Controversial study of African IQ levels is 'deeply flawed'

iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2010b.pdf
This is the paper that the article is based on. It's been posted a lot here whenever Holla Forumsacks come to talk about "race realism" and every single one of them brush it off by saying "even if their Autism Level isn't 70, 82 isn't much better and they are still dumb". They then proceed to deny that their Autism Level could ever possibly increase to a modest level like 90 if they had better conditions.

we don't need studies to tell us africans have low lQ Levels.

Their history, civilization and current state of development speak louder than some survey-test ever could.

I link to a paper that is peer reviewed and written by a professor.

You link to a statement made by a Biologist that is sensationalized in an independent news piece.

Really makes you think

twin studies reject this possibility, even when raised by whites or asians in affluent environments they converge to the mean of 70-80ish ,etc. Can't defeat reality.

Thought u guys were materialists, yet you hate biological realism. YOu think race is a social construct like sex?

How does Autism Level of a race correspond to the civilization a race builds? How is this an objective measure?

Which twin studies? You can't just fling shit out here and say "muh twin studies!"

doesn't mean anything. blacks are less intelligent than any other race, asian, jew, white, indian, it's just a fact. Just like east-asian men are shorter than indo-europeans. Just like women are less muscular than men, have worse reaction time, and are emotionally unstable. This is evolution, the way God designed the world. You can't fight reality. Your libshit papers don't mean anything. Dozens of twin studies have been done on Autism Level, 70% is inheritable, thus genetic, thus race matters.

Is there any other branch of science where "controversial" papers/studies are relentlessly dog-pilled on by other academics that doesn't involve racial differences?

Seriously, "disproving racist studies/papers" is like academia's equivalent of journalists autistically fact-checking anything Trump says

Quad studied reject that, you haven't even been to a university to deal with this have you

top jej

Please provide proof.

Race is a social construct. Even race realists acknowledge this.
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-is-a-social-construct/

I'm assuming he's talking about this.
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/21/peer-review-replication-and-publication-bias/

Yes, there are a lot of problems with papers that use statistical arguments due to thinks like "p hacking"

youtube.com/watch?v=c4cxOT8Kd7U

Race is real, intelligence differences exist, height differences exist, sex is real, no one is equal, no populations are "equal" every group has advantages and disadvantages, intelligence is a weakness for the negro.

Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers'

bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778

More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.

nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970

WHy? Because liberal science isn't reproducible.

I'm not going to trust child molesters on the method of academics.

You keep linking popsci first of all, that isn't a source I'm going to take seriously.

Second of all, how does this particularly make "liberal" science not reproducible, and not the biological papers you support.

Is this magic? Is this a joke

"Science" wouldn't have a replication crisis if it applied even half the vigor it expends on disproving racist papers, which exposes the transparently-ideological motivations behind disproving said papers.

welcome to the aut-reich

"Waahhhhhhh they're critiquing me"

Get fucking used to it dipshit get a diploma already

Who the fuck cares about this I,Q, shit? Even if everyone agreed that there were innate differences between races or even their intelligence it's not possible to construct a normative argument that justifies discrimation on the individual level of people.

This is irrelevant bullshit.

Race is real, intelligence differences exist, height differences exist, sex is real, no one is equal, no populations are "equal" every group has advantages and disadvantages, intelligence is a weakness for the negro.

I'm curious how you derive the conclusion that if 3 closely related things are "real", then some other thing is "real". Faulty reasoning.

You have to be joking, right? Ok let's assume your conclusion that more than 70% of researchers have failed to reproduce the results of another experiment, then you have basically proved my point. Also, how in the hell are "liberal" papers the only ones effected? Makes no fucking sense.

Well thinking that it's false is a start. Got a reason that you think it's false?
Are you implying that there is no correlation between measured Autism Level and real world effectiveness?
Gonna need something to back that right up.
We do rank people in a single linear order upon it. The order correlates with social attributes.
This is a non argument. There is a distinction between blue collar and white collar crime.
Fairly certain that someone having a higher Autism Level lowers their risk of having children out of wedlock.
This is not disputed.
It is highly heritable.
Well Holla Forums, I think we've touched down on all the issues.

When it comes to material conditions to actually apply what could be effective, and is usually highly specialized yes.

because academia has a liberal bias due to political correctness, gov funding, and the spirit of the times. anyone who publishes a paper about global warming being wrong gets defunded and branded an evil world-destroyer. if anyone publishes a paper saying blacks have low Autism Level and its mostly due to genetics/biology they are branded a racist.

Holla Forums is this really

really

What you think college is like?

Those aren't criticisms that automatically make you right, those aren't even criticisms that can be applicable in an academic argument about why you're suddenly correct where others are wrong

The source you should would have no way to prove either way that you aren't doing the very thing you're critiquing

go get a ged

...

see

congratulations on finding out that language is intrinsically social and that the meaning of every word is therefor socially constructed, why this needs to be posted in every thread about race is a mystery to me

Also see more importantly see

idpol nonsense

It should be "talking about race is identity politics shut the fuck up" you're right

You don't need studies to know the sky is blue. You don't need studies to know niggers are subhumans with low Autism Level. Just open your eyes outside.

