/pol/ loves making race and IQ threads on here...

>Eugenetics if finally possible in your life time

Attached: 1358555966179.png (263x258, 151K)

g is the first principal component of IQ.

They are not "different things". The problem with you is that you are a 'tard who doesn't know you are a 'tard.

Attached: gay_donkey_1301614428976.jpg (498x487, 155K)

Genetics are already not a major factor in average IQ. Social influence heavily outweighs genetic potential when we're not talking about the outlier ends of the curve

>first principal component
hahahahaha no dumbass. Economic status is by far the largest predictor of IQ

>

Attached: And+if+i+refuse+_4ff4e211c5ff2f096d1c0b4ff745bf6d.jpg (640x360, 39K)

Look up IQ in Asia over time. High when China was poor as fuck. The rise in Asian economies didn't also cause a rise in IQ.

Relative economic status within a specific society is not equivalent to absolute economic status. It's a predictor within a society not between different ones

Yes, because low IQ parents are poor relative to the rest of society.

Brainlet here, wouldn't this come down to A. Discovering what alleles contribute to expected intelligence (after defining intelligence) B. Showing that those alleles are represented in human haplogroups? Otherwise it would be difficult to separate social and cultural factors from genetic factors. Because let's say for arguments sake a certain population has consistent IQ outcomes distinct from another population. If the populations are internally homogenous but distinct from each other both genetically and culturaly how do you determine which is the culprit? And then if you isolate people from each and put them in the other, how do you account for what affect the new culture has on them (self fulfilling prophecy, people conditioned to act as they are expected to by members of a culture). Note that I'm not claiming sociology is an actual science.

idiot, they're low IQ *because* they're poor

Why are they poor?

If IQ predicts economic outcome strongly, how would the distribution of IQ by economic division look?

isn't a big factor of IQ based on culture, rather than genetics or race?

No

ok

No, because IQ is calibrated to 100 by culture

IQ has a heritability of 0.74, which is on-par with something like height.

Attached: heritability of iq.png (674x210, 29K)

Yes.
Within a given society there are multiple culture subsets which is what he's talking about

>economic status is also heritable

So you are saying that IQ is actually not heritable, like height is? Your claim flies in the face of modern psychology, by the way.

Attached: no.gif (209x213, 1.73M)

No the point is it's not as large a factor as you think because genetic predisposition to IQ can easily be circumvented just by studying alone. You'd have to be a literal retard to not be capable of reaching a 120 IQ (what constitutes 120IQ in the present day, since IQ is adjusted to the mean anyway), the problem is people don't put in the effort.

Show me this study on increasing IQ

Wasn’t there some adoption study that found that the race of their parents was a better predictor of IQ than the kids own race, suggesting that it’s also a cultural issue, even though genetics also play a role in intelligence.
It may be similar to how ethnically identical North Koreans and South Koreans have such different heights due to differences in nutrition.

What he doesn't understand is that the IQ *ceiling* is determined genetically. Certainly, an uneducated, feral twin will have a lesser IQ than their nourished, educated counterpart. But, given the same circumstances, they will typically have a similar IQ.

If you could find that I would love to read it.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
When I look at the actual results, there are clear differences between having two biological white or black parents; the researchers’ interpretation simply took the politically correct path of saying that “it is implausible that it is due to genetics, some unknown reason x must be causing it”.
Gotta love cognitive dissonance

of course IQ is genetic, all it does is allows you to logically come to conclusions faster and or make it easier to solve complex things by having your brain use association to make it simpler and easier for you. that's pretty much it, although everything , math, science, philosophy is all based on logic and it's application that's why being a brainlet can't use his IQ to conclude it's genetic. that's why it takes an outlier like a newton to discover these things because it's their use of their high IQ to come to logical conclusions on complex topics .

Well first you need to separate the blacks and whites, Jews and middle easterners and Mediterranean People usually have higher iqs than any other race

>ypipo average: ~100
>blapipo average: ~85
>standard deviation is 15
Conclusion: /pol/ is full of it

Also OP your pic related is made up

I think we just have to admit IQ is genetic and race realists had a point.
mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

IQ is dropping worldwide. Even Flynn had to admit it recently.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289617302787

Article is nothing about IQ
>What makes Dr. Watson’s and Mr. Wade’s statements so insidious is that they start with the accurate observation that many academics are implausibly denying the possibility of average genetic differences among human populations, and then end with a claim — backed by no evidence — that they know what those differences are and that they correspond to racist stereotypes. They use the reluctance of the academic community to openly discuss these fraught issues to provide rhetorical cover for hateful ideas and old racist canards.
>This is why knowledgeable scientists must speak out. If we abstain [...] We leave a vacuum that gets filled by pseudoscience, an outcome that is far worse than anything we could achieve by talking openly.

