Holla Forums goes outside

Apparently this guy parked in the wrong spot, and when he was told to move he lost his shit.
Just thought I'd share because it made me giggle.

Anyway, right-wing cringe general I guess.

Other urls found in this thread:

8ch.net/leftypol/res/999110.html#999721
newscientist.com/article/dn1520-iq-is-inherited-suggests-twin-study/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4412550/
youtube.com/watch?v=66TQjkjdUE0
youtube.com/watch?v=y6rCbqpq6d0
youtube.com/watch?v=eC4iDp1VeFQ
youtube.com/watch?v=Cg3T_H2LZ54
youtube.com/watch?v=zH8kB1aZrEE
youtube.com/watch?v=Wh7_hxVOaJE
youtu.be/daSp7k7sVy4?list=PL5p2Y5p89kzfx55SjiOPdwTp8IwBYMJfD&t=452
blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2014/10/08/why-many-indians-cant-stand-to-use-the-toilet/
archive.is/gnU2V
debunkingstormfags.blogspot.ca/2016/07/with-rise-of-alt-right-far-right-neo.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Typical cumskin behaviour tbh, what a glorious uprising.

sounds like a case of a "hindu dindu"

Did he- did he go in for a kiss there at the beginning?

Holla Forums please keep your pants on

Well he may have parked in the wrong spot, but Pajeet parked in the wrong country tbh

I basically made one before:
8ch.net/leftypol/res/999110.html#999721

...

Next he'll be inviting him round to fuck his wife.

Reddit pls

Most of their views are born out of sexual frustration.
What do you expect?

Just newbie, plz no bully.

back to india eh ?

I bet you can't do this
NERD

...

The man seems very triggered tbh.

You have to be lying to yourself if you don't hate indian/south Asians. I see them becoming increasingly hated as they continue immigrating and making shitskin babies

I support the guy in the op. I mean imagine the guy filming, some ugly, bloated, shit colored, balding Indian in a pink polo stained with curry sweat.

I mean why wouldn't you want to hate on someone like that?

because not everyone is an angsty virgin with repressed feelings needing to hate something

I don't believe you. Maybe you've never encountered a pajeet or maybe you are one.

I will say that unlike niggers they have intelligence and work ethic, but you can tell how ugly betas they are. Honestly it's sad. I'd rather be a nigger than a pajeet.

And it is quite laughable how hard they try to assimilate but in the end no one considers them true citizens because they can never not be pajeets

Cool

I don't care if you belive me?

I want your kind to exist so I can exploit you according to my will

please don't be a false flag, I want this as is

...

...

oh lord its the IQ fag again

wasn't the last time more than enough?

Triggered Vijay?

You wish, Billy-bob.

mfw…

I'm enraged, I fucking hate racist cunts.
oh man, I just want to beat the fuck out of that fucking neonazi.

...

I hate the screaming fag more with his impotent cries of racial superiority than the guy filming said retard.

you see his shirt?

that means he knows tapout


keep being in denial

76/es spee/ GET

76sp got

But last time you didn't prove that IQ was invalid and just sperged out for several hours. Having a higher IQ than you means my opinion carry more weight because I can better examine the world around me. It's just a fact, sorry if it hurts.

keep sperging about being autistic

you got proved wrong, ragequitted and can't get over the butthurt lol

But I was right, you never proved useless. I have a higher IQ I can make better judgements.

Day late and a dollar short again nazi!

that guy has probably too much testosterone. Holla Forums is predictably envious and projects accordingly

lol stay mad

is the douches flag now a days.

But I could take down that old prick in fucking seconds.

We got both 999999 and 1000000 gets comrades. Victory this day.

You're the mad one. I'm just pointing out facts. I proved you wrong and you kept posting the same bogus argument. "IF YURE POOR YOU DON'T HAVE TIME TO WORRY ABOUT BASIC LOGC PROBLEMS!" and I just ran circles around you. You can keep spouting insults. Don't forget people with autism tend to have lower IQs, so you're statistically more likely to be on the spectrum.

fuck off this is a cute girl board

no need to get so mad about your pseudoscience being wrong

You need Jesus fam.

Better tell every school and psychologist their using snake oil.

I see that

neither schools nor psychologists think IQ is valid

Hey anarcokiddie edgelord.
I know life is hard for stupid r/anarchism teenagers that masturbate and fantasize over beating up those mean Nazis.

