Do certain races have a higher IQ?

Dude, take to /pol/. Veeky Forums isn't for that, and I honestly understand if you want to shit post, but don't do it on Veeky Forums, it's too slow for this kind of stupid shit.
Of course it is, just like every other species of animal in earth. You know, sans religion.

>Measure of "intelligence" by western countries
>Look at this. What a coincidence! Our tests says: All western countries = super good. Everyone else = super bad

I'm lmaoing @ your life

Good rethoric /pol/, you are not good to fool us, we are superior brains here and your inverse psichology does not work.
Gtfo to

>Dude, take to /pol/. Veeky Forums isn't for that, and I honestly understand if you want to shit post, but don't do it on Veeky Forums, it's too slow for this kind of stupid shit.

No, what are you talking about? I am simply stating the facts. Do PoC get special privileges in universities? Of course we do, because we are better and universities want to attract more of us.

okay lets say it does in fact matter a lot.
now what do you do with this piece of information ?

>affirmative action means we're smarter
It just means the University gets money for letting in X amount of minorities. If you're going to troll, at least do so with intelligence. Don't be a stereotype.

race is a social construct. focus on ethnicity then you'd go somewhere relevant. for example, ashenazki jew is clearly the master ethnic group.

There have been numerous studies that IQ is related to race, yet many others that say it isn't.

However, in the real world it doesn't really matter too much.

A person with low IQ who works hard/studies hard to achieve something in their life is a much more useful person to society.

Whereas, a person with a high IQ who doesn't have motivation won't really contribute much to society.

This not only applies to the working world but, also academia.

>It just means the University gets money
You are just pushing this one level further. Let's assume this is true. Then who is paying this extra money? The government, most of the time.

And why would the government pay extra money for us? Just for shits and giggles? Just because they have too much money lying around and "Eh, let's just give it away for some random reason"?. No. When money is spent it is usually in a calculated move. The government spends money on us because we are more important than you. They need us in their universities so that we can run their society in the future. We are better.

To see why consider other groups of people that are heavily favored in the selection process. Super geniuses. Geniuses sometimes just get admitted into universities without any requirements, not even finishing high school. And why are they given such privileges? BECAUSE THEY ARE GENIUSES! Because they are better. Just like I am better.

im not denyint the fact that race has something to do with iq. im interested that what does it all mean ? so lets say negros have lower iqs than asians.
so what ?

It could be due to interbreeding.

Before humans were what we call humans now we interbred with other species.

For example all western Europeans have some form of Neanderthal dna in them.

While Asians or Africans would have mated with a different type of species.

This might be one possible reason for different IQ's between races.

the end game of all this. thats what im really interested in. what positive way can we use this piece of information where we know one race is less inteligent than another race ?

On average yes
youtube.com/watch?v=6SJNVb0GnPI&bpctr=1510268038

Maybe if we find some sort of drug to increase motivation in people we could inject it in the race with the second highest IQ.

This would create superhuman levels of innovation and productivity in certain fields such as STEM.

While the same drug would be used in the race with the lowest IQ. This would create extremely motivated labour for building new infrastructure etc.

All this happens while the race with the highest IQ controls it all and reaps the benefits.

Remind you of anything.

Pic related.

Feel good about myself.

It's already happening. The Jews invented schools to motivate the Christians to study which is why they make all of the discoveries and the niggers do all of the labor. The Jews just control the money and discreetly collect it for themselves.

so the joos want to use this fact to create negros as strong mindless laborers while some other race are the tech guys ? i guess it makes sense. but in another post you said (if your the same user) that inbreeding lowers iq with time and the joos are known for only breeding with eachother so how does that keep them the most intelligent ? in other wods there is no positive for this because using humans this way is higly unethical. (i know wgaf)

so its basically just polshit. where people now can back their insults on pol with scientific facts.
thats a lot of energy to invest just to call someone a dumb nigger on an anonymous cobra tit daycare if you ask me.

Not the same user.

Although inbreeding does lower IQ if it's wincest.

@9285883
No (you) for you. Poor bait, Mehmet.

Its not opposite day, Mr. B8r

No asians and africans have neanderthal in them.