>If scientists can be confident of anything, it is that whatever we currently believe about the genetic nature of differences among populations is most likely wrong. For example, my laboratory discovered in 2016, based on our sequencing of ancient human genomes, that “whites” are not derived from a population that existed from time immemorial, as some people believe. Instead, “whites” represent a mixture of four ancient populations that lived 10,000 years ago and were each as different from one another as Europeans and East Asians are today.

>How do we accommodate the biological differences between men and women? I think the answer is obvious: We should both recognize that genetic differences between males and females exist and we should accord each sex the same freedoms and opportunities regardless of those differences.
>It is clear from the inequities that persist between women and men in our society that fulfilling these aspirations in practice is a challenge. Yet conceptually it is straightforward. And if this is the case with men and women, then it is surely the case with whatever differences we may find among human populations, the great majority of which will be far less profound.

I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”

That's exactly what the whole article is about. Race is one grouping to estimate gene pools. Not the only one or best one.

TLDR: The author was smart enough to cover his ass with paragraphs and sentences prefacing all of his real points. The people with a strong SJW or libtard bias will ignore the real meat of his article.

This one sentence is the entire message of the article, "But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”"

He gave you enough outs so you could ignore it and see what your bias wanted to see it and not attack him too much.

Yes, if you want to know who has 125+ IQ the best way isn't race. It's an IQ test.

The thing is you will notice a trend about which race representations make up that 125+ IQ group.

Why are so many in denial about genetics and IQ? It doesn't have to be such a taboo. I thought Science stands up for truth, not feelings?

I may not add up to those with better genetics, but that doesn't mean I can't make the best of what I have. I do believe social issues should be guided by a clear understanding of what probably outcomes are.

If I'm low IQ, then it would be a waste of the public resources to send my low income/low IQ self to expensive education. It would be even worse if I lived somewhere where I had to take out 10's of thousands of dollars to do it because someone "hopes" I can buck the trend of my genetic dice roll. I would be a wage slave for decades to pay it all back. How would that be helpful to me?

Fucking nobody answered what OP asked.

the science to change the genome already exists (CRISPR) so the only thing to do is to find out the specific genes that determine a high intelligence.
it wouldn't take more than 3 years.
but of course no government would allow it.

Science does stand for truth. The problem is racists always try to co-op genetic studies for their agenda and everyone else who knows that using genetics to judge people is shitty doesn't want to study it as a result.

What is the point to proving racial differences in IQ? We're going to just give an entire racial group less rights so we can feel good about ourselves? It's too much of a hassle to study it for the sake of knowledge because people keep trying to use the research for racist agendas

where is the racial skew data on how hard people try during the IQ test?

>Science does stand for truth
>but my beliefs come first
You people are starting to sound like creationists.

It really upsets me because people will use it to explain economic differences or to talk about immigration policy

We should just blame white people and get revenge for slavery.

What's the problem here, IQ ( genetic or not) generally speaks for itself in terms of a persons growth throughout life and in the form of credentials (ignoring unlucky accidents and other low IQs holding them back) so unless this revelation is used to discriminate against blacks(1) what's the conclusive take away here
>Footnotes
>1: if a white and a black apply for the same job with the same credentials who gets the job
>if the black from a poor background managed to get to the level of the white wouldn't they imply higher IQ
>INB4 affirmative action, luck, etc
Point is that it's an unusable statistic

When people try to tie genetics to race it falls apart because race is literally meaningless to study directly as it's not informative about which genes are relevant.

Say that gene X is responsible for some respective trait. Xa is beneficial to humans and Xb is the unhelpful version of the gene. If we were studying race for this trait we've learnt nothing about the gene itself. All we've learnt is gene Xa comes up more frequently in population A then it does in population B. Both populations are capable of having this trait but some historical social influence tens of thousands of years ago resulted in a divergence of how often which version appears.

Here is where we get people who like to try and use this as an excuse to justify bias towards entire groups of people when we don't know which individuals have the gene and which don't. People also try to form racial policy based on plain genetics too which is equally fucking stupid because we know epigenetics can have huge influences on this sort of thing also.