No wonder most people don't take you people seriously, you are just angry teenagers that attack people because you think they are "fascists" for not accepting your ideology and IDpol bullshit.

Then why do most of them use it to evaluate the cognitive ability of children? Give me accurate proof that IQ is inaccurate.

lol

maybe you should try becoming a better teacher

the "dumbest" kids in my english classes are the ones who learn the most

If I was tested 100 times, would I score differently the first time from the last?

Yes? Wow what an accurate measurement of an abstract non-quantifiable quotient called "intelligence". Tell me, what'd your horoscope say today about sucking dicks?

And the kids with the highest IQs perfrom the best in my Trig classes.

...

...

You're not supposed to take the same test twice, dipshit. And how the fuck is that even a valid argument anyway?

thats because you are a shitty teacher who doesn't know how to handle a class, I already told you this

also


lol literally autistic

lol pretty much proves IQ tests doesn't measure cognitive abilities

stay btfo

Everytime, every fucking time. I bet you think social intelligence and creativity are more important than reasoning and logic.

Tests are adjusted for age dipshit, and you can't learn innate problem solving.

Saying you can learn an IQ test is like saying you can learn how to breathe. It's innate.

more like mad teacher considering how hard ur asperging right now lol :>)


but IQ doesn't change, or does it, are you going to cite your site that contradicts itself?


sounds like garbage to me

if you can improve your IQ score that means it doesn't measure your cognitive ability

If I would have known this would trigger you so much Holla Forums, I would have spoilered it for you to protect your delicate sensibilities.
After all, wouldn't want you guys to think this isn't a safe space for you.:^)

are you fucking serious

You can't improve your IQ score by more than 5 points. IQ is a measure of how intelligent you are compared with other people in your developmental stage, so of course it's adjusted for age. Why did I think a retarded 3rd world English teacher would understand anything involving logic?

yet you can imrpve your score on an IQ test by studying it and solving it several times

IQ tests don't measure intelligence, or they do, and you can improve your IQ

its one or the other now, pick your poison

IQ tests don't take into account environmental factors you mong.

No you can't, not by any significant margin.
Nope, it doesn't work that way. As I said before you can't take the same test twice. If you take one version of a WAIS 3 test repeatedly you still won't have an easier time taking a differently formatted WAIS 3 test.

Environmental factors don't raise IQ, or decrease it. "BUT MUH MATHEW EFFECT!" You're not supposed to take IQ tests while under great stress, that's like trying your max bench press while sick.

IQ is Myers Briggs Test tier.
It's funny how many supposed stemfags buy into it. Niggas probably can't even define g

yet you can improve your result on IQ tests by doing several of them and studying the questions

it absolutely does, otherwise the IQ tests do not measure cognitive abilities, but knowledge

you are between a rock and a hard place

as I said, pick your posion

We're providing you with absolute evidence here and you're sticking your fingers in your ears and crying.

Try to follow me on this. Hypothetically speaking, if you were to take an IQ test more than once, you could improve your score. It doesn't matter if that's not what you're supposed to do, if the test did it's job it wouldn't matter if you took it more than once. What you're explaining – the conditions you should be in to take the test, how to do it – these are all parameters put in place to make you think it works, by not allowing you to test it empirically. It's literally pseudoscience.

Nigger.>>999777
Nigger.

top ke, you are fucking autistic

Repeating the same thing over again doesn't make it right. And if you did somehow memorize the answers that invalidates the test. Again, I'm smarter than you, you can't put me between a rock and a hard place.

Not an Argument.

pfft nothing personal kiddo, but if I were you I would end myself


yet you are here, pretending your pseudoscience is valid

trigger

also


I just did kiddo

I am smarter than you, I repetated the same IQ test over and over again and got a score of 160 points, which means you are nothing to me

But you're not, no facts have been posted by you guys. And just because you can cheat on a test doesn't mean it's invalid. Is the 100 meter dash not a good measurement of speed because I can cheat with an early start?

How does you getting BTFO mean I'm getting BTFO?

In your metaphor, you wouldn't be cheating with an early start, you'd be practicing running the 100 meter dash. You know, training and improving? Learning? Are you really this retarded?

