I'm ending a Holla Forums meme

Okay I'm ending this blacks are subhuman meme once and for all

pt. 1

racialreality.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/african-iq-and-the-flynn-effect.html?m=1

Proposed causes of the Flynn Effect include improvements in test-specific skills (Greenfield, 1998; Wicherts et al., 2004), improvements in nutrition (Lynn, 1989, 1990), urbanization (Barber, 2005), improvements in health care (Williams, 1998), a trend towards smaller families (Zajonc & Mullally, 1997), increases in educational attainment (Ceci, 1991), greater environmental complexity (Schooler, 1998), and the working of genotype by environment correlation in the increasing presence of more intelligent others (Dickens & Flynn, 2001). Many of these environmental variables have not undergone the improvement in developing sub-Saharan African countries that they have in the developed world over the last century. This suggests that the Flynn Effect has great potential in sub-Saharan Africa (Wicherts, Borsboom, & Dolan, 2010b).

Although the implications of our psychometric findings for the potential of the Flynn Effect in sub-Saharan Africa remain unclear, the Raven's tests and other IQ tests have shown robust increases in many populations (Daley et al., 2003; Flynn, 2007). So suppose that there were a well-validated IQ test that showed measurement invariant scores between westerners and Africans. Even then, lower IQs of Africans still would not support Lynn and Vanhanen's (2002, 2006) assertion that countries in sub-Saharan Africa are poorly developed economically because of their low "national IQ". Wicherts, Borsboom, and Dolan (2010b) found that "national IQs" are rather strongly confounded with the developmental status of countries. Given the well-documented Flynn Effect, we know that "national IQs" are subject to change. An average IQ around 80 among Africans may appear to be low, but from a historical perspective this average is not low at all. A representative sample of British adults, who took the SPM in 1948 would have an average IQ of 81 in terms of the British norms of 1992 (J. C. Raven, 1960; J. C. Raven et al., 1996). Using older British norms, the average IQ of Africans would be much closer to 100. This is evident in Figure 2, where we compared SPM scores of Africans to older norms. In this figure, the average IQ of several African samples is near or above 100.

Present-day sub-Saharan Africa is one of the poorest regions in the world and the home to some of the world's most deprived children. The majority of sub-Saharan children are chronically malnourished, not only from lack of food but particularly from food lacking vital elements related to both physical growth and intellectual development. It has been estimated that up to 70 percent of rural children live in absolute poverty and 90 percent suffer severe deprivation (Gordon, Nancy, Pantazis, Pemberton, & Townsend, 2003). A substantial number of sub-Saharan African children are under-educated. According to Garcia, Gillian, and Dunkelberg (2008), only about 12 percent of sub-Sahara African children have attended preschool, and this generally for well less than a year. They note that children who do not attend or have only minimal experience in pre-primary school tend to do less well in primary school than children who have had that experience. Further, it is important that the preschool experience be successful. For example, Jaramillo and Mingat (2008) have shown that children who have a poor experience in preschool and have to repeat a year or part of a year have a high drop-out rate in primary school (r = -0.875). The probability of preschool without repetition and who complete primary school is low but positive (r = 0.209). With or without preschool experience, approximately only fifty-five percent of 10-14 year-olds in sub-Saharan Africa complete primary school.

Other urls found in this thread:

unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_inventors_and_scientists
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_jurists
debunkingstormfags.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/with-rise-of-alt-right-far-right-neo.html
health.usnews.com/health-news/health-wellness/articles/2015/04/17/why-kids-are-hitting-puberty-earlier-than-ever
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease#Epidemiology
medium.com/utopia-for-realists/why-do-the-poor-make-such-poor-decisions-f05d84c44f1a#.szu5juwgb
sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/genes-dont-just-influence-your-iq-they-determine-how-well-you-do-school
pnas.org/content/111/42/15273
notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/15/iq-nutrition-disease-and-parasitic-load/
jn.nutrition.org/content/136/4/1126.full
wmbriggs.com/post/5118/
youtube.com/watch?v=LpFm6SeMgM0
pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187.long
www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
rense.com/general32/americ.htm
archive.is/c1LBW
youtube.com/watch?v=bV81z8kegh8
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_organizations_in_the_United_States
theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/11/how-fair-is-britain-data
ippr.org/files/images/media/files/publication/2013/03/back-to-basics-integration_Mar2013_10525.pdf
jbhe.com/latest/index012209_p.html
jbhe.com/latest/index021209.html
serc.carleton.edu/sage2yc/broadenparticipation/stereotype/stereotype.html
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6223968.stm
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2670433/Black-pupils-achieved-biggest-rise-test-exam-results-ethnic-group.html
humanvarieties.org/2013/05/03/hvgiq-bermuda/
humanvarietiesfiles.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/2006-riley-alls.pdf
motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health
scientificamerican.com/article/kids-and-animals-who-fail-classic-mirror/
theguardian.com/education/2016/apr/04/white-children-falling-behind-other-groups-at-gcse
drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/11/iq-and-gcse-results-in-england-r081.html
poverty.org.uk/06/index.shtml
itmtrav.ie/irishtravellers
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.12.002
psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2010 Editorial for Intelligence.pdf
saboteur365.wordpress.com/2015/08/13/the-mirror-test-white-babies-recognize-themselves-at-15-months-black-children-not-until-6-years-science-video/
www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology-2010-Broesch- Cultural Variations in Children's Mirror Self-Recognition.pdf
youtu.be/Yo4WF3cSd9Q
reliawire.com/intelligence-gene-clusters/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
theamericanconservative.com/articles/race-iq-and-wealth/
ronunz.org/2012/08/05/unz-on-raceiq-response-to-lynn-and-nyborg/
theguardian.com/education/2016/apr/04/white-children-falling-behind-other-groups-at-gcse
notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/05/22/the-black-white-iq-gap/
therightstuff.biz/2015/09/02/race-and-iq-genes-that-predict-racial-intelligence-differences/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19251490/
notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/06/26/climate-violence-black-crime-rk-selection-theory-and-the-vindication-of-jp-rushton/
notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/06/15/neanderthals-inbreeding-and-rk-selection-theory/
notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/05/08/sickle-cell-anemia/
notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/02/09/towards-a-theory-of-everyone-chisala-rebuttal/
unz.com/pfrost/the-jews-of-west-africa/
jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html
eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ368279
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4469797/
dare.uva.nl/cgi/arno/show.cgi?fid=176083)
notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/05/11/arthur-jensens-method-of-correlated-vectors/
notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/21/refuting-richard-nisbett/
laplab.ucsd.edu/articles2/Lee2010.pdf
narrative.ly/nick-brown-smelled-bull/
cpsimoes.net/artigos/art_reply_rushton.html
scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1327&context=articles
theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/why-we-write/459909/
labs.la.utexas.edu/tucker-drob/files/2015/02/Psychological-Science-2015-Tucker-Drob-09567976156127271.pdf
web.archive.org/web/20160301064409/http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/sampson/files/2005_ajph.pdf
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440514000831
arxiv.org/abs/1408.3421
blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/08/half-the-variation-in-i-q-is-due-to-genes/#.V4XZQFeOLqF
emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Is-the-Flynn-effect-on-g-A-meta-analysis.pdf
erectuswalksamongst.us
ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence
sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150726200059.htm
arstechnica.com/science/2015/08/your-inherited-genes-control-your-iq-and-may-affect-how-well-you-do-at-exams-too/
iq-tests.eu/iq-test-Genetics-versus-environment-400.html
newscientist.com/article/dn1520-iq-is-inherited-suggests-twin-study/
nature.com/ejhg/journal/v14/n6/full/5201588a.html
sparknotes.com/psychology/psych101/intelligence/section3/page/2/
youtube.com/watch?v=JE-OMF-O27c
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0030320
nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/Heritability.html
blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/08/half-the-variation-in-i-q-is-due-to-genes/
broadinstitute.org/news/6119
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient
history.nasa.gov/CP-2156/ch4.3.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus
scholarpedia.org/article/Punctuated_equilibria
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage
iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country/by-belarus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
reddit.com/r/OpenandHonest/comments/3evdd3/blacks_in_the_us_and_in_africa_consistently_score/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_education
theconversation.com/intelligence-inheritance-three-genes-that-add-to-your-iq-score-31397
journals.cambridge.org/images/fileUpload/documents/Van_Lange_BBS-D-15-00646_preprint.pdf
ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/POS-2000.pdf
gelfand.umd.edu/papers/PSYS602860_REV.pdf
8ch.net/leftypol/catalog.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/


Without accepting this fact, the IQ approximations of Africans do not make sense in the context of their academic achievements in the US compared to black Americans. For example, when one HBD blogger broke down the IQs of black Americans by state using one of Lynn’s methods for estimating national IQs, he found over 30 states that had black IQ above 89, i.e., higher than the black African immigrant IQ found by Richwine. If these black immigrants really have a representative mean IQ from a normal distribution that is lower than the black mean in 30 whole states, there is no way they would dominate the native black Americans so conspicuously and predictably in all academically elite institutions. The black Caribbean immigrant IQ of 83 (assuming it is represented under “Central America/Carribean”), which is lower than Alabama’s black IQ, is even more implausible in the context of their well-noted achievements. Correcting the different states’ black IQ by subtracting 5 IQ points from each state would still not fix the problem of plausibility: if there is even one state with blacks that are definitely smarter than (or just equal to) the black immigrants, it would be the children of the blacks from that state who would be conspicuously over-represented in those elite programs. There certainly would be no Caribbean names there.

The most definitive proof of Africans’ grossly underestimated genotypic IQ (80 according to Lynn, or 70 according to Jensen and Rushton, et al) has come in recent years from the performance of African school children in the UK. These results sparked instant reactions in the IQ debate world as soon as they started being reported by the news media, with some strong hereditarians suddenly becoming some kind of neo-environmentalists just to explain why white school children were not showing the kind of academic superiority over blacks that they have become accustomed to in the United States (wrong tests, declining white culture, an alleged war on whites, etc – the same kinds of reasons they always dismissed from liberal environmentalists explaining black underachievement in the US).

The first report that caused some consternation in the IQ blogosphere indicated that black African pupils were apparently catching up with British white pupils on their GCSE tests and that in fact, they had already overtaken them at the lower end: the poor black kids were now performing better than poor white kids

See pic. The rest of this thread will be filled with heated arguing but just know that you will literally never be able to convince a Holla Forumsack to abandon racism

this. /thread

Holla Forumsyps deserve only to be ironically gassed

This is seen in the first graph.

what most scholars and bloggers in the IQ world seemed to not know is that by the time these pieces of news were coming out in the media, there were already African nationalities that had overtaken the white average by a significant margin. The reason it seemed that the black Africans were only trying to catch up now was the usual academic tendency of lumping Africans together into one big racial group when other groups were being identified by nationality (e.g. Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, etc rather than “Asian” or “South-East Asian” etc). Grouping Africans into the monolithic “Black African” ethnicity concealed the different experiences of African immigrants from different nations, some of whom had emigrated as refugees from war-torn countries, while others lad left countries that did not speak much English and were thus disadvantaged in the tests. A negative correlation with English as Another Language was evident on both the CAT scores and the GCSE scores.

This is seen in the second graph

To elaborate on the second graph

As the table above shows, some African nationalities, particularly Ghanaians and Nigerians, score way above the England mean (and the white British mean), while others, like the Somalis and Congolese, score way below (but still not as low as the Portuguese immigrants, apparently). The low scoring African groups are the ones that migrated as refugees and/or could not speak English, besides being very poor. Improvements among the Somalians have been impressive, especially due to programs dedicated to teaching them English.
Although the Chinese and Indians are still very conspicuously above even the best African nationalities, their superiority disappears when the Nigerian and other groups are broken down even further according to their different tribal ethnicities. Groups like the famous Igbo tribe, which has contributed much genetically to the African American blacks, are well known to be high academic achievers within Nigeria. In fact, their performance seems to be at least as high as the “model minority” Chinese and Indians in the UK, as seen when some recent African immigrants are divided into languages spoken at home (which also indicates that these are not multigenerational descendants but children of recent immigrants).

(Be free to read the unz article article in full, which debunks the blacks are dumb as a race etc, but I shall continue with other sources)

Nisbett (2012) suggests that high SES individuals are more likely to be able to develop their full biological potential, whereas low SES individuals are likely to be hindered in their development by adverse environmental conditions. The same review also points out that adoption studies generally are biased towards including only high and high middle SES adoptive families, meaning that they will tend to overestimate average genetic effects. They also note that studies of adoption from lower-class homes to middle-class homes have shown that such children experience a 12 - 18 pt gain in IQ relative to children who remain in low SES homes.

A large number of studies have shown that systemically disadvantaged minorities, such as the African American minority of the United States generally perform worse in the educational system and in intelligence tests than the majority groups or less disadvantaged minorities such as immigrant or "voluntary" minorities, as stated by Neisser.

"The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential."

make a blog and post it also there so it can be handy as a way to link it to the wandering retards who come here.

That being said, if we are going to continue with the whole IQ factor and why blacks as an average tend to perform badly academically…

The explanation of these findings may be that children of caste-like minorities, due to the systemic limitations of their prospects of social advancement, do not have "effort optimism", i.e. they do not have the confidence that acquiring the skills valued by majority society, such as those skills measured by IQ tests, is worthwhile. They may even deliberately reject certain behaviors that are seen as "acting white."

Environmental factors are also why blacks tend to score lower on the iq test. Environmental factors including lead exposure, breast feeding, (as stated by Campbell, 2002) and nutrition (as covered by Ivanovic, 2004 and Salojee and Pettifor, 2001) can significantly affect cognitive development and functioning. As stated by Qian (2005), For iodine deficiency causes a fall, on average, of 12 IQ points.

Such impairments may sometimes be permanent, sometimes be partially or wholly compensated for by later growth. The first two years of life is the critical time for malnutrition, the consequences of which are often irreversible and include poor cognitive development, educability, and future economic productivity. (As covered in The Lancet Series on Maternal and child Undernutrition, 2008)

The African American population of the United States is statistically more likely to be exposed to many detrimental environmental factors such as poorer neighborhoods, schools, nutrition, and prenatal and postnatal health care (Nesbit, 2009 and Cooper 2005).

Mackintosh (2011) points out that for American Blacks infant mortality is about twice as high as for whites, and low birthweight is twice as prevalent. At the same time white mothers are twice as likely to breastfeed their infants, and breastfeeding is highly correlated with IQ for low birthweight infants. In this way a wide number of health related factors that influence IQ are unequally distributed between the two group.

Three other adoption studies found contrary evidence to the Minnesota study, lending support to a mostly environmental hypothesis:

Eyferth (1961) studied the out-of-wedlock children of black and white soldiers stationed in Germany after World War 2 and then raised by white German mothers and found no significant differences.

Tizard et al. (1972) studied black (African and West Indian), white, and mixed-race children raised in British long-stay residential nurseries. Three out of four tests found no significant differences. One test found higher scores for non-whites.

Moore (1986) compared black and mixed-race children adopted by either black or white middle-class families in the United States. Moore observed that 23 black and interracial children raised by white parents had a significantly higher mean score than 23 age-matched children raised by black parents (117 vs 104), and argued that differences in early socialization explained these differences.


Studies have employed different ways of measuring or approximating relative degrees of ancestry from Africa and Europe. One set of studies have used skin color as a measure, and other studies have used blood groups. Loehlin (2000) surveys the literature and argues that the blood groups studies may be seen as providing some support to the genetic hypothesis, even though the correlation between ancestry and IQ was quite low. He finds that studies by Eyferth (1961), Willerman, Naylor & Myrianthopoulos (1970) did not find a correlation between degree of African&/European ancestry and IQ. The latter study did find a difference based on the race of the mother, with children of white mothers with black fathers scoring higher than children of black mothers and white fathers. Loehlin considers that such a finding is compatible with either a genetic or an environmental cause. All in all Loehlin finds admixture studies inconclusive and recommends more research.


