Intelligence is environmen-

Really? You don't see how this information could be relevant?

Science denier

1) The Incas were great agriculturalists who bred hundreds of varieties of potatoes.
2) You type like a retard.

>varieties of potatoes.
Literally the Irish of the East Indies. Hilarious.

how do you explain the flynn effect, or east vs west germany iq scores (formerly a large gap, today basically the same), or the effect of raising black children with rich white parents, or twin studies on environmental differences etc.

Probably east germany was a result of siberiannigger rape babies and post war the more german genes were bred back into the population.

postwar is when the split happened...
I know you're memeing but christ dude, at least try

Post cold war faggot.

>or twin studies on environmental differences
Twin studies show the effect of the shared environment to be exactly zero.

what am i denying ?
i can measure the difference between people's penis lengths in attoparsecs and the amount of cats their immediate family ever owned and call that number their 'intelligence' , that still dosnt make it a measure of intelligence .

we dont even have a rigorous definition of what intelligence is , let alone a way of quantifying or measuring it .
how can you develop a definition of intelligence and build a way to measure it without biases ?

but if you try to backtrack that way, then there's been at most 2 generations to make a difference. Not to mention that they would have been identical before the divide.
Twin studies support both views. For example, twin studies on IQ variance between fraternal and identical twins show that there is more variation with fraternal twins, which supports the genetic argument. However, IQ of identical twins vary more widely when raised separately than when raised together. The difference is i'm not arguing that there's no genetic component, i'm saying that arguing there's no environmental one is stupid.

Absolutely. As I look at my totem pole (the zenith of human art) from my fabulous teepee (the highest form of architecture), I rejoice in my glorious genetic endowment, and all the contributions my people have made to humanity. Like corn. And music you only need a drum to play. Now fuck off, whitey, and hand over those welfare cheques.

You dont belong in Veeky Forums if you need to use philosophy and pseudo intellectual arguments to try to dismiss intelligence.

Average Ashkenazi Jew
Average negro

>hurrr durrr dey da same bozz wez all intelgens cuz we can nots deyfine intelegense cuz we allz have diferent qualities das makes uz speshiul

Take your sesame street bullshit and shove it

>However, IQ of identical twins vary more widely when raised separately than when raised together.
Nope. Stop making up facts.

The variance in IQ of twins raised together by their biological parents is the same as the variance of twins raised in different families by adoptive parents.

Amerindians were smart enough to create an advanced and sustainable society. They lived in balance with their environment, ensuring the prosperity of their descendants indefinitely. That is, until the white man came and gorged themselves on the land's bounty like a swarm of locusts.

The Minnesota group twin study of 1990, one of the most often cited in this issue, found a correlation of .69 for twins raised apart and .88 for twins raised together. also,
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1475.x

Again, not denying the genetic component, but denying environmental factors is stupid.

>facts and logic
>literally LE LIBERAL HARPY MEME xD
Getting this butthurt over literal peer-reviewed academic journals?
Kill yourself /pol/nigger.

Funny thing about the Minnesota study: ALL of the black adoptees came from the same area of continental US, while the white adoptees came from areas all over the world.
So, interestingly enough, that precise study makes a very strong argument for environmental factors.

North Koreans have similar IQs to their southern counterparts.

so can i learn calculus by myselft/autodidact?
i dont know my iq, but i think its averange

No they don't the guy who did that used shitty statistics and data gathering on top of not really showing the dates of his numbers .

This shows a major flaw in how we view things like college admissions.

>They lived in balance with their environment, ensuring the prosperity of their descendants indefinitely.
This desu. Humanity as a whole has to adopt this priority or we're fucked

Hello local strawman!

Fuck my descendants. I don't fucking care.

>not responding to legitimate critcisms of his theory
i can smell a /pol/tard a mile away
go back where you came from

>mfw he doesn't realize hating his descendants isn't that far off from hating himself

that's a nice graph

But i don't hate myself.
Good job retard.

apparently you kinda of do

Explain your reasoning so i can laugh at you.