Maybe you were too dumb to figure out how to start early.
Also, how is it cheating if you study in your free time? Is studying for every test suddenly cheating?

you seem triggered

you cannot BTFO me kid, as I have a 180 IQ (higher because I just repeated the test) I am smarter than youso I'll ask you again, pick your poison


give him a break, he was shitposting about black cocks on Holla Forums, we should wait for him

History repeats itself

It's called projection nazi.
It's the theme of this thread. :^)

If you're not supposed to study for that test. You guys just don't seem to get how the test works

my sides

wow seems like IQ tests test lnowledge or something

If studying for an IQ test can invalidate its results then how can it be acurate?

literally btfo

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

In identical twins, these areas showed a 95 to 100 per cent correlation between one twin and the other – they were essentially the same. The frontal structure, says Thompson, appears to be as highly influenced by genes as the most highly influenced trait we know of – fingerprints.

“It’s extraordinary how similar they are,” he says. The finding suggests that environment – their own personal experiences, what they learned in life, who they knew – played a negligible role in shaping it.

Fraternal twins were near-identical in Wernicke’s area, showing about 60 to 70 per cent correlation, but were less similar in other areas, . Random pairs of people would be expected to have no correlation.


There's no passing an assessment test? Are you sure you're a teacher?
I'll be back tomorrow to see if you guys can come up with anything that isn't retarded?

...

everytime, you will get btfo tomorrow again

if you know about the subject, if you know about the english language then you will pass the test, if you don't you won't

just like IQ tests, someone can study the test and score higher after repeating the test, making it invalid

I never said that you can even study for it in the first place. You can't learn that kind of material.

That correlation is in regards to their MRI results, analyzing biological activity in their brains, not "IQ" test results. If you're going to try and be misleading, you're better off not linking the study you're misquoting.

You already quit several posts ago when you just started repeating yourself.

yet there are people whose result improves after studying for it and applying the test again


I'll stop quoting myself when you are able to come up with an argument againts it

Those MRI tests match closely with IQ scores.

"Recent discovery by NASA; goalposts have now left the outer bounds of the solar system"

As I said before If you take one test several times to get a higher score, but the last test is differently formatted it will be close to the first score.

stop posting anytime

so that means you can improve your IQ score

I win again

thanks for playing

or you want to now arguee the other side of the coin, where IQ in't a reliable way to measure intelligence?

Only white men can do that not niggers. Maybe 1 in million will be able to reach us.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4412550/

Please fuck off m8.

I see you are still trying to cope about losing two times in a row now

God I wish this wasn't someone other than the IQ fag

Nope, anything less than a 10 points is written off as statistical difference.

Not me.

A very early study by Bartley et al. (1997) presented data of a small sample of 38 twins in which they observed high heritabilities for total brain volume, and left and right hemisphere volume (range 91–93 %). In another small sample of 10 MZ and 10 DZ twin pairs, Thompson et al. (2001) studied GM density by applying a voxel-based approach in which the structural variability was accounted for using manual set points in sulcal regions in the brain. Subsequently, the brain underwent a non-linear transform and voxel-based heritability measures were calculated across cortical gray matter regions. Due to the small sample size, exact heritability estimates were not provided. However, significant MZ intra class correlations (r ≈ 0.9) were observed for Broca and Wernicke’s language and speech areas, and for frontal and sensorimotor areas. In addition to these findings, DZ correlations in sensorimotor and parietal occipital cortices, but not in the frontal cortices, were lower than in MZ twins. Figure 1, derived from this study nicely illustrates how correlations within MZ pairs are often close to 1, and are in general higher than within DZ pair correlations.

A VERY EARLY STUDY, NOT THE MAIN ONE IN THE ARTICLE! THE NAMES AREN'T EVEN THE SAME

You're either retarded, or just retarded enough to think that kind of trick would work. Did you really think you could actually trick me?

how would you know, seems like IQ is not a reliable way to measure intelligence

It depends, have you seen this magic trick?

Ready?

...

Stop making yourself look like an idiot. It's the same one. DUMBASS.

IQ is not a perfect tool, IQ scores are good way of measuring general intelligence and learning ability. IQ scores should be taken with a grain of salt
the WAIS test is trusted by many psychologists and has been proven and effective tool for assessing general abilities. Yes you can, improve your intelligence, but not drastically. Your brain is like your muscles. You can train it, but there are genetic limits.
=NOW BOTH OF YOU FUCKING GO TO SLEEP!"