Recent reviews by Nisbett et al. (2012b) and Mackintosh (2011) consider that current data does show an average difference in brain size and head-circumference between American Blacks and Whites, but question whether this has any relevance for the IQ gap. Nesbitt et al. argue that crude brain size is unlikely to be a good measure of IQ; for example, brain size also differs between men and women, but without well documented differences in IQ. At the same time newborn Black children have the same average brain size as Whites, suggesting that the difference in average size could be accounted for by differences in postnatal environment. Several factors that reduce brain size have been demonstrated to disproportionately affect Black children (Nisbett 2012)

tl;dr blacks are not subhuman, they are not dumb as a race. Read these.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_inventors_and_scientists en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_jurists

Do this op. This is really good shit

Well how would I make a blog post?

I cant make it on tumblr, they'd laugh it off.

thats a lot of words

...

No you fool. Its a measure of poverty since your parents need to be under a certain income level to be eligible for school lunch

Well, pastebin would probably draw their attention easy.

Blogger would be easier and more organized, but this site is not for communities that try to be factual with their opinions.

Is there any data on that?

I made reference to the members who made that claim.

They're marked in Green text.

...

kill yourself shitskin

BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTS ARE A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT

K, got it.

debunkingstormfags.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/with-rise-of-alt-right-far-right-neo.html

If you're using evidence which has nothing to fight off these claims which OP has made, you can bugger off.

fuggin' saved

reaching puberty 10 months sooner
is import why?

this affects exactly what? (outside of organ transplants)

important

it means their larceny gland reaches maturity sooner

And as usual there's the unspoken assertion that all of these statistics are static and unchanging when kids have been hitting puberty earlier for years

health.usnews.com/health-news/health-wellness/articles/2015/04/17/why-kids-are-hitting-puberty-earlier-than-ever

How about posting a study that shows iq is equal across race? I've never seen one and until I do I will continue to believe black are intellectually inferior.

People could all be somehow genetically identical, yet there would still be statistical differences in IQ between (in this case geographic) groups of people because this is how probability works.

Amazing thread OP, thank you.
I feel this topic was long overdue for a good scrubbing and you rose to the occasion.

Compiled the posts into a single image. One high quality, one low quality (with interlacing) for older machines and slower connections.

"I don't understand how socioeconomic inequality affects people xD"
retard

Surely if intelligence was strictly socio economic and not heritable a study would have been produced that controls for it by now showing iq parity across the races. I've never seen one.

Show me a study that says all black people have equal socioeconomic circumstances to white people.

top kek

You're mad that I debunked your argument?

Nice try stormfag, but the evidence still stands.

Go do a Google search on intelligence and heritability.

Read the facts that OP has displayed.

Socio economic factors play a huge role in ones intelligence.

This has now been proven.

Pointing to Nigerian Igbos and making the claim that Africans as a whole don't have an extremely low iq is about the same as claiming the average Ashkenazi Jewish iq of 115 is proof the European mean isn't 100.

No, it's merely pointing out that intelligence isn't entirely heritable.

races don't exist is a cunning meme.

We are all one species. Races, at least traditionally, derive from a taxonomical approach. And this approach is still valid across the rest of the animal kingdom.

If race doesn't exist, why don't whites get sickle cell anemia? Your skin colour is the most obvious sign of your genetic heritage. And genes ARE important.

racialism=/=racism.

loving the asshurt stormfags

Doing Marx's work op

White people do have sickle cell you retard

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease#Epidemiology

Only if they have relatively recent black lineage.

Will this work on SJWs too?

medium.com/utopia-for-realists/why-do-the-poor-make-such-poor-decisions-f05d84c44f1a#.szu5juwgb

"Ten years after the casino’s arrival, Costello’s findings showed that the younger the age at which children escaped poverty, the better their teenage mental health. Among her youngest age cohort, Costello observed a “dramatic decrease” in criminal conduct. In fact, the Cherokee children in her study were now better behaved than the control group.

On seeing the data, Costello’s first reaction was disbelief. “The expectation is that social interventions have relatively small effects,” she later said. “This one had quite large effects.” Professor Costello calculated that the extra $4,000 per annum resulted in an additional year of educational attainment by age 21 and reduced the chance of a criminal record at age 16 by 22%."

"“Our effects correspond to between 13 and 14 IQ points,” Shafir says. “That’s comparable to losing a night’s sleep or the effects of alcoholism.” What’s remarkable is that we could have figured all this out 30 years ago. Shafir and Mullainathan weren’t relying on anything so complicated as brain scans. “Economists have been studying poverty for years and psychologists have been studying cognitive limitations for years,” Shafir explains. “We just put two and two together.”

It all started a few years ago with a series of experiments conducted at a typical American mall. Shoppers were stopped to ask what they would do if they had to pay to get their car fixed. Some were presented with a $150 repair job, others with one costing $1,500. Would they pay it all in one go, get a loan, work overtime, or put off the repairs? While the mall-goers were mulling it over, they were subjected to a series of cognitive tests. In the case of the less expensive repairs, people with a low income scored about the same as those with a high income. But faced with a $1,500 repair job, poor people scored considerably lower. The mere thought of a major financial setback impaired their cognitive ability.

Shafir and his fellow researchers corrected for all possible variables in the mall survey, but there was one factor they couldn’t resolve: The rich folks and the poor folks questioned weren’t the same people. Ideally, they’d be able to repeat the survey with subjects who were poor at one moment and rich the next.

Shafir found what he was looking for some 8,000 miles away in the districts of Vilupuram and Tiruvannamalai in rural India. The conditions were perfect; as it happened, the area’s sugarcane farmers collect 60% of their annual income all at once right after the harvest. This means they are flush one part of the year and poor the other.

So how did they do in the experiment?

At the time when they were comparatively poor, they scored substantially worse on the cognitive tests, not because they had become dumber people somehow — they were still the same Indian sugarcane farmers, after all — but purely and simply because their mental bandwidth was compromised."
.

So poverty literally makes you stupid. Finally, an excuse…

But it also seems confirmed that your potential is in your genes.


sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/genes-dont-just-influence-your-iq-they-determine-how-well-you-do-school


pnas.org/content/111/42/15273

your link doesn't say that faggot

It pretty much does though. It is hereditary. It originated in an African ethnic group. It can't just appear some day in somebody who's lineage doesn't contain the gene.

I didn't realize there were so many Indian tribes in sub Saharan Africa

except it doesn't, just that it's most prevalent in populations from tropical regions

I'm going to compile all of these sources and proofs into an essay, easier to manage and can be uploaded to a host for download.

Tribal regions tend to have higher instances of inbreeding. So if it was introduced to the gene pool, it takes longer to be flushed out. I don't even know what you're arguing against? I am making the case for genetic inheritance and that skin coulur is the most obvious casual indicator of generic heritage. Ignoring this gets in the way of redressing it. Of course the nuleft knows all about this.

You just said the only source of Caucasian sickle cell is inheritance from black people and your own link disproves that, stormcuck.

you're just making stuff up now aren't you?

pretty sickening to see white libtards sucking the bbc tbh

you should kill yourself OP if your white and posted this. its one thing to "have nothing against blacks" and actually defending them like a bitch. a disgrace thats what you are.

That's not how it works, stormie. OP and others are dispelling the lies that you and your ilk love to use.

Then again, medicine on the dead.

great job detective retard, you proved that black people with sickle cell still have sickle cell after immigrating

What? You thought I was suggesting that taking somebody out of Africa alters their genetic makeup?

...

are you even trying lad?

read this again


No I didn't suggest this. Do you always struggle following conversation?

Since you're retarded I'll try and use small words so I don't confuse you. Nothing you've posted says that sickle cell only comes from black people, and


doesn't prove anything either, except that because people moved from the Carribean to France that now France has to deal with sickle cell, presumably because of all the people with sickle cell now living in France.

Please kill yourself so that someone more deserving can use the resources wasted on you.

This is disproved by how black IQ's have already grown comparitvely faster than white IQ has. Also yes, being poor and material conditions has a big effect on your cognitive ability. Go away stormcuck

Could this not be the case that the smarter blacks are more likely to survive to adulthood and procreate?

Anyway, you didn't just dismiss the fairly recent study based on your own assumptions did you?

Prove? maybe not Offer evidence in support of proposition very muchly.

I'm on my phone and about to catch a flight so I can't pull it up, but there's a study upon study about how poligenic IQ is and how material conditions can affect it in a multitude. One study saying it's partly genetic, does not disprove those.

Considering what the black population was previously, it's far more likely that the drastic increase in the quality of material conditions they underwent is the most likely factor

The problem with "race realists" is they can't despook themselves from arbitrary societal conventions of "race". They will defend it at all costs, even if that means purposely misrepresenting others arguments. They know that we know human variation exists, but they like to beg the question in an attempt to convince themselves.

The human variation that they cite is precisely the reason race doesn't exist. Humans exist on gradients, where you draw the lines is completely arbitrary and varies from culture to culture and person to person. Even on stormfront they constantly argue over what "white" really is, if there are subcategories of "whiteness", and how "pure" you have to be to be considered truly "white". Yet these same people will insist that "white" exists in some absolute empirical form. The amount of mental backflips they have to do to keep their ideology from crumbling is mindblowing.

1. The superficial phenotypes that all stormcucks use as criteria for races, like skin color and hair, have more in common among white people and apes than black people and apes. Apes have pale pink-white skin and uncurled dark hair the way white people do, which is not the criteria I'd use but stormfags do.

2. Taken as a group, racist whites correlate with general stupidity and thuggishness in ways that mirror or even eclipse black urban Americans. If blacks can be a "race", there's no reason why white racists can't be a separate race apart from non-racist whites as well given how fluid and arbitrary your criteria has proven to be.

If you really want racialism to be taken seriously and policy to be drawn from it, then everyone who advocates it would have to be on the receiving end of its most strict and unforgiving measures.

notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/15/iq-nutrition-disease-and-parasitic-load/

ok OP, if there are not races how do you explain black men being naturally (genetically) stronger and being better endowed?

But most WSM champions are white, same with powerlifting and Olympic lifting.

Isn't the "big black cock" actually a myth perpetuated by carefully-picked porn actors?

what i know for sure is that far more people believe these memes than the "dumb negro" meme you are so eager to bust.

A new age of racism is upon us.

Black men are likely to have bigger dicks but it's only something like Black: 6.5in White: 5.5in Asian: 4.5in

this isn't true, blacks, whites, and east asians have dicks that are about the same size. the people with the tiniest dicks are indians

OP, all I see is links to blogs and Wikipedia(Incredibly biased, look at gamer gate), neither of which are reputable sources. Could you actually link to a study instead of posting the shit you have? If we are going are going to argue with these people we can't win by citing blogs.

There is a pretty clear definition of white, and that is being of European ancestry.

I'm honestly surprised Holla Forums hasn't already entirely suppressed this.

Dis is good thread. Mods please remove Holla Forumsyp so it can be preserved. I can guarantee that once one of the other boards gets wind of this they will resort to any means in order to preserve their ideology. When you start to question the idpolers, even a little, they break down completely and go out of their way to bury dissidents. Essjaydubyas block you, Holla Forums spams you. It's all the same.

ALL CAPS and NIGGERCUCK KEK will fill this whole thread within hours, defeating its whole purpose.

lmaoing at these butthurt negros

So is he white?

...

Do you understand what ancestry means? Thousands of years of heritage, not a 5th generation immigrant.

...

uh oh they broke out the image macro again!

Guess our whole political ideology is invalidated now. I'll just start shitposting racist memes on Holla Forums for muh aryan race if you'll excuse me

lol you know we have shitty image macros too, right?

Your shitty image macros have no sources(or sources wikipedia). Not to mention that pic 3 does have a source, look at my shitty image macro and google it.

my identity hurts, user.

smh tbh fam

Blacks commit 50% of the murders, 30% of rapes and robberies and make up 37% of the prison population. Sure white make up a majority, but spics are counted as white ny the govt. so there's no telling really.


Blacks have lower IQ's across the board, Africa is a shithole, and a very large percentage of blacks are on welfare(correlation does not equal causation), Also not to mention that even the worst whites are better than the worst blacks.

...

Pathetic

Guys, guys. What if, what if

Neuroplasticity!

You people really are mentally challenged, aren't you?

...

Those arguments are shit, who even mentioned Darwin or Darwinism? As for the second pic, There is obviously a difference, and it obviously does matter, if it didn't blacks wouldn't commit 50% of the murders, 30% of rapes and robberies and make up 37% of the prison population. Hell, even when give them affirmative action and more gibs they still wallow in their own filth like pigs.

...

this is Oktoberfest, it's not cultural appropriation

...

Your pic proves me wrong how? It's still a shithole populated by primitive monkeys, obviously they evolved the way they did because of their environment, that's how evolution works.

Thoughts?

Morons.

I cannot wait to shoot you.

How do they not mean anything? I guess their just urban youths lashing out at an unfair system. I also copy pasted from my other post because the same arguments were warranted.

The only civilized parts of Africa had the niggers tamed by whites.

Source?

It's almost as if environmental conditions have more of an effect on sapient human beings than minute physiological differences

Pic related, the poor lumpen/pol/es will never achieve class consciousness. When the revolution comes, they'll have to be summarily executed. It's the only way.

You guys ever notice that the more Holla Forumsyps say nigger the less actual arguments they come up with?

feel the bern

Why don't we try and have an argument?

Inevitable. The proles cannot be subdued indefinitely. Pic related.

After what i've seen posted on Holla Forums, i'm not sure if it's even possible to tell sarcasm from genuine retardation.

Whites still preform better. Of course if you fed kids they'll study better.
No source. At least my shitty image macro had citations.

nope, bakunin said lumpenproles will bring the revolution>>

A Holla Forums citation isn't worth anything. Please report to nearest gas bunker, friendo.

That pic is pretty retarded, and so are you.

You had one job.

top wew

The Bolsheviks are rolling in their graves because of this faggotry.

Goddamn this board is slow. Can't you guys advertise on reddit so we can actually have arguments?

I also forgot to mention that one of the pics(2nd one down) from the USA is from a movie. Black Mass I think, really good watch if you like gangster movies.

What the pic was supposed to convey is Africa's mess is a product of recent human history, not niggers DNA.

/k/ with its own sayings, quirks and call signs is a militia in its own. Imagine loosely affiliated people like terrorist cells, except they're more concerned about their rights and kebab removal than blowing random people up because a sand people book says so.

mfw Holla Forums and /k/ remove leftycuck and kebab in the near future.

Yes, dipshit, literally nothing new was designed or built since colonialism formally ended, they're all using cars from the fifties like Cubans. Even though their capital city economies are growing faster than those of the rest of the world.

This doesn't do much to dispel the possibility of racist whites constituting a separate "race" apart from non-racist whites who are inferior to all other "races."

Every move from here ends in mate; either your gabbling has no scholarly basis in fact which is what we all knew from the start, or races are determined on the basis of a process so arbitrary that there isn't any reason to not separate racist whites from non-racist whites into a group that would have to be subject to the very same racialist policies you covet.

Blacks have a lower IQ due to genetic reasons. Get over it.

If that were true it would have been demonstrated by now, and it hasn't. Get over it.

...

How does it do this? A fed nigger is still dumber than a fed white.

Top fucking kek. Niggers have invented ABSOLUTELY NOTHING compared to whites. Whites have invented the overwhelming majority of thinsg that we enjoy nowadays.

Pull your head out of your arse and look at the reality

Don't forget all the friendly ATF agents that post there. And Holla Forums is just as gun illiterate as /leftycuck/. Hell the other day I saw some motherfucker say the SKS has a 15 round internal magazine.

As I said, apelike jabbering like this does little to dispel the possibility that racist whites constitute a separate race from non-racist whites who should be subjected to all the policies you want to see enacted.

Other than race being a Victorian fiction, of course.

You realize there are still alot of white people in Africa, right? Of course niggers can build shit(with horrible quality), I never disputed this, but they have not developed anything new.

Will you deny that europeans have had the overwhelming majority of scientific achievements?

