I.Q. and Race

Okay wonderful people, after listening to talks and reading into the subject more; genetics definitely affect intelligence. Take it as you will but the empirical evidence is there, we must jump on this subject and own it before it is used odiously. As the evidence states Holla Forumslands best friend is at the hight of Human intelligence, but studies have show that as melanin in the skin becomes less I.Q. does go up. I say this just so people understand why this is a subject that should be handled assiduously. Certain groups of people are calling for forms of meritocracy that are beyond extreme. What I'm suggesting is that this information must be conveyed to others delicately, obviously some hard line liberals will shout racist the moment it's brought up, but other left leaning people working in tandem to spread such awareness will give it a somewhat delectable look. Also this information can be used to our advantage, because studies also show that highly intelligent people more then often have leftist and liberal values. We must be at the forefront of this so we can help society progress, hopefully knowing that most here wouldn't try to spin this "forbidden knowledge" insidiously. This topic deserves discussion amongst ourselves, and how this can fit into and affect our separate ideologies, opinions on how and where to convey these facts is important. Far-right Neo-Nazis don't own the topic completely yet.

Other urls found in this thread:

setantacollege.com/wp-content/uploads/Journal_db/The ACTN3 R577X Polymorphism in East.pdf)

Look. It's a debate you can't win by their terms.
It maybe true or false. It doesn't matter. The real question is why capitalism needs this ideological shield? Is this an excuse for enabling slavery and explitation?
What one needs to do to win this debate is to expose this shit for what it is: an ideological shield and a justification for the failed capitalist states.

We already know that if everyone's Autism Level were higher, Holla Forums wouldn't exist.

The empirical evidence is obviously there, what you said can also be true in the sense of how others might use this information. Which is why I'm saying we must own it.

We can't own it. It's true in fact. But why does capitalism or the right need this in their ideology? You have to expose the shield

Bullshit. Piss off with your scientism. It's a well known sociological fact that differences in, for example, skilledness in tool use, let's say between humans and dolphins, is 110% due to socialization and not genetics.
You are specieist and reductionist.

True but these studies will eventually affect society one way or another. Owning it is really the only hope the left has at redemption and integration with our own beliefs.

The facts show that this is more of a physical matter then intangible. A person with a healthy nutritional diet will have a better chance of maintaining intelligence. The environment around a person plays no more then twenty percent of a role i.e. upbringing. The simple truth is that like looks and skin color, intelligence is also inheritable.

We don't need to spread our ideas. Even if "science" (read: scientism) claims race and Autism Level are correlated, anyone who would believe that is someone we don't want on our board.

Moar liek, muh cuck curve, amirite?




You can still troll Holla Forumsyps without being a buzzfeed tier idiot.

Things tend to be controversial for a reason.

I don't understand this argument, I mean I personally didn't want to believe it but if the empirical evidence is there how can we deny it.


By avoiding scientism.

I didn't know there was going to be this many people denying science, what I'm simply saying is that the sooner we accept the fact, the sooner we can figure out ways to properly help certain groups of people.

But how is it scientism if there is empirical evidence gained through the scientific method. Plus this pertains to very warranted needs, the more this is denied the less we can help people.

Intelligence is genetic because humans > dolphins > pigs > whale > caterpillar > dragonfly > amoeba
Genetics determined that other species are not as intelligent as humans, why then does it not affect humans as well?
This is also why science has determined that, in the far future anyways, there will be evolutionary dimorphism into two sub-species; the very intelligent and weak humans (porky will evolve into this) and the brutish and dumb workers. That's what happens when we don't abolish capitalism.


I'm not a troll dude, I'm speaking honestly

I'm convinced you are a porky shill.
Socialism is a science by itself you mong

The reason why is very simple, it's called academia. The state - or more precisely the entity often called 'the Deep State' - bought most of the intellectual class with money for 'education' and 'research'. Liberal policies in practice can be losslessly compressed to 'higher taxes, more public spending'. So naturally those paid by the state are supporting policies that have a high chance of increasing their own pay.