>we dont even have a rigorous definition of what intelligence is , let alone a way of quantifying or measuring it .
>You can't specify intelligence into a perfect unchallenged definition, therefore it's irrelevant
Yeah, well buddy, there is this thing called IQ, which is extremely predictive of all sorts of life outcomes, from crime, to out of wedlock child birth, to income. No one in the right mind would try to argue that your highschool drop-out janitor is intelligent as Telsa.

>Telsa
?
His name's Elon Musk.

>Amerindians were smart enough to create an advanced and sustainable society
You mean dying at the age of 40 so as not to become overpopulated? Come on, you see what happened in Africa once life expectancy and child mortality improves

Then you are nothing but vermin, and no one cares about your opinion.

nice moral outrage you impotent faggot.

Just read. Study may be onto something here. Lack of iodine in diet can cause problems like Hypothyroidism later in life as well, so intelligence is not the only thing that suffers here.

nikoa tesla

im not using philosophy senpai , im just asking you to define what you mean by intelligence and say how you quantify it .
as far as i know no one has come up with such a method that wasnt biased in some way that makes the results unusable .

well you see if you cant quantify intelligence you cant know if a HS dropout is less intelligent then tesla , only speculate .
theres no evidence to suggest IQ has anything to do with intelligence and even if you only wanted to measure IQ you cant because the test is incredibly biased and has countless unquantifiable biases that do not conform to a normal distribution .

even the fact that you're biasing your measurement to only include people that know they're being measured or that agree to be measured is biasing your results in a way you want quantify making all your data practically useless .
the LHC experiment dosnt ask the hadron collision byproducts if they want to be measured , and they dont have a trillion factors affecting their measurement like humans have .you IQ test outcome can be statistically tied to everything from what you ate that morning to your mood to how nice was the place where you took the test.

tl;dr : social\psychological 'science' research methods are dogshit.

>tl;dr : social\psychological 'science' research methods are dogshit.
The sad part is that these fucktards would completely agree with you.... EXCEPT when it comes linking race and IQ. THEN it's the most rigorous fucking shit out there.

you can link race and IQ , IQ being the dogshit inconsistent,biased test that measures basically nothing that i said it is .
you just need to rigorously define race in a quantifiable way which is way easier then doing that for intelligence (which hasnt been done ever properly) because people dont change their genes depending on their mood ,the seasons and the color scheme of the room they're tested in .

define 'race' in terms of people's genes , take samples and quantify people's race and then let them do an iq test and you can in fact link race to iq . you just cant disentangle the race-iq link you discovered from the gorillion other factors you didnt account for .
until they start using data that's at least as good and controlled as a first semester retarded physics undergrad's lab results all these studies are useless .

ill never understand how people can draw all encompassing conclusions from data that when asked they say with a straight face is self reported .

it would be like michelson and morely publishing their data after one of them took a shit on the interferometer and then they concluded based on it that light dosnt exist .

>IQ tests don't measure anything
>IQ tests are biased
>we don't have a good notion of intelligence an
>what is 'race' anyway??
>we need to define race purely in terms of DNA
>and what about the confounding factors!!!
All of this has happened already, or will happen in the next ten years. You will either come to terms with it, or move the goalposts... again. But don't expect the scientific world to move them with you.

none of these things happened .
>what is 'race' anyway??
fine, give me an algorithm i can use to find a person's race .what measurements other then DNA analysis would you have me use ?
>IQ tests are biased
yes, you cant generalize it because you're only sampling people who agree to be tested and are doing a test which is biasing your sample , just like i said an interferometer dosnt ask photons if they wanna be measured . at most you can say things about IQ test enthusiasts .
>IQ tests don't measure anything
IQ tests measure exactly one thing, how good you are at iq tests at hat exact moment .if you dont even have an operational ,quantifiable definition of intelligence you have no way of measuring it .

>scientific world
there's nothing scientific about any of this shit ,highscool kids in chem\physics\bio class do experiments with more scientific rigor then this.

>Average Ashkenazi Jew
>Average negro

This is ironic seeing as it was the Ashkenazi Jews and the Frankfurt School that created and promoted the idea of racial relativism, which has fucked up our societies and set science back nearly 100 years.