...

It doesn't even measure general intelligence.
That got btfo a long time ago.

How, I'm not saying it's a perfect tool.

yes

we should create a society based on the idea that some people cannot benchpress 2 times their bodyweight, and said people should be gassed

we will call it

NATIONAL STRENGTHISM

Go to sleep, m8.

lmao

u wot m8

...

I appreciate your persistence comrade, but we all btfo'd this little worm so hard he's limping his ass back to Holla Forums with his tail behind his legs. Let's stop and continue to bask in the glory of our two gets this day.

ah, there goes leftypol's beloved white worker

...

I know, but it doesn't measure general intelligence.

You know, it's things like this that make me eagerly await the ruling class developing Communism for themselves and exterminating everyone else with killbots.

I drew a swastika with my eyes closed, make fun of me
t. Holla Forums I was expecting some genuine "right wing cringe" like drunken skinheads losing fights and shit. git gud gommies.

also: enable okeaki so I can really show you some "cringe"

It looks like a drunk failure

OP, this entire thread of race realists getting their anus turned inside out fulfilled your right-wing cringefest.

why is his wheel on the wrong side of the car? 😕

blacks voted hillary over S█████

India and Pakistan used to be one and the same country
So you can argue that he's technically correct as people of pakistan are of Indian descent

Also, the part where he tells him to "go back to fucking hindi" was also kinda right but he phrased it wrong; the correct term is "Hindustan", another name India is common referred to by its people; whereas "Hindi" is their language

Please stop…

"Go back to Mexico you fucking yankee Texan!"

"Well, Texas and part of the US used to be part of Mexico, so he's technically right."

Stop

"Go back to Spanish!"

"Well, he kind of got it right but he phrased it wrong. It's called Spain and Spanish is the language."

Stop being a jackass Holla Forums

...

...

I guess even racist bastards are nicer in Canada

Comrade, I…

What the hell is wrong with that guy's accent? It sounded like a mix of American, Aussie and Irish

They all look the same tbh
youtube.com/watch?v=66TQjkjdUE0

.
B E S T G E N E S
B E S T G E N E
B E S T G E N
B E S T G E
B E S T G
B E S T
B E S
B E
B
.
B
B E
B E S
B E S T
B E S T G
B E S T G E
B E S T G E N
B E S T G E N E
B E S T G E N E S

lmfao

Guy needs to learn to not sperg out in public. Although with a PM like the Canuckolds have I'm not surprised that he's fed up. That and we don't have the full context of the situation. Fucking hilarious none the less.

"Ya ever wear a turban?" I'ma fucking use that next time I see a paki.

kill yourself

Why don't you faggots change the name of this board to /shitpolsays/ already you retarded goons.

youtube.com/watch?v=y6rCbqpq6d0

More like /r/athiesm goes outside.
Liberals =/= leftist
Leftypol goes outside:
youtube.com/watch?v=eC4iDp1VeFQ

Are you retarded? learn 2 science

fucking masterrace

What manga was this form?

Well look at mr. "current year" over here..

dumbass, he's mocking the other guy.

>I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend (and here is the first sentence of your oath) the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Oh, does he mean this constitution?
Have any of these constitution worshipers actually read the object of their affections?

I bet he can't wait for the day of the rope.

As apposed to what? attack him?

Pakis deserve it, I have no sympathy.

...

just want to see what the get was don't mind me lol

this user evidently had the exact same idea lel

...

i dunno man.I look at that dude and I see someone really effin lonely sad.

still a racist douchebag,yes; but I still can't help feeling a bit sorry for him.

Stop posting you facebook faggot

So is he like Armus from Star Trek, holding all of Canada's impoliteness? That or he's on speed or roided out or some shit.

So much damage control on this thread over this idiot's spaghetti shotput.

Holy crap this dude is spooked

You're right and wrong

India is a federalist nation made up of "Indian" countries, even today in Indian controlled Panjab they have a quasi theocracy where the religious Sikh clergy can veto films in the state due to puritanical butthurt whilst some states in Southern India who aren't Indo-European have banned Hindi language films out of butthurt. You have alcohol free states like Gujarat and all sorts of inter-ethnic and nationalist spooky butthurt abound.