You are doing what all lefties like to do, you ignore the argument and try to change the argument to fit your narrative. Answer the question, is it, or is it not true that the overwhelming majority of scientific achievements have come from european countries and countries with majority european heritage?

The butthurt is real

First you can explain why the relative material conditions that each culture emerged in contributed to those developments, so that I have some assurance that you comprehend enough context to have a reasonable conversation about this.

And do you still deny that your criteria for "race" is so flimsy that there is no reason to not divide racist whites and non-racist whites into two different groups, with the racist whites and their proven history of criminality and lower achievement being subjected to racialist policies?

Except there is no data concerning IQ, crime rates, welfare usage ect. based on peoples opinions, while blacks have the highest crime rates, lowest IQ, and shittiest countries. Of course I'm not disputing there are a lot of low IQ degenerate whites, but a much higher percentage of Blacks are niggers than whites.


Race's are not separated by opinion. There is no data whatsoever supporting your claim.


Who ever said I covet racialist policies?

w e w
e
w

Hodson, G., & Busseri, M. (2012). Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact Psychological Science, 23 (2), 187-195 DOI: 10.1177/0956797611421206

You'll be the first to be herded into the slums for the white racist race, I take it?

If lefty cucks were capable of staying on topic this wouldn't be necessary.

...

...

All whites have been what is considered racist nowadays. Racism was a norm for all whites before.

But AGAIN, you are simply not answering my question but are trying to go for your own narrative instead and simply ignore what I said.

We seem to have different meanings for race, mine is strictly biological, should I use the term subspecies instead?

You can't have a biological notion of race, because that is an unscholarly delusion with no basis in valid literature.

Can you please define white, fellow user?
How north europa do you have to be, in order to be white?

Whites are weak
Whites are stupid
Whites are evil
Whites are garbage

Whites are a mess, kill them all

WE WUZ KANGZ

SHEEEIT

But yet in medicine for example, races are treated differently and are a real concept.

Just a random article on medicine targetting specific races, due to them being different from other races:
jn.nutrition.org/content/136/4/1126.full

Like it or not, deny it as much as you want. The biological concept of race is REAL and is still widely used in science.


The caucasian race divides into three, all of them are white. Only one is nordic. Greeks are white, etc.

wewty wew wew

no but seriously you're a retard and you're out of your depth and you should just stop because you don't understand the basis on which those decisions to use that heuristic were made

Did someone say cummies?

In South Africa, sure, but even at its best it was a shithole. Elsewhere, whites remain a very tiny minority in sub-Saharan Africa.
Bullshit, you're pulling a claim out of thin air to shape the narrative you want to believe.

Full article here. Good read.
wmbriggs.com/post/5118/

cummies in my tummies

Funny how methodological errors only become a paramount issue of importance if you're dealing with research that poltards don't like, but even aside from any of that I doubt that there's a poltard alive who even knows if the author of this blog is actually making real critiques or if he's arguing out of his depth.

Well, I never did dispute that blacks could build things. And your right, they developed jazz and peanut butter. Truly great cultural and technical discoveries.


And the majority of sub Saharan Africa is a shithole, surprise. You don't become a great race by living in mud huts for almost the entirety of your existence.

Nigger those were the stats in the study. And of course you've read the study so you would be able to dispute this nigger claims.

And you do it again. You never answered my original question and you are playing with words to skew your own narrative. Have you ever watched how you "debate"? You should.

That doesn't follow and I think you know it.

some nigger just executed live on tv some cops. good luck with that.

The old "medicine uses some forms of racial identification" canard literally doesn't validate race in a biological sense other than as a shorthand for certain highly niche medical topics. This directly goes to the heart of your contention that "race is real", because nothing you've cited shows that it is in the sense you're claiming.

Whats wrong wrong with that?

How is he not critiquing them in a valid manner? The Questions are shit and don't even separate racism from conservatism. Why don't you try looking at the study which you've never read and comparing?

Are you actually conflating black Americans with natives of modern sub-Saharan Africa?

This only helps our cause. I hope some BLM nigger shoots up a school next.

Why would I have to, when you can't even explain in your own words why his critiques are legitimate and not academic overreach? All you know is that someone used official-looking language to denounce a study you don't like, and that's all that matters to you. Your dumb animal reflexes to gather materials sympathetic to your aims kicked in, heedless of your inability to actually parse any of it.

DAS RITE

WE WUZ GENUSES N EINSTEINZ N SHIIEET
NEED MO MONEY FOR DEM EDUMACATIONS

youtube.com/watch?v=LpFm6SeMgM0

I'm talking about the black race as a whole. Cities with a high black population are also shitholes(that were originally designed and built by whites). But if you want to focus on Africa, they haven't developed anything.

...

*equal
fuck me I'm retarded.

And yet throughout history, being "white" was some kind of arbitrary muh privilege (bear with me before you get triggered by the word) denied to certain European ethnic groups on a whim, especially the Irish.

So what you're saying is you found some "tests" with cherry picked information and now you are using it to support claims which your own post admits are baseless?

If all of this is true then why were Africans in a tribal situation when the other races were expanding and colonizing other parts of the world with Galleons and muskets? None of these claims and theories explain why Africans were 2000 years behind the rest of the world despite having an abundance of natural resources, why they never had a written language before the whites came to Africa or why they never domesticated the animals native to their continent.

The only way you could believe any of this is if you have never had any extended interaction with blacks. They are thick as pig shit.

I don't hate blacks or think they're subhuman. I simply don't want them in my country, or any country outside of their natural homelands.

Link the actual studies so we can see for ourselves instead of claiming that various studies concluded that your bias is right.

There are biological differences between people from different parts of the world. The further away these places are the more extreme the differences. Race is the categorization of groups of people who are similar. The idea of race is a social construct, the biological facts that we are different is not.

What I know is that countries which are majority black are terrible places to live, every one of them. I know that I don't want to live in a place like that, nor do i want my homeland to become such a place due to high black birthrates and immigration.

Now you leftist racists are denying black genocide. Disgusting.

Inb4 deleted for questioning the narrative.

You're progressing. And beside, multiculturalism (Anglo version at least) is idpol (everyone should be judged according to one's origin criteria), end up with application of law being different according to citizen's origins. It's different from several ethnies coexisting. It's liberal retardation so none of our concern.

As for the post you replying to, you must have missed the part were preexisting social institutions were anihilated and left without replacement.

Fun fact some commercial made Norincos had 20 round internal mags some of which you couldn't load with more than 15 for some reason.

Pro-tip: they're fucking impossible to load past ten rounds with clips.


Not my problem if I like cute things.

That was just people being cunty. Plus they didn't have the necessary science.

This is entirely unrelated to the point of the pic, which you are perfectly aware of.

Your entire post is nothing but goalpost moving and ipse dixit assertions that we have already covered; you also continue to straw-man anyone who isn't a racialist as some kind of idiot who denies all human biological variation.

Well, thats a matter of perspective. The black lives matter people seem to think that killing innocent white people is ok because killing blacks who go for your gun is wrong.

Fuck me, the chinks made some cool shit.

Breaking news, the country that bans purchase of plastic dinnerware for minors isn't very good at making laws.

Do you deny that there are biological differences between people who humans categorize as members of different races compared to people humans consider part of the same race?

The point of the pick was to lie. Rwanda is not a nice place. Genocide happens there, a lot. Those pictures are by no means an accurate representation of the place. Nor are the images of America posted, one of which is from a film, the others are from black violence or black majority areas.

Biological differences at all? No. I do deny, however, that these biological differences are in any way profound.


It's a parody of stupid pictures comparing mud huts to Roman architecture. Stop finding excuses to feel persecuted.

They're pure fucking garbage, you've got to fit them to your rifle even if your rifle came with it and even then they likely to be still shit.

They aren't worth cash people want for them.

OP is not a faggot. But I'd totally go for a dutch rudder with him and become JO bros.

Why does anyone invest so much in caring about this?

1. I could say the same of you. I'm quite certain you didn't read the study or the article posted.
2.The study can't be read without a subscription
pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187.long

All I know is that the study isn't available to read read without the subscription.

We're all neets. Nothing better to do.

Does anime strongly correlate with autism?

I bet you are a fucking low test beta weeb with asthma that posts on Holla Forums all day ,and I could drop you in the bat of an eye.

Do you autists even own guns, or are you just roleplaying? I can't wait to hunt down genetic failures like you with my hunting shotgun in the coming revolution.

Meh, it was a novel idea. But you can't dispute that the chinks make a lot of bad guns. Most Norincos are quality.

You dumb fucking nigger, do you not know how a fucking bell curve graph works? The very Center of the bell is the average. So the black and white average do not overlap.

Yeah, no surprise there.
Since there's nothing you'd want to look at using ctrl-f in it, I doubt you really care anyways.

Posting on image boards does.


Prepare to get Michael Brown'd

My all American made, self built AR15(5.56x45,especially with some 90 grain shit, reaches a little further than 12 gauge birdshot, maybe I'll use soft point hunting ammo covered in shit too) will drop your commie ass, and then I will have my way with your corpse.

stopped reading right there, this isn't fallout bitch, your garage project doesn't count, better protect your fat autistic ass when the NKVD comes.

No wonder you're such a surrogate penis fetishist, something tells me you don't enjoy much physical human contact.

You're a fucking retard. It's like building a PC. You buy different parts and put them together. Holy fucking shit, kill yourself.

You should kill yourself because you're a stormfag and you won't have many friends in life

Well perhaps that should have been mentioned somewhere?


Blacks in Liberia eat people, they have access to all the technology available to western European countries. We are not hording technology from them. They are unable to advance despite white people sending them billions a year for food, medicine, facilities for clean drinking water and education.

On what basis do you deny they are profound when the reality claims otherwise?

I bet you bought like a pipe rifle from e-bay and you call it an AR, still it doesn't matter AR's are jamming peices of shit anyway.

Your IQ can only increase or decrease by 5 points throughout your life without severe brain trauma.

Source?

I'll be a little more clear.
You did not read the study, and you have no way of knowing if it is reputable.
This is the kind of study you should post.
www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
This study, available freely online and by reputable university, takes a sample of around 1500 black university students in south Africa(hint: the smartest niggers in Africa). It found them to have an average IQ of 67, when compared to similarly sized sample found in Southeast Asia and Europe, this is pretty much retarded.

Doesn't really matter when you source study's that are unavailable. I guess we'll never know who was right.

Stormfags thinking their hellholes are ideologically better than hell holes in the Congo

Curious how the last thread with similar subject wasn't spammed to oblivion with smug anime grill, pathetic /k/ derail attempt, and internet tough guy free helicopter ride edition. Looks like OP struck a nerve…

Fucked if I know, not my fault I'm friends with nips.
I probably spend more time in the woods than anywhere else. Fresh air is wonderful for you. I'd try some if I were you.
Have fun bud. I out range you by a good 200 yards with most of the arsenal.


Gotta ask before I split outta this place, did you build from a complete or 80% lower?

tfw have outfitted the evil police before and done armorer work for them on multiple occasions.

If you use cheap disgusting ball powder yes, in almost every other case no.

Their objectivity better.

They're.

Complete. I didn't want to buy a drill press so no ghost gun for me.

Consoling supposition.
That's some real commitment to methodological rigor there.

...

Did you actually read the study?

You are correct. I thank you and please feel free to correct me in the future.

No they're not their worse than hell holes in the Congo

I do not see one reputable source in the OP.

If the Nationalist revolution happens we don't have to do anything.

Just watch while the army and the police bomb your shitholes with drones and roll over your corpses with tanks.

Shit, you're right. I need to move to Africa.

I shall, feel free to do the same if i make a mistake.


Have you been to either the congo or the places these stormfags live?

Do you get your info on guns from the discovery channel? Modern AR 15s are pretty fucking reliable.

Here's a grand fucking clue; sometimes, to find a study, you can look somewhere other than the official publisher.


Ipse dixit claim.

The humanitarian help is counterproductive actually, flooding the local economy with free shit put locals farmers out of business, ruining thoses countries even more.

...

Go

be free


I can say it's the same.

Because that worked so well on the Taliban and Mujaheddin.

Actually most humanitarian organizations cooperate with local farmers to help them grow food.

Then, by all means, link to the study.

What site did you use?

You can only claim it to be the same if you somehow know for a fact that the people from stormfront live in the congo. Otherwise it most likely isn't the same. The congo is bad compared to the rest of Africa.

Strange that Mujahideen was corrected to that.

What, so you can dismiss it as "non-reputable" and accuse them of having tampered with it?

For that matter, why am I still indulging you about this? This whole issue began when you couldn't verify if the blog author was speaking out of his ass or not, as ultracrepidarian ideologues are wont to do.

I know it for a fact that there is no difference between a hell hole and Holla Forums. Both have majority nationalists who haven't read beyond 1984 who would vote for reality tv stars

Only gun worth having is Kalash which one day hopefully I will own and blast nationalists peices of shit subhumans while Kalahsnikov himself shows up and drops a tear. sniff

A nationalist revolution will never be a Civil War, you autists give yourself too much credit, what are there 10, 20 right wing militias in teh US. The Army will just use drones to bomb your asses to the stone age while the international media labels you as Nazi terrorists. At this point we will playing the long game and hopefully will take over the state from the inside in the ensuing chaos.

Nigger I searched Google, Google scholar, and startpage plus the multiple sites that linked to it. If you found it please link it, I'd like to at least verify the stats with the article I posted.
Nigger the OP linked to blogs and Wikipedia in place of direct links to study's.

K, fam, keep thinking you're smart enough to work your way into a high up position in the government.

You don't have as many people as them have nor the ideological sympathy from the the general populace.

Even if you did the Government would just assassinate you with even greater precision due to complete communication oversight.

I assume the site with the study will have the actual study, rather than the someones opinion of the study. I don't care if you link me to Marxism.com if it has the study on there. But guess what

I'm not the guy who originally asked for the study


Again, you're assuming a lot. Are you saying you'd rather vote for Hillary and her neo con bullshit rather than Trump and his interests in the American people?

lol do you even Russian Revolution bro? Only way a state falls is with massive social backlash. Manipulate the narrative, you manipulate the hearts and minds of the people. All states are powerless against popular revolts.

You probably wouldn't be able to pass the 4473 not to mention a store has the right to refuse business to any individual.

There more nationalists in the US than communists. A shit load of combat personnel in the military are right wing.

I already own one, it's a Hungarian AMD 63. How does it feel knowing It has an American made trigger group?

And they all are unsympathetic to Nazis.

And even then, it doesn't matter popular revolt trumps state power every single time, look at Russian Revolution, Mao, Vietnam etc.

A lot of people in the country own guns. And believe it or not, most people in this country(I assume your talking about the US)love this country, and don't like commies.
also

I never said we were revolting. You're the one thinking an internal communist takeover of the US is possible.

Who said anything about nazis? Not all nationalists are Nazi fuccboi

Communists are revolting, just not in the violent uprising sense of the word.

*I
You're welcome.

Communists are already in power. Your just too much of a useful idiot to know it.

People will revolt against capitalism inevitably, nationalism is dying everywhere. The only hope "patriots" like yourselves have is to revolt against the state and fight the US army on 1v1.

The point is that your ideology is dying while ours will spring out of the rotting carcass of Capital. In all likelihood the army wiping you out first is the best likely possibility once Trump loses and you glorious uprising.

But the statistical evidence clearly shows that Brits do better than blacks?

That's without mentioning that GSCE scores don't correlate with IQ, or that socio-economic adjustments group Irish travellers with the poorest of Brits - both of whom are a minority of delinquents. I'd be interested in how you explain away the fact that there are more blacks out of work and in jail, despite this supposed disparity in test scores?

rense.com/general32/americ.htm

Ok.

He'll just get a .44x37 caliber assault weapon with 100 round clip magazines.

Ok

I'm not going to link it if only because I think this is a good learning opportunity for you - try researchgate.net.
Which themselves have aggregated several *studies*, "nigger."

...

I bet you think Brexit was a nationalist revolt lmao dumb idiot.