>the east indies
what

if my IQ is 144 and the correlation coefficient for siblings is 0.47 what is the range of IQ's that my brother can be?

he thinks his IQ is 100, but i am certain it's higher than mine.

Well... fuck.

I made a post ridiculing this shit, about how what you're saying is environment accounts for 15-20% of the variance measured in IQ, which seems to correlate with the variance measured in different areas around the world.

But then I actually went and checked whether I remembered it right and found an alarming number of sources citing most of central and South Africa having an average IQ of less than 65 (which is retarded, no pun intended).

Reddit had an interesting read: reddit.com/r/OpenandHonest/comments/3evdd3/blacks_in_the_us_and_in_africa_consistently_score/

Look I'm gonna be honest here. I don't subscribe to the modern SJW and politically correct bullshit. Feminism isn't about equality and climate change IS real. And I absolutely abhor racists.

But I'm a little bit at a loss here. I'm gonna leave this stewing in my mind for now and simply state that while I have no credible sources or counter arguments to give, this doesn't sit well with me. I will go on and assume that while evidence and logical conjecture as a whole offer an extremely strong case towards there being real, tangible differences between races that have nothing to do with just culture, poverty or diet... I won't buy that yet. I will assume that all of the above is because I haven't found the evidence to counter it. Yet. I will assume that evidence exists, and the idea you put in my head isn't credible yet.

>being this much of a dogmatic pseud
you'll never succeed if you can't figure out what wrong with your "argument"

See this talk, Molyneux's old instance on race and IQ was identical to yours.

youtube.com/watch?v=T0KKc6GbeNo

k just for the record:
racism
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

seems unrelated to the discussion at hand. why bring it up?

the molyneux video, I'm not saying he's unobjective it's just, thinking race is a defining factor is right in the definition of racism

the distinction is in the word "individual." I can see why you'd overlook that though. most people do for some reason.

> The average black child would do better on Arithmetic and Digit Span; where the average white child would do better on Comprehension, Block Design, Object Assembly, and Mazes.
> and the studies consistently came back with the same sized gap: 15 IQ points, or 1 standard deviation (SD) between White and Black people no matter what version or type of IQ test was used.
Great self contradicting reddit shit. How can Blacks do better on some subsections of IQ tests and then consistently do worse on any kind of IQ test, just like fucking do IQ test based on arithmetic.

>asking and answering valid scientific questions is racist
No, lol. Go be retarded on another board

>eurangutans:
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to solutrean:10000 years (30000BC-20000BC)
>from aurignacian-antelian to neolithic: 15000 years(30000BC-15000BC)
>from neolithic proto-agriculture societies to neolithic revolution: 6000 years (15000BC-9000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to copper and arsenical bronze: 4000 years (9000BC-5000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to bronze age and tin bronze: 5200 years (9000BC-3800BC)

>Amerindians:
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to clovis: 4000 years (15000BC-11000BC)
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to the start of crop development: 7000 years (15000BC-8000BC)
>from neolithic proto-agriculture societies to neolithic revolution: 5000 years (8000BC-3000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to copper and arsenical bronze independently: 2000 years (3000BC-1000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to bronze age and tin bronze: 4000 years (3000BC-1000 AD)
Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans. In other words, Amerindians had more civilization potential than europeans. Conclusion: Amerindians are superior to europeans. How is this hard to get?

>samfagging with reddit spacing
Gas yourself OP
>But then I actually went and checked whether I remembered it right and found an alarming number of sources citing most of central and South Africa having an average IQ of less than 65 (which is retarded, no pun intended).
There are also many studies that cite average IQ findings of over 100. You have to choose which studies to include (hopefully based on validity and methodology of the study) and then try to find an aggregated score. The problem is the main bodies of work on the topic assume that "low IQ" = "representative" (pic related) and so are essentially little more than cherrypicked lies.
Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolan, Han L.J. van der Maas, The dangers of unsystematic selection methods and the representativeness of 46 samples of African test-takers, Intelligence, Volume 38, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 30-37, ISSN 0160-2896, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.11.003
>In light of all the available IQ data of over 37,000 African test-takers, only the use of unsystematic methods to exclude the vast majority of data could result in a mean IQ close to 70. On the basis of sound methods, the average IQ remains close to 80.
>Although this mean IQ is clearly lower than 100, we view it as unsurprising in light of the potential of the Flynn Effect in Africa (Wicherts, Borsboom, & Dolan, 2010) and common psychometric problems associated with the use of western IQ tests among Africans.