The concept of white muh privilege tends to argue against that statement

I think his assumptions are too specific.
1) First, there has to be a meaningful single number that can be given to intelligence.
Going on the assumption that intelligence cannot be measured, it can be estimated via proxy. Autism Level is, for example, strongly correlated with Neural efficiency.
2)You have to be able to rank people in a single linear order.
Actually, there are many types of intelligence. It just so happens that Autism Level is the most relevant in determining the mental level at which individuals can contribute to society. youtube.com/watch?v=jSo5v5t4OQM
Consider the size of a person, it is partially heritable and partially environmental (diet and all that jazz) and can be reduced to various linear measurements such as height, weight, shoe size, etc. It just so happens that height is positively correlated with one's ability to dunk a basketball.
3)IQ has to be highly heritable.
As far as we know, it is ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/
4)It needs to be unchangeable.
No one denies the fact that Autism Level can change considering the existence of fluid and crystallized intelligence and the rising Autism Level rates over the past century. The debate surrounds the amount that Autism Level can change as a result of the environment.
Denying the fact that Autism Level is largely hereditary can lead to massive problems in society for low Autism Level individuals as detailed in this video. youtube.com/watch?v=fjs2gPa5sD0

My eyes are open

And I see something

And? What do you think we are fucking tumblr?

Fug, I forgot this board changed I Q to Autism Level

how do you want to talk politics without identification?

...

Dialectically

Are you guys actually trying to argue that blacks have NORMAL lQs??? where is the study to prove this absurd claim.

How would you explain their primitive civilizations? They're smart but just inherently lazy? Wew nice racism.

That's what most of Holla Forums is tbh. They all jerk themselves off about how superior and woke they are but they never do shit besides start meme wars.

No I'm implying that you're the majority peer review libshit identity driven science studies that can't be reproduced

The case against bigotry is not a factual claim that humans are biologically indistinguishable(duh). It is a moral stance that condemns judging an individual according to the average traits of certain groups to which the individual belongs. Enlightened societies choose to ignore race, sex, and ethnicity in hiring, promotion, salary, school admissions, and the criminal justice system because the alternative is morally repugnant. Discriminating against people on the basis of race, sex, or ethnicity would be unfair, penalizing them for traits over which they have no control. It would perpetuate the injustices of the past, in which African Americans, women, and other groups were enslaved or oppressed. It would rend society into hostile factions and could escalate into horrific persecution. But none of these arguments against discrimination depends on whether groups of people are or are not genetically indistinguishable.

But
That's
You

...

(nothing wrong with first image though)

I can keep cherry picking, I love cherries

Holla Forums isn't sending their best. There is legitimate scientific evidence on both sides of the debate. humanbiologicaldiversity.com/#IQ

The only best on Holla Forums would be a monarchist traditionalist a la Evola who would call the whole thing bull shit.

Did you actually read the study? Here's a quote from the study you linked.
"On the basis of several reviews of the literature, Lynn [Lynn, R., (2006). Race differences in
intelligence: An evolutionary analysis. Augusta, GA: Washington Summit Publishers.] and Lynn
and Vanhanen [Lynn, R., & Vanhanen, T., (2006). Autism Level and global inequality. Augusta, GA:
Washington Summit Publishers.] concluded that the average Autism Level of the Black population of subSaharan Africa lies below 70. In this paper, the authors systematically review published
empirical data on the performance of Africans on the following Autism Level tests: Draw-A-Man (DAM)
test, Kaufman-Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC), the Wechsler scales (WAIS & WISC),
and several other Autism Level tests (but not the Raven's tests). Inclusion and exclusion criteria are
explicitly discussed. Results show that average Autism Level of Africans on these tests is approximately 82
when compared to UK norms. We provide estimates of the average Autism Level per country and
estimates on the basis of alternative inclusion criteria. Our estimate of average Autism Level converges
with the finding that national Autism Levels of sub-Saharan African countries as predicted from several
international studies of student achievement are around 82. It is suggested that this estimate
should be considered in light of the Flynn Effect. It is concluded that more psychometric studies
are needed to address the issue of measurement bias of western Autism Level tests for Africans."

>Nearly 70 percent of the population has an Autism Level between 85 and 115 on most tests. us.mensa.org/join/testing/scoreevaluation/
Sounds normal to me.

Honestly if we're going to become a meritocracy based entirely on concluding socially from the biological, and becoming entirely identitarian, what does someone from Holla Forums bring to the table that someone from Nigeria couldn't.

That means it's 99.9% accurate and that the gliberals are just upset about it

should be considered in light of the Flynn Effect. It is concluded that more psychometric studies
are needed to address the issue of measurement bias of western Autism Level tests for Africans

I mean what culture is there even to defend in America anymore that's "white and western"

Western Values like day-drinking staring at your kids you hate at Chuck E. Cheese

We must secure the existence of ARBY'S and a future for American Roast Beef

You can't have it both ways since you're also upset about scientific papers

wtf are you talking about? You don't have monarchy without hierarchy. You don't have hierarchy without inequality. You don't have sustained inequality without differences in genetics.