Get it through your thick skull Trump isn't going to win, neither are any Nationalists in Europe. The economy is controlled by international organizations and multinational private interests, you don't stand a chance.

Useful idiots. The actual masterminds behind communism are much smarter than anyone here, and know that shit like the Bolshevik Revolution are a bad idea. They ease it in.

Nationalism is on the rise, you dumb faggot. Europe is facing a surge of right wing politics, and Trump is turning people towards nationalism in the US.

ayy lmaos?

You are the useful idiot cuck that bends over for Capital or you are a Neet parasite. Either way you probably think Soros and Gates are crypto-communists or some other dumb shit your uneducated ass thinks.

Only Hungary and Poland have won and they insignificant EU leeches.

The rest will never win.

Go ahead and crash the car then, retard. None of your bullshit grievances can be resolved with the methods you propose, and sooner or later you'll have to turn to us.

What ideology? Nationalism isn't an ideology.

That not how guerrilla wars work chaim. I suggest you go to /k/ and ask them.

Keep telling yourself that. People don't like you or your ideology.

Trump will barely get a 38%, and even he won it would be a great boon for us. But unfortunately it ain't happening. Your ideology is so dead, you are not even the main enemy anymore like Hitler was in the 30's. Capital just uses whenever there is a communist revolt, but you have outlived your usefulness as an ideology. Now you are just hindrance.

K-K-KEKEKEKEKEKEKKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEK

try ripping half of your obese body off with a 1oz slug

Because right wing governments are known for crashing the economy. Like Hitler how Hitler totally ruined the prosperous economy of the Wiemar republic.

You actually don't follow politics at all, do you?

Nationalism is the default and for good reason.

haha oh wow

Then why is it so hard to link to the actual studies, why is it my job to find the evidence for your arguments?
w e w l a d
e
w
l
a
d

It's an ideology like all others.


A militia revolt will not evolve into full scale war as I told you before. You will probably go hide in some mountains and the Pentagon will Napalm you into oblivion.


For now.

Nigger I'll just sit 500 yards away with my mosin, and unlike Simo Hayha, I have a scope

archive.is/c1LBW
Don't forget Rodrigo Duterete

Link the study in your next post or its an admittance that you didn't read it.

I actually did forget him, good for the Philippines.

Yes. Because the nation-state is a preriquisite for Capitalism.

Until the Corparation-State becomes a reality, that is.

Do you even Historical Materialism?

Do you even outdated philosophy written by an 80 IQ point pseudo-intellectual.

All of these pathetic nationalist parties are controlled opposition funded by Russia. o you know how much has to get to win? Well over more than 50%, and look up the French 2002 elections where Jean Marie Le Pen went against the center right party, the Centre left party just voted for Chirac to keep him from getting elected. Far Right Parties will never win in large European countries.

There is a whole world outside of your share of the Americas, McCommie.

IT'S DA PORKIES

Not really, it's very broad. Nationalism is simply love of your country.
Yeah no shit.
You are Militarily illiterate, and you have read no literature on the subject. When the people support you, you can't lose. Look at all the nationalists with guns in this country. Now look at yourself.

We'll see, chaim

lol the anime neetsoc is trying to talk about philosophy. Cute.

...

Have fun with your mentally challenged philosophers and clopfics.

Sorry for my reply being a little late, nigger, but i wanted you to know. You are gun illiterate, you have never been on /k/ and you do not own any decent guns.

youtube.com/watch?v=bV81z8kegh8

wew

Fun fact. Marx got turned down for a job because of his poor writing skills. Most of works were written with the assistance of a council of rabbis.

No such thing, user. You can increase your brain to any size throughout your lfie. Also, IQ is a meme.

I ain't even 'Murican.

The idea of "Nation" didn't exist pre-French Revolution.
France wasn't a "nation". It was a kingdom.
Rome was an empire. You coud be born in the city of Rome, speak latin and so on and still not be a roman citizen.
In Hellas, the notion of Hellin was about believing in the same gods, speaking (more or less) the same language and having the sense of "not being a barbarian". Athens and Sparta weren't the same "nation".

Were Celts a "nation"? Gauls? Gauls in asia minor were the same as Gauls in Gaul? When the kindom of Spain was formed, was it a "nation"?

Please read history.

...

Great scientifically backed argument. Your PHD in neurology from Harvard really payed off.

No it's you who is too general, ask an avergae person if he loves his country and he will give you a different answer or he will praise a different ideal than some other right wing douchebag. The point is that nationalism as traditional ideology of governance is well dea and buried.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_organizations_in_the_United_States

Assuming all militias are right wing they barely number 60.000. The non-Isis Sunni rebels in Syria number well over 100.000. The US army is going to annihilate you into oblivion.


Not even Jewish lmao, yet you and Holla Forums worship Israel worshiper Trump along with his jewish family.


Triggered

Why would I want to build an AR? It's not a good weapon.

You're pretty retarded, fam. Modern ARs are reliable, accurate, and highly customization weapons. Their ammo is fairly common.

An user at >>>Holla Forums6682719 and some others complained about image macros on this thread that don't have a source, and although I'm sure they don't actually give a shit I do think it's good to source all your data, so I thought I'd track down the sources of images from a few posts with the help of google's reverse image search:

The graphs here come from the article referenced in the second post at , unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/ which does provide the original sources for them–the first was found at theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/11/how-fair-is-britain-data and the second was from a paper by the Institute for Public Policy Research at ippr.org/files/images/media/files/publication/2013/03/back-to-basics-integration_Mar2013_10525.pdf (it's table 6.1 on p. 43).

Aside from looking for sources, I have some criticisms of some of these. The first of those images seems to be by someone who doesn't really understand statistics–what is meant by "the area of overlap between races", given that at pretty much any IQ score found in humans, you can find both blacks and whites with that score? And what does it mean statistically to say "most black people and most white people show no statistical difference in their score", when for any given IQ score the fraction of the black population with that score and the fraction of the white population with that score will differ at least somewhat?

The second image is fine, and gives its source. But the chart that the third image is criticizing is probably actually legit, it seems to have originally come from The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education page at jbhe.com/latest/index012209_p.html – note the style of white on blue lettering is the same as in their other graphs like the ones at jbhe.com/latest/index021209.html – so it's possible they got the info by contacting the college board, or it's possible they found the data in some other journal article not available online, or just found it in one of the many research papers available on the college board site.

The graph in the fourth image is unsourced, but it appears proportionally identical to the one at serc.carleton.edu/sage2yc/broadenparticipation/stereotype/stereotype.html though the numbers on the vertical axis are slightly different. The graph in the fifth image mentions the source in a note below, and it can also be found on the carleton university page I linked to.

First graph comes from the bottom of the article at news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6223968.stm and the second comes from the article at dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2670433/Black-pupils-achieved-biggest-rise-test-exam-results-ethnic-group.html

This one seems to have been put together by the author of the page at humanvarieties.org/2013/05/03/hvgiq-bermuda/ , the author writes that the graph "shows the Achievement Quotients for all four groups, normalized against the UK TIMSS results". Not sure what procedure he used but he gives as a source for the Bermuda data p. 11 of the file at humanvarietiesfiles.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/2006-riley-alls.pdf (maybe he averaged together the scores on the four types of tests shown in fig. 13 on that page, then used the "UK TIMSS results" to normalize the numbers in some way)

I'll have to agree with this, there's a reason the ar15 is so widely used among civilians and law enforcement alike.
The commiejerk over "muh indestructible aks" can get pretty annoying, it's not like certain guns are restricted to certain ideologies. They're fucking guns.

It seems like you're just proving my point. If someone loves their country the are Nationalist, regardless of political affiliation or that the word "means to them"

There you go again, sourcing Wikipedia like it means anything. Most gun owners aren't in militias and would gladly kill commies like you. Most "official militias" are controlled op anyway. There are millions of right-wing gun owners who would gladly execute you, not that you even spend enough time in the gun community to know this.


w e w
e
w


You are gun illiterate.

lmao at your life

I fucked up the reply, and I apologize .

You are a fucking idiot. Your gun grabbing fantasy of the government invading homes and grabbing guns ain't ever going to happen. In fact most proposed gun control legislation never goes through and is used to drive gun sales through the roof.

And the point of a hypothetical revolution isn't to fight the army, it's to usurp the state. It doesn't matter how many guns the people own the US army possess greater fire power and technological superiority than any automatic weapons has. They won't even fight the militias with soldiers, just with robots.

yeah theres no larceny gland dipshit

Also lurk moar and stop samefagging, the socialist left is as pro-gun as it gets. Marx had a bigger hard-on for civilian ownership of arms than any inbred from Arkansas.

Slug at best is a 100 yard shot, buckshot with FC is 75 yard. Enjoy being plunk off at 400+

Christ you're gun illiterate as fuck.

Unfortunately for Marx, those who actually follow through with his crap realize having an armed populace is a real bad thing if you decide to take their farms and other possessions.

Do you actually believe this is how it will work?
Why would we want to take the personal property of people?

Maybe if you would stop sucking dicks and read a book.

really?

Don't take my toothbrush you filthy Nazi.

Blacks obviously have a lower average IQ in the US, but the question in these debates is whether that's mainly due to genetic differences between blacks and whites, or just to environmental factors. A common analogy used is that if you have a bag of corn seeds and divide the seeds into two groups at random and plant each group in a different plot, then if one plot has more nutrients in the soil the average height of corn stalks in that plot will be larger, even though there should be no statistical difference in the genes of the two groups since they were divided up completely randomly. In the case of blacks in the U.S., some of the main types of environmental factors that could contribute to lowering IQ would be:

1. Discrimination

2. Poor black kids being more likely than poor white kids to grow up in areas of "concentrated poverty", i.e. neighborhoods where everyone else around them is poor too (in large part due to historical housing discrimination, but this problem would still be there even if present-day discrimination wasn't too bad)

3. Black kids being more likely to go to bad schools because of the way schools are funded by their local communities rather than nationally as in most other Western countries

4. Black culture not fostering intellectualism or reinforcing violence (this is the common factor pointed to by non-racist conservatives, but note that even if this does play a role, black culture has likely been shaped by historical discrimination–for example, sociologists have noted that areas with weaker or less reliable law enforcement tend to develop more 'honor-based' cultures that condone violence in the name of preserving one's reputation, and of course for most of their history black communities would have good reason not to want to call in the police to settle disputes)

5. Aspects of the physical environment like blacks being more likely to live in areas with high lead content in the soil (see motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health for some good info on this).

Sasuga leftypol, your worldview rests upon stilts

scientificamerican.com/article/kids-and-animals-who-fail-classic-mirror/

What a fucking surprise. When it comes to the things which require more than a questionable jpg to answer Holla Forums shrinks back into it's shell.

I thought Holla Forums was about bringing about the Worker's Revolution to redistribute the means of production as prescribed by Marx et al?
Why are you all such cucks for race stuff, faggots and other types of "progress" shit? What's that got to do with anything?

What statistical evidence are you talking about? The second graph in shows that black from Sierra Leone, Ghana, and Nigeria all do better than whites at the GCSE. Those graphs don't really address the scores of all whites vs. all blacks in the UK, but the article at theguardian.com/education/2016/apr/04/white-children-falling-behind-other-groups-at-gcse confirms that blacks do better overall than whites.


The correlation is 0.81 (1.0 being a perfect correlation, so that's pretty strong): drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/11/iq-and-gcse-results-in-england-r081.html


But the poorest of blacks are also included, so why shouldn't it balance out, especially since poverty.org.uk/06/index.shtml shows a higher proportion of blacks are poor in the UK? As for the Irish travellers, they are a tiny minority of the population (about 0.5% of the UK population according to itmtrav.ie/irishtravellers ) so excluding them would presumably make very little difference, and anyway there is probably very little genetic difference between them and other whites in the UK.


To what degree would that difference decrease if you control for income? Poorer people of any race are more likely to be out of work or in jail. In the U.S. I know blacks still do have a higher crime rate even when you control for income, but I wonder if that would be true in the UK given the higher levels of academic achievement.

So despite all the evidence which has been presented you're still going to deny it like an incompetent faggot.

Kill yourself NEET.


Found the stormfag.

OP was merely debunking a meme made by Holla Forums

Jej

IQ is a measure of your brains innate ability to process information and to solve problems. It's not something that changes drastically past your late teens.

So despite the fact that

1. OP has debunked every ounce of bullshit that you have

2. has presented multiple sources

3. You're clinging on to one source, which I haven't seen you reference unless you're>>784128

4. Ignoring the fact that black in britain are doing better than whites are.

You're still going to be a little butt mad stormfag.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.12.002

psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2010 Editorial for Intelligence.pdf

I assume you're referring to the article about giving Kenyan children the mirror test at saboteur365.wordpress.com/2015/08/13/the-mirror-test-white-babies-recognize-themselves-at-15-months-black-children-not-until-6-years-science-video/ which was linked at >>>Holla Forums6626916 , but if you look at the original research paper at www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology-2010-Broesch- Cultural Variations in Children's Mirror Self-Recognition.pdf you'll see the authors put forward evidence the kids did recognize themselves but froze up rather than wiping the mark off their forehead because of how they'd been socialized:


And of course there is no evidence that black kids in Western countries do any worse on the mirror test than white kids.

No he hasn't, he's posted unsourced propaganda.


Those kids are too young to have any sort of culture. The researchers are just throwing that in their so they get lynched for "scientific racism"

TOP FUCKING KEK

So I assume the scientists and articles that he has provided, as well the graphs he has presented are FALSE?!


Yeah, nah, suck a black dick and whine about your anuddah shoah somewhere else, stormcuck

Yeah no.

So despite all the evidence that OP has presented WHICH HAS STATED that socio economic factors play a roll in IQ, you're still going to deny it like a faggot.

TOP FUCKING KEKKLE m8

yeah i looked for that mirror thing
all i could find is a storm fag talking about video
(that may even exist) no links

its probobly fake

But his graphs were unsourced, you fucknut.

youtu.be/Yo4WF3cSd9Q

Also watch this video, most white kids were able to demont=strate self control, but the little black girl couldn't. You see the primal animalistic lack of self control in her jet black eyes.She doesn't even wait for the woman to leave the room. She just stuffs it in her mouth like a goddamn dog.

They were referenced in the articles he presented.

See>>783926

Now kindly, fuck off. No one is buying your bullshit.

The graphs here come from the article referenced in the second post at (You), unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/ which does provide the original sources for them–the first was found at theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/11/how-fair-is-britain-data and the second was from a paper by the Institute for Public Policy Research at ippr.org/files/images/media/files/publication/2013/03/back-to-basics-integration_Mar2013_10525.pdf (it's table 6.1 on p. 43).

reliawire.com/intelligence-gene-clusters/

Intelligence genes discovered. IQ is mostly genetic.

Going to have to call you on your bullshit,

see

What information is "unsourced"? The OP mostly reference links that themselves sourced their evidence with published sources, or referenced specific studies with notes like "Eyferth (1961)" which you can easily google. If you think there are specific claims lacking a source maybe you should give some examples. I also gave the sources for a lot of the images that have been posted in my comment at


The kids "ranged in age from 18 to 72 months", and even at 18 months most kids have started talking so obviously plenty of absorption of culture has happened by that age. The paper also mentions that kids in Kenya are punished early on for any kind of disruptive behavior:

...

Except a person who suffers from down syndrome is due to chromosomes.

OP has pretty much debunked that as a race, blacks aren't retarded.

I never said anything about downs syndrome. And the black average is still high 80's low 90's which is slow.

From what age on?

Which group of blacks however?

Because the blacks in Britain are doing better than the whites, and whites in America are doing better than the blacks.

And considering the fact that socio-economic factors play a part in your IQ, as demonstrated by the information that the OP has presented, I feel like you're just grasping at straws here, trying to be a "race realist".

15-18 is when IQ stabilizes.

The first graph in
Says native Brits do better than everyone but Indians and Chinese students who left during the brain drain.