Averages may vary but there's still smart and dumb people of every race.

yes but idk if that's because of a difference in intelligence or something else (could be a lot of things)

Asians have more Neanderthal admixtures than us

I mean, you don't even have to go into that. Whether your race has low or high IQ is pretty irrelevant once you are already born.

I come from a country that averages 90 IQ, but all that matters is MINE. I don't give a shit how stupid or smart the rest of my race are.

Yes there are smarter races and dumber ones.

>When people cite IQ and the Wealth of Nations

This, it always seems like people forget how statistics and the bell curve works. Just because different races/ populations have different averages does not negate the probability for smart individuals of any race to occur. What is affected here is the frequency for which they occur. However the size/ growth of a given population can make up the difference.

Which explains how China can maintain a high influx of constant upward mobility in individuals going into math and science drawing from a pool of over 1.3 billion people. While Nigeria has increased their presence steadily in math and science due to nearly tripling their population size in 50 years (50 million to over 150 million).

>Do certain races have a higher IQ?
It has been proven without a doubt that IQ differs with geography.
The average IQ of an African differs from the average IQ of an European, now the question becomes are there racial differences between Europeans and Africans?
You may not like the answer, but there are genetic differences between them, which also mean that IQ differs with race, at least to some extent.

>there are genetic differences between races
>therefore IQ differs with race
No.

Who would've thought Veeky Forums was filled with complete autists? The factor of race is largely useless and trivial when it comes to scientific research because there's no agreed upon way to measure it. Nobody knows where one race ends and another begins so there's literally no way of testing if IQ correlates with race. Sure, IQs have been measured to differ geographically but that says nothing about what caused the differences. It's far more plausible that the reason IQs differ is because of environment and socioeconomics. The farthest we have gotten to observing any genetic determination of IQ is finding a weak correlation between the presence of some alleles and high IQ within the Ashkenazi population. IQ is largely considered to be affected primarily by immediate heredity, secondarily by socioeconomics, thirdly by environment, and finally by any general genetic factors (race).

That must be why East Asians are so great at it, eh? Try harder, brainlet.

No way

Yeah, but many non-whites and non-Asians are, on average, less intelligent than the average white or Asian counterpart.

I agree, we should get rid of these less intelligent people. Let's start with the /pol/tards

>>there are genetic differences between races
>>therefore IQ differs with race
I suggest you read my post again, nothing of that has anything to do with what I said.

To point it out to you: IQ differs by geography => Africans have a different IQ then Europeans => if you have any definition of race which separates Europeans and Africans you have IQ differences between races.
I did not even necessarily argue for the existence of race, although that might be implied in the term.
You could replace "race" by country of origin, then you would again get that people of European origin have a different IQ then people of African origin.
Which has the exact same implications.

>Nobody knows where one race ends and another begins
Nobody knows here yellow ends and red begins on the rgb spectrum, therefore calling anything yellow or red is a giant fallacy, in fact such a thing as "color" does not exist.
There is no way to say that "red light has a different wavelength then yellow light", such a thing is completely impossible because red and yellow are not real things.
Just stop it dude, this is getting silly.

>Sure, IQs have been measured to differ geographically but that says nothing about what caused the differences.
I never argued that.

>It's far more plausible that the reason IQs differ is because of environment and socioeconomics.
I really do not care, but.
No, that already has been debunked, high income blacks in america have about the same SAT (I believe it was SAT might have been something else) as the lowest income whites.
Furthermore the IQ difference between african Americans and africans is 15 points, the difference between whites and affrican Americans is again about 15 points, which excludes environment.
And for the claim that white Americans are just richer then black Americans see above.

unironically this though
people don't recognize it for a reason. racial tension would skyrocket and there would actually be race wars. Thats why you use capitalism/free to financially enslave the troglodytes, and coexist with the idea of fabrication that is "muh systematic racism". Trust society, it knows how to do things imo.

>Trust society
But isn't the exact opposite happening, the leaders of the world do not trust society that's why they try to bury these things.

I agree that if certain racial statistics (or half truths, or lies) became common knowledge society would break apart, but isn't that exactly the reason why our dear leaders to not put such dangerous knowledge (or not knowledge) out there?