On top of that formation of policy based on genetics is stupid because it removes the idea of personal choice from the equation - things like education should be based on actual real-world performance not genetic basis. No matter how genetically predisposed you are to being a genius you're not passing a difficult entrance exam if you've never studied a day in your life. By the time we've reached the later stages of education where genetics start to have more of an influence (no matter how stupid you are anyone can do the early years of education) things like work ethic have already started to separate out populations. That's why we have entrance exams because it weeds out the net sum of all influences based on actual performance as opposed to accepting people based off of IQ.

thats a bullshit chart lol

Jim Crow had nothing to do with economic differences.
The war on drugs had nothing to do with economic differences.
Redlining had nothing to do with economic differences.
Lead exposure had nothing to do with economic differences.
Implicit bias has nothing to do with economic differences.

It's 100% genetic dammit, rrreeeeee

Attached: image.jpg (425x503, 78K)

You've got the causality around wrong way you idiot. IQ is by far the largest predictor of success, which leads to improved socioeconomic status.

If it was those policies we would see clear "equaling" out of outcomes afterwards.

Meanwhile Asians who also faced prejudiced laws and environments are now making more than whites in America. While the black wealth gap between them and whites has increased.

Not to mention the entire continent of Africa's HDI. Nigeria used to have similar to GDP per capita as China and now look at the difference.

The fact that you're so sure the causality is that way around is frankly concerning for such a well-studied subject. It's like you don't understand how nepotism works at all

Yeah bro. It was like a million years ago lol. And everyone knows reparations were paid in massive amounts to put everyone on even footing lol

lol

Save your conspiracy theories for pol. Smart people earn more money than stupid people, it's pretty easy to understand.

Did Nigeria crash or did China boom or both, and why?

The wealth gap increased for all poor people user and has been increasing since before black people even had equal rights let alone equal social treatment. Black people started out disproportionately poor so of course the wealth gap between poor and rich affects them more you idiot

Look up education spending in Baltimore and most inner cities. The amount of resources that goes to blacks is very high.

But...you're the one talking like /pol/ you idiot. You're literally ignoring the fact that higher economic status leads to better education

The irony is that the money spent on education in america is a fucking joke and doesn't provide them with a proper education nor fix some of the social issues which keep people trapped in cyclical poverty

what does that have to do with IQ?

You realise that people with a better education test higher for IQ right?

yep, the education system should be re-routed to genetic programs to fix the underlying cause of inferiority.

What's the cause?

Some people are clearly desperate for everyone to be equal and for any differences to be only social problems that can be overcome. It’s ridiculous but well intentioned and yet I am sickened by your desire to remove the inherent diversity from humanity. I just wish that you could be left alone with your comforting beliefs, but you tend to form groups and try to force your beliefs on others. You already killed millions in Eastern Europe and China, will you ever have enough blood?

>inb4 race
>inb4 completely ignoring the fact that the same genes are present in races it's the distribution that is different
>inb4 doesn't realise genetic screening for IVF is already an easily achievable solution
>inb4 doesn't realise that if poor people can't afford the screening technology the gap will widen even more

what is the ratio of extra thousands of dollars to additional IQ points on test score? I bet it's pretty insignificant. You're arguing as though being brought up working class would drop someones IQ from 150 to 95.

Inherent diversity is a meme. True equality only comes from choice, not genetic predisposition

The problem is we don't even know all of the genes and what they do. There are at last several hundred, maybe thousand.

Another thing OP doesn't understand is that the model of nature vs nurture is a flawed and outdated model. A child could be born with all the best genetics for intelligence, but if they are born in Africa or in an isolated Amazonian tribe they will never do anything with it. Another main problem is that your genes do not determine your occupation or how to develop as a person over time. Human civilization has marched on for thousands of years of progress, but that isn't due to genetics. It's due to the fact that we're social animals and we can share in progress.

Given that there are less than 20,000 SNPs any two people will only differ by about 4,000 base pairs the entire idea that black shave worse genetics for intelligence is impossible. Most of the genetic differentiation between population are in the immune system, which makes evolutionary sense.

It's okay if it's fixed by environment.
If it's fixable by genetics we can't learn that or implement it.

see this thread

That thread has no information I already don't know nor anything that refutes what I said.