>all those mental contortions
I see, so you're just doing that guy a favor by demanding he debunk his own argument? That's his burden, right? It's definitely not that you don't know how to explain away the peer-reviewed findings that contradict your theory, right?

It's elaborated there. If you found it difficult to comprehend then I recommend watching the Molyneux bit the other user referred to on his comment to me.

Thanks mate. I'm just going through this right now. A huge part of me wants and does doubt much of what this guy says, but I can't argue the reasoning. I really have to check more sources and studies at a later date because this really caught my interest now.

>"asking and answering valid scientific questions is racist"
>No, lol. Go be retarded on another board

Well, actually he's right. It's a contradiction perhaps but it's also true. Racism as a definition leaves no room for any scientific study or proof that would imply there are actual, measurable differences between races.

Assuming the "science" here is right (and I don't buy that quite yet, science isn't about nice quotes and strong feelings, it's about meticulously tested and proven hypothesis, it's about proof and facts), that places us in a situation where it's well possible that some races can be proven to be inferior to others, and yet that "truth" as it were is simply wrong for very valid, very important humane and sociological reasons and cannot be accepted as is.

>samfagging with reddit spacing
Don't be a dick, seriously. I don't care one whit for the OP but as the person who made that post there was no samefagging involved. Implying so is just a cheap-ass cop-out on your behalf, not unlike flinging hitler cards around left and right whenever they can't do debate.

As for the rest of your post, I'll gladly take that. I firmly believe in racism and one doesn't need scientific studies to understand the massive difference that should invariably result from blacks being raised in a poor, abusive family in gang neighborhood with low class schools and thriving crime in a racist society, compared to whites who generally get handed an easy, stable and mentally stimulating life from the get-go.

I'm right there with you on this. But, today has made me rethink what I thought I knew. I need to re-confirm my own attitudes and beliefs. Because on the other hand, I refuse to be a fucking blind zealot who just takes whatever SJW propaganda the media spews my way as the truth. I do want to know what's going on, whether it's convenient or not.

>debunk his own argument
you can't honestly believe that's what you did, or even tried to do. right?

>well you see if you cant quantify intelligence you cant know if a HS dropout is less intelligent then tesla , only speculate .
theres no evidence to suggest IQ has anything to do with intelligence.
IQ test are useful to the extent that they measure the g factor, like I said which is extremely predictive of life outcomes. You're just arguing semantics, about what "intelligence" is. The reality is IQ test, to the extent that they measure g, are highly predictive.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000305

>you cant because the test is incredibly biased and has countless unquantifiable biases that do not conform to a normal distribution .
The vast majority of intelligent researches do not take 'cultural bias' claims seriously anymore.

You didn't finish your statement. Why?

>I'm right there with you on this. But, today has made me rethink what I thought I knew. I need to re-confirm my own attitudes and beliefs. Because on the other hand, I refuse to be a fucking blind zealot who just takes whatever SJW propaganda the media spews my way as the truth. I do want to know what's going on, whether it's convenient or not.
I showed you what was going on. I can show you much more. I know you hate agreeing with SJW's for whatever reason but don't discount the truth just because of that.

You seem confused. I'm responding to this retard who seems to believe it's the other guy's job to debunk his own argument.

it's not an argument, and it doesn't even address the topic at hand.

>give me an algorithm i can use to find a person's race
Maybe you're face-blind? Chinese people can easily tell when they're looking a Japanese. For coarse things like "white" or "asian" you can look at the shape of the skull and bones, and you can get more precise geographically as you measure more precisely.
>IQ tests only measure willing participants
I'm sure a 'non-compliant' version can be devised when the ethics board allows it.
>IQ tests measure exactly one thing, how good you are at iq tests at hat exact moment
All tests are like that. As for what it measures, read the wikipedia pages on "g factor" and "fluid intelligence".

You have less than ten years until by your CURRENT standards there is a strong and proven link between race and intelligence. You will either learn to accept it, or shift the goalposts once more.