If you would truly trust society, then you should give society the facts and let them do with it what they wan't, but you obviously do not want that to happen.

>Just stop it dude, this is getting silly.
You just compared the lack of a difference between colors to the lack of a difference between races and then implied that means there's a distinction between races. You are literally retarded.

>high income blacks in america have about the same SAT as the lowest income whites
[Citation needed]. Overwhelming majority of high income black American families are nouveau riche. There's a huge hereditary disadvantage relative to IQ that doesn't disappear simply because someone made a lot of money. You're completely disregarding generations of disparities between socioeconomic, environmental, health factors and assuming ceteris paribus simply because x family today has a lot of money and yet cannot match average white IQs.

>Does genetic variation cause IQ variation?
Yes genetics have an influence on IQ

>You just compared the lack of a difference between colors to the lack of a difference between races and then implied that means there's a distinction between races. You are literally retarded.
Dude, reading compression. I was making fun of your argument, by making the same arguments for colors that you made for race and the concluding the same as you did for race, that calling something red and yellow is not possible.
Glad that you called me a retard when I repeated your argument to yourself. 0/10 see me after class.

>[Citation needed]
Glad you asked:
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-iq-and-poverty/
Which links to jbhe.com/latest/index012209_p.html.
The "journal of blacks in higher education" you might call the first thing biased against you, the second most certainly not.

>Overwhelming majority of high income black American families are nouveau riche.
[Citation needed]
>There's a huge hereditary disadvantage relative to IQ that doesn't disappear simply because someone made a lot of money.
I was just giving an example why IQ is not just determined by the environment.
> You're completely disregarding generations of disparities between socioeconomic, environmental, health factors
No, I am not I just was preempting your argument that blacks have a lower IQ because they are poorer.
But please show me the studies that the environment your great grandfather was in affects your IQ.
Might it be, dare I say it, genetic?

Unmotivated \ undisciplined \ mentally ill people with IQs less than 130 and normal people with IQs less than 115 should be hooked up to cost-efficient pleasure machines if death is considered too unethical. I say this not from a Darwinist perspective but a sympathetic one. There is no greater suffering in life than to be forced to acknowledge your own inferiority and lack of ability to realize your wants, which all people with inferior genetics to their dreams experience.

So many shills ITT

>thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-iq-and-poverty/
>Lynn and Vanhanen

You just debunked your own argument.

Niggers don't have lower IQ because they're poor. Niggers are poor because they have low IQ.

>You just debunked your own argument.
I linked to a different source, which actually made the claim I was talking about...
>Which links to jbhe.com/latest/index012209_p.html.
Please read first.

Also it is incredibly disingenuous not to point our where someone is wrong, but just to spout some names, which may or may not relate to the argument and just ignore the other source I posted.

>thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-iq-and-poverty/
Lol.

>Might it be, dare I say it, genetic?
I never argued that IQ wasn't partly determined by genetics.

>Dude, reading compression.
Lol.

>>thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-iq-and-poverty/
>Lol.
Thats why I posted another source, please complain about that.

Also "Lol" is not an argument, If you want to debunk that site, please write an email to the editor.
>jbhe.com/latest/index012209_p.html
Thats where the statistic comes from.

>I never argued that IQ wasn't partly determined by genetics.
Fine, then we and "thealternativehypothesis.org/" agree.

>Lol.
Nice reaction, to your failure to understand sarcasm.
lol.

Any article that cites Lynn and Vanhanen automatically suggests their lack of actual research. Lynn and Vanhanen used the IQ's of mentally challenged Spanish children, to reflect on the IQ of Black Equatorial Guineans, then used that number of 59 to further extrapolate on the surrounding countries in Africa, and so on.

Imagine if star-belly sneetches had double the IQ of blank-belly sneetches.
Should NOTHING be done with this piece of information? That sounds irresponsible.

>Thats why I posted another source, please complain about that.
Went through it. There's no mention of IQ anywhere.

>Thats where the statistic comes from.
Lol.

>Nice reaction, to your failure to understand sarcasm.
Don't hide. You're better than this.