You ain't fooling no one. We've all seen the antifa bashed by the fash. These guys are literal shills and jews who aren't even Holla Forums.

You realize that democracy just pacifies the population against the bourgeoisie.
In a monarchy it is easier to empower people to kill tyrants.

IQ is nonsense anyway, and intelligence is overrated.
Who cares about being to think, when you can play basketball or rape/steal/murder.

I don't give a fuck about Autism Level seriously
I would not choose friends based on their scores on some puzzle test that some autist pulled out of his ass

and I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a caste society even if I would belong to "übermensch" caste
If I met someone in real life who talks like you I would try to cave their face in with a great pleasure whatever skin color they have

...

Where do you think you are

i mean it

there you go, an identifier

That's not what identity politics is you dumb fucking whore

i know full well that its you pretending that marxism is some transcendental meta ideology, i just don't go along with the delusion

What do you think you're doing about your ideology? You're impossibly biased and trying to speak academically and crying when people critique you.

If you hate it just fucking publish something and research it

But wait you're not in college on the topic you want to talk on image boards so fuck all.

And you still don't know what identity politics is

If you assume that the Autism Levels are as different as the current scientific consensus says they are then you get different job aptitudes iqcomparisonsite.com/occupations.aspx. If you assume that people from Nigeria and people from western societies have no difference in I Q, then you still have the benefits of social cohesion caused by ethnocentrism. People tend to associate more often with people similar to them genetically, so conflict caused by diversity and proximity can be better managed and prevented.

Holla Forums I know

I know it's hard

But shut the honest to god fuck up

No it doesn't.

And people would rather not be around a socially stunted Holla Forums poster either. I honestly see people from Nigeria doing labor Holla Forums wouldn't begin to dream of doing

...

good catch. My bad. There is still debate on both sides
Why is the Holla Forums poster socially stunted? (If that stereotype is correct.)

The question has the answer within it.

made my day

anytime fam.

This is the ideal white athletic and intellectual form? Don't like it?

Nobody's perfect

Intelligence thread? Nice. It's long though, so let me only comment on a first post.

Notice how he reuses the same tactic in almost all of his retorts. It is using a useless term: 'meaningful', 'highly', and 'effectively'. Once you've done your reading about tactics of pseudoscientists like Gould, you see clearly that this is simply 'no true' fallacy: 'okay Autism Level is heritable but not TRULY heritable', 'okay it is permanent but not TRULY permanent', and 'okay it can be measured, but it is not a TRULY meaningful number' (without giving any good standards of meaningfulness of one; would he say that there is no such thing as pollution because it is impossible to place a single number on it? of course he wouldn't).

...

what can i say, i'm a sensitive guy. i could take a step down to your level of discourse but that would be awfully paternalistic.

first you had marx and engels, they were cool material working class people. then the faggy liberals came along and they said "hey, you are limiting yourself and pretending that all else is compressed into your limitations too, we should broaden our scope as to enhance our comprehension of the world'' which totally ruined marxism. now the only place that preserves the One True political metaperspective is Holla Forums, because they're materialist and materialism is true because rocks are material and they are real which is why socialism is a science. identity politics is idealist and therefor not scientific because ideas aren't real, you've never had one so what the dumb fucking whore are people making them up.

What the fuck are you talking about you dumb shit

This nigga furious about the term Identity Politics lmfao

Wait, Hoochie Minh is posting on Holla Forums again?

Maybe just one more.

You are already doing this, user.

You already enjoy talking to people at or slightly above your Autism Level more. Nobody enjoys talking to people dumber than oneself. You are already a racist that-wise. Further, it is precisely your being already aware of this that results in your compulsion to reply to mentions of this fact with exceptions in the flavour of 'not true, one of my best friends is stupid as fuck'. For one, 'one of my friends' is, well, an anecdote. And for another, you intentionally leave your private definition of 'smart' and 'stupid' undefined, so to be able to proclaim 'stupid' even people who, Autism Level-wise, are very very smart. This is also a very very common tactic, to redefine the smart/stupid axis to refer to things like impulsiveness or emotional maturity or spending habits or being distractable in a certain narrow set of situations, so to be able to come up with handy examples in which the (freshly-redefined by you) 'smartness' or 'stupidity' fails to demonstrate a politically incorrect correlation ('he's "stupid" and yet he knows a lot' or 'he's "smart" but he's easily lost'). One could call that a counterevidence mill were it not so dishonest.

Stefan Molyneux's dog-whistle brand of racism relies of "Average National/cultural Autism Level". I know most of you can't be bothered to listen to his spergish ramblings, but if you watch till the end to hear the call for action in most of his videos, these days it will be along the lines of "The West is so great, The west invented science and the NAP, it's time we begin using Science against the Low Autism Levels"

If that whole concept is now BTFO and discredited, do you think he will go full Nazi now?