This can also be true, but what I hope is that people here see what I'm trying to say and understand this is important.


Check out that I-Q

Lol for some folk it's more like Q-T. But I'm serious this topic is important.

How are I.Q. studies used as an ideological shield for capitalism? I mostly see them cited to justify restricting immigration from third-world countries.

This topic isnt important in here, it has been debunked again and again, its a well known fact that race doesn't measure intelligence maybe over there is a difference in Autism Level but this is due worse schools among other things. There is enough research proving this whole shit wrong like black students scoring better than white in the GCSE's in british schools

you can't

I'll refer you to this post

it's almost as if immigrants to Britain from Africa are pre-selected for some sort of ability, whereas Black Americans were a more-or-less arbitrary cross-section of society, perhaps even selection from the left end of the bell curve since they were enslaved by someone in the first place. Same pattern happens in America with Nigerian-American and Jamaican-American immigrants taking all the slots that theoretically were created for pre-1965 Black Americans due to higher ability and help from affirmative action.

It's discussed here and there are studies with evidence that prove that genetics in deed play somewhere between fifty to eighty percent in intelligence.


As if you've watched any part of this video. Fuck off you stupid piece of shit. Save a decent person the trouble and kill yourself.


What are you talking about? Like really, this Holla Forums level arguments.

We have clines (jstor.org/stable/2739576?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents), not races. "Race" implies discontinuous subsets, but human variation is continuous. There is no one trait you can use as a division between "races", because there are people with intermediate characteristics for any trait you care to look at - including the most obviously visible ones like skin color and bone structure.

And, importantly, there's more genetic variation within "races" than between them. It is possible to make a very reliable prediction of what continent someone's ancestors came from if you look at thousands of loci on their genome simultaneously (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/), and in some cases you can get a pretty decent estimate with 100 loci. But if you look at just one or even ten places on the genome, it's impossible to be certain which population they came from. In some cases, you can't make a very reliable prediction even if you look at several hundred loci at once! This is in large part because there's very little genetic variation within humans compared to other species. Chimps have much more genetic diversity than we do. (ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2012/120302.html)

Next, because there is generally no scientific evidence for claims of bi-modal racial differences. No, black people do not have an extra muscle in their legs. The claim that West Africans are more likely than others to have a gene that makes them better sprinters (forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/08/12/the-dna-olympics-jamaicans-win-sprinting-genetic-lottery-and-why-we-should-all-care/2/) is not supported by the evidence, because there isn't real evidence either that West Africans are more likely to have that gene or that it makes them better sprinters. (setantacollege.com/wp-content/uploads/Journal_db/The ACTN3 R577X Polymorphism in East.pdf) It's possible that there are populations that vaguely correspond to race that have consistent differences in performance in particular areas that are better explained by genetics than by environment, but there simply isn't evidence for it.

It's also telling how the people that believe in this stuff often latch onto thinking that each "race" is better in one area and worse in another, (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CompetitiveBalance) as if we were Dungeons and Dragons characters. There's no sensible reason to expect that, because all humans faced nearly identical selective pressures until the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago, and there hasn't been enough time for much evolution since. While there's evidence of some recent evolution in human populations, there's none for weird tradeoffs like that. (The closest is in a couple cases where there's heterozygote advantage, like the genes for ovalocytosis and sickle cell anemia). When we find recent adaptations, we don't find things like "good at math and bad at running." We find things like "people who live on mountains tend to have more efficient oxygen transport" (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11443005) or "people who live in the Arctic regain blood flow in their fingers after dunking them in cold water more quickly than people who live further south" (nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/y78-137) or "people whose ancestors herded animals that produce milk can drink milk as adults." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence)

The redder spots are where more people are capable of drinking milk.

Finally, because researchers who try to prove racism do breathtakingly shoddy work. I have spent many hours of my life arguing with racists onlineā€¦ so this section is going to be long. As with many fringe areas, there are a few people who've done research trying to support racist views. I was challenged to read their work with an open mind. I did, and read their methods, and followed up on their original sources, and on comments on them by mainstream scientists. And you know what? They're unbelievably poorly done. In the interests of space, I will link to dissections of their work by others rather than giving my own explanations.

