Requesting webms, gifs, infographics, what ever you have on intelligence, iq, race and genetics

Really?
What's the name of the test goes so high?

Congrats, user. Now, learn not to be burdened by your raw computational brainpower and unclench your sphincter at parties.

Confirmed for autistic

mfw

wildism.org/docs/tk-isaif.html#_the_psychology_of_modern_leftism

...

...

not an argument

Well at least I'm not retarded.
I had one test put me at 132 so I guess I'm somewhere in that range.

Ryan Faulk is building a whole site as a resource of peer reviewed hatefacts.

This is the section you're looking for:
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/race-and-iq/

This is his last podcast:
youtube.com/watch?v=pEgHqBcPuEg

...

...

...

1st pic: >Implying common Russkies aren't complete emotionless retards

we are now posting in a moly thread

...

...

Is there a cottage industry of moly memes?

no

Waiting for that truth about memes vid mike

...

There's those troublesome fucking facts again.

With a normal distribution results this high are very very rare:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68–95–99.7_rule#Table_of_numerical_values\

With average 100, standard deviation 15
1 in 44 is higher than 130
1 in 700 is higher than 145
1 in 30 000 is higher than 160
1 in 3 000 000 is higher than 175

This is a good test, takes 40 minutes.
iqtest.dk/main.swf
I got 130 on this one and 141 on the free-iqtest.net bullshit

→

inb4 uneducated pieces of shit spouting memes

also the only millenia problem thats been solved was done by a russian hardcore NEET living with his mother, reportedly giving little fucks about hygiene etc.

social skill are for crypto animals

They're barely better than those "HAS SCIENCE GONE TOO FAR?" ads.

Those damn facts always get in the way of proper liberal feelings. Just because they're "facts" doesn't mean they're true.

That one was made by mensa. Quite long, no language bias, fairly difficult. I got the same score after 2 years.

Those tests are nowhere near being accurate. They are designed to stroke your ego, you fucking moron.

the bell curve richard lynn
A Troublesome Inheritance - Nicholas Wade
dysgeneics genetic deterioation richard lynn
IQ and immigration policy jason richwine
Race, Evolution and Behavior - J. Philippe Rushton
The Diversity Illusion - Ed West (2013)
a short history of decay - e m cioran
The Uniqueness of Western Civilization - Ricardo Duchesne
Why Civilizations Self-Destruct - Elmer Pendell (1977)

sauce
bookzz.org
libgen.io
lib.gen.rus.ec
booksee.org
thepiratebay.se
kat.cr
1337x.to
isohunt.to
torrenfreak.info
Holla Forums monthly ebook thread

facts?

don't you mean unacceptable debate?

more like
they start with a 15 points average advantage, those artificially selected fuckers.

...

(continued)

...

...

TRIGGERED

udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf
harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Race.htm
udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2013Rushton.pdf

This. The only accurate ones are the interviews.

It still gave me 137 though.

WE WAST RUSSEN 'ND SCHEISSE!

I also made this, posted it on /liberty/ a while ago, it's not explicitly about race & IQ & genetics but it's good redpill material. Even for you goys.
inb4 some detective finds the original thread, I posted it from my laptop, not my desktop, so it has a different filename.

No. You can apply the scientific method to basic problems, but there's someone with 20 more IQ points than you who JUST flunked out of the spot you want to take, unless you're given a miracle drug that allows you to stay up 24/7 there's no way you can keep up with your peers at university to get into "real science" (aka government run academia, largely useless bullshit.)
You can learn the technical skills, you won't be good at improvising or creating original work.
Art is mostly a technical skill, you might be able to make realistic depictions of the real word, it just won't involve a lot of imagination.
Higher level math hurts the brains of people with IQ 120-130, if your IQ is 90 you are not going to make the next leap in mathematics (nearly a guarantee).

The very fact that whites were able to easily enslave them using their superior technology and more organized civilization is evidence enough that they're the smarter race. SubSaharan Africa had nothing before whites got there, they still have nothing that hasn't been stolen from whites because whites lost the will to keep what they rightfully owned.

How cringey was that vid anyway? Never watched it because I expected the worst both from Stef and his guest.

Have my OC.

loved that shit with the cow

...

...

...

...

...

...

filename thread?

...

...

I'm a race realist, this seems like something that's inaccurate enough to be self-destructive. There are a great number of Asian and Jewish geniuses. Also, makes no reference to altruism, pathological altruism, in-group preferences, r/K selection… pretty lame tbh lad.

I only took a real one twice, and I got 115 and 121, so I'm just a touch above average.

I raise you 4 rare Molyneuxs.

Those were literally the only 2 rare Molyneuxs I had, but I've never posted them before, so we'll call it even.

Yes you can. IQ isn't so important at individual levels, more about overall populations.

...