You're right you caught us

We're racist against Holla Forums

It's okay to hate. It really is. Just be honest with yourself about what you hate the thing in question for.

cultural marxism, duh.

I don't think there wasn't a time when anyone wasn't honest about hating Holla Forums

sucking liberal dick
loves niggers

so why should I give a fuck about your tests if I already doing fine without them?
I don't need you services to judge people

pol btfo

But I was talking about the reasons, the ultimate reasons behind a prejudice. For instance: the reason that leftists deny the importance of Autism Level, is, somewhat surprisingly, their laziness (with its directly evolutionary basis). Accepting the reality of importance of Autism Level entails rejection of self-determination (free will), in the sense of accepting existence of external limits to achievement, doing which would result in a moral obligation to educate the stupider groups (races, genders) rather than insisting on their capacity to educate themselves 'if only provided adequate circumstances'. Such an obligation is burdensome; better to preserve energy by rejecting its very premise.

It's because you refuse to understand what the term identity politics is and are bending over up into your own foreskin between your legs to argue a point why I don't like you, like a philosophy minor

There's more material circumstances that limit people with higher Autism Levels than not. Making them pretty moot in Capitalism

by putting yourself in the leftist camp and attacking pol and whites and defending blacks and sucking liberal dick, you're already knee-deep in "idpol" and don't even know it
there is no escape from idpol. Everything is identity, and accordingly everything is political. This is why Marx is dead, not because of sum dipshit free market critique.

Is an autist who is barely capable of clothing himself with a high Autism Level more intelligent than a successful businessman with an average Autism Level?

Is Autism Level not the method of measurement, but the the substance of intelligence itself?

No I'm not

Leave you ridiculous fucker

No, the point is that you are already conducting Autism Level tesring in your head. An Autism Level test is ultimately simply a correlation, a correlation of presence of questions with presence of right answers. Similarly, you can't help observing the relationships between presence of room for observations or conclusions in your friends, during a chat with them, with actual presence of those observations and those jokes… or lack thereof. You can't really not notice if a friend of yours is dumb, if they make clever use of their environment. You already Autism Level-test, user; all that you may yet refuse to do is to accept that those two kinds of testing, pen-and-paper and socialization, are the same thing.

>humanbiologicaldiversity.com/#IQ

Autism level is a measure of how big the engine is, and makes no assessment of who is driving

Disagreeing with your bullshit isn't equal to prejudice against you calm down

You shitting everywhere and not understanding what terms mean before screaming about them is.

kys

there is no distinction between driver and engine, unless you're a strange sort of dualist

Not to people who need the term 'intelligence' to have many meanings (and to stress that ambiguity) so to obscure the diversity of relationships of Autism Level with success by mentioning it. Who can't deny existence of a relationship between A and B will obscure it by questioning the association between A and the term 'A'.

I'm sorry for sounding confused and verbose. I'm tired.

I think you just have a low I.Q. tbh. This board is for 120+

While you are correct, an engine/driver analogy is more likely an attempt at the 'IQ is useless if you fail to make use of it' fallacy.

You can only get about 15 points with better upbringing. Africans won't do any better than their American counterparts, they could get to 80-90 but that's it.

My own Autism Level is definitely below that, although the frequency with which people remind me of my purportedly inflated self-perception can be seen as flattery in itself.

It's probably less confusing to make intelligence the innate (unraiseable) component by definition in the first place. Whatever remains after ruling out environmental impact, is intelligence.

(In fact, even the word's etymology yields to this suggestion. Since 'intelligence' originally meant 'reading between (the lines)', this sense could be extended to 'reading that which has not been given (taught)', 'reading novelty'. The nature component. That is, what we currently call intelligence or Autism Level could be called simply 'legence'.)

EYO, YA SCALLINGER

Only if you need to fight against reallity to keep your ideology

Why are people so fucking obsessed with Autism Level? It's fucking unbearable. It's always targeted against the poor, the non-white, the ill, the sick. I'm always reminded of this from Wallace Shawn's The Fever

At this point I don't give a shit if I'm deemed inferior by an Autism Level test tbqh. As Frantz Fanon said;

dehumanization, because if you see someone else as innately lesser-than then you're more likely to vote away their rights (while keeping your own), or vote for policies that will screw them

all the "well I'm just interested in facts, like scientifically" explanations are bullshit because they'll disseminate that shit under the table and then dogwhistle it as hard as they can

taking outliers out of statistical data is normal to get more accurate information. Anyone who uses this as criticism is delusional.

Cry me a fucking river. Ninnies like you will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

no wall for u
only eternal gulag now

not an argument

85 is retarded. The threshold was substantially lowered after post modernism decided it was an "unfair label" for certain groups.
Anarcho-Tranhumanism flag is code for black crossdresser

Holy shit even the pepes are ugly and obese.

nah
the downtrodden will make the best soldiers
nothing to lose

there's that word again

i've noticed that too
listening to sam "nuke the muslims" harris cosying up to charles "cross burner" murray lately was just nauseating

LOL No, even that Minnesota adoption study showed the average I.Q. of black kids to be in the high 90s in followup research.

