Without sparking a pol-tier IQ megathread, what do you guys think about the legitimacy of Lynn's research? Obviously it has some flaws but I feel like most of the blowback is due to the nature of the topic (and of course earning brownie points among their liberal peers) than anything concrete.
What do you guys think about his findings?
Other urls found in this thread:
sciencedirect.com
researchgate.net
ufile.io
racialreality.blogspot.no
twitter.com
His research was very important and when it comes to country by country data it's well accepted. People only debate the race conclusion for obvious reasons. If I'm not mistaken there is one country in Africa(the one with smaller IQ) that sparked some controvercy because of sampling problems.
The data also pretty much agrees withother tests like Pisa.
what does IQ gauge, exactly? Is it a scientifically rigorous method of measuring something?
Well it also agrees with our standard perception of the world. Whites, euros, and asians are top dog. South Americans and caribbeans are the first tier of sub human. Then comes Africa
The way the data is presented may lead to biased people to prove their bias. This is omitting something: the history of Africa.
Turns out, Africa was a very colonized place from Europeans, and they couldn't manage to develop a powerful civilization, except for Egypt which was absorbed by muslim countries. And, africans were treated as slaves in the past. Not to mention they were isolated from the european-asian world.
This has very little to do with their actual capability or potential and more to do with how their history progressed.
>The way the data is presented may lead to biased people to prove their bias.
In other words, the data may give credibility to a certain theory
There were a bunch of intelligence tests in the past, verbal, mathematical, visual, etc... Some scientists noticed that there was a great correlation between test scores, so people who do well in one tend to do well in the others. So, it was pretty clear that humans in general don't have each one a particular intelligence(as multiple intelligence supporters claim to this day) but rather a general intelligence that influence all those areas: verbal, visual, spatial,... Then scientists found a way of isolating this general factor g, this g is what is now known as IQ.
The data is there, you can try to explain however you want. His work was to measure the IQs not to explain the differences.
>the data may give credibility to a certain theory
No? I'm talking about confirmation bias. Nonbiased people will be able to look past from that with this same data.
>you can try to explain however you want
Oh I can, I'm just saying this may be food for biased people.
Were the tests administered in the same conditions? In the same building? Was everyone given the same time? Was everyone exposed to the same upbringing and education? Were the tests that were administered explained clearly and were they administered and communicated in the same way to each of the populations? Over what range of time was this study conducted?
It's food for actual researchers too, who want to understand the nature of IQ and wich factor influence it.
>This has very little to do with their actual capability or potential and more to do with how their history progressed.
We can test your theory, but I think it is weak. For example, if historical suffering can decrease IQ so drastically, how do you explain the IQ from the jews from Europe? They're actually higher than the average european IQ. If historical suffering decreases IQ so much how did the centuries of jewish oppression not decrease their IQs?
If by "our" you mean /pol/ retards then yes, still, top countries are only asian, how come that doesn't makes white people the first of the "subhumans"? and the top european country is Italy, where everybody always shits with the whole "Italians are not white" thing.
This is the reason everyone thinks /pol/ is a joke, it's not interpreting data to arrive to a logical conclusion, it's about using it to enforce the opinion you already have.
>It's food for actual researchers too, who want to understand the nature of IQ and wich factor influence it.
I agree! This information may be useful. I'm not talking about the data itself, but how it is presented, which may lead to a common person to jump to conclusions.
>We can test your theory, but I think it is weak
Hypothesis, my good man.
>For example, if historical suffering can decrease IQ so drastically, how do you explain the IQ from the jews from Europe?
Not historical suffering, but lack of contact with other civilizations. That way the development of jews can be explained: they had constant contact with europeans.
>Over what range of time was this study conducted?
You can look it yourself you retard, we're not Google. But it obviously took a lot of time since it needed people from a ton of different countries.
>Were the tests that were administered explained clearly and were they administered and communicated in the same way to each of the populations?