>it doesn't even address the topic at hand
Take another look, Cletus: >research about effects of iodine deficiency on intelligence
>research about effects of low intellectual engagement in the first four years of life
You don't think articles about the effects of environment on intelligence (and the confounding effects this might have on any study that tries to link genetics and intelligence) have any place in a thread about environment and intelligence?
Go back to your echo chamber, faggot. We deal in facts and logic here.

neither make people intelligent. they make them unintelligent. that's the issue at hand here.

no environmental factors will make someone smart

i dont necessarily mean cultural bias , i mean when you have people come to some place and take a test there's countless variables you cant isolate .
for example what if in 25% of the questions i circle the answer i think is wrong intentionally ?, the test may operate under the assumption that i wont do that but it cant check it , the fact that i ticked the answers which i think are correct is basically 'self reported' which may or may not be correct. it cant be used used to measure the difference between 'iq enthusiasts' and people who were never tested or people who dont want to be tested . it is so severely limited i cant see how you can draw any definitive conclusions from it , some correlations yes but no conclusions .

and yea i get your point one of my issues was with people who claim it measures 'intelligence' .

>black people INTENTIONALLY score low on iq tests
Geez, the lengths nigger coddlers will go to...

I wonder what the next stage of race denialism will be. I'm guessing they'll try to revive lysenkoism through epigenetics.

none of these things give an algorithm to determine a person's race , do all people have races ? do your ranges of skull shapes encompass all living humans ? how is race determined geographically ? what if a baby is born on the exact geometric race-line ? how did those geographic race-lines or race-zones evolve with earth's tactonic evolution and where were they before earth came to be ? if they didnt exist at what point did they start to exist ? at what point do you define two human evolutionary paths to be difference races ? what measurements would you need to make such a determination? (surely DNA) .

>I'm sure a 'non-compliant' version can be devised when the ethics board allows it.
now them being aware of being tested biases your results . you have to control for temperature,weather,culture,geographical location,their entire microbiome,all their social interactions and experiences in a certain amount of time before the test,the font of the test,the chemical composition,shape and aesthetic of the pen they use and so on.... you get my point there's endless factors that all go into a human, humans are affected by some way or other by literally everything in their environment and if you cant control for all of that your data is shit .

humans 'out in the wild' are a terrible thing to study as you cant isolate or control for nearly anything .

>iq tests are invalid because researchers didn't control for the shape of the pen
How could they have missed that? Yo u just revolutionized the entire field of psychometrics.

>this thread

NI*GERS BTFO

>how did those geographic race-lines or race-zones evolve with earth's tectonic evolution and where were they before earth came to be ?

Your "conclusion" is retarded. I guess they don't teach logic on the res.

Better erect more statues to show your greatness white boy. People would soon forget otherwise.

continued from
also
>there is a strong and proven link between race and intelligence.
im not saying there isnt , im actually 99.99999% certain there is as there is a link between anything and any other thing in something as complex as humans interacting in a civilization . im just saying we should study and quantify that link properly and rigorously .

perhaps find some measurable physiological indicator of ''''intelligence'''' that we can measure in a lab and link it to people's genes that we can measure in a lab .

i think any form of 'self reporting' or any study which required humans to voluntarily do something or samples measurements of humans in a way which biases it towards certain groups of humans and away from others is a shitty meme and does not deserve to be called 'science'. to use this word to describe such dogshit and in the same breath to use it on things like kepler measurements is absurd.

physics went from some dude watching things fall while counting counting time with his heartbeats to detecting gravity waves by measuring distances of 10(10^−18 )m , if social '''science''' wants to be taken seriously it has to make a leap of this magnitude .

im just pointing out how retarded is saying 'race' is determined by geography .
i mean did all the particles that now make up africa have an invisible theoretical volume around them during the big bang where if a human spontaneously came into being he'd be considered a dindu no matter his actual traits\genes ?

if you're making a theory of race it has to be able to assign one to every human ,and to examine such a theory you have to look at the edge cases , if the theory fails its useless.

>im just saying we should study and quantify that link properly and rigorously .
It is already studied scientifically and rigorously. You think psychometricians don't care about rigor?