Can somebody please just make a Shlomo meme of him already? I know it's an antisemitic meme, but he's literally a Zionist shill so he deserves it.

This. Don't ever buy into that "it's white *nationalism*, not supremacy" bullshit either. The first thing that's gonna happen when people like Richard Spencer come into power is Jim Crow 2.0, mass deportations of American citizens or worse millions of dead non-whites.

But that'll get in the way of all the ben stiller memes

This is one of the most disastrous conclusions people come to. Accepting reality of Autism Level is deeply compassionate. Assuming that it, broadly speaking, 'doesn't matter' means condemning the poor and the sick you speak of with tools only – computerization, free information, market opportunities – but not with the cognitive ability to make use of them. It is like taking a retarded person to a library and telling them to enjoy. In fact, you don't even need to (and should not) go as far – Autism Level is associated far too deeply with far more pressing outcomes like simple longevity or illness- and accident-proneness to make increasing it in the next generation anything but the first of priorities.

In fact, telling people that they 'don't need Autism Level' and 'only need to try' to succeed, in an exquisitely cruel fashion, incapacitates them by their own hands, because as you easily (obviously) convince them of that, they themselves will teach their children the same, perpetuating their various sorry conditions. (Because they won't take care to mate with smarter people, which is the only viable way of improvement.)

The problem indeed with intelligence is that it is a less obvious measure than say a persons height.

It also opens up the whole can of worms which is Nazism and judging people based almost entirely on a single arbitrary attribute.

It should however also be pointed out that a real world example of this practice in action already occurs in American Basketball. No one disputes that different ethnicities have different average heights (note key words average; and ethnicity, not race). Because of said height differences some ethnic groups are given preference over others because even controlling for individual skill, height in the game of basketball provides an intrinsic advantage. While shorter players are not explicitly banned from the game altogether and shorter players do occasionally make it into the big leagues it is painfully obvious that a heritable trait is having an undue influence on selection.

It also is worth keeping in mind that in general different ethnicities tend to adapt optimally to their environment over time as different traits are selected for (IE evolution). Hence why Eskimos are more compact than other groups (in order to conserve heat), or why the Amish can better digest fat because of their dairy heavy diet and so on.

Different ethnicities having slight variations between each other is not intrinsically good or bad it is simply a fact of life. But as Stephen Gould points out (in a round about manner) it is mankind which arbitrarily assigns value to these traits even when it doesn't make sense to in the larger context of things. Because there is no such thing as an organism that is perfectly adapted to every environment.

Indeed the wider debate that usually lies at the heart of such assertions goes back to "if would could rank people using a particular scale, what should we then do with them based on this rank?". It would be much more interesting and I feel a better use of time to address that set of questions.

Hardly. Autism Level's relationships are wider than those of height. Height only relates to other physical traits and a handful of social favours. Autism Level turns up in all the unexpected problems: think ability at games, but also at planar orientation, at art, at escaping, at scheduling. You get the picture. Of course, this is partly because of the taboo on the former, but Autism Level is far more able to surprise people with what it is behind than height.

Holla Forums logic

Also, yes, the word 'average' has indeed been unfortunately made key. It is a part of (hard indeed to believe otherwise) a leftist movement to demand its inclusion whenever a pattern is stated, so that, for instance, people are socially pressured to say 'blacks are stupider than whites *on average*' or, even on more trivial subjects, 'modern cities are spacier than they used to be *on average*', for example. This is, of course, done to discourage people from stating general patterns by demanding an inconvenient amount of disclaimers and associate said pattern-stating with a connotation of guilt unless they are not given. The point is to connote that stating a rule is, in itself, wrong or, dare I say it, offensive. It is a coordinated strawman so to say: a coordinated movement to make people believe that people who state a truth simply are guilty of overgeneralization. A movement to discourage from generalizing.

Think also 'it depends' and 'everyone is different' – the reason they're repeated so often is to connote that 'awareness' (bullshit) of those 'facts' (bullshit) is somehow more important or truer than awareness of patterns governing occurrence of traits in human subgroups (and, as a result, that it is those 'facts' that should primarily be taught to children).

Finally, this is a fucking disingenuous equivocation. Yes, any value is arbitrary on the *cosmic* scale ('nothing will matter when the Sun consumes the Earth'), but Autism Level is, contrary to what one hears from time to time, valued universally. Compare >>1848390. Even the primitive societies farthest from the white civilization value Autism Level (even if they have no notion of it at all, not in the least because of primitiveness of their language). Smarter hunters or trackers become respected. Smartest analysts of group behaviour become chieftains. Smartest bullshitters become shamans. Smartest warriors, in the sense of being the craftiest with their weapons and remembering anatomy well to know where to strike, become respected as well. Autism Level works, even if ever behind the scenes because of its beneficients' persistent tendency to attribute its effects to its products ('I succeeded because I'm a good hunter/warrior', without realizing that the reason behind that talent of theirs is ultimately Autism Level).