They used what is called matrix test, wich is a culture fair test. But what do you think? That a bunch of white racist europeans went to the middle of the jungle and gave a test about greek philosophy to savage niggers and then when they failed the test they classified the entire country as retarded? That's what you really think?
>Was everyone exposed to the same upbringing and education?
Yes, Richard Lynn alone adopted 5.000 niggers from Gambia and educated them only so they could take the 30 min IQ test.
>Were the tests administered in the same conditions?
No, Richard Lynn was pointing an AK-47 to the niggers while they were taking the test while blasting Moonman at maximum volume.
Was everyone given the same time?
Niggers had 10 seconds to do the test, whites had 2 hours.
>without sparking a /pol/ megathread
>10 posts later he's yelling NIGGER RACIST NIGGER NIGGER SAVAGES WHITE CULTURE
IQ is pseudoscience.
his results can't be replicated. See here:
sciencedirect.com
flynn cherry picked his data.
No, it's scientific consensus. It's a well accepted concept in psychology.(You would know that if you went to Wikipedia).
The Chinese cheat, also how come most inventions are made by whites.
The Italians are not whites thing are said by retarded Nordcentrists anyway
It's still fairly important to categorize intellectual capability by semi-specific area of interest. A math whiz could be comparatively worse with language processing yet still higher in working memory and spatial.
well maybe because education is shit in africa
Is education shit in America?
KeK
>Without sparking a pol-tier IQ megathread
I absolutely guarantee it will
Like all social sciences there are way too many conflicting factors and it can be extremely difficult to rid them of any bias, so you can't definitely say that IQ and race has much to do with each other and anyone saying this is being a shitty scientist and probably doesn't normally browse Veeky Forums.
The map shows sierra leone as red yet its next to lithuania.
You've made me notice a shitload of the African ones are coloured wrong
Unsurprising considering the braindead "personal comment" at the bottom
By "our" I'd mean any reasonable and intelligent person who isn't a massive pussy and denies inconvenient truths. Stereotypes are incredibly accurate and everyone already thoughts asians were smarter whites next latinos next and obviously blacks last. If you ever thoughts otherwise you are like the ones who pretend they never noticed any sex differences.
It's always the wannabe intellectuals of Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums that have to dispute well established science because their /pol/ paranoia. Pseud
And just for reference, these results are from the 50th percentile +-1SD of blacks with typically 15-35% European admixture.
Not sure what either of you are referencing. Are you talking about the color column? It's referring to skin collr
Arabs and northern Africans have proven not to be brainlets throughout history and yet according to this map their average IQ is one of the lowest across the world. It's pretty obvious that socio-economic factors have a significant influence on IQ.
>correlation = causation
From that map we can imply that the skin is the primary organ for cognitive ability and the brain is useless.
>Europeans have proven to be murderous psychopaths throughout history and yet according to every possible metric of success their societies are some of the most prosperous and sought after across the world. It's pretty obvious that psychopathy has a significant influence on societal well being and advancement.
This is the argument you just made. You equated isolated achievements of certain groups to the whole of the major group they belong to and came to an illogical conclusion.
No that's not equivalent to his argument. This is what his argument is:
>OP's map asserts Arabs have low IQ now
>Historically Arabs have had high IQ
>Therefore there must be some factor besides Arabness/race that influences IQ (namely socioeconomic status)
Your example is:
>Europeans are psychopaths
>Europeans are successful
>Psychopathy and success are correlated
Your strawman is not parallel to his argument
>It's pretty obvious that psychopathy has a significant influence on societal well being and advancement.
That's true though. Although I would call it aggression, not psychopathy.
Aggression + intelligence = success
>Historically Arabs have had high IQ
We're going to need some strong evidence that goes beyond the cultural changes from the Golden Age that led to an extreme European self-preservation uprising which successfully beat back the malicious hordes after decades of persecution.
Which itself strongly argues against whatever user means by "socio-economic factors"
Can't bring an example using history without understanding the history itself.