Common estimates I've seen are that about 60% (give or take 10%, depending on the study) of variance in individual IQ is explained by genes, about 40% by environment. So, I agree that IQ is "mostly" genetic–so what? See the point I made in -


The height of an *individual* corn stalk may be mostly determined by genetics too, but that wouldn't conflict in any way with the idea that the *group* difference between the two plots in this case would be 100% environmental.

For some pretty clear evidence that culture can change IQ in far too short a time for genetic changes to explain it, see the Flynn effect (wiki article at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect ), the finding that IQ in many different countries including the U.S. rose steadily over the twentieth century. And this article from Ron Unz also presents a bunch of studies showing significant increases in IQ in various specific Western countries over the course of a few decades, often associated with changing economic circumstances: theamericanconservative.com/articles/race-iq-and-wealth/ (he also has a response to Richard Lynn's critique at ronunz.org/2012/08/05/unz-on-raceiq-response-to-lynn-and-nyborg/ )

aaaaahhhhahahaahhhahaha

Listen you Gommie fucks, niggers are stupid. There's nothing in nature that would even give the indication that every race would evolve the same mental tools.

Yes, in the period 2008-2009 the gray bars in the graph show that whites did slightly better than blacks overall (although white girls were doing worse than black girls according to the dots), but that isn't true any more: theguardian.com/education/2016/apr/04/white-children-falling-behind-other-groups-at-gcse

No, you fucking listen you incompetent Stormfag. Your time is up.

It's been ==PROVEN== that your race realism is a load of shit, but you're still going to prattle on like some retard trying to fuck a door knob.

Kill yourself.

So, no actual argument other than mockery? And how do you explain that their behavior in response to seeing their reflections–freezing up–is presumably not how they would behave if they just saw another kid their own age standing there? Animals that don't recognize themselves in mirror tests typically treat the image just like another animal, the fact that these kids showed an unusual response at least suggests they didn't treat the mirror image like just another person.

Genetic differences in intelligence and thinking IQ is written in stone and is the only indicator of intelligence are two pretty different things m8.

Does intelligence vary between people? Sure. But then one would be hard pressed on what is intelligence since what theoretically is learned intelligence and the nebulous "inborn intelligence" is not a gap as great as you white nationalists make it to be. I the Flynn effect is true, then there is no reason to distinguish blacks and whites on the grounds of IQ alone

Let’s say Flynn is right. The average black now is as intelligent as the average white in 1945. That’s supposed to show that the race difference in IQ is environmentally caused because there hasn’t been that much genetic change in the white population and the IQ has allegedly gone up 15 points. So, you can have a 15 point difference created by just an environmental change, no one knows why. Some think better nutrition or malnourished brain, etc. That’s also a fallacy. Just because a change in one group over time is due to an environmental change, doesn’t mean, or even make it probable, that a difference between 2 groups at the same time is due to an environmental change. The Flynn Effect make’s that highly unlikely and here’s why.

The Flynn Effect, assuming it’s real, has been acting completely uniformly in every population. Any country you ask, the rate of increase is 3 per decade. That means it’s an environmental factor that affects whites and blacks the same way as well as the whole world. And as a result of this uniform environmental factor, you have a difference in IQ that’s being preserved. That would suggest that the response on the parts of blacks and whites is due to some non-environment factors, a genetic factor, which is making the difference in IQ remain constant as the Flynn Effect goes into effect.

What makes it even more unlikely, in the last 60 years, their environments have become very similar since segregation. These differences don’t exist now, they go to the same schools by court order, same TV shows, same movies, basically same environment for both, and yet, that increasing similarity in the environment, the Flynn Effect, the IQ gap has remained intact. Which means whatever counts for the gap is genetic and not environmental. The more and more similar the environment, the less and less of the difference can be due to the environment and the more and more it must be due to genes. So this 15 point gap surviving these changes in the environment, seems more and more likely to be genetic in origin.

So because this ‘Effect’ is the same across all populations and the gap didn’t close, that means it’s genetic. If the gap persisted even when IQs were rising 3 points per year, the B-W gap has still persisted, proving that it’s genetic.

That is why the Flynn Effect is irrelevant. This “Effect”, has been a slight upward trend in IQ, around 3 points per decade, which, in my opinion, has to do with the advent of better nutrition and an industrialized society. The rise in IQ started around 1880, almost perfectly coinciding with the industrial revolution in America. Along with a more industrialized society, it’s possible to give most citizens in the country good enough nutrition to where they are not iodine deficient (adding iodine to our salt boosted Americans IQs), as well as being deficient in zinc, iron, protein and certain B vitamins which the effects of not getting enough leads to the brain not growing to its full potential, which in turn leads to a lower IQ.

Rushton didn't take the Flynn Effect seriously, as its gains are not on *g*.


Thank's for citing my post.

The thing is, and what's not mentioned in the OP, is that 80 is Africa's *phenotypic IQ* of 80. Lynn used diseased people, as they are a representative of the African population. Weicherts et al used non-diseased people. As a whole, the average is 70. Getting rid of bad nutrition, parasites and diseases will increase it 10 points.

Chisala is laughably wrong.

1/2

Hahahaha.

Tizard et al. (1972) studied black (African and West Indian), white, and mixed-race children raised in British long-stay residential nurseries. Three out of four tests found no significant differences. One test found higher scores for non-whites.
Moore (1986) compared black and mixed-race children adopted by either black or white middle-class families in the United States. Moore observed that 23 black and interracial children raised by white parents had a significantly higher mean score than 23 age-matched children raised by black parents (117 vs 104), and argued that differences in early socialization explained these differences.

You're joking right?

A study was conducted that compared IQ scores of 23 7 to 10-year-old black children raised by middle-class white families and the same number of black children but raised in black families (normal adoption) (Moore, 1986). The findings indicated that traditionally adopted black children raised by black parents had normal IQ scores (85), whereas those black children who were adopted by white families had IQs 1 standard deviation (100) above the black mean. Moore states that multivariate analysis indicates that the behaviors of black and white mothers were different in regards to how the black children were treated. She states that white adoptive mothers reduced stress by joking, laughing, and grinning. Whereas black adoptive mothers reduced stress in less positive ways including coughing, scowling and frowning. She also says that white adoptive mothers gave more positive reinforcement to their adoptive child’s problem solving whereas black adoptive mothers gave less (as I am arguing here, these traits are mostly genetic in origin, driven by IQ). She concludes that the ethnicity of the rearing environment exerts a significant influence on intellectual ability as well as standardized test scores. The sample sizes, however, are extremely small and to infer that the black-white IQ gap is environmental in origin because of a study with a small sample size is intellectually dishonest.

One study conducted in Germany in 1959 observed IQ scores of out-of-wedlock children fathered by US soldiers stationed in Germany during WWII and reared by white German mothers (Eyferth, 1961). Mean IQ scores for 83 white children and 97 mixed-race children were 97, 97.2 for the whites and 96.6 for the mixed-race children (Rushton and Jensen, pg. 261). However, these results are disputed. One, the children were extremely young, one-third of the children in the study were between the ages of 5 and 10 whereas the remaining two-thirds of the children were between the ages of 10 and 13. The malleability of intelligence is very well-known in regards to children. The heritability of IQ at age increases with age (a phenomenon known as ‘the Wilson Effect’), which Arthur Jensen states that as a child ages, social environment can increase IQ (as heritability for children aged 5 is 22 percent and children aged 7 at 40 percent). Though, as the child ages, genes activate, and they fall to their genetic potential, with genetic effects accounting for a lion’s share of intelligence (80 to 90 percent) and environment having no effect. Second, 20 to 25 percent of the ‘black’ fathers were French North Africans (Caucasians). This shows why the mixed-race children had higher IQs in the sample: about a quarter of the sample was Caucasian (Rushton and Jensen, pg. 261). Finally, rigorous selection was done on both the white and black soldiers. With 3 percent of whites getting rejected compared to 30 percent of blacks, it is shown that high IQ blacks were selected for, therefore, skewing the sample.

Yet another study on black and white children observed 2 to 5-year-olds in a nursery setting (Tizard, 1972). The white and black children both had IQs at 102.6 and 106.3 respectively. She found no significant gap in the three groups tested (white, black and West Indian). However, she did note that the single significant difference was in that of non-white children.

2/2

All three of the above studies that get cited ad nauseum have something in common: they did not retest the children again at age 17 like was done in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. This is very critical. As it was alluded to earlier, as children mature, genetics exerts more of an effect than does socialization. Any IQ differences that are brought about by socialization will be mediated by genetics at adulthood, falling to the racial mean. It also noted how the age of adoption does not influence children’s IQ scores after age 7 (Jensen 1998b). This is due to, again, genetic effects being heightened as age increases.

What the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (Weinberg, Scarr, and Waldman, 1992) and the Eyferth study (1961) had observed was that the children born to a white mother and a black father had statistically significant differences in IQ in comparison to those birthed by a black mother and white father. This is attributed to prenatal environment. It was observed that mothers who had higher IQs and were more educated (which both correlate highly with each other), had children which, in turn, had higher IQ scores as well (Erikson, 2013). The results of the study suggest that mothers who are more educated have children who have higher intelligence. This should end this debate right there. Since, clearly, a white mother is more conducive to foster a higher IQ than is a black mother, this shows that racial differences in IQ are largely genetic in origin.

notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/05/22/the-black-white-iq-gap/


It's confirmed my friend. See all of Rushon and Ankney's reviews on brain size.

Dispite all evidence to the contrary. Have you even read the sources that you have posted?

They're still inconclusive as to wether or not its genetic or environmental, but as OP has presented, it's likely environmental.

As he has displayed, black kids within the UK are doing better than the white ones.

So no user, despite your cherry picking of evidence, it is clear that IQ can be affected by environmental factors.

Quit holding on to your bogus data, no one is falling for it anymore.

Despite all evidence to the contrary.

Seems legit tbh fam.
I am now a #commiemissile


> therightstuff.biz/2015/09/02/race-and-iq-genes-that-predict-racial-intelligence-differences/

These differences were statistically significant and were replicated across all three databases.
> More extraordinary was the finding that all 14 alleles differed between Blacks and Whites in a way that would predict that Blacks would be less intelligent.

Therefore the probability of the first 14 alleles examined all favoring Whites would be a mere 1 in 16,284.

I've never seen anyone use the Flynn effect to "show" that–in HBD debates it's usually just brought up to show that environmental changes can cause significant IQ shifts over time (and Flynn and others have presented various evidence against the environmental factor just being nutrition, see ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19251490/ for example), which makes it more plausible that average differences in the black and white environment in the U.S. could explain the gap, but of course it doesn't prove it in itself.


About what specifically? You wrote this in response to a comment of mine which just talked about where some graphs in Chisala's article came from, do you think those are wrong?

Again, you've dismissed socio-economic factors entirely, AND you have neglected the evidence presented by OP.

You are not fooling anyone.

Rushton has been vindicated.

notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/06/26/climate-violence-black-crime-rk-selection-theory-and-the-vindication-of-jp-rushton/

notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/06/15/neanderthals-inbreeding-and-rk-selection-theory/

notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/06/15/neanderthals-inbreeding-and-rk-selection-theory/


Has to do with muscle fiber differences.

Blacks also wouldn’t be good swimmers due to them having more type II muscle fibers than type I, meaning their muscles fire off quicker and therefore tire quicker. This is why blacks are good sprinters, but would suffer in swimming events. Blacks also have a higher fat free bone density than whites, which leads to blacks not being able to float since fat floats.

For the same reasons why blacks wouldn’t be good swimmers, whites can’t jump, on average. Type II muscle fiber doesn’t allow for the explosive power needed to be able to jump as well as blacks. Even though blacks have a heavier skeletons than whites on average, they can still jump due to their muscle fiber typing. This is also why whites are underrepresented in the NBA (which is 74.4 percent black). Testosterone and musculoskeletal differences are the causes for racial differences in sports.

Whites drown more than blacks before 5 years of age, but after 5 years, more blacks drown in comparison to whites. Drowning in natural water settings was significantly higher for blacks than for whites, with blacks drowning more than whites at ages 7-8 through 17-18 years of age. Swimming pool drowning rates was also shown to be elevated for black children This data shows that after 5 years of age, blacks drown at a significantly greater amount than whites or ‘Hispanics’, which is attributed to the data above.

Whites and Asian muscle fiber typing is for strength and endurance while West African descended blacks have muscle fiber type for sprinting.


It doesn't.

notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/05/08/sickle-cell-anemia/

It's a tropical disease.

It's been established that genetics outweighs the environment. You can't jump from an IQ of 85 to 105. You just can't

Oh leftists, when will you learn you are always the first victims of those you fight for.

Despite all evidence to the contrary which OP has provided.

Rushton has no place, because there are more sources that disprove him (as OP has displayed) than vindicate him.

There are no valid socio-economic factors to consider in the context of those studies and their findings.

There are more non-Hispanic whites living in impoverished socio-economic conditions in, for example, the United States, than there are blacks living in equivalent conditions - two times as many, in fact.

There is no need to fool anyone - your argument holds no water.

Why do you think Trump isn't just dog-whistling to you retards to get elected?

You don't have the authority to make those kinds of decrees by fiat, sorry.

This coming from the guy who posts his info from the right stuff.

See


So no, if there's anyone who has sweet fuck all for his argument, it's you.

You have done nothing but produce your results from A SINGLE SCIENTIST, and A SINGLE ARTICLE

You have no grounds, no back up, and no chance.

Despite all the contrary evidence we provided that overrules OP's evidence.

Rape is genetic?

You mean the evidence which has also been debunked by the evidence you claim to be debunking?

See

Despite the """""sources"""" which you have provided that come from singular articles and scientists.

You've debunked nothing you fucking idiot.

Blacks are still doing better than whites in school in Britain.

You cannot dispute this.

Yet info from left wing sources is okay.

Watch
They have low impulse control. They posses a primal savagery not unlike animals that dwell in the Forrest. They lack the ability to plan ahead and understand long term consequences. How do you expect us to live with them?

You mean the evidence you posted to debunk our evidence whinch actually debunks your evidence?

You didn't even post the source from what you said b4 you nigger.

Why do blacks, arabs and pakistanis rape so often? Disliking the idea of bringing in more of them is quite reasonable, even if it's purely cultural

Ok lad, because the people who i have sourced who AS A WHOLE (as compared to your singular examples from biased sources) hold no grounds WHATSOEVER.


The fuck are you talking about lad?

I've just proved that socio-economic factors can effect your IQ.

www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology-2010-Broesch- Cultural Variations in Children's Mirror Self-Recognition.pdf you'll see the authors put forward evidence the kids did recognize themselves but froze up rather than wiping the mark off their forehead because of how they'd been socialized:
And of course there is no evidence that black kids in Western countries do any worse on the mirror test than white kids.

By a minuscule margin.

What kind of question is that? Of course I have. I wrote them.

Reread my critique of the Flynn Effect.

notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/02/09/towards-a-theory-of-everyone-chisala-rebuttal/

They're mostly Ibo.

unz.com/pfrost/the-jews-of-west-africa/

I never said environmental factors had no effect. Extreme hereditarianism is just as retarded as extreme environmentalism.

The B-W IQ gap is 80/20 genetic/environmental.

You environmentalists need to stop holding on to your phoony data.


You must be new to HBD if you've never seen that before.
Yes, The 'Flynn Effect' is in reverse. No big deal. It's not on *g*.

He's wrong in his conclusion. The graphs are fine.

Did you even read the sources I provided?

So despite everything, from nutrition, culture, economic stand points, environments, how you are raised, and the fact that blacks are doing better than whites in Britain, you're still going to deny the evidence and say


This coming from the guy who denied that it even had a factor.

Admit it lad, you've lost. Your "race realism" is just another phony call to justify your bigotry.

They curve the scores.
jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ368279

You can keep on sourcing the same site, OVER and OVER again.

And yet, as displayed, the OP has debunked these claims.

Also


An website which has also debunked that blacks aren't dumb as a race.


You stormfags are pathetic. You're no better than third wave feminists grasping for straws.

*a website

Equality is a spook.

Never mind that California banned IQ tests for black children because they were being disproportionately put in special ed.