121 is good enough to do just about any job. If you're in your teens and you grew up poor, you might expect your IQ to increase- if you're young and you grew up rich it might decrease.
Your IQ's heritability coefficient increases over time (to a point), it's counterintuitive- how so? Well, let's define heritability, I'm going to paraphrase Philippe Rushton's definition (and toss in some examples.)
Heritability is a measurement of the genetic component in observed individual differences (variance from the mean) within a particular group- this doesn't refer to the phenotype (total observed behaviors/traits) of a single individual, one person can't have a heritability coefficient against himself. Heritability is not a constant across groups or environments. Heritability of 1.0 means all observed differences, in that group, are due to genetic differences, 0.0 means all observed differences are environmental, 0.5 means the variation observed is equally due to genetic and environmental differences. In societies with poor nutrition, height will be less heritable than in a society where everyone has enough to eat and therefore their height is allowed to "fully express" itself.
So now you might see why it's counterintuitive that IQ is more heritable over time- it means that your environment has LESS of an effect on your IQ when you're 30 than when you're 5, even though you've had more life experiences/learned a lot more. What this means is, take a given group (let's say a group of white kids), and measure their IQs at age 8. Let's say a few children of that group live in bad environments, but they have "good genes" that would produce, under good circumstances, high IQ levels around 125-140. In the short term, these intelligent-but-deprived children will have a "depressed" IQ, their environment will significantly hinder the expression of their "good genes" for IQ. As time goes on, environmental influence becomes less important as one enters adulthood and reaches what I like to think of as their "natural state" of intelligence. This is different from height, if you've got the genes for "tallness," those genes are either expressed in childhood (because there's enough food) or you're going to be short your whole life (and the cause of your shortness is primarily environmental, life-long low heritability.)

I like to visualize this with a metaphor, it's not something that I've heard scientists talk about but it helps me get this. Everyone is born with an "IQ bucket," and a maximum level which they will approach (the brim.) The taller your bucket the more intelligent you can be, the more water in it at present the more intelligent you are right now. In childhood, that meter fills up gradually, and a good environment can increase the rate at which you approach the brim, your max level, in the short term, you can excel past those who have taller buckets by filling up your own faster. But, when you're in adulthood, you can't "fill up faster" anymore, the bucket is already full and any potentially beneficial stimuli can only keep the bucket full, it can't make the bucket taller. If you grew up poor and you're only 11-18, maybe your bucket isn't quite full yet. If you grew up rich, you probably filled up your bucket a little bit faster than everyone else's, but that's no guarantee that yours is the tallest; due to regression towards the mean, even though the rich are generally significantly above average in IQ, their children will tend to be somewhere in between their IQ and the average level. This is why 80 IQ people don't exclusively produce retarded children, and this is why two 150 IQ people aren't likely to produce another genius (above average? almost certainly.)

Bros, is he the greatest philosopher of all time?

No, but he is the greatest youtube celebrity masquerading as a philosopher.

of all time probably not… i like him quite a lot, but he is no fucking übermensch.
the greatest philosopher of all time is probably some dude in buttfuck nowhere who's never going to get known to other humans, just like the true best in most of the other fields of human ingenuity.

Naah, but he's an smart dude spreading worthwhile information a lot of the time.

Not an argument.

Nice completely unfalsifiable hypothesis there, fam. I'm sure there was a better version of Einstein, Hemingway, Socrates, Tesla, Napoleon, etc. but all of their superior counterparts chose to jerk off in a cave their entire lives.

At least pick a non-jewish, non-meme physicist or mathematician that actually understands the work he did and wasn't just an overblown saint for the modern world for your analogy. Lorentz for instance.

what

i'd say that everyone a little above 100 in IQ could probably exercise it to go up.

By donating blood (to get rid of filthy blood), by avoiding oxidants and consuming anti-oxidants, by exercising , by reading alots, by doing alot of math, by avoiding sleep deprevation etc etc. All the things you would expect to make the brain stronger..

You can't train your brain to make yourself smarter. You can learn methods for recognizing patterns more quickly, familiarize yourself with your multiplication tables, study history, etc. but this doesn't actually increase the "processing power" of your brain, more precisely, it doesn't affect your general intelligence significantly.
>*Increased intelligence is a myth (so far)*
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3950413/

...

I have several cousins who used to be completel degenerate drunks during their youth, and probably had idiot-level IQ. Then they suddenly just got some epiphany and changed everything, like started reading books, stopped drinking and went to college etc.

OH well, i'm not a neuroscientist, I don't know. I'm just being practical here. If its a normal person with normal healthy and decent genes, it seems they can "flip" their life at any second.

...

And a bix nood to you too, sir!

Einstein stole "his" theories from others.

Ego stroked nigger

I have taken multiple tests like this and always score around 140, so there must be something valuable in it.

Two of the number patterns were hard. I could understand what the correct answer was but not why. The rest are very easy.

It was the one where the pattern was numbers cubed and one where the pattern was numbers square rooted.

I zipped through but took some time on these. I don't use math regularly so I could not recognize the pattern.

pfft, you couldnt afford to take a real IQ test after 2 years?

I scored 20/20 on that test, which gave me some ridiculous genius level IQ, I've been professionally tested and I scored 127, I'm not near genius level IQ and any test that puts me above 133 is almost certainly shit.

sage for no rare BCFs

Maybe if you are a spic

160 iq and I mostly do manual labor or skilled labor

Whoops.

Coming from a country with an average IQ of 88, I'd say it's not so bad.

so you're basically this guy?

more like
archive.is/vq0eY

show me

Fudge, and here I was thinking myself to not be a pleb.

dropped

The raven's progressive matrices on iqtest.dk that user posted are the kinds of tests used in actual IQ tests.

le chataue de assburgers

Don't worry user. As a fellow barely-above-average man, I can tell you that it is far more important to uphold virtue than being smart. What good is 160 IQ if you're a degenerate?

THREAD THEME SONG MUTHA FUKKAS

Must watch talks:

Prof. Philippe Rushton - "Latest Research on Race"
youtube.com/watch?v=t1mgrTGeDPM
A great talk where he smashes the criticisms of "cultural bias".

African language and the African mind
youtube.com/watch?v=WAoNhacojmM
A scientist studies African languages and behaviors to find amazing revelations like lack of gradation, large numbers and even promises.

Do you have the source for that?

123 slightly better then I expected. One of the number pattern was the fibonacci sequence.