>Aggression + intelligence = success
Absolutely. Tuned aggression, focused and morally conscious, societally tweaked behavior which limits simply hurting another (or others) ((or the group in total)) for the quick gain of oneself.
"Psychopathy" on the other hand, breaking down all others for the sake of only oneself...
The second someone mentions something along the lines of "not to make this a /pol/ thread" it's the same as someone saying "I don't hate x but [shit only people who hate x would say]"
How about ignoring the bullshit that doesn't matter such as a halfwit devolving down to base insults? How about just focusing on the facts or lack thereof?
In any case the arguments of IQ, the relevance of IQ, and the cultural ties with societal progress INVARIABLY result in a conversation about history and culture. It's part and parcel for the course.
For example:
It could be logically concluded that the decades of giving charity and aid to African countries has harmed the intellectual growth of their people, has Taken Away their necessity to innovate and advance, and thus within them created (or spurred) the creation of a culture which does not need to work so hard mentally. This argument then can hinge on a conversation about Welfare States, and the morality of (or lack of) letting "Darwinian selection" take its course, or the morality of (or lack of) using as much resources as necessary to give every living person in need as many footholds to success as feasible.
It sure as hell ain't possible to discuss these topics with any focused effort on /pol/, and it sure as hell is relevant to the topic of IQ, IQ discussions are fundamentally about discovering the external relationships that effect our concept of intelligence, and social, socio-economic, and historical evidences are generally agreed as being very relevant to figuring it out.
Man you got me, I thought you were serious at first and that got me to reply, but no one can be this retarded, should have known it was a troll.
There is no "ignoring" when trying to have a civilized discussion and halfway into the discourse the person you're talking to chimps out and start shouting nothing but racial drivel. It induces a sense of biased arguments and obviously details threads. If this happens every fucking time this type of thread pops up it's a waste of time to engage in the first place and it's a damn shame because the subject is interesting regardless of the implications of the data.
Derails*
>Wahh I can't ignore the bullshit emotional manipulations of someone's argument and simply look at the facts they are saying
>t. brainlet
>It could be logically concluded that the decades of giving charity and aid to African countries has harmed the intellectual growth of their people, has Taken Away their necessity to innovate and advance, and thus within them created (or spurred) the creation of a culture which does not need to work so hard mentally.
yes cause all those uncontacted tribes were just so advanced, they werent going anywhere anyways, giving them money was obviously a huge mistake though
Do you even history of Ethiopia?
No, no, for you sir
For you, start at the history of Liberia.
...
What does this mean?
>So, it was pretty clear that humans in general don't have each one a particular intelligence(as multiple intelligence supporters claim to this day) but rather a general intelligence that influence all those areas
Nonsense, these tests all were about the same/similar kinds of intelligence, that's why the results are correlate.
Or are you claiming that there were tests to measure social or emotional intelligence?
That Africans are just as smart as you and me and all the differences in wealth and social status come down to systematic oppression and institutionalized racism.
Plotting iq against skin color is just asking for racism to blossom
be white->have money and support->get education->high iq
that's it desu famalam
Is there any article with some good tested numbers?
mean is still at 75 iq even including these excluded people. 85 iq for excluded only.
lol
It's obvious. Some races/geographics have shit IQ and bad genetics.
IQ MEGADUMP ufile.io
No, niggers are mentally inferior to whites. End of discussion
Scripture,Agriculture and units of time measurement for example spread from the middle east to europe. The middle east is the birth place of civilization
>Someone says something that goes against what I've been spoonfed by the ZOG so therefore they're from /pol/ and are trolling me
>Systematic Oppression
>Institutionalized racism
You probably think only white people can be racist too, don't you
>lol i don't understand how iq is calculated
Lynn study gives RAW figures of famine / war-torn / underdeveloped nations.