OP's evidence is flawed, and it is the only evidence which supports the argument made, while a plethora of evidence suggests otherwise.

An example of flaws:


African school children in the UK are not an unbiased selection group in this context - these are the children of Africans who, likely (almost-certainly) due to heightened intellect and/or agency, found their way to the UK.

The cream-of-the-African-crop as it were.
And thus it should pose no surprise that these individuals, over time, and with increased assistance (in the form of aid of various forms - aid which may not be dealt to the native white population, or not as much, if only due to the connotations of racial politics in the UK over the last several decades), that these populations might rise to, or even surpass, the native white populations (which, again, may not be receiving the same sort of assistance, to the same degree, if only due to racial politics) as regards standardized/IQ testing.

The spread of people along the IQ continuum can be represented well by the ‘normal curve', and intelligence tests are not culturally biased"
Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level.
Thus, if you take members of a given clade, those which exhibit a heightened state of cognitive predisposition relative to their compatriots in such clade, and transport them into a population of people who are themselves, as a clade, representative of a similarly heightened state of cognitive predisposition relative to the aforementioned clade as that group of high-cog individuals from that clade represent relative to their own clade, it should pose not surprise that they exhibit high functionality.
Nor, however, should it suggest that data regarding that high-cog population is indicative of the proportional representation of cognitive ability amongst the clade from whence that high-cog population was pulled, such as to suggest the clades in question are equivalent as regards cognitive capacity, the variance being nothing more than environmental static.

African school children in the UK are likely (almost-certainly) the spawn of high-cog/high-agency Africans - a minority amongst their overall populations, as is the case with European populations; granted, the proportionality varies greatly between African/European populations (as represented by a greater proportion of the population exhibiting genetic predisposition to high-cog status.

I've never said that socioeconomic factors had no bearing. Controlling for SES, 37 percent of the B-W IQ gap disappears.

But yea. Go ahead and disregard everything I'm sourcing for you without reading it.


Sexual offending runs in families.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4469797/

Show me some debunkings.


Incredible.

You keep NOT responding to me. You didn't respond to anything I cited.

Respond to the Flynn critique.


In case you missed it.

Let’s say Flynn is right. The average black now is as intelligent as the average white in 1945. That’s supposed to show that the race difference in IQ is environmentally caused because there hasn’t been that much genetic change in the white population and the IQ has allegedly gone up 15 points. So, you can have a 15 point difference created by just an environmental change, no one knows why. Some think better nutrition or malnourished brain, etc. That’s also a fallacy. Just because a change in one group over time is due to an environmental change, doesn’t mean, or even make it probable, that a difference between 2 groups at the same time is due to an environmental change. The Flynn Effect make’s that highly unlikely and here’s why.

The Flynn Effect, assuming it’s real, has been acting completely uniformly in every population. Any country you ask, the rate of increase is 3 per decade. That means it’s an environmental factor that affects whites and blacks the same way as well as the whole world. And as a result of this uniform environmental factor, you have a difference in IQ that’s being preserved. That would suggest that the response on the parts of blacks and whites is due to some non-environment factors, a genetic factor, which is making the difference in IQ remain constant as the Flynn Effect goes into effect.

What makes it even more unlikely, in the last 60 years, their environments have become very similar since segregation. These differences don’t exist now, they go to the same schools by court order, same TV shows, same movies, basically same environment for both, and yet, that increasing similarity in the environment, the Flynn Effect, the IQ gap has remained intact. Which means whatever counts for the gap is genetic and not environmental. The more and more similar the environment, the less and less of the difference can be due to the environment and the more and more it must be due to genes. So this 15 point gap surviving these changes in the environment, seems more and more likely to be genetic in origin.

So because this ‘Effect’ is the same across all populations and the gap didn’t close, that means it’s genetic. If the gap persisted even when IQs were rising 3 points per year, the B-W gap has still persisted, proving that it’s genetic.
That is why the Flynn Effect is irrelevant. This “Effect”, has been a slight upward trend in IQ, around 3 points per decade, which, in my opinion, has to do with the advent of better nutrition and an industrialized society. The rise in IQ started around 1880, almost perfectly coinciding with the industrial revolution in America. Along with a more industrialized society, it’s possible to give most citizens in the country good enough nutrition to where they are not iodine deficient (adding iodine to our salt boosted Americans IQs), as well as being deficient in zinc, iron, protein and certain B vitamins which the effects of not getting enough leads to the brain not growing to its full potential, which in turn leads to a lower IQ.

Rushton didn't take the Flynn Effect seriously, as its gains are not on *g*.

I debunked the OP.

37 percent of the B-W IQ gap is explained by SES. Nice try.

There is no need to dispute this, as described above.

It was never to be argued that there are NO high-cog/high-agency blacks - merely that there are far fewer of them, proportionally, than is to be found amongst European or 'white' populations.

And the data provided does not appear to suggest otherwise, in that, the blacks who are outside of Africa are, by definition of their placement, whether they be the progeny of long-time inhabitants or recent migrants, less-representative of Africanoid genetic patterns than those within.

US blacks have an average IQ far higher than their African counterparts, due in large part to admixture (the average US black is 20%+ European admixed), and, due to the racial politics in play, they are often given special assistance which equivalent European populations do not demonstrate.

Blacks in the UK no doubt fall into one of two categories: the progeny of long-time inhabitants, or more-recent arrivals from foreign lands.

In the first case, the probability of admixture drastically increases.
In the second, you're dealing with the sort of individual which has made their way from Africa to the UK - by definition, in some way differentiated from the African population (high-cog/high-agency).
In both cases, due to their racial status, they are liable - especially in Bongistan, as racially-cucked as that nation is - to receive increased attention/aid on behalf of the state entities, relative to the native European population.

If anything, the data on offer in this context appears to suggest that, if you take a group of high-cog/high-agency blacks and introduce them to European society, they can potentially exceed the native population to varying degrees, especially with increased assistance (even moreso if that assistance is not on offer to the natives in question, or not to as great a degree).
This says nothing of the average black population in Africa, nor of the average black population in other nations the world over, nor much at all - merely that which we already knew: blacks which hold high-cog/high-agency status do exist… And it seems they tend to flock to white countries.

All of this, of course, assumes this data is legitimate - which, given the political climate around race, in and out of academia, seems a somewhat dubious prospect at this stage.

...

You mean the evidence you provide which has been debunked by OP.

ok lol

KEK are you actually retarded?

Nationalism rose out of the Napoleonic era, you blithering retard.

Notice how blacks have been denied education, notice that blacks developed thug culture as a form of retaliation, in which studying is deemed as "acting white"

Read the entirety of OPs argument.

You are retarded.

Does no one here understand what is happening?
Some Holla Forums shills are trying to make us look stupid.
There is no doubt there are large genetic differences, which is the reason we need to look for solutions to remove them if we ever want to live in a completely classless society.
We can pretend this is not a problem or we can push for the intermingling of different races to merge them both culturally and genetically.

Fuck the OP's argument. Read my critique of the Flynn Effect AND that Africa's average IQ will go to 80 with Flynn gains.

Because a Kenysian welfare state is totally stable. Oh wait.

The entirety of OP's argument is a gross misunderstanding of the Flynn effect.

Nisbett et al. (2012), p. 146 make the same point, noting also that the increase in the IQ scores of Black test takers is necessarily also an increase in g.
James Flynn (2012), pp. 140–1 argues that there is an inherent flaw in Jensen's argument that the correlation between g-loadings, test scores and heritability support a genetic cause of the gap. He points out that as the difficulty of a task increases a low performing group will naturally fall further behind, and heritability will therefore also naturally increase. The same holds for increases in performance which will first affect the least difficult tasks, but only gradually affect the most difficult ones. Flynn thus sees the correlation between in g-loading and the test score gap to offer no clue to the cause of the gap.

Hunt (2010), p. 415 states that many of conclusions of Jensen, and his colleagues rest on the validity of Spearman's hypothesis, and the method of correlated vectors used to test it. Hunt points out that other researchers have found this method of calculation to produce false positive results, and that other statistical methods should be used instead. According to Hunt, Jensen and Rushton's frequent claim that Spearman's hypothesis should be regarded as empirical fact does not hold, and that new studies based on better statistical methods would be required to confirm or reject the hypothesis that the correlation between g-loading, heritability and the IQ gap is due to IQ gaps consisting mostly of g.

Which country are you referring to?

It's the only way for your precious capitalism not to devolve into a cyberpunk dystopia, but you faggots will never accept it, cause that would mean seeing past your Ideology.

Oh, and

Furthermore

Neisser (1996)>"There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential."

Therefore, a high heritability measure does not imply that a trait is genetic or unchangeable, however, as environmental factors that affect all group members equally will not be measured by heritability and the heritability of a trait may also change over time in response to changes in the distribution of genes and environmental factors.

In regards to the IQ gap the question becomes whether racial groups can be shown to be influenced by different environmental factors that may account for the observed differences between them. Jensen originally argued that given the high heritability of IQ the only way that the IQ gap could be explained as caused by the environment would be if it could be shown that all blacks were subject to a single "x-factor" which affected no white populations while affecting all black populations equally, as covered by Jensen (1998)

Jensen considered the existence of such an x-factor to be extremely improbable, but Flynn's discovery of the Flynn effect showed that in spite of high heritability environmental factors could cause considerable disparities in IQ between generations of the same population, showing that the existence of such an x-factor was not only possible but real, (Flynn 2012)

Today researchers such as Hunt (2010), Nisbett (2012) and Mackintosh (2011) consider that rather than a single factor accounting for the entire gap, probably many different environmental factors differ systematically between the environments of White and Black people converge to create part of the gap and perhaps all of it. They argue that it does not make sense to talk about a single universal heritability figure for IQ, rather, they state, heritability of IQ varies between and within groups. They point specifically to studies showing a higher heritability of test scores in White and medium-high SES families, but considerably lower heritability for Black and low-SES families. This they interpret to mean that children who grow up with limited resources do not get to develop their full genetic potential.

So much for "muh inheritability"

how come ALL black areas be it Africa or their neighborhoods in White countries are absolute shit and White places are generally nice places to live?

...

How do they come to this conclusion? Explain their methodology.

Here's where you have no idea what you're talking about. Jensen has confirmed Spearman's hypothesis, it is an empirical fact.

The probability that his hypothesis is wrong is 1 and a billion!

>Using the MCV, Dragt (2010) (dare.uva.nl/cgi/arno/show.cgi?fid=176083) had his prediction confirmed when the psychometric meta-analysis of IQ batteries showed a correlation of .91, based on a large N. Their study on language bias showed a small underestimate of 2.71 points. They conclude that Spearman’s hypothesis is an empirical fact:



notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/05/11/arthur-jensens-method-of-correlated-vectors/

The MCV is fine.


Not on *g*.


How many times do I need to tell you that 37 percent of the gap is explained when matching for SES?

The FE is not as great asa people think it is.

Lol.

Turkheimer, they say that he was right that he did find gene x environment interactions that made genetic influences weaker and shared environment stronger for those from poorer homes in comparison to those from more affluent homes. Though most studies show no interaction effects, or interactions vary significantly.

Other studies have shown that heritabilities are the same both within as well as between white and black samples. That led Jensen to label this the ‘default hypothesis’. Researchers analyzed full and half siblings from the NLSY on three Peabody Achievement Tests. 161 black full siblings, 106 pairs of black half siblings, 314 pairs of full white siblings and 53 pairs of white half-siblings. with measures in math and reading. The best fitting model for all of the data was by which the sources of the sources of the differences between those within race and the differences between races were the same, at 50 percent genetic and environmental. The combined model (50/50) best explains it, whereas the culture-only and genetics-only models are inadequate.

notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/21/refuting-richard-nisbett/
Nisbett is another hack.

laplab.ucsd.edu/articles2/Lee2010.pdf

> But the most significant improvement was in how the money helped parents, well, to parent. Before the casino opened its doors, parents worked hard through the summer but were often jobless and stressed over the winter. The new income enabled Cherokee families to put money aside and to pay bills in advance. Parents who were lifted out of poverty now reported having more time for their children.

> They weren’t working any less though, Costello discovered. Mothers and fathers alike were putting in just as many hours as before the casino opened. More than anything, says tribe member Vickie L. Bradley, the money helped ease the pressure on families, so the energy they’d spent worrying about money was now freed up for their children. And that “helps parents be better parents,” Bradley explains

> but were often jobless and stressed over the winter
> They weren’t working any less though

Hmmm…

On what basis?

Oh, wait… This isn't even the same study anymore.

What does this other study look at…


… The argument is that poor people just have more to worry about, effectively?
And you have to pay for your book to hear about it… Hmmmmm….

Have you read Mr. Shafir's book, user?
What was the methodology employed and how does it prove the claimed associative results?

I'd have to see the actual data for this before I'd be inclined to believe this claim.
I'd also like to see what the variance was if those people remained in that condition.

I already addressed everything in the first part of that posting, and another user already addressed Nisbett (whose name appears quite a few times in ths thread).

no one is buying that bullshit.


Muh spearman hypothesis

Despite the fact that Hunt, Flynn, Nisbett and Mackintosh have pretty debunked this.

What is it with you stormfags contantly citing "not politically correct, again and again?"

No one is buying your bullshit anymore.

Why do you insist on trying to rebuke it, despite all evidence which has blown the """evidence""" that you provide, out of the water?

Linda Gottfredson argues that suggestion of higher ethical standards for research into group differences in intelligence is a double standard applied in order to undermine disliked results.

The Nordic countries largely rely on oil to keep them afloat, particularly Norway.

The refugees don't help the matter.

Also, to further the debunking of the "Spearman Hypothesis"

Jensen's MCV has been criticized with regards to the claim that it supports the later formulation of Spearman's hypothesis. Dolan et al. (2004) argue that MCV lacks specificity: that is, that instances not including g differences could create a positive correlation between the magnitude of the group differences and the g-loadings. Dolan et al. (2004) note that they are specifically criticizing MCV as a way of proving that group differences largely or totally represent g differences; they don't argue against Spearman's hypothesis as originally formulated and they do not argue that the larger body of evidence does not support Spearman's hypothesis as later formulated. Hunt and Carlson summarize criticism:

The essence of these objections is that the method of correlated vectors does not consider alternative hypotheses concerning the latent traits that might give rise to the observed difference in test scores. When a more appropriate method of analysis, multigroup confirmatory factor analysis, is applied, it has been found that Spearman's hypothesis (i.e., that the difference is due to differences in general intelligence) is only one of several models that could give rise to the observed distributions in test scores (Dolan, 2000). These findings render the method of correlated vectors ambiguous—which is not the same as saying that the Jensen-Rushton position is incorrect. Our point is that the argument for the default hypothesis is an indirect one. It would be far better if a direct causal argument could be made linking racial/ethnic genetic differences to studies of the development of the brain.


Flynn argues that the most g-loaded and heritable tests are those that have seen the highest increases due to the Flynn effect. More generally, Flynn (2010) has criticized the basic assumption that confirmation of Spearman's hypothesis would support a partially genetic explanation for IQ differences. He argues that environmental causes for average group IQ differences would cause the differences to be greater for more complex tasks.

I'm not in favor of capitalism and I'm not a Stormcuck. I've just been keeping out of this discussion because I know fuck all about most of this subject in the OP.

This is just laughable.

Why are African American populations in the US statistically more likely to be exposed to many detrmental environmental factors such as poorer neighborhoods, schools (a falsehood), nutrition, and prenatal and postnatal health care?
They are in these conditions, okay, but WHY?

Its seems like this becomes little more than a 'what came first, the stupid blacks or the environmental conditions that make blacks more prone to being stupid?', and I've already provided genetic evidence to explain a cognitive variance between blacks and whites, regardless of environmental factors.

Why is the pig in shit?
Because its a pig - the shit didn't make it a pig, it was always a pig, that's why its in shit.
Likewise, why is the nigger in shit?
Because its a nigger - the shit didn't make it a nigger, it was always a nigger, that's why its in shit.