what a steaming turd of a post
yes, let's encourage generalization in the thinking of our children, that's a perfectly sane thing to do
let's make them think that the world is bingo bongo bongo so simple, instead of a mass of complex processes that fold into other complex processes and so on

of course, your bullshit has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the welfare of the children or society, postomodernism, cultural marxism and other buzzwords, all you want to do is introduce old time racism back into society

My point being, Autism Level's products (think reluctance to commit violent crimes or aforementioned longevity for simpler examples) are valued well universally enough to dismiss any suggestions that it is 'subjective' or 'arbitrary' in most contexts. I believe that asked about traits they wish their kid to have, parents-to-be reply with intelligence second (right after happiness). In doing that, they let slip, perhaps even unwittingly, their inner awareness that it is nigh impossible to develop intelligence by oneself (and therefore that it is something that needs to be *wished* for), before they catch themselves and follow that with '…but of course anyone can become smart if they educate themselves', quelling their consciences.

Anyone who thinks Autism Level studies prove that X demographic is inferior is a moron and doesn't understand materialism. Take this shit back to Holla Forums.

Hate as I do to mention it explicitly, this is a case of show vs tell. Complexity must be shown, not told. Show your children a study showing inferiority of blacks. Say nothing; neither condemn nor condone. Then show them one about degrees of inferiority in a group depending on their finer genetic makeup. Then also condemn and condone neither. Repeat. In practice, doing this is the only thing that can keep people from confusing the finger for the moon. As it is (and as leftists constantly exploit), a person given a study followed with 'but don't overgeneralize based on it' will well forget the contents of the study, and well remember that reproaching people with 'don't generalize!' commands respect and is a simple tool to dismiss trust in any given finding (if you don't like what a study has found, you can minimize its impact with following it with 'the world is more complex than any one study').

In short, yes, there is FAR too little generalization. If anything, our children are mortified of generalization. They've been crippled.

Also, of course I want to reintroduce racism. At the risk of repeating myself to make a point, inferior races are lacking in Autism Level. Lack of Autism Level shortens lives. At which point refusing to embrace racism in order to fix their condition is no different from refusing to treat people's medical conditions for fear of 'deathism', prejudice against the condition of dying.

what exact "fixes" do you have in mind?

I did not claim to have any. I would like to hope that simple solid explanation of permanence of intelligence would make some people mate more responsibly, without necessitating any genetic meddling that is probably not possible to begin with (never really looked into it). Simple campaigning along the lines of 'don't transmit your STI (sexually transmitted idiocy) to your children' and 'don't even think of pacifying your concerns with "they have their free will, they can overcome the idiocy they've got from me with their own effort" before you choose to procreate' would help, plus, of course, showing the full breadth of Autism Level's correlates. ('Did you know… that Autism Level influences the rate at which your house appliances break down?' 'Did you know… that Autism Level makes you spot better deals as you shop?').

yes, those are completely normal

See, the problem with the current ideology is that it is egoistical. Mercilessly so; we (out of comfort and concern for ourselves, too, of course, as no one wants to be the shot messenger) please each other with stressing that intelligence doesn't matter because we value the complacency that it gives us even above the well-being of our kids, who are going to inherit our ability.

a) Autism Level is correlated to demographics, not "races." Modern research on Autism Level has no mention of "blacks" or "whites".
b) >in order to fix their condition
If Autism Level is largely impacted by environmental factors, there is no reason to embrace racism when frank discussion re: material conditions (i.e. teaching people about materialism) is a much better means to this end, especially considering that your means involve, you know, racism. Plus, race is an ideology.

Modern Times =/= all of history

Intelligence means fuck all if you are in a situation where being stronger, more energy efficient, more resistant to a certain disease, etc. is more relevant to the situation at hand. You have fallen into the modern thought trap which holds intellect to be the be all and end all of traits when it is really only one of many. Evolutionary speaking the only thing that matters is being able to produce the most offspring that will themselves live to reproduce. All traits are in service to this and generally speaking smart people past a certain point tend to be too smart for their own good and not reproduce as much as others.

You have also made the mistake of generalizing what you think is intelligence into one big super-category when it is in fact several sub sects of intelligence and other unrelated traits.

Hunting depends a great deal on speed, strength, manual dexterity and a degree of intuition.

Charisma, emotional intelligence, friendliness, height (taller people are more likely to be leaders), physical appearance, age, strength.

Creative intelligence, ability to lie, and people in general being inclined towards superstition.

Again. Strength, speed, endurance, courage, psychological toughness (ie resistance to having a breakdown while in conflict), ability to work in a group, ability to do fast surface level processing of rapidly transpiring events.

As a side note you may also find the difference between peoples abilities to do deep vs. shallow level processing to be interesting and relevant to this discussion.

Read "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman to get a better appreciation for the many different aspects that make up intelligence.

Being able to do deep complex thinking is helpful in some instances and likewise being able to make split second decisions is helpful in others. And those two modes of thinking do not necessarily co-vary with each other.