Well, what do you propose we should do with this kind of information?

>The average white family in the same income group is far better equipped than the average black family to prepare their children for success on the SAT test.
I love sources :)

Cull the star-belly sneetches, as they are harder to control

What we do with all genetically superior life forms: promote their success and happiness while ignoring the inferior's suffering if unable to suppress them for the good of evolution as a whole.

Of course this doesn't really need to be forced, because in capitalism the genetically superior, particularly those gifted with intelligence, rise to the top, so this process naturally occurs by the design of the system with no one to blame.

That's where the Nazis went wrong, they needlessly took on the role of guiding evolution themselves (by their own misguided ideals too. They should have accepted Jews have higher IQ than them and welcome their genetic line into their own in order to prosper), which while under ideal conditions would have been faster than capitalism guided evolution, but meaningless when it collapsed in the short term by the inferior majority's concentrated might.

Of course, with today's systems so deeply ingrained, supported by technological might that far outclasses the human majority, the future is all but determined.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, in all aspects.

Not him, but that's cus the jbhe seems to be talking about SAT.

now this is edgy

That's wrong though. It's not like the smartest people on earth are the richest people. There are plenty of 150+ IQ people on earth, but I doubt the percentage of 150+ IQ people among billionaires is particularly high. There are even some billionaires with sub 100 IQ.

Also, while IQ regresses to the mean over generations, the same cannot be said for money.

Gifted children have the world at their heels ready to cater to them since birth. They're put in gifted classes, told they're better than everyone else (because they are), are sought after every step of the way (because they'll perform better than those with inferior IQ with the same effort), and never hunger.

Now that doesn't mean they can't fail later in life. They may have some mental illness, or maybe they just don't see any reason to chase money, but if they so desired they would have no trouble becoming rich. They are free.

what do the colors stand for?
yes, but it doesn't reflect intelligence much and the difference is quite insignificant

They also dont learn valuable life experiences, lack significant character, dont have to work for what they have.

If you give a child every single thing it wants, you develop a sheltered, vapid child.

Rich parents who still encourage hard work, dedication, challenge, and loss and dont give into every demand raise a far more sophisticated and developed child

>what do the colors stand for?
Voting behaviour

I agree that talent doesn't mean all that much without hard work to amplify it, but take it from someone without talent who worked hard his entire life to be mediocre: it doesn't "build character", whatever that vague platitude means. It grinds you out. Empties you from the inside. You're tired from all the effort you give and depressed from the daily humiliation you suffer from the talented.

If building character means becoming a depersonalized depressed adult then yeah, I guess being born with not much ability in anything is a valuable life experience.

Nevertheless, not once was my "character" appreciated more than the sheltered vapid upper-class gifted people who naturally performed better than me, because what's fair doesn't matter in a capitalistic society, it's what's profitable.

There is no reason any decently intelligent (not particularly talented in intelligence) American/Westerner cant work hard enough to become a doctor, lawyer, high level military etc.

Business, which is an exception is luck + talent + hard work.

But who is truly the superior being? Someone, who despite hardship, failure, mistakes and lesson learn, has persisted, remained composure and forged something for themself? Or the child of a super rich family whose excited for guccis summer collection?

>Do certain races have a higher IQ?

It's objectively true that different races have different mean IQs.

In America blacks have a mean IQ of 90 while whites have a mean IQ of 100.

The only question is whether that difference is due entirely due to environment or partially due to environment and partially due to a difference in population genetics that would mean that even if blacks and whites were raised in the exact same environment, blacks would still be inferior on average.

And the evidence currently indicates that there is some genetic inferiority:
Infact when you compare the IQs of black babies adopted by white parents with white babies adopted by white parents, blacks still have an average IQ 15 points below the white adoptees.
pic related and source.
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a2d7/85edd7aa61b7ba51355053cc61d8b924fe35.pdf

there is also supporting direct genetic evidence:
>Factor Analysis of Population Allele Frequencies as a Simple, Novel Method of Detecting Signals of Recent Polygenic Selection: The Example of Educational Attainment and IQ.

>Two single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) whose associations with intelligence seem to be robust because they have been replicated in several independent studies were chosen as representative of intelligence increasing alleles.