When genetically screened embryos becomes popular prepare for a gigantic gap between economic classes as those who can't afford to ensure the smart genes go into their baby get fucked over.

>The problem is we don't even know all of the genes and what they do. There are at last several hundred, maybe thousand.
We are identifying them at exponential rate, up to 538 in the last big publishing, from 0 just years ago.

The rest of your post is just too stupid to bother. It's demotivating to see such stupid logic

>why does IQ matter
>A 150 IQ child could get ran over at age 10 and contribute less to science than a 110 IQ person that doesn't die

Your logic is just inherently flawed. Showing a low IQ. Meaning no argument would work on you since you can't think logically to begin with.

>flawed arguments are indicative of low IQ
I knew /pol/ was basically 50 IQ!

>You're wrong because you're stupid!

Attached: Frans_Hals_-_Portret_van_Ren+¬_Descartes.jpg (817x1000, 151K)

Those 538 we have found only explain a fraction of IQ variation. Let's say there's 1500 genes that contribution to intelligence. If intelligence follows the general pattern of human variation, which it statistically will for such a large number of genes, then 85% or more of the variation will be shared by all populations already.

You also fail to see major problems in the concept of "editing" people. Even if we know all of the SNPs, we don't know what they all do. That research alone would take infinitely longer than simply sequencing and genome and correlating some SNPs.

>Showing a low IQ
As much as an individual’s experience is not normally statistically relevant; that has not actually been my experience with people that latch onto politically charged positions. The emotion trap is waiting to be sprung in all of us, avoiding it requires constant effort.

The argument was pointless on inspection

I can come up with infinite situations for IQ not mattering. It's not about specific situations being possible or not.

>150 IQ 5 year old
>gets shot in the head

Guess IQ doesnt matter because look, a 150 IQ kid didn't amount to much.

Someone putting forth such a stupid and low IQ argument is not worth arguing with. In my posts I'm talking to the people reading it with some semblance of logical thinking. Who already know your argument is garbage.

>the variation will be shared

God you are dumb. The things we have in common are what a separate a human mind from a dog mind, not variation between us you fucking incompetent thinker.

The point is you are pretending that a 100% deterministic version of IQ is all that matters, and no other factors are important.

Sam Harris just wrote a new article on race and IQ differences:
twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/978766308643778560

samharris.org/ezra-klein-editor-chief/

Attached: 3.png (886x664, 94K)

Or you are using strawman examples.

No one is arguing someone with amazing genetics that grew up feral with major brain injuries is going to turn out rich.

>is going to turn out rich.
Typical American mind, All that matters is money.

>article literally states at the start that it hasn't been determined how much genes has an effect vs how much environment does
We've literally learned nothing then

Money and wealth is an abstract universal measure for resources

>IQ is correlated with being left-wing
>All the people trying to make IQ threads are right-wing
>Logically we should be listening to the people with higher IQ since it's the be-all end-all
Pack it up, thread over. IQ has determined that we should all be radical left-wingers now according to /pol/

No, it's not. The Earth has always had the same amount of resources. Humans just learn to use them better and make new things. Gold would have been useless to a caveman.

The right wing people only make IQ threads because they're part of a "team." You'll notice they always try to take credit for other people's work. Things like racism appeal to people who feel rejected for being dumb. They feel accepted simply because of their skin color. For many of them their only accomplishment in life is being white.

IQ differences exist. Jut assholes here and elsewhere constantly misinterpret them for their own purposes or think that it's completely unchangeable over the years in populations as development happens.

Nothing off with saying "X has a higher IQ then Y" but hwen you are taking that info and screwing around with it into something that is vaguely related to the original statment but altered for your needs ishwere it becomes an issue.

Especial when you use it to justify differential treatment based off condemning the lower group to a worse quality of life/worse treatment at societal/state level or fucking them in the ass.

Attached: Marvin_Monroe_tapped_out.png (262x368, 16K)

>spam "we wuz kangz" memes to mock the three black people trying to take credit for ancient egypt
>completely unaware of they themselves doing the same thing when they claim credit for all the things white people ever did

Most people, including ones on Veeky Forums and /pol/ don't even acknowledge IQ is just a statistical assessment. They don't even realize your score on any given IQ test can changed based on your mood, hunger, etc. They want to believe IQ is some innate and unchanging metric like a stat on a D&D character sheet.

Winrar over here

Attached: 1461856112186.png (439x570, 325K)