To develop meaningful data that proves that the IQ difference is genetic, Murray & Herrnstein (authors of "The Bell Curve") had to adjust the raw figure to answer the question "what would African IQ be if it was on the level of first-world nations?" Thus producing pic related "innate" black IQ of 85 starting from Lynn's base IQ of 69.
But if raw IQ figure was 80 instead, (which is what you get if you don't cherrypick the lowest IQ studies like Lynn & Meisenberg) the "innate" black IQ comes to 95, a statistically insignificant difference and turning Murray's findings into a big nothingburger.
tldr; there is no evidence for racial differences in intelligence or IQ.
>hey bro I got an extra apple, want one?
>sure dude kinda hungry
>ok np just dig through that pile of cowshit, apple is somewhere in there
dude just ignore the cowshit lmao
>hurr durr race maps to rgb triplet of your skin tone
The pic you attached is retarded even by retarded /pol/cuck standards
Genotype != phenotype
>psychology
>science
Wanna know how I know you're from /pol/ and not Veeky Forums?
This.
Sampling and methodology was off, and he failed to mitigate bias in his research.
Why is it all the "race scientists" like Lynn, Rushton, Jensen, Murray, and so on are ALL psychologists and not geneticists? It's almost if being a brainlet is a prerequisite for falling for pseudoscience.
Here's a nice summary:
racialreality.blogspot.no
He flat out falsified data. Confirmation bias at its most insidious.
C+ rationalization
and Rindermann?
because geneticists are too smart to touch this topic
This summary is retarded. Wicherts literally agrees with him
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
the raw mean is 75, not 80, with excluded people. the results would be still statistically significant.
niggers
I think, if anything, all it does is illustrate the hopelessness in the task of objectively measuring intelligence.
>poorer countries with worse infrastructure have lower iq
Woah
Mongolia has a double the average IQ of Equatorial Guinea.
skin tone is better conceptualized as a confounding variable w/ IQ. It correlatives with high IQ but it has nothing to do with the mechanism.
also, blacks on average have sub 80IQ and PHYSICALLY CAN NOT abstract their actions into past and the future as the average 100IQ can, they are physically incompatible with civilized society and if natural selection were allowed to work unchecked they would go extinct.
t. neuropsych grad student
are you a sociologist? do you literally that mankind transcends its biology? you are a fool. European colonization of Africa didn't lower african IQ, IQ is mostly genetic.
African countries are also corrupt as fuck and the government doesn't give a shit about education. I assure you that if Mongolia was half as corrupt as Equatorial Guinea it would also have a low IQ.
>Equatorial Guinea nominal GDP per capita: $14,176
>HDI: 0.592
>Mongolia nominal GDP per capita: $3,660
>HDI: 0.735
And I assure you this happens to every single sub-saharan African country. But let's just blame it all on genetics because lmao niggers xDD
>IQ is mostly genetic
How are people allowed to be this retarded? I thought this was a science board.
>race = skin color
And I thought /pol/tards couldn't get any more retarded
nice peer reviewed article.
>mongolia
>not corrupt as fuck
>unironically believes that IQ isn't genetic
All evidence points to this being the case, there has never been a successful study done showing that IQ is wholly based upon environment, the closest that's ever been done is proving that IQ is only 80% genetically derived.
Most that argue that all races are the same etc don't even try to argue that IQ isn't genetic because they know that such an argument is frankly retarded.
Lookup the Minnesota Trans-racial adoption study some time you willfully ignorant retard.
Also I appreciate that you totally disregarded your point that poor areas have lower IQ's because the existence of Mongolia demolishes such a notion entirely.
Did you read my post? Equatorial Guinea has a much lower HDI than Mongolia even though it has a much higher GDP. If that doesn't prove that Equatorial Guinea is way more corrupt and has way worse infrastructure than Mongolia then I don't know what will.
Also, genetic variability within races also exists. And what you're arguing here is intelligence, not IQ. There is no way IQ is 80% genetically derived because you can literally train yourself for IQ tests.