But yes Pakistan is a made up country centred on Islamism, it's not just Indian though, they got a good chunk of Iranian related (Afghan) Pashto territory and Balochistan too to be fair.

Hindi is the federal language (see grey map for where it's a native language).

Perfect, absolutely perfect. This is the best thing I've ever seen
Thank you for sharing this, OP. Thank you so much.

Dude I'd honestly be pretty scared of these types of people. He sounds like a psychopath, I wouldn't be filming him in case he literally stabbed me.

psychpaths dont drive trucks like that, people with small hands do.

He just had to say this

also
lmao

This needs to be memed.
I must find a way to meme this

Honestly, I'm thinking of moving to Canada if even their racists are this nice fascism is still shit.

have a nice day you fucking shitskin hindu

youtube.com/watch?v=Cg3T_H2LZ54

youtube.com/watch?v=zH8kB1aZrEE

i'm in this retarded part of the internet again

thorium's video is basically progressive stack = marxism, which is wrong

i don't even know why am i spending so much time watching this retarded ass videos

youtube.com/watch?v=Wh7_hxVOaJE


every right winger thinks that progressives = marxists

Don't you hate ever race? Why those two in particular?

I mean I admit I have racist tenacnides towards indians (mostly because of my family) but even I recognise "some ugly, bloated, shit coloured, balding Indian in a pink polo stained with curry sweat" is completely uncalled for.

Moreover, if you don't like these people why is getting triggered over them a part of your worldview?

You are pretty unpleasant, why would any like you?

Don't you hate ever race? Why those two in particular?

I mean I admit I have racist tenacnides towards indians (mostly because of my family) but even I recognise "some ugly, bloated, shit coloured, balding Indian in a pink polo stained with curry sweat" is completely uncalled for.

Moreover, if you don't like these people why is getting triggered over them a part of your worldview?

You are pretty unpleasant, why would any like you?

then stop posting you fucking loser?

how can you hate pajeets they're pretty friendly people

...

Hindus are fucking disgusting.
Over half of India's entire population don't use toilets. They shit in the streets. And its by CHOICE.

Anyone want to explain why I should consider Pajeets to be equal to whites?

No. I genuinely have sympathy for poor white racists. I live around and am friends with many of them. This guy is just an asshole, probably a meth head, and sure thats sad in a way but it doesnt excuse being a sack of shit to a random person.

so did europeans while Hindus were one of the biggest economies back in the medieval era

Why even try to reason with this tho

They just need communism.

what is the current year, user?

get out.

Here's the most aut-right thing I have ever seen on youtube. Starts at exactly 7:28 or so.

youtu.be/daSp7k7sVy4?list=PL5p2Y5p89kzfx55SjiOPdwTp8IwBYMJfD&t=452

It's not a matter of realizing you should use them, it's to do with the fact that the toilets may not be available or if they are available, they may be totally undesirable. I don't know if you've ever had to use a pit latrine or an outhouse before, but believe me, in a lot of cases shitting outside is the far more comfortable and hygienic option.

Plus, using a toilet might seem natural to you, who has been conditioned from birth to do so, but there are plenty of people in the world who have gone their entire lives without using a toilet. Let us not forget that the toilets that you're used to are a serious piece of equipment that might cost as much as a year of income for some of these people.

You don't need communism to realize the benefits of toilets, but in a poorly-developed state you do need a communist government that has the will not only to provide clean and effective toilets to all people regardless of class, but also to improve public sanitation and provide health and safety for all people, unlike a liberal government that's only interested in helping the rich people make money.

Shitting in the streets is a failure of capitalism.

Hindus choose to not use toilets.

blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2014/10/08/why-many-indians-cant-stand-to-use-the-toilet/

So my original question:

if all races are equal, why *exactly* is the Indic race equal to the caucasian race?(USER WAS FORCED TO USE THE DARK AND STINKING PIT LATRINE FOR THIS POST)

You missed this thread.
>>>Holla Forums7989014

Archive. archive.is/gnU2V

Did you even read the post you linked? It says right there that it's a failure of education and shitty toilets and even points to a neighbouring country where a change in policy fixed the rural toilet issue.

Last time I checked the "Indic" race were part of the Caucasian race, funny how racists want to define race but can't stick to anthropology.