A second result for 'IQ and cancer relationship' suggests one that is protective even in earlier stages of life, if you find that more serious and poster-proper. It is not really about relationships between Autism Level and positive outcomes – those are many enough – but about thinking to look them up, to make the respective study to begin with. This is the zeroth obstacle we need to overcome. It's easy to be certain Autism Level affects little without the habit to consider *whether*.

yeah, not like people have been sterilised or murdered in the past because of this stuff or anything like that. not like people want to strip the voting rights from and slash welfare for the people deemed inferior. not like most of this stuff is funded by groups like the pioneer fund and supported by neo nazis.

i don't. meritocracy is a bourgeois fairy tale.

Oh dear, people began to reply. I may have time for posting ideas, not so much for dispelling misconceptions. Quickly:

There is nothing in a name.

Vague word.

It well might be. I'm not really interested in quantifying effectiveness of different ways to achieve something. I'm just interested in whether the single process is sound.

Sure when we were furry quadrupeds intelligence 'didn't matter that much'. Not relevant. It has been relevant for the last 10,000 years or so. Substitute 'cosmic' in with 'historic'.

The tried-and-true fallacy/tactic of 'but what if you have to wrestle a bear, what good is your intelligence then eh?'. Artificial constructed cases in which intelligence is necessarily helpless are irrelevant to the real broader context in which intelligence is freely let prevent their occurrence to begin with. Of course it is useless if you DEFINE a scenario in which it is useless. But in unbounded reality, which you've proven unwilling to engage, intelligence shines in terms of acknowledging early the necessity of being strong and embracing a training programme, or securing tech in advance which will render reliance on pure strength or energy unnecessary, or choosing your destinations wisely (informedly) and avoiding disease-attacked areas.

Strawman. Except as soon as I explain that it is a strawman, you are going to put an intention (if not literally words) in my mouth and ask the rhetorical question 'aha, so you agree that intelligence is not everything, good to know'. No, I would never say 'intelligence is not everything' because it gives the factually incorrect impression that intelligence is somehow not the most protective factor of all when it comes to well-being and personal security generally.

Never denied this.

Never denied that either. Nice equivocation though. Too smart for their REPRODUCTIVE good. There is no such thing as too smart for PROTECTIVE good; no point at which intelligence becomes dangerous.

No, it is you who have made the manipulation of implying that it can't be both. Of course different manifestations of intelligence exist; but they are all subject to the general heritable Autism Level.

And just how many deaths and how much suffering has been prevented by euthanizing those people? Refusing to incapacitate preemptively because 'one has not yet done anything wrong' is not morally tenable.

In short, humans have a limited (and, ironically, Autism Level-related) consequence horizon. A death is imaginable; deaths done by the killed one, less so.

Of course there is. Are you willing to talk science, or not? ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15342553

Demographic/demography is the preferred method because demographic analyses account for static (age, sex, SES, etc.) and dynamic (fertility, growth, migration, etc.) variables of a population at a point in time. This isn't a case of arguing semantics. You are examining a single variable independently (race), when in actuality, Autism Level is influenced by a covariance matrix.

It is vague by necessity; however, if you state that you are not "interested in quantifying effectiveness of different ways to achieve something" then you are likely not interested in quantifying the impact of environmental factors (so why comment?).

Do you mind clarifying? Or do you simply mean that you are wondering if embracing and subsequently subverting race/racialism (warts and all) is the easiest method to helping change the lives of those ranking lowest on the Autism Level totem pole?

What's he referring to? Isn't the implication here that blacks are significantly different from whites in ways other than intelligence?

...

Obfuscatory synonym mill. Planned obsolescence of terms, so that discourse is reset and disrupted with every synonym-for-'race'-of-the-year and fewer conclusions are reached that otherwise could have been owing to the confusion.

He's probably implying the 'every culture defines intelligence differently' nonsense.

It doesn't sound like it. It sounds like he's saying that different races respond to the test differently,

I kind of wonder how would an artificial neural network perform on a standarized Autism Level test.

Works too. 'They're not stupid, they just process the world differently.' Classic 'kinetic intelligence'. Differences in intelligence can be stated freely, as long as one takes care to negate any implications of its (un)desirability. 'Yes they are stupid but stupidity is in the eye of the beholder' accomplishes the goal as well as, if not better than, avoiding the subject altogether.

Not if they actually process the world differently. Processing the world differently is something other than a difference in intelligence.

and the retard of the thread award goes to

All right, except it changes nothing in the bigger picture. Even if we term a portion of the factors responsible for their failures in Autism Level testing 'thinking differently', it won't change the fact that their 'difference' still impairs them in terms of everything that high Autism Level ensures. Medical treatment does not care whether observers choose to call an aspect of an illness 'immune deviancy' or whatever.

Right, because making appreciable gains toward an approximation for an idea is “obfuscation.” I’m not going to discuss this with someone who isn’t interested in discussing the corpus of research as we know it thus far. It sounds like a cop out, but I plead with you, from comrade to comrade: read more. Specifically on modern research regarding Autism Level studies and factors influencing Autism Level. It’s not just race, and to say that is not disingenuous.