Perhaps you could actually look up studies on the corruption within Mongolia, you willfully ignorant retard.
Your argument is now not that poor countries having low IQ's but rather that corrupt countries have low IQ's. Mongolia is very corrupt yet it has a higher average IQ than every single country save Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, China, Taiwan, Italy, Iceland and Switzerland.
Why is this?
It's far poorer than many of the countries which it has a higher average IQ than.
It's far more corrupt than many of the countries which it has a higher average IQ than.
Why then, does Mongolia have an average IQ of 101, quite coincidentally within the region of nigh on every other east asian nation.
>there is gentic variability among races
No shit, that's your argument?
Really?
That's all you've got?
Point to me where I said that there isn't genetic variation among races, point to me where I said we weren't talking about IQ averages.
IQ is the measure of intelligence you legitimate retard, holy shit.
>you can train yourself for IQ tests
This argues absolutely nothing, you can prepare your mind for strenuous activity, yes, just as you can prepare your body for strenuous activity by stretching, what's your argument here?
Yes, IQ is the abbreviation of "Intelligence Quotient" but I genuinely don't believe it actually measures intelligence itself, because intelligence is an abstract concept. Also, I think you misunderstood my argument. In the first place, I never said I thought intelligence wasn't genetic. I simply believe that enviromental factors matter more. You said that 80% of intelligence is genetic, but that doesn't apply to children who are still being educated aka influenced by enviromental factors. If you take an American graph that separates IQ by race and wealth you are able to observe that IQ differents are minimal, at most around 5 points. Those can easily be explained by the social and cultural differences between blacks and whites. By the way, can you make an argument without calling me a retard every 5 seconds?
>I genuinely don't believe it actually measures intelligence itself
Then what you "believe" is wrong.
> I simply believe that enviromental factors matter more.
Then what you "believe" is again, wrong.
>"but that doesn't apply to children who are still being educated"
Yes it does, education doesn't improve your intelligence, it improves your education. Your intelligence puts a cap on the level to which you can be educated.
>If you take an American graph that separates IQ by race and wealth you are able to observe that IQ differents are minimal
Where is this graph?
>Those can easily be explained by the social and cultural differences between blacks and whites
But what does that have to do with Mongolians having nearly twice the average IQ of Equatorial Guinea?
>By the way, can you make an argument without calling me a retard every 5 seconds?
Can you stop giving me cause to call you retarded?
There were niggers in Nortg Africa long before the ancestors of Egyptians migrated from the ME to North Africa. So niggers could have built civilization way before anyone but didnt because they are retarded savages.
Education is a meme retard your IQ determines if you can even be educated. Blacks have shit schools because they are too retarded to pass any grade above 5 at adulthood. Blacks fail because they are stupid end of discussion.
>Israel
Smart jews is a meme kek.
they are mostly stupid as any arab. the smart ones are in usa
No. It's 75 if you use every study.
But not every study should be used, both high and low. For example the "draw a man" iq test given to a bunch of children who have never used a pencil is obviously not going to produce a meaningful result.
Yet Lynn included it in his calculations, why? Because it had the result he needed.
An independent trio of scientists led by weicherts analyzed the studies ("dangers of unsystematic methodology" or something like that) and came up with raw IQ base of 80.
>I concede
fug
>Wicherts literally agrees with him
No.
repost from other thread
all these bell curve studies
comparing everyone to everyone else
but what about comparing themselves to themselves.
I wonder; while the race/phrenology touters will say there difference in intelligence between races and whatever.
I wonder if the race themselves are smarted than they were 20 years ago.
Like I know abbos, and africian tribals are dumber than white people
but are those abbos and african tribals smarter now than they were 20 years ago?
I think that is something those "race realists" don't really talk about
>blacks on average have sub 80 IQ
Source? Are we referring to those in Africa or Western Blacks? That seems absurdly low to me for an average.
see basically every other document
Black Lives Matter pls, go clog an airport or something