They don't understand what heritability means. (nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/Heritability.html) They don't understand life history theory. (ant.sagepub.com/content/2/2/131.short) They grossly misrepresent other people's work. (lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/mtras-reply-to-levin.pdf) They have to make up extremely dubious new mathematical methods (analyseeconomique.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ashton-lee-2005-problems-with-the-method-of-correlated-vectors.pdf) to get the results they want. Independent attempts don't replicate their findings. (sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513803000400) They make vastly inflated claims for what their findings show. (vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/lieberman-on-rushton.pdf)

To sum up:
-There genetically aren't separate races.
-There's no scientific evidence for genetic "racial" differences that aren't more parsimoniously explained by environment.
-Human populations haven't been separated long enough for major differences to evolve.
-The differences that have evolved recently don't correlate with "race."
-The people who try to prove that race is more than a social construct shoot themselves in the foot over and over.

Someone save this

Top kek the book literally opens with Murrary restricting the forum of discussion in such a manner that disagreement is impossible.

Think that intelligence can't measured?
Think that I think blacks are inferior?
Think that intelligence may be a nuanced thing related to environment, upbringing and/or think that intelligence is too wide and varied to just be given a single number?
Think that I'm a racist?
Notice how all these rebutted aren't self critical of the work itself. So the only way to be "justified" in talking about this book in the eyes of the shills that shill it is to accept the premises unquestioningly.
There is a reason the dude didn't publish this after peer-review, because it would have be instantly shot down as poor quality. Let alone the claims it makes, backed by assumption and uncritical stereotypes.

You should get bullied

Something to note from this post is how the race essentialists benefit from the wide proliferation of pop science. I don't comment on the science of race shit because I haven't read all the primary sources, I don't know enough about genetics or evolutionary biology to interpret findings, but all of these young and impressionable fashy types seem convinced that they have it figured out because they've seen black people committing crime in the news and some graphs about Autism Level.

This is conspiratorial nonsense. Most scientists heavily criticize the books of the racialists, and the racialists always just claim they are being PC libs. At the same time, much of Holla Forums doesn't even believe in climate change when most climate scientists warn about that. It seems their penchant for contrarianism comes through in the science they decide to take seriously every time, though I'm positive these people aren't experts and likely don't have the breadth of experience collecting and interpreting data that the professionals do.

I'm not taking racial science seriously until I am either equipped to deeply evaluate the claims of people like Murray myself, or until more scientists come out and agree that Autism Level is fundamental. BUT that is aside from the fact that even if it is, I've never been concerned with it because it has never mattered to my politics before if you're a dumbass or not. I don't support a world where your societal rights are dependent on how smart you are. That would have implications far outside of race.

The running theme I'm seeing here is that we can't say "X gene controls intelligence" because intelligence is incredibly complex and likely controlled nonlinearly by tens of thousands of genes, and hence it's always possible to attribute differences in intelligence to differences in upbringing and environment.

What is this shit?

Even the Black immigrants to Africa who come from poor and unprivileged backgrounds do a lot better than African-Americans on average. It's almost as if the cultures of these two countries and how they handle race relations are different, which in turn affects Black performance.

Even the Black immigrants to the United Kingdom* that should say

I've wasted hours arguing with them online but gave up once I realized even the supposed "honest" and "objective" race realists were manipulating data and trying to justify their prejudices.

Becouse im a lazy piece of shit, thanks anyway annon

Both OP and scientism fag are false flags, and possibly the same person. Neither of those faggots is a native here.

So much samefagging ITT

The Autism Level test was developed for the United States military to decide who to send over the trenches in the first world war. People are products of their surroundings. Yes people from a sparsely populated part of Africa or even a large city like Mogadishu are going to preform worse. I think a modern society should be able to handle educating people. I think resorting to violence and liquidating them is childish.