>East Asian populations (Japanese, Chinese) have the highest average frequency of beneficial alleles (39%), followed by Europeans (35.5%) and sub-Saharan Africans (16.4%).

ibc7.org/article/journal_v.php?sid=312

>blacks still have an average IQ 15 points below the white adoptees.

Read the study
This is also present in Asian, late adopted and Native american babies. Signifying the issue is rather a social, environmental and cultural one

The superior being is the one who realized his dreams. Maybe though effort I became a semi-competent member of society, but I didn't have the intelligence to be a theoretical physicist.

In the end the child of a of super rich family who jerked off to his gucci collection easily became physicist, enjoying his studies, work and whatever hedonistic pleasures he partook in, while I tried my hardest, contributed less to society because I had less ability, and am not happy.

Yes, there are differences in IQ between populations.
The problem is that it is difficult to compare populations between them without making a subjective judgment of what is "population", for example there is a lot of variation in the "African" group compared to other groups, which makes a difficult classification. Add to this the fact that IQ tests in these countries are not done in local languages but in pre-colonial languages (which most do not know very well in rural areas) and that there is the environmental factor.

If you do an IQ test in French to Ivorians in rural areas, it is inevitable that it will lower their score. Some African countries like Ghana are already very well adapted in these languages, but this is not the case everywhere in Africa.

Similarly for many other groups in Africa, IQ tests are not done in local languages, but in pre-colonial languages such as French and English, and these languages are not mastered in rural areas. most of the time

In this, the IQ tests are biased for Africans.
I think that IQ tests should not be used to do population studies, because "populations" is a complicated notion to classify objectively, and IQ tests do not reflect much on intelligence in my opinion. I am sure many would be surprised if the classification of IQ tests between populations was divided into ethnic groups rather than "race".

unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/

>In the end the child of a of super rich family who jerked off to his gucci collection easily became physicist,

These types of kids are hardly represented in theoretical physics. Medicine, Law, Engineering, Business perhaps where the main objective is information retainment of-course have high representations of privileged rich kids. This is all irrelevant desu

I feel the superior character of man is not measured by how rich he is, but to work hard, have compassion and empathy, dedicate himself, contain stress, remain composure in difficult situations, and the life experiences he has.

Nobody gives a shit what you consider superior. All that matters is whether man himself finds meaning in his existence, and if he doesn't have the genetic ability to achieve what he wants then he either gives up on life or compromises for a different meaning, which may be yours (to be compassionate, to work hard, to struggle, to ignore fatigue, to suffer, etc).

The ibc7 page is interesting. I remember there was some Asian dude that had a blog with a tonne of these studies link.

>All that matters is whether man himself finds meaning in his existence, and if he doesn't have the genetic ability to achieve what he wants then he either gives up on life or compromises for a different meaning, which may be yours (to be compassionate, to work hard, to struggle, to ignore fatigue, to suffer, etc).

Similarly, no one gives shit what you think is all that matters. Super rich kids who love gucci and have had everything given to them? Those kids have a developed sense of purpose and existence? Got it.

>Gifted children have the world at their heels ready to cater to them since birth.
Children with disabilities are treated like retards.
But some of them come from rich families, so they can overcome it.
businessinsider.com/richard-branson-dyslexia-as-advantage-2015-4

>take it from someone without talent who worked hard his entire life to be mediocre

I'm operating on the universal existentialist idea that man finds his own meaning. You operate on the subjective idea that man's meaning is: "to work hard, have compassion and empathy, dedicate himself, contain stress, remain composure in difficult situations, and the life experiences he has." which is the meaning you have found.

Others may try to find meaning otherwise, like a woman who wants a family but later finds she is infertile, like a man who wants to be a scientist but later finds he has low IQ.

Either way, you have no right to enforce your meaning on their own. If you say a rich kid who hasn't suffered does not have meaning in his life then that's your meaning conflicting with his, but if that kid achieved his own meaning then existentially he is superior.

I didnt know we were talking philosophy, I was under the impression we were talking about what type of character makes someone successful and of superior calibre?

Superior calibre as in ability to thrive and sense of perspective.