>perhaps find some measurable physiological indicator of ''''intelligence'''' that we can measure in a lab and link it to people's genes that we can measure in a lab .
This will probably be the case in 20 years.

>i think any form of 'self reporting' or any study which required humans to voluntarily do something or samples measurements of humans in a way which biases it towards certain groups of humans and away from others is a shitty meme and does not deserve to be called 'science
By very definition, social sciences are called social sciences because they must make do with not being able to measure the result of experiments. However there exists a myriad of statistical tools to control for bias when designing tests in the social science. The fact that you just dismiss the entire field of social sciences (in addition to your horrible punctuation) lead me to believe that you are a low g brainlet.

Now race has nothing to do with geography? What? Are there nordic pygmies in the congo rainforest?

>no environmental factors will make someone smart
depends on your frame of reference really. at any rate you still have the the issue of intelligence studies being confounded by environmental factors
people have these studies and make it the backbone of their theories on iq heritability. minnesota study is a perfect example as noted by

would traveling to a different geographical area make a person change races ?
im not dismissing the entire field, im just saying they cant draw many general conclusions . you can say that ticking this or what box on the pre test questionnaire is linked to higher\lower test scores , what you cant do is say anything about any person or group of people who didnt take the test personally without making unjustifiable assumptions .

physics justifies its assumptions by saying no exception has ever been measured or observed in any way (for example for the assumption of conservation of electric charge ). for iq tests you cant make any assumptions because there will be exceptions for each , i can sign up for your test and intentionally tick answers i think are incorrect proving your assumption that everyone will answer to the best of their ability wrong .

>would traveling to a different geographical area make a person change races ?
Not him but why do you people do this? Like, honestly. This is Veeky Forums, you'd expect people here to actually want to debate, yet all you're doing is purposefully misunderstanding, adding nothing to the conversation, and just wasting everyone's time?

I know people who talk like that in real life too. Why? It seems to me that if you clearly don't want to converse, to share and compare facts and ideas, to offer even the basic bare minimum of respect to your would-be conversation partner... then wouldn't it be easier to just not say anything at all?

So why?

People like to say blacks have lower IQ. Maybe because "black" people only came from slave trade nations like Nigeria or Ivory Coast or whatever. I know for a fact there are populations in Africa that are very intelligent. You can't just say black = Africa. You also shouldn't say white = Europe. Subpopulations within those groups have too much variance.

>would traveling to a different geographical area make a person change races ?
No. What does that have to do with geography not being responsible for the differentiation of humans into different races?

>im not dismissing the entire field, im just saying they cant draw many general conclusions
Why?

Anyways, the burden of proof. I eagerly await your quantitative analyses showing the bias in IQ tests. Because so far, you seem to be talking out of your ass a lot without actually calculating the bias in iQ tests.

>for iq tests you cant make any assumptions because there will be exceptions for each , i can sign up for your test and intentionally tick answers i think are incorrect proving your assumption that everyone will answer to the best of their ability wrong .
There are actually statistical methods to detect outliers and mitigate trolls. There are also ways to measure the degree to which a person is actually trying to do well, and incorporate that in the final result. You'd know that if you had even bothered to read the wikipedia article on IQ testing instead of polluting this thread with your completely uninformed posts.

Also why do you write like that? Are you mentally retarded? I'm phoneposting so saying phoneposting is not an excuse.

>You can't just say black = Africa. You also shouldn't say white = Europe.
Show me indigenous sub saharan african looking europeans and indigenous european looking sub saharan africans.

ITT: brainlets

Reading comprehension fail. Guess that makes you a nigger.

>would traveling to a different geographical area make a person change races ?

>looking
That's not very scientific of you.

And I'm not saying there are groups in Africa more closely related to Europeans (though I'm sure that actually is the case for North Africans when compared to sub-Sahara). I'm saying there are sub-populations with all sorts of variances.

You miss the point, he means you can't judge the entire populace of black people because they all come from different places unless you mean Africans specifically for example. When you say all whites in general have a higher iq does this include Irish and Jews? Because I know retards on /pol/ would make the argument they aren't really white.