and Hispanic students are more underrepresented at the nation’s top colleges and universities than they were 35 years ago, according to a New York Times analysis.
nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/24/us/affirmative-action.html

To say nothing of the fact that people admitted under AA will be more likely to do less well in school, less well in their careers, etc. Meaning that "muh institutional racism" will never go away. Instead this path leads down the road to authoritarianism. Preferential treatment for different races within school. Quotas and significant time spent analyzing salaries for pay differences.

The best solution to the problem would be to just identify what genes are responsible for intelligence and launch a massive eugenics program to make all races equally intelligent. Otherwise this isn't going away.

Traditional races are a pretty useless measurement, you should stick to something actually backed up by genetics, which is something that ends up looking a lot more like ethnicity than race.

whether race is biological or not is irrelevant, ultimately

This. It's important that the scientific community takes a stand and acknowledges these racial disparities for what they are.

There are people like
running around who want to overplay the environmental role. Nobody is denying that environment will obviously contribute to intelligence, but to deny the very large, if not majority, role of genetics is asinine.

The reason this is difficult for scientists is because they are not necessarily in touch with the media. The media can slander them all they want, and they will have no platform to defend themselves on. Also, they do a lot of ass-kissing already, so that they can get funding for their research.

If the scientific community were to say loud and clear, "these racial differences are, in large part, due to the genetic makeup of the individuals," destructive political and academic movements could be curbed immediately. To deny this any longer, creates a butterfly effect, where BLM-supporting social scientists infiltrate academia and rot truth from the inside out.

perhaps some day Trump will off handedly say something to the effect that differences exist, and will blow this entire thing into the mainstream.

pic very much related.

...

what everyone says that. Or they make excuses

Definitely, we need more of this

One race was enslaved and not allowed to go to school. Another was allowed to go to school. Hmm I wonder which race will come out as "smarter".

>clearly knows nothing about the issue
why are you spouting off on something you know nothing about?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study#Interpretations

>In a 1998 article, Scarr wrote: "The test performance of the Black/Black adoptees [in the study] was not different from that of ordinary Black children reared by their own families in the same area of the country. My colleagues and I reported the data accurately and as fully as possible, and then tried to make the results palatable to environmentally committed colleagues. In retrospect, this was a mistake. The results of the transracial adoption study can be used to support either a genetic difference hypothesis or an environmental difference one (because the children have visible African ancestry). We should have been agnostic on the conclusions [...]."

>because the children have visible African ancestry

Great argument. It favors a "genetic difference."

>Take DNA from people all over the globe
>Tell the computer "dude sort them out in 5 groups".
I'll let you figure out what happens.

If they are visibly African it includes both genetic and environmental differences, no distinction is made.

The author of the test says they should have been agnostic to the conclusion. Do you know better than the person who created, ran, and interpreted the original test and the follow-up?

>spouting off
Yeah, pointing out facts is spouting off.

Dude you can't just link genetic inheritance of IQ to people with shared common genetics

Because the current zeitgeist is heavily invested in the idea that genetic differences between populations do not and can not exist.
That's literally it.
That's why the overwhelming majority of environmentalist arguments made by respectable people are so fucking bad: ideology prevails over their otherwise perfectly functioning brain. That's why unless you prove beyond the shadow of a doubt a genetic component environmental differences are automatically assumed to be the reason between phenotypical differences.

No, I don't claim to know better than he, but I think we can all see that this is an instance in which the researcher backpeddled due to media and public pressure. Now, he must include the possibility that "da raycis whites" were just keepin' the black man down, instead of keeping his original angle.

>What's the point in knowing something
>Veeky Forums

>The author of the test says
The author of the test knows what happens if he doesn't say so. See: anyone in academia who has touched the race debate and didn't agree with the nurture side of it.

>What do you want to do about it?
Figure out if the answers are sociological or genetic.

If it's genetic, the implications are horrific as certain populations grow and others shrink in proportion. It's no different than trying to understand any other possible doom that humanity might encounter.

Why are Americans here obssesed with fucking race all the time?

Diversity does that to you.

Does anyone have access to the Lynn and Levin letters from Intelligence in 1994?

Seem to be entirely absent from the 'net

I haven't heard of those letters, care to explain?

Yup. The right to exclude yourself is important.

>Both Levin[7] and Lynn [8] argued that the data clearly support a hereditarian alternative: that the mean IQ scores and school achievement of each group reflected their degree of African ancestry. For all measures, the children with two black parents scored lower than the children with one black and white parent, who in turn scored lower than the adopted children with two white parents. Both omitted discussion of Asian adoptees.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study#Interpretations

those would be
> Levin, M (1994). "Comment on Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study.". Intelligence. 19: 13–20.
>Lynn, R (1994). "Some reinterpretations of the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study". Intelligence. 19: 21–27.


here is the latter
my.mixtape.moe/unttpo.pdf

Culture has an impact too.