I guess that means your grandparents were retarded then.

>Statements that this group or that group cannot maintain or develop a modern industrial civilization because they have a mean I.Q. of only 85 are suspect, Dr. Flynn wrote in The New Scientist, a British journal. American whites circa 1930 had a mean I.Q. of 85 scored against current norms and yet they developed the industrial civilization we have today.
nytimes.com/1988/04/10/education/an-emerging-theory-on-blacks-iq-scores.html?pagewanted=all

Paper that the quote above is based on: iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/flynn1984b.pdf

I don't give a fuck. If the author isn't just pulling it out of his ass, it's much more interesting than a simple difference in intelligence.

Oh, but definitely there are many independent factors. (Even if their number is usually mentioned in instances of confusing cause with effect, for instance attributing low Autism Level to bad nutrition or bad cultural influences or parental neglect rather than the other way round.) I just mentioned the way in which people avoid discussion of race. Definitely under the hood, intelligence is distributed across all kinds of physical traits. Doesn't affect race's validity.

I strongly doubt there actually is a causal link between race and cognitive ability, but even if there was, it wouldn't mean a thing in terms of left wing political theory. The existence of differences does not necessitate hierarchy any more than the existence of weapons necessitates war.

Rightists are so obsessed with dysgenics because they are retards that don't know how evolution works.

There is. High cognitive ability causes empathy, which causes white guilt, which causes irrelevant shiting, which changes the race.

Can't tell if this is a joke.

I have never said that. I think you misread my statements to mean that I am obscuring race with a sea of variables, when I am truly saying that race is a part of that sea of variables. I then feel the need to circle back to the conception of focusing on race (which is what I am understanding from your view), when there is an entire set of factors to address - and more importantly, these factors are mutable. Unless you simply mean that we have to come to grips with the idea that there are near-immutable factors to acknowledge in regard to questions of relative superiority in a given domain from person to person.

Must be why whites were so gentle during imperialism.

Hot take. Do you have proofs? Do you have proofs that white guilt is prevalent?

No it's true. The white race is actually too superior to properly subjugate other races. It's our one weakness.

really makes one ponder

Let me list all words that are unnecessary in this sentence:

'to acknowledge'
'questions of'
'relative'
'in a given domain'
'from person to person'

Result:

Pithier.

Calling you autistic feels like it'd be calling water wet.

We are far beyond the point where nothing that happens mean a thing in terms of left wing political theory.
It's the "fact-value disctintion" meme's fault.

Liberals are not leftist.

I’m trying to approximate your argument in the most exacting language possible. I’m not interested in smugness. If that’s your ideology, then okay. What is your praxis?

They sit on the left of the social spectrum mate. Name one thing they're actually reactionary about.

Gay fucking word filter.

You goddamn SJW. The left-right spectrum describes, as it always has, a dichotomy of economic and political structure. Saying the word "nigger" doesn't make you right wing.

DOesn't matter governments intervene all the time in social life using economics and politics and it's now expected of them to boot. So I'll ask again.

What? I really didn't say anything that complicated. Left wing means left wing economic policy. Point to that. Just because you don't understand history or political theory doesn't mean you can just make up a new definition based on the stuff you don't like the government doing.

>>>Holla Forums

You deny it yet your own board is run by a tranny.

I've only ever seen buttblasted Holla Forumsyps make this claim. And even if it were true it's of no consequence considering how much we hate the BO almost universally.

What does that have to do with the simple definition of a term? Focus.

Because they're joined together at the hip and trying to deny that is stupid. If you're an economic leftist than you're in the progressive camp by default or show me a commie organisation now that think trannies are a sign of mental instability.

Why the fuck would your stance on trannies be a political issue in the first place? Holy fuck idpolers are fucking retarded

Because it's being pushed using the government and academia which is in part funded by the government?

It is true, and the BO is massive faggot. Still, he is not a Republican shill like imkamphy. If he wants to put on makeup and a skirt and pretend that he is the little girl, I don't give a flying fuck so long as he does not shit up the board.

How does that make it left wing? Your whole argument is that the government is left wing because it pushes left wing policies that are left wing because the government that pushes them are left wing.

No, economic theory has fuck-all to do with social issues beyond the plain fact that social structures are shaped by economic forces. You faggots and the pomos operate under the blatantly fallacious assumption that economic forces are shaped by some collective geist rather than the other way around. Thus you see politics as part of an imaginary social spectrum instead of being a tool of the ruling class. That is the disconnect here, and that is why your ideology is completely incapable of accomplishing anything except for the maintainance of the status quo.

that is a remarkably cold and dehumanising way of viewing the world
hope to god your vision never comes true

kekkity kek

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 ALL THAT MEANS IS 'JEW APPROVED', YOU GOOD GOY.🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

so how can you be sure that causation arrow points from test score to social status, and not from social status to test score if said scores correlate with the social status?