Evolution & Racial IQ

Since Holla Forums is busy sliding anything that isn't Trump related.I thought that people here could help me challenge my ideas about evolution and how IQ is often used when comparing races.

Here is what I have come to think. Races score differently on average in IQ tests because of following reasons (tl;dr):
1. Their environment (peers and culture)
2. Their genetics
3. The IQ test itself

IQ tests are flawed when comparing overall competence of a race, yet are able to somewhat determine how well a race is able to thrive in western civilisation. IQ tests usually resolve around being able to solve questions which require sense of time, memory, planning and searching for patterns. All of these are important abilities when it comes to thriving in a western/farmer society. So based on evolutionary theory, people who had these skills were able to create better farms and towns, which were increased their chances for survival. This is congruent with how Asians score high on IQ tests, since they had the same development, where they created rice farms, which require even more effort and cooperation than European farms. The African continent had plenty of vegetation and wildlife to sustain human life, without them having to build farms. This meant that these skills were not required and not developed. Strength, speed and hunter instincts were what kept you alive and therefore were the traits that were passed on. IQ tests are therefore genetically biased towards races who have been living in farmer societies. Which shows from IQ test results. Aside from racial average, there is also deviation within the race. Not everyone is equally "smart" for a lack of a better word. This one is easily proven by how IQ can skyrocket in certain cases, often with autism as side effect. Not everyone equally motivated to try and learn these skills, which can be aquired with some effort. This is usually where the environment comes in the picture. While coming from a wealthy family usually means that success is seen as positive. The children are paced into trying and aquire these skills, so they can become successful in western society just like their peers. While in poor families there might be a more negative attitude towards school and education. These can be flipped depending on the environment, and the personal drive of the individual. Such as lazy children from wealthy families, who take everything for granted and don't bother even trying. Or poor people working their hardest to shake of their social heritage.

In certain cases such as in the US, just the idea of racism and blacks being more stupid, feeds the negative social heritage. While black people on average have a genetical disadvantage, they are capable of learning the same skills as white people. However the current environment in the US breeds low IQ. Many black neighbourhoods are poor and filled with crime. Creating a unfavourable condition for blacks to thrive in the US. And the idea of racism is often used by blacks as an excuse to give up. Because they believe they have no chance in a white society, so why even try? Capitalism itself helps solidifying these problems. Since companies won't hire people who don't have connections, or whom they don't trust. Making it difficult to make up for their genetic heritage and escape the cycle.

We mostly don't care. If people are retarded, they are retarded, if people are smart, they are smart.

Their genetic heritage doesn't matter to me, I just want to have smart people in the right positions.

You smell like a burger btw.

Pic semi-related

1."Race" is folk terminology and unscientific and arbitrary. There is ancestry, and it proves that physiological phenomena like skin color are not necessarily the strongest implications for distinctions as a "race" -> it is therefore a social construct

2. That being said, there have been very little experiments being conducted to solve the everlasting question "nature vs nurture" but indicators, like the fact that the historical discrepancy between the civilisations and cultures is merely 5000 years old, suggest that the IQ as a measurable instution might be indeed influenced by ancestry but in a very, very marginal way so that nurture pretty much supplants ancestry in this matter.

So yeah, IQ differences in "races" are irrelevant

Good. I have nothing to add, except why put people into arbitrarily defined races in the first place?

this isn't 1910, fuck off with this psuedoscience

Just trying to spark some discussion to see what people are thinking about this. I agree that in the end it is all a case of smart or not, no matter what race you belong to. Also not a burger, just an europoor.

We have a lot of Holla Forumsacks come here and post about muh IQ so we're kind of tired of it, especially since everyone here pretty much agrees that races are spooks, most of it (not all obviously) is nurture and even if it was real it didnt matter.

See nazibol poster, who for some reason made sense this time.

With 7 billion people it is usually easier to catogorize them into smaller groups. My point was that people in the same area have similar DNA, which has some influence on their mental development. As usual over simplifying the issue, to make it easier to grasp.

Intelligence is 80% heritable and there's NOTHING lefty cucks can do about it.

Look at ashkenazi jews the literal intellectual heavyweights of the world. Good nutrition and environment alone can't produce that many Nobel prize winners and all around brilliant people per capita.

Sorry goyim capitalism or communism the jews are humanity's master.

Pic related oy vey

Never mentioned intelligence. If you read my post, you would understand that I defined IQ as a value which quantifies a persons ability to thrive in a western civilisation. Until it goes high enough to become autistic.