Exactly as we predicted. He was just backpeddling due to public backlash. Happens all too often. Pic related -- his career was ruined over his views.

I'll be keeping that pdf, thanks.

here is Levin my.mixtape.moe/mrpyzl.pdf

found a huge resource of related pdfs while searching for it. will link to it once i finish saving them all. don't want for it to be erased before i'm finished. this stuff can be so ethereal.

I'm not American. But to be honest I never thought about race until my city became more diverse.

I'll be waiting for that link. You mean ethereal in the sense that one might never perceive the possibility of an "alternative hypothesis" about race? I agree, most of this stuff is suppressed.

If you're IQ

ethereal as in 1984. wrongthink has a way of getting purged. still saving everything... 150 pdfs and counting

There is no way for you to determine if the author changed their mind due to a bias they realized their test had, or if they were "pressured" into doing it. Any argument you give is hearsay. We have exactly what the author said.

If you believe that the author is untrustworthy and backpedaled then you must also distrust their original work since they are questionable at best. You can't cherry pick the studies or ideas they had that fit what you want and discard the rest.

Well, more precisely, you CAN do that but it makes you an obvious idiot and you should go back to your containment board.

No a big part of it (most if not all) is due to socioeconomic standing, which over time creates the culture. For example, it doesnt matter what color you are, if youre from the inner city you are going to be raised with a certain culture that the majority of times neglects academic intellegence in favor of other values.

See >"The data presented in the target study are just what they would be if H 2 were
rather large, but they are very surprising if H z were near 0. So the study makes
bereditarianism more probable than it was before and environmentalism less
probable."

Perhaps YOU should go back to Veeky Forums, or wherever else you frequent.

The pdf is old, so copy/paste didn't work right

"The data presented in the target study are just what they would be if H 2 were
rather large, but they are very surprising if H 2 were near 0. So the study makes
hereditarianism more probable than it was before and environmentalism less
probable." *****

>iq has a heritability of 0.8
>muh environment

t.brainlet

That number gets higher every time I see it.

And environment is heritable.

up to nearly 300 documents saved... this is insane

If there is not a genetic factor to intelligence, how did humans evolve intelligence? Or are you a creationist guy?

>muh proportions
If you're talking about the USA, then leave. This has always been a country for immigrants. Go to an all-white country and proceed to colonize the galaxy or something. Or go start your own country saying that blacks are only allowed as slaves. The Confederacy did it. They had spaceships and stuff right?

>The reason this is difficult for scientists is because they are not necessarily in touch with the media
Wrong, but maybe somewhat relevant in todays media world.

The real reason for all this mumbo jumbo traces to religion. In the mid 20th century as
the scientific community was understanding more about genetics and behavioral science
it was discovered that primates share a lot of genetics with humans and support evolutionary theory. The religious people could not accept this and did everything possible to debunk genetics. In response it became common place in the scientific world to celebrate the sameness in genetics. When modern day PC started in the civil rights era this was conveniently adopted to push back against institutionalized racism and continues to taint the scientific community today.

>test.mensa.no/
I'm not talking about the USA and I'm not American, but you are wrong. America was founded with the idea of being a land of "free white men of good character."

Oops, didn't mean to quote that url. My mistake. I was opening it in a new tab.

Any study can conceivably have problems, including this one. But doubts are not scientific evidence either.

IQ indicates how good you might do in school and college and certain types of occupations.
Real life is more complicated than just those considerations.

sorry to do this but given the contentious subject matter i'm not going to give out how i found this archive. can't afford to let valuable tricks die :)

it really was bizarre though. a blog with no posts, hosting all these pdfs, none of them linked from the site. no idea how they were catalogued by the search engines in the first place. i snagged everything AFAICT.

anyway, here are nearly 350 scholarly works (mostly) on the subject of race and IQ.

ufile.io/wvhb6

share and enjoy

Damn, nice one, user.
Will definitely circulate; you're doing God's work.

Think about it for a moment. Human communication is an essential aspect of human intelligence. The only reason you and I can even have this conversation is because of the billions that came before us and refined human ideas and our understanding of reality. The effect of passed down human knowledge would build up. We are standing on the shoulders of giants right now. Do you think a person kept in a locked room their entire life, never taught to speak or read would be smart compared to the dumbest person you personally know? We wouldn't necessarily have to become any more intelligent once we could form complex languages, since we could pass down very detailed knowledge and let the next generation work from there.

This would explain the Flynn effect as well. Black people finally got access to the passed down knowledge white people had, thus raising their measured intelligence by a lot.

>Black people finally got access to the passed down knowledge white people had, thus raising their measured intelligence by a lot.

There was also some amount of miscegenation in the US... so they do have a fair amount of European admixture....

Nobody is denying that the environment is important as well, but let's not downplay the genetic role.

But why does white genetics just arbitrarily change shit though? There's plenty of near pure or Pure Africans performing pretty damn well.