You've obviously never lived in poverty stricken white communities.

See>>784574

So like a third feminist, you reject the evidence placed in front of you to push forward a blue pilled narrative.

You've provided nothing but debunked evidence, outdated facts, and your obvious bigotry to the thread in a pathetic attempt to say that the white race is superior.

OP's evidence did not debunk the evidence I cited - they are in completely different contextual environs.

OP's evidence is also rather limited in its presentation - there is no discussion of methodology, merely citation of anothers' work.
And I know better than to blindly trust something on the basis of it being 'peer reviewed'.

Not that it matters anyway - I don't have to dispute OP's claim, and I didn't attempt to, I provided a counter-claim.

There is strong evidence for genetic variation between racial clades in the vein of cognitive ability.
Nobody even contested that environmental factors played a part - merely that inherent factors play a greater part.

Neither you, nor OP, have effectively demonstrated otherwise.

Debunk the genetic evidence, and do it with hard science, not pseudo-science psychology/sociology studies, which are notoriously prone to shifty math, poor methodology, and an absence of published negatives.
> narrative.ly/nick-brown-smelled-bull/

T.triggered stormfag.


No, you've provided debunked evdience and bullshit facts, which have not been peer reviewed.


See

You are afraid user.

Afraid of the black man, afraid of the future, afraid for your race, and most of your bigotry comes from insecurity.

Its over.

Because European models were better, on basically every front - that's why they were able to defeat their African counterparts.

You didn't provide any evidence in this context.

The way you spew insults and rhetoric belies your absence of an argumentative position - you just refer back to other posts, which themselves offer nothing of value, and present that as your argument.

Its a very Semitic manner of behavior - not that I'm calling you a Jew, I'm just saying you argue like one.

You've still not proved that the evidence I provided was in anyway debunked, outdated, or in any way showed any sort of bigotry (which is an intolerance for difference in opinion - which I believe your insults would represent quite soundly).
Anytime you want to disprove the genetic evidence I provided above, with actual scientific evidence - as opposed to pseudo-science studies analysing derivative behavioral patterns, as you've provided, often without any effort to examine methodology or demonstration of an examination of data having transpired on your behalf - feel free. ;^)

Not an argument.

You try to use evidence that "debunks" OPs evidence, but the evidence that was provided by OP, as well as other members within this thread, is already two steps ahead of yours.

And you argue like a stormfag.

outdated facts, buzzwords, ad hominems, and strawmen.

Just admit it lad, the evidence still stands.

Is that necessarily an insult?
Jews are good at argumentation, afterall. ;^)

Except its actually two steps behind mine - it addresses behavioral/psychological data, and a lot of it is quite shifty in context.

I only provided one source of data, and it was genetic data.
You've yet to provide anything in that context, as far as I'm aware - just a bunch of pseudo-"soft-science" behavioral studies.

I'll repeat myself - you do it often enough, I might as well follow suit:
Offer is still there cuckcake.
Oops! Now I'm throwing insults around!
You really are rubbing off on me! ;^D

Double reply!

Someones triggered!

;^)

This is just one samefag baiting Holla Forums and shitposting in circles, probably massively asshurt because his jew savior Glassberg stabbed him and his comrades in the back today.

From a single scientist who has been debunked, studies which have shown that socio economic factors play a part, and evidence which shows that there are flaws within Spearmans hypothesis.


OY VEY GOYIM! YOU SURE SHOWED ME!

You truly are """"""""enlightened""""""""""""

...

This thread just proves that fanatical willful ignorance is a real thing.

Even when confronted with evidence to the contrary, the Holla Forumstard will continue to live through his fantasies.

You might as well be debating a member of ISIS on why not all Christians are bad.

Well no fucking shit.

But can you really trust people who believe that the holocaust never happened, and the Nazis were gud bois who nuffin?

They'll probably call me a jew after posting this.

and don't forget the usual: "The holocaust never happened, but it totally should have"

I guess they really enjoy eating from the trashcan.

And the "muh white race is going extinct!"

Doesn't that evidence for differences in cognitive ability also ultimately rely on psychology studies? Or how exactly do you measure cognitive ability?

Rushton and Ankney do not use raw measurements of cranial capacity, instead they attempt to adjust the values using a mathematical formula that's meant to compensate for the effect of overall body size on brain size, but the formula they use is disputed by other scientists, see cpsimoes.net/artigos/art_reply_rushton.html :

this is probably the best thread in a long long time

we have two conclusions - Holla Forumsacks are fanatic ignorant neckbeards and that IQ depends on the enviroment - both we knew long ago

someone archive the thread pls

I'm converting all this information into a giant essay.

Rushton's attempt to apply r/K selection theory to different groups of humans is seen as ignorant by actual evolutionary biologists (Rushton was a psychology professor, as far as I know he had no training in evolutionary biology), see scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1327&context=articles and in particular the section titled "Selection Scenario for Race Differences in r and K" which says:

lol Holla Forumstard bailed

pathetic

Are you talking about the raw numbers, rather than the fractions of each population that live in impoverished socio-economic conditions? If you think about it for a minute I'm sure you'll be able to see why it's the percentage of each group living in these conditions that would be relevant to average IQ scores of each group, not raw numbers. Let's say hypothetically that the fraction of American whites living in poverty was exactly the same as the fraction of Canadian whites living in poverty, which would mean the raw numbers of American whites living in poverty would be significantly higher–all else being equal, would you expect the white American IQ to be A) lower, because a larger total number living in poverty, or B) about the same, because the same fraction live in poverty? The answer should obviously be B.

Another factor which is probably worth considering is not just individual poverty, but the likelihood of living in a neighborhood of "concentrated poverty"–as it turns out, even if you look at poor blacks and poor whites of exactly the same income level, the poor blacks are significantly more likely to live in neighborhoods where a higher fraction of the people around them are also poor. Some good charts and graphs on this (including the one I attached) can be found here: theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/why-we-write/459909/ (the first few paragraphs are about responses to a previous article the author wrote, feel free to skip down to the first graph in the article, after which there are more graphs, links, and discussions of this issue).

Concentrated poverty could make a difference for a few reasons–for one there would just be the effect of less chance of making social connections with more successful people who could be role models and maybe give some help with connections that would get you a job. Concentrated poverty areas are also going to have higher crime, which could both subject people to more stress (which tends to have a bad effect on school) and also make a person more likely to become a criminal themselves. And I think another big issue is that in the U.S. we have a system where schools have to get a lot of their funding from property taxes in the local community, so schools in poorer areas will have lower funding, rather than having the schools be nationally funded so poor kids don't have the extra disadvantage of going to poor schools.

In fact, a meta-analysis of many studies looking at the relation between parental income and IQ found that people with lower parental income show a larger environmental component to their IQ in the U.S., but that this pattern is not seen in Western European countries, perhaps due to differences in the educational system (including the fact that schools are nationally funded in Western Europe) along with other differences like the stronger social safety net in those countries. That meta-analysis can be found at labs.la.utexas.edu/tucker-drob/files/2015/02/Psychological-Science-2015-Tucker-Drob-09567976156127271.pdf

I also found a study at web.archive.org/web/20160301064409/http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/sampson/files/2005_ajph.pdf which is about the effect of neighborhoods not on IQ but on violence; their statistical analysis suggested that most of the racial differences in violence can be explained in terms of neighborhood context, so it seems like a plausible hypothesis that something similar could be true for IQ differences.

"Curving" a score just means you take the raw number of questions answered right and generate a score based on how many standard deviations that number is from the average, using a bell curve distribution; IQ scores are also "curved" in this sense. It doesn't mean they give extra bonus points to minorities, if that's what you're implying.

No, they clearly applied the Motumbo-Goldstein curve. The curve that makes whites perform just as well as niggers and jews within the same environment, as part of the Jewish conspiracy to discredit eugenics and the superiority of the white race.

...

why are all of you low-test cuckolds who love to worship black dick?

...

Just an FYI, academia has already concluded "stereotype threat" is statistically negligible to the point it may not even exist at all:

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440514000831

Please actually read the full study and not just the abstract before responding.

As
Hodson, G., & Busseri, M. (2012). Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact Psychological Science, 23 (2), 187-195 DOI: 10.1177/0956797611421206

shows, right wingers are on average more stupid than left wingers. That explains why right wingers are poor and we can ignore their political ideology.

Note that the referenced post at therightstuff.biz/2015/09/02/race-and-iq-genes-that-predict-racial-intelligence-differences/ involves the author trying to use published data to draw his own original conclusions, as opposed to just summarizing peer-reviewed studies, so that alone is reason to have some skepticism about his analysis. Also, one thing to keep in mind is that the current thinking is that the genetic component of IQ involves something on the order of 10,000 different alleles which individually only contribute some small fraction of an IQ point, see arxiv.org/abs/1408.3421 and blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/08/half-the-variation-in-i-q-is-due-to-genes/#.V4XZQFeOLqF …so, those 14 alleles in the study cited in the rightstuff.biz post would probably only have a very small effect on IQ taken together.

Still, if we treat those 14 alleles as a random sample from all the IQ-related alleles out there, the fact that the graphs show 13 out of 14 have a greater frequency in whites than blacks might suggest this is true more often than not for all the other alleles. But I see a problem with the idea that they're a random sample: the post specifically mentions that they were found by looking for IQ-correlated alleles in an exclusively sample. Now, suppose that most individual alleles have somewhat different frequencies in white and black populations just due to genetic drift (random changes in frequencies not due to selection), but that in the absence of significantly different selection for intelligence, about half of the intelligence-boosting alleles have greater frequency in whites and about half have greater frequencies in blacks. But wouldn't it be true in this case that if you searched specifically for alleles that had significant correlations with IQ in a population, your filter would be more likely to catch the alleles that occur more frequently in whites if you looked at a white population, and more likely to catch the alleles that occur more frequently in blacks if you looked at a black population? In that case the sample isn't really random with respect to all 10,000 IQ-influencing alleles, and the fact that these 14 show up with greater frequency in whites doesn't tell you much.

Granted, one argument against this was that he found that the alleles occurred even more frequently in asians than in whites–but he doesn't say how big the difference is, and presumably didn't do any analysis to see if it was even a statistically significant one (and east asian populations separated from european ones a lot more recently than the separation between african and eurasian populations).

Two words
Australian Aborignals

Looks like all the nigger OP did was generate a lot of shitty posts. Better luck locating your father, you filthy ape.

you know whats funny bunkerchan thinks we never get raided by Holla Forums

Three words

Socio economic factors

You mad, stormfag?

I found a husbands wife on my search, however.

emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Is-the-Flynn-effect-on-g-A-meta-analysis.pdf

i was lurking on Holla Forums and a guy used this paper against you.

i was wondering you could make a counter agrument

As opposed to


I'd say your stormfag is full of shit.

...

Indeed, it's just abuse of statistics and probability.


This doesn't at all prove hereditary differences because the Flynn effect is its own unique phenomenon; even James Flynn himself doubts that it is related to racial disparities.

It's also unsurprising because black and white IQ averages have been increasing, it's simply faster for black averages.

Why are you all subhuman monkeys that chock on Hitler's cold dead dick?

I can't wait to assrape your loved ones to death in the gulags. They'll probably be too tired to fight back.

but the paper said g is'nt rising

Well his paper is flawed and full of shit, as displayed by the evidence OP has provided.

It would appear that Intelligence is mostly a factor of socio economic factors rather than genetics.

Hence why lower class whites are just as stupid as lower class blacks and hispanics.

*Kept
Just as Stupid, that is.

erectuswalksamongst.us

Refute this book, commie scum.

Who the fuck are you or OP to refute all the evidence to the contrary?

IQ is influenced by how much black cock has nurtured your anus. The more black cock you had, the higher your IQ. Since whites get more black cock in their ass than blacks themselves, there is an IQ gap. The way to fix it is to support black LGBT.

No point in refuting pseudo science, the point of the OP was to clarify and disprove Holla Forums's illegitimate use of statistics and science not disprove every idiots pseudo scientific bullshit.

ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence

This circle jerk is made all the more pathetic by the fact that when offered strong evidence contrary to OP's claims you all get so defensive. Fuck it isn't even OP's original work. He has just austically harvest links in favour of his position ignoring everything that doesn't fit.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150726200059.htm


arstechnica.com/science/2015/08/your-inherited-genes-control-your-iq-and-may-affect-how-well-you-do-at-exams-too/


iq-tests.eu/iq-test-Genetics-versus-environment-400.html

newscientist.com/article/dn1520-iq-is-inherited-suggests-twin-study/


nature.com/ejhg/journal/v14/n6/full/5201588a.html

Yes there is an influence of genetic in intelligence (species differs by their DNA after all). But it's only a factor among a lot of factors. Beside you are aware than genetic variations exists within each race right? Than races don't form homogenous blobs?

Meta-analyses have long since taken this data into consideration.

This is like that one webm

sparknotes.com/psychology/psych101/intelligence/section3/page/2/


Heritability estimates don’t reveal anything about the extent to which genes influence a single person’s traits.
Heritability depends on how similar the environment is for a group of people.
Even with high heritability, a trait can still be influenced by environment.

Environmental Influences

Evidence for environmental influences on intelligence comes from the following observations:

Adoption studies demonstrate that adopted children show some similarity in IQ to their adoptive parents.

Adoption studies also show that siblings reared together are more similar in IQ than siblings reared apart. This is true even when identical twins reared together are compared to identical twins reared apart.

Biologically unrelated children raised together in the same home have some similarity in IQ.

IQ declines over time in children raised in deprived environments, such as understaffed orphanages or circumstances of poverty and isolation. Conversely, IQ improves in children who leave deprived environments and enter enriched environments.

People’s performance on IQ tests has improved over time in industrialized countries. This strange phenomenon, which is known as the Flynn effect, is attributed to environmental influences. It cannot be due to heredity, because the world’s gene pool could not have changed in the seventy years or so since IQ testing began.

Also mind you, OP uses information from 2010, 11, and 12, all of which

(due to the most recent evidence) have displayed that IQ is mostly socio economic, not entirely genetic.

A better way to put it is that most differences are socioeconomic, because single-gene disorders like Downs prevent people from developing high intelligence to begin with.

youtube.com/watch?v=JE-OMF-O27c

Holla Forums on suicide watch.

Fair enough.

Also; for any stormfags still holding onto this outdated info

read this

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0030320

And yet they'll still deny it to their dying days.

Should the Donald rise, at least the evidence given by OP and others will be used to combat the stormfags and shout them down.

I didn't suggest otherwise. I am just making sure left/pol/ isn't cherrypicking their evidence.

B████ ██████

Trump won't be the fascist messiah they want him to be, but this could mean a chance to kick them while they're down.

Of course not, but it will mark the end of political correctness.

In doing so; it's free for all.

Who knows, that Nazi masturbation fantasy that the stormfags go on about, provided BLM goes on a full "kill whitey" rampage.

I don't know why people are either anxious or exalted about trump. He's just American Berlusconi.

No, it will mark its most vicious return, because nationalism is the most politically correct of ideologies.

Second image here is on point; doesn't matter politically or socially anyway, even if some subgroups of humans happen to be a bit more/less intelligent or skilled in some areas than others.

Can you in2maths? Yes the white average is higher, but the area the bell curve covers represents the actual quantity of results - modes - so if most of the areas overlap on two bell curves, then most results taken out at random would be indistinguishable from one bell curve to the other. You could not predict the race of most of these individuals - and most by a significant amount - by their IQ score

S███ O██

Indians are most intelligent, they invented the shitting street

We are realistic.

why do you reject evolution, Holla Forums?

India is just experiencing the greatness of the Free Market (TM). There is a demand for shitting, and a supply of roads to be shat on, basic capitalism. Praise Friedman.

It wasn't your country to begin with, ya moron.

you do know cro-magnon refers just to the group of people that lived with the neolithics right? It's not a scientific designation of race, its a geographical referent.
why do you have a primary school understanding of evolution, Holla Forums, not to mention history?

Because admitting everyone is different and not interchangeable for their role, is admitting their whole ideology is flawed.