>not all /pol/tards are like that

>on average
>NAXALT
I agree with you, not all whites or asians are smart. Why rely on a hamfisted IQ determinant like race when we can just directly IQ test everyone?

What's interesting is how there was some improvement amongst all groups the gaps remained similar.

Thrive how? Financially? Academically? Neither of those can be guaranteed by the parameters of superior caliber you outlined.

I can see how you will admire a person with mediocre talent who despite that dedicated his entire being and got back up after failures and struggles, but I can not see the distinction between internal success and meaning, and like I've said, none of your parameters guarantee financial, academic or other external success.

>The superior being is the one who realized his dreams.
user... this definition is clearly woefully incomplete if it doesn't take into account the "size" of the dream.

I have an IQ of 80, all I dream of is getting high and wanking to 2d characters, and I did that this morning, so I achieved my dreams.
Elon Musk, meanwhile, has yet to achieve his dream of putting men on mars, so he's a failure and inferior to me.

>I didn't have the intelligence to be a theoretical physicist.
Your posts ITT thus far would seem to support your admission, but I disagree. Careful, critical thinking is a decision, you're capable of it, you just have to decide you want to take the time to do it.

>does it really matter ?
does it matter if it doesnt matter? even if it doesnt matter you can still think about an answer to the question

>financial, academic

These are superficial and have zero instance with hapiness

east asians have a mean Iq of 100-105, and a outh-korean transracial adoption study found that their IQ went up to 112 when raised by affluent white parents.

No transracial adoption study that I know of has been done on native-american babies.

>. Signifying the issue is rather a social, environmental and cultural one

If this was true then the gap between white adoptees and black adoptees would have been reduced compared with the general population, because by having all adoptees raised by affluent, white minnesotan couples, you would have greatly reduced the difference in their environments and upbringing.

And yet what was actually found was that though the white adoptees and black adoptees both had higher mean IQs than their counterparts in the general population, and so did benefit from being raised by affluent parents, the mean IQ of hte black adoptees was still 15 points lower than that of the white adoptees.
Which is the same as the IQ gap between blacks and whites in the general American population at the time.

Which strongly indicates that there was a genetic difference that did not get reduced at all when you made their environments more similar.

If we define dreams as goals then I agree, you're superior to Elon Musk because you're living the life you want.

But if Elon Musk's dream was to be who he is rather than putting men on Mars, that is: a supporter of great technologies, a scholar of science, then he is constantly living his dream, whether his goals are achieved in his lifetime or not. Same as you.

So if meaning is asked to be quantified as a destination or a journey, I'm inclined to believe the journey holds the true meaning, but that does not meaning most people have the legs or stamina to walk it. Some are imprisoned by work, bills, taxes, family.

Zero? Even monks find it easier to meditate with financial stability.

No, because race doesn't exist

I agree that there is definitely a genetic difference, but unlike you I don't find the difference between 100 IQ and 112 insignificant at all.
Rather, the interesting question is then where can the limit be? What factors in the environment exactly made the IQ jump and can we exploit and optimize them to further even the playing field?

He said "inter-population", not "race"

>, but unlike you I don't find the difference between 100 IQ and 112 insignificant at all.
I never said or implied this.

>What factors in the environment exactly made the IQ jump and can we exploit and optimize them to further even the playing field?

The fact that there are differences in population genetics responsible for blacks having a mean IQ 10-15 points lower than whites or asians means that if you levelled the playing field and gave everyone the same upbringing, black people would still be inferior through the fault of their own genes.
The same way that if you raised everyone the same way west africans would have the faster average 100m sprint time.

The only way to force everyone to have equal outcomes would be to destroy the races and force them to mix until maximum genetic entropy had been achieved, or artificially give the races who are on average inferior in some aspect an advantageous upbringing or artificially give the races who are on average superior in some aspect a disadvantageous upbringing or do both at the same time.

But this would be choosing to be unfair in order to contrive equal outcomes rather than treating people fairly by giving them equal opportunities.

>west africans would have the faster average 100m sprint time
It's East Africans. Also nothing to do with race considering the rest of sub-Saharan Africans run just like everyone else.