And yes I know Southern Indians have some aboriginal admixture but Northern Indians don't.

Jesus christ, you're a stupid faggot.

You sit down and take a timed math test. It tests concepts you theoretically should know at your skill level, but you have never seen the test's specific questions before. Presumably, this should test your ability to solve the math problems presented.

After taking the test, you go home. You have some time to think about questions that you remember. Maybe you can ask other people about them. Maybe you can look up some of the answers.

You take the test again. Do you imagine you would do better the second time? Do you think your improved score is actually reflective of much improved ability to solve the types of math problems on the test?

Repeat this a third time, a fourth time. Do you think your score on the fourth test is mostly a test of your math abilities, or your ability to remember and regurgitate the questions and answers from previous attempts…regardless of whether or not you understand them, or could solve novel problems?

If it's not testing your ability to solve math problems by the fourth attempt, does that mean the math test NEVER had the capacity to test that?

OF COURSE you can improve your score on an IQ test by taking it repeatedly. No, that does not mean it can't test cognitive ability.

To a small extent, taking IQ tests repeatedly might result in you improving your score slightly even with different questions. Because you should get better at thinking through the TYPES of questions, and learn better how to answer them. That's the s-loaded part of the test. It's impossible to make a test of cognitive ability which is purely g-loaded.

This in no way means that IQ tests can't measure innate cognitive abilities at all. A large part of intelligence is learning QUICKLY, spotting patterns quickly, and applying what you reason out and learn to novel situations. If the test is not novel to the test-taker, the test's ability to measure that is diminished.

Nothing about that fact means the test is invalid. I could take a test of literally anything, and do so in a way that interferes with what it's supposed to measure. Only a complete jackass then thinks that the failure lies with the test design.


Oh look, omits the next paragraph:


Next, virtually NO ONE believes that intelligence is either purely genetic or purely environmental in the first place. Stating that is tremendously CYA, non-committal crap. Repeating such statements like a trump card is embarrassing for you and whoever made this.

The time of adoption placement is frankly a shitty excuse, though. Differences amounted to months. Theoretically, that COULD make a difference…but if a few months living in anything but a middle-class white home tanks your adult IQ, then the picture for blacks is frankly MORE fucked up, intractable and hopeless than it would be if the IQ differences were entirely genetic.

If they're genetic, eugenics is a possible solution. If the gap is caused by a difference in environment so minor that it may as well be fucking butterfly wings flapping…I'm sorry, but we're not going to be able to fix it.


Nobody ever said there wasn't large overlap. Nobody is trying to hide that. The graphs are large and in color, for fuck's sake. That's not the point at all. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.


That chart was published by the Journal for Blacks in Higher Education.

You should take it up with them.


That out of the way…

What the FUCK is "leftypol"? How is this board even a thing?

Tumblr or Holla Forums, pick one! You can't have both.

The Flynn effect doesn't just work through people taking tests repeatedly, it works through people in advanced countries having more familiarity with the structures of tests and being able to arrive at a correct result by applying rules without actually attempting to engage with the content. In this case, you could get a high score, but it wouldn't reflect your innate cognitive abilities so much as your familiarity with that format of tests and general test-taking. The fact that score can improve due to familiarity is indicative of this being a risk, particularly as the children who score best on tests are the ones who are subjected to the most amount of testing throughout their lives, and the ones who score the poorest are the ones who may have never taken a written test before in their entire lives

Furthermore, environment doesn't refer strictly to the environment you found yourself in as you grew up, but all factors that are external to genotype, including prenatal environment, exposure to contaminants, nutrition, etc., all of which are potentially lurking variables in any adoption study, especially when you consider that the Black children most likely to have been given up probably weren't in the best conditions before and after birth.

As it happens, Tumblr isn't an imageboard and it's full of liberals besides. This is a leftist imageboard.

I was not, at any point, discussing the Flynn effect. Raising your IQ score through repeated testing isn't the Flynn effect.

IQ tests also have many possible formats, and not all are written.

And yes, I fucking know what "environmental" includes. I'm quite certain I have a much better grasp of that than most people arguing against predominantly-genetic hypotheses have a grasp of what "genetic" includes. Your shit screencap makes that pretty clear. ("Criticisms" of the Minnesota study that complain that the white and black natural parents differed in average education makes that clear. Attributing all group gaps for "caste-like minorities" to stereotype threat makes that pretty clear. Citing that horribly-designed German study makes that pretty clear. Etc.)

Go be a walking Dunning–Kruger example elsewhere.

Then you're literally admitting that there's no way to know that it tests for innate ability.
Hell, it doesn't even measure general ability.

Also
Who's to say I can't train to spot patterns quickly and problem solve, or that I've already learned the information they want me to. Seems like Professor Layton Games would work as a study guide for this shit, if that's the case.

Sorry, I wasn't really following your sperg-out from the beginning.

Anyway, it's not the Flynn effect but it's the most plausible explanation for how it occurs and why. It's also an illustration of how IQ tests can capture something other than innate cognitive ability, namely familiarity with tests.

Furthermore, where was there even a single mention of stereotype threat? Are you just inventing things to be mad about now?

...

Indics arent part of the Aryan race you uneducated cunt.

look at the lying liberal.

I quote from the source:

"“Many people regard open defecation as part of a wholesome, healthy, virtuous life,” a recent study conducted in Bihar, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh found. Researchers at the New Delhi-based Research Institute for Compassionate Economics added that the practice is “not widely recognized among rural north Indians as a threat to health.”

Those five northern Indian states account for 45% of the country’s households without a toilet, according to data from the 2011 census. But even in homes where toilets were installed, many people still prefer to go outside."

tp://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2014/10/08/why-many-indians-cant-stand-to-use-the-toilet/

...

I'm admitting no such thing. Most IQ tests used today primarily involve logic puzzles, not knowledge, UNLESS the test is not novel.


Yes, it does. Not perfectly, but decently well.

If it didn't, we would not see the positive manifold - where every test of cognitive ability is correlated with every other test of cognitive ability. If an IQ test primarily tested SKILLS (s-loading), different tests would not correlate much unless the skills were closely related.

It's an imperfect analogy, but imagine the difference here between a soccer player of average ability, a basketball player of average ability, and a couch potato all playing soccer. The first two should have higher athleticism overall, so the difference in performance between the two is more analogous to s-loading: specific skills, specific training. The basketball player and the couch potato both have little training in soccer, so differences between the two reflect GENERAL athleticism, more analogous to g-loading.


Do you know how ridiculous you sound pontificating on a chan board about whether or not you could learn "the information" on a modern IQ test, or whether or not you could be "trained" to learn novel things more quickly?

I mean, it's not like there's decades of literature to draw from here or anything. Carry on!


The most plausible explanation for how WHAT occurs? IQ gaps? You think a standard deviation gap is best explained by whites taking IQ tests more often than blacks? Do you figure the Chinese just take them more often than whites?


I've already acknowledged that, but that's WHY the test has better results when the test is novel. As has already been explained multiple times to you guys.

Additionally, if someone came up to you and showed you a picture of a row consisting of a triangle-square-triangle and then asked you what the next likely shape was, all you would need to do to solve the problem would be to:

-recognize that the shapes are different
-recognize the shapes are in a sequence
-determine the sequence and the next item

You could possibly make me an argument that someone raised in an isolated tribe would have never seen a triangle or a square. (Though I think that for someone with high intelligence, this unfamiliarity would be no major block, and being stymied by something so basic is evidence in itself of a low ability to learn.) I think you would have TREMENDOUS difficulty proving that any culture has absolutely zero familiarity with the concept of a "sequence," since that basic level of numeracy seems to be innate in human beings. (Infants can recognize a basic sequence.)

Outside of isolated tribes, everyone in the world has seen basic shapes. And as already stated, IQ tests don't have to be written, and can be given orally to people unfamiliar with written language. "Unfamiliarity with test-taking" is not an excuse.


Actually, I will give you this one. The text on that image is very tiny on my screen. I saw the word "confidence" in that image and assumed it was saying that children from minorities with castes in their culture were intimidated into doing poorly and skipped to the next paragraph. Looking closer, it appears that it's actually trying to argue that those children decide not to learn skills to apply to IQ tests…which is actually an even worse argument than "stereotype threat" is, since well-designed IQ tests should minimize the necessity of drawing on a learned skill in the first place. Christ.

Extremely cringeworthy tbhfam

...

And you and I both know correlation doesn't equal causation. Second, they've had to admit that it doesn't measure general intelligence in the past. That's why you see tests for emotional intelligence and what not. No one can define g anymore. They know g is measuring something, but what it exactly is they have no idea. You're analogy is hilarious, considering it implies you can train for an IQ test, which renders your point moot.


Not an argument
Also, kind of hypocritical being buttmad about people pontificating on an image board.

lmao I have never seen someone with this much autism

glad to know I left a mark :>)

read hegel

This is the third night in a row and you manage to look like a bigger fag with every post.

he has been sperging for over a week now

Seriously? That's just embarrassing.

Did anyone actually read the second image? The explanation is so weak it only gives weight to the point it's trying to disprove.


LOOK at the overlap area. It might be bigger than ONE side, but it certainly isn't bigger than both. ie.
ie

Now look at any given IQ score.
People with IQs over 130 are the ones who have a chance (with the right environment) to advance society by inventing and developing technology. White: 5%; Black: statistically insignificant.
People with IQs over 115 are university material. White: 20%; Black: 5%
People with IQs over 100 have a range of independent careers to choose from. White: just over 50%; Black: 20%
People with IQs under 85 can only work successfully in assistant roles. Black: 50%; White 20%.

This is what your image says:

Since you bring up statistical(ly significant) difference, it seems relevant that 15 is the standard deviation of the IQ bell curve, which means that the average difference between populations is exactly equal to the average difference within them. Which seems to me to be pretty much the definition of a statistically significant difference.

Unless you are actually trying to prove that the distribution of success among different races in the same country is in fact due to the distribution of IQ, and not because of societal racism after all, go back to arguing that "the tests be racis', yo". And maybe avoid any material that admits the black average is 85 because seriously we were all happier assuming it was 97 or something.

Tell me I'm wrong. Look, I really want to open up here, Holla Forums. I came into this thread looking for a laugh, but deep down I was hoping you'd pull me back. Surely it's not too late, I thought, I can just forget that Holla Forums ever happened and find somewhere acceptable in the middle and live happily ever after. But you fuckers just proved their (sub-)point better than Holla Forums themselves could. Not the guy who posted the image he almost certainly didn't make, but the all-but-one readers who skipped past without seeing the problem. Not only are you shit, but you aren't even funny. That's why you're going to lose.

kek!!

...

I am a different autistic IQ fag. You gonna tell me I'm wrong or what?
Also poster IDs are great, you should try.

The answer is this: IQ is polygenic. It's influenced by perhaps, 1000's of different genes. Until there are specific gene frequencies that have been undeniably linked to IQ talking about group differences is dishonest and speculative. As it stands now, there are more environmental factors that have been shown to both differ in frequency between groups AND to affect IQ. As it stands now, most of the genes that differ in frequency between groups and also match up with race are usually related to simpler traits, like disease resistance.

I also find the part about advancing society to be dishonest, because you're only taking about the particular reasoning associated with IQ. African-Americans have accomplished a tremendous amount culturally in the arts.

Let me make sure I understand this correctly:

I'll be back in about 4 hours.

I never said that, it's important to determine the causal effect of group differences - they're vital for everyone involved, especially when the cause leads to inequality of outcome. That being said, until specific genes have been identified to be linked to IQ, and until those genes have been show to have the same degree of effect between groups living in completely different environments its dishonest to talk about the cause of those group differences as being significantly genetic. The 20+ increase in IQ we've experience as material conditions simultaneously increased ( something which blacks have undergone as well) is certainly in support of intelligence primarily being a result of environmental factors.

That being said, I'm not going to rule out a genetic explanation it's just that I find there's a lot of sophistry on Holla Forums's side. Most of the people arguing for a primarily genetic explanation aren't biologist. A good example of this is that guy who wrote "Culture of Critique", where he tried to take extremely complex behavioural traits and boil them down to the Jew Gene. This PDF written by the head of a biology department in aa California University does a pretty good job of breaking down the debate regarding race and phenotypic differences.

I don't think I'm gonna stay up that late fam.

I'm guessing you've never spoken with a Canadian.

You've clearly never read the Culture of Critique if the conclusion you came away from it is that Jewish behaviour is all just driven by an as-yet-unidentified Jew Gene

Good to see the white man standing up for himself for once

It's a shame this isn't a more common occurrence

sorry, had to sleep