Lefty/pol/ is a cancer that has born into Holla Forums, and if left unchecked will kill it and infect other chans.

LMAO

Because you can't read books (otherwise known as "The Paper Jew") when you're busy burning them.

You are seriously so fucking stupid.

what are you gonna do about it, nerd?

Nothing, make you present that you're in this day and age, attempting to fuck yourself with your own hands.

what if I already fuck myself with my own hands?

Give it up man. You aren't fascists at Holla Forums. You're just racist libertarians.

Then proves the point that leftypol exists due to the fact that its members are composed of people with the worst assets, wishing to bring everyone down to a level they can reach.

A spectre is haunting the internet…
Be afraid, be very afraid
Fucking faggot

You better be scared, white man, because I'm coming for your children!
BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!

(+1) Holla Forums Gold has been deposited into your account for this post. Porky Industries (TM) thanks you for your post.

What is your point with those studies? None of them conflict with the basic hypothesis that A) About 50-70% of *individual* variation in IQ is explained by genes, the rest by environment, and B) all (or nearly all) the *group* variation in IQ between races is environmental. This is the position argued by all well-informed "egalitarians", not some bullshit strawman that genes have nothing to do with IQ even on an individual level. I would say that the evidence right now isn't definitive on whether this egalitarian hypothesis is correct, but there is at least no good evidence that strongly favors the "racial IQ differences are genetic" hypothesis over the egalitarian one.

If you don't understand how genes can determine the majority of individual variation in IQ but the group difference between blacks and whites can be totally environmental, see the analogy which I mentioned earlier:


This analogy was originally brought up by evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin, see the "Heritability and Race Differences" section of the article at nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/Heritability.html

The egalitarian hypothesis doesn't necessarily need to say that every ethnic group's genetic potential for high IQ is perfectly identical, just that whatever group genetic differences might exist are very small and swamped by environmental differences. One good reason to think IQ changes might happen slower than changes in other traits like the ones listed in your image is that IQ is thought to be a hugely polygenic trait with around 10,000 different genes each making small contributions (see arxiv.org/abs/1408.3421 and blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/08/half-the-variation-in-i-q-is-due-to-genes/ ), other traits like skin color and height are polygenic too but depend on a much smaller number of genes (height is probably one of the most polygenic traits studied, but still only depends on a few hundred genes according to broadinstitute.org/news/6119 ). So a few mutations can cause a bigger difference with these other traits than with IQ.

Also if you look at evolutionary history, the rate of intelligence increase seems to be terrifically slow compared to other traits, suggesting it's a lot harder for selection pressures to make fast changes; the species with the highest encephalization quota (EQ, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient ) in one era will likely be evolved from species that were also among those with the highest EQ 10 million years ago, and the rate at which the maximum EQ rises is quite gradual over evolutionary history (see history.nasa.gov/CP-2156/ch4.3.htm ), which isn't true of many other traits like body size (for example, look at the evolution from the dog-sized pakicetus about 50 million years ago to the whale-sized basilosaurus about 40 million years ago, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus ). Also, a lot of traits seem to evolve in a punctuated equilibrium style (see scholarpedia.org/article/Punctuated_equilibria ), staying relatively stable for long periods interspersed with more rapid bursts of change. So, is there any reason to think the typical 100,000 year period of hominid evolution would feature a given group experiencing brain changes that were equivalent to more than, say, 2 IQ points' worth of change? (just picking a 'small' number at random, feel free to substitute 1 or 3) I don't see any good reason to say this is significantly more likely than the hypothesis that the typical 100,000 year period features less than 2 IQ point's change.

And say hypothetically it turned out that the vast majority of the 15-or-so IQ point gap between blacks and whites in the US was environmental, but genetics did contribute to a 2-point IQ difference (Which could go in either direction! Maybe blacks could have a minor 2-point advantage in IQ due to genetics alone but this could be swamped by the effect of a worse environment). I think this would be a pretty clear "win" for the egalitarians over the scientific racists: in terms of what this would suggest about policy like how much the government should invest on raising educational standards in poor black communities, or in terms of history like how much genetics played a role in the different levels of technological advancement in Africa and Europe, a finding like this would for all practical purposes be no different than a finding that there were no group genetic differences in IQ whatsoever.

trips of truth

Just in case it wasn't obvious, I meant to say "an exclusively white sample"

after reading you and the Holla Forums guy I can confirm that you are basically wrong.

10000 alleles but not every one will have the same weight. In the abstract, Dr Hsu states that
thus pointing that the estimated figure of 10k is merely a rough estimation.

Moreover, Dr Hsu postulates in favour of *g* and a very high heritability of said factor.
Also I don't remember well (been a year since I read that article and I'm late for gym, won't re-read it) but that 10k figure is for SBP mutations, not alleles.

Your second paragraph is just mental gymnastics.

And on OP. These tests are for teens, however IQ becomes more and more heritable with age, GCSE is BELOW A GRADE (which I think is important here) and also IQ isn't stable at these ages.

In my opinion we need to start selecting the most premium of nubian princesses and breeding them nonstop to even out the genetic gap. Needless to say I present voluntarily.

Belarus, a small, majority white country in eastern europe.

Average income, 269 euros a month, or 3,228 euros a year. This translates to about 3,585 US dollars a year.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage

The average IQ of the citizens of Belarus is 97.
iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country/by-belarus

The average income of african americans in the united states is approximately 35,000 US dollars a year. That is, the average african american has an income nearly ten times larger than the average Belorussian.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

The average IQ of african americans in the US is 85.
reddit.com/r/OpenandHonest/comments/3evdd3/blacks_in_the_us_and_in_africa_consistently_score/

I must note the of the information gathered here, the african american average iq score was the most difficult to find.

Take this for what you will.

...

You're delusional.

If we're talking about the public education system of the US (the one more likely to be used by poor people mind you), then it's not very hard to do tremendeously better. And being an ex socialist republic was rather an advantage when it comes to education.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_education

Also:
tip top kek

Not exactly the same weight, but the distribution of weights is probably such that even those with the largest influence make a small contribution–see for example the discussion of the study at theconversation.com/intelligence-inheritance-three-genes-that-add-to-your-iq-score-31397 which says "This study of normal variation in cognitive performance confirms that there is no gene with a large effect on this trait", and their specific finding was a mere three variants where "A copy of each variant accounts for only 0.3 points on a standard IQ test (with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15)." And Hsu did assume in his mathematical model that all variants had the same weight, presumably he considered this plausible as a reasonable approximation where there's no strong reason to think that accounting for actual differences in weight would change the result too much (though he did note that the 10,000 figure was meant as an upper bound).


You seem to interpret him as talking about identifying a small number of particularly "important" genetic variants, but what makes you think he isn't talking about identifying a significant fraction of the estimated 10,000 loci, using "big data" techniques involving computers sifting through a large amount of genetic and IQ data? This is suggested by this comment from p. 2 of his paper:

"even phenotypes with complex genetic architecture will yield to genomic modeling once a sufficient amount of genotype|phenotype data becomes available."

And it's made even more clear that Hsu is talking about a large statistical study that identifies pretty much *all* the relevant variants in section 5 on p. 24, I'll quote the intro part of the section in full:

"Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) seek to detect statistical associations between genetic variants and phenotype. These studies require large phenotype|genotype data sets. A P-value of 5 × 10−8 is required for an association to be considered genome-wide significant. This criterion results from the usual p < 0.05 significance corrected for multiple testing of ∼ 106 independent SNPs in the human genome. Associations at genome wide significance are typically found to replicate reliably in different populations, even of varying ancestry.

"GWAS discovery is driven by statistical power. Fig.(13) displays number of genome wide significant hits versus sample size for a variety of phenotypes [20]. It seems reasonable to assume that cognitive ability will follow a similar trajectory: once the minimum threshold required to discover the alleles accounting for the largest portion of variance (i.e., the easiest to detect) is exceeded, more and more alleles are discovered with increasing sample size.

"Conventional GWAS methodology relies on simple regression of phenotype against a spe- cific variant. Our Compressed Sensing results suggest that the set of associated variants for a trait (i.e., the support of the vector xˆ in equation (4.2)) can be discovered all at once after a critical threshold of sample size is passed. This sample size is probably of order a million individuals for both height and cognitive ability. Simple extrapolation of the height points in Fig.(13) also suggests that linear regression with millions of genomes will produce thousands of genome wide significant hits."

Yes, but unless you think "rough estimation" means "might be off by several orders of magnitude", it should still be true that IQ is much more polygenic than other traits like height. And you didn't address the fossil evidence about the slowness of intelligence increase in different animal species (compared to other traits like body size) which I mentioned.


I would agree with that statement, but that's talking about the heritability of g on an individual level, see the analogy Richard Lewontin came up with about the difference between explaining individual variation vs. group variation in my comment at


Do you mean SNPs, i.e. single-nucleotide polymorphisms? If so, it's true that alleles can differ by more than one SNP, so maybe I shouldn't have used the word "alleles" to talk about the genetic variants Hsu was referring to, but I don't see how it would change the argument if I had said "SNPs" instead–it's still true that IQ is thought to involve a much higher number of genetic variants each contributing linearly to the total score than other traits like height.


Not An Argument! Do you actually understand the statistical techniques for finding gene variants linked to some trait well enough to say I'm wrong that these techniques would be more likely to identify variants that occur more frequently in a given population (like white people) than ones that occur less frequently, even if the more-frequent variants have about the same effect size on an individual who has them as the less-frequent variants? And if you agree it's possible that these techniques might find precisely those alleles that occur more frequently in whites if the sample was an all-white population, why would it be surprising that you'd find these same alleles less frequently in the black population, even if the total number of IQ-raising (or IQ-lowering) alleles is about the same in blacks and whites?

Man, stormfaggots are really obsessed with their pathological hatred for people of different ethnic backgrounds.
Pure ideology.

But user, you don't understand! they're…they're DIFFERENT :^(

topkek

Read the fucking links I provided.

Read this:

notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/06/26/climate-violence-black-crime-rk-selection-theory-and-the-vindication-of-jp-rushton/

Scan this paper:

journals.cambridge.org/images/fileUpload/documents/Van_Lange_BBS-D-15-00646_preprint.pdf

"Worldwide there are substantial differences within and between countries in
aggression and violence. Although there are various exceptions, a general rule is that
aggression and violence increase as one moves closer to the equator, which suggests the
important role of climate differences. While this pattern is robust, theoretical
explanations for these large differences in aggression and violence within countries and
around the world are lacking. Most extant explanations focus on the influence of average
temperature as a factor that triggers aggression (The General Aggression Model), or the
notion that warm temperature allows for more social interaction situations (Routine
Activity Theory) in which aggression is likely to unfold. We propose a new model of
CLimate, Aggression, and Self-control in Humans (CLASH) that seeks to understand
differences within and between countries in aggression and violence in terms of
differences in climate. Lower temperatures, and especially larger degrees of seasonal
variation in climate, calls for individuals and groups to adopt a slower life history
strategy, and exert more focus on the future (versus present), and a stronger focus on self-control. The CLASH model further outlines that slow life strategy, future orientation, and
strong self-control are important determinants of inhibiting aggression and violence. We
also discuss how CLASH is different from other recently developed models that
emphasize climate differences for understanding conflict. We conclude by discussing the
theoretical and societal importance of climate in shaping individual and societal
differences in aggression and violence.

As I said, Rushton has been vindicated.

Moreover, what matters most is…. the data Rushton found and compiled on the different traits of racial groups! Keep it up with the Joseph Graves bullshit.

Man get the fuck out of here with that Lerowntin bullshit. Read this.

ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/POS-2000.pdf

Fuck Block. He completely misunderstands heritability.

See Sesardic 2000.

ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/POS-2000.pdf

Needless to say, Lewontin was right with the statement, but Jensen said in response (which is hardly ever noted):

discussion of race differences do I propose this line of reasoning, nor have I done so in any other writings. (Jensen 1976, 103)

and:


and:

uncertainty concerning group differences. (1969b, 220; italics added) … other methods than heritability analysis are required to test the hypothesis that racial group differences in a given trait involve genetic factors and to determine their extent. (1973b, 411) … Although one cannot formally generalize from within-group heritability to between-groups heritability, the evidence from studies of within-group heritability does, in fact, impose severe constraints on some of the most popular environmental theories of the existing racial and social class differences in educational performance. (1973a, 1; italics added. See also: 1968, 95; 1973a, 135-139; 1981b, 502-504; 1982, 126; 1994, 905; 1998, 445-463)

This whole paper destroys that argument.

So The Bell Curve has been refuted by some backwater internet page on intelligence.


Not on *g* who cares. See my critique of the 'Flynn Effect' in this thread -→


fucking hilarious.

Sources for everything you said please.

Come on user, you know that's not possible.

It's nowhere near largely environmental. Whoever believes that is delusional as fuck.

His r/K selection theory definitely hasn't been vindicated as the paper you link to says nothing about that, and the criticisms I posted from an evolutionary biologist have not been refuted. As for the general idea that warmer climates are associated with more aggression, I don't see anything in the paper that suggests the authors believe the explanation must lie in genetic differences between people in warmer and colder climates, as opposed to *all* people having a neurological adaption that causes them to become more likely to be violent as temperature increases. In fact, the fact that they bring up the greater violence in the South on p. 13-14–they mention that "in most Southern states, there is greater approval and support for corporal punishment, gun ownership, and capital punishment than in most Northern states"–suggests they probably are *not* intending their theory to deal with genetic differences, since Southern whites and Northern whites have recent ancestors from the same parts of Europe, and evolution is unlikely to be able to change their genetic tendency to violence that quickly.

strong words


Oh. So basically you don't actually disagree with Lewontin's point about individual vs. group difference but you just disagree that this is a good refutation of Jensen, since Jensen was already clear on the difference? Well I don't know if you noticed but I didn't bring up Lewontin's argument in response to anything about Jensen, I was just responding to some posts by Holla Forumsacks (see and ) who did seem to be under the impression that, by citing studies saying that IQ is highly heritable (on an individual level), they had refuted the idea that racial IQ differences could be entirely environmental. And this is a common enough point of confusion I think it deserves to be mentioned in any big summary of evidence like the one the OP wants to do, even if more sophisticated scientific racists like Jensen already understand it.

Ethnic is a meme too. In a globalized world everyone is more or less the same.

You mean it's completely imaginary or cultural?
Because there is indeed differents cultures and languages defining ethnies (even if they indeed tend to dissolve thanks to globalization.)

...

...

...

No one is saying new data doesn't count, you're saying your data counts more because it's new and "up to date".

I speculated here that


I remembered where I read about this idea, it was in Steven Pinker's book "The Blank Slate", on p. 333 he writes:


And doing some googling I also found a paper at gelfand.umd.edu/papers/PSYS602860_REV.pdf which talks about how "honor cultures develop in contexts in which resources are scarce and institutions are weak", both of which would have been a lot more true in majority-black communities in the U.S. over the years.

Combine this with the info I brought up in about blacks being much more likely to live in areas of "concentrated poverty", and the statistical analysis suggesting a person's neighborhood is a very good predictor of their likelihood of becoming a criminal independent of race, and I think you could have a pretty plausible socioeconomic theory about why crime is higher among blacks in the U.S.

BTW why isn't this thread getting bumped up in the ranks at 8ch.net/leftypol/catalog.html when there are new posts? I'm not sageing

Wew lad

yeah this needs to be done.

this is a great post and a lot of Holla Forums should follow in your example

to think, you typed miles of bullshit to only contradict yourself

That's not a contradiction dumbass, my whole point was that a *small* genetic IQ difference–I gave the example of 2 points or less–would "be a pretty clear win for the egalitarians over the scientific racists". Since the measured IQ gap in the US is around 15 points, this would show that *nearly* all the measured IQ gap is caused by racism or concentrated poverty or other environmental factors.

Do you think a typical polyp who thinks of black people as subhuman apes would believe there's any real possibility that in a world without obstacles like racism and poverty, the IQ gap would drop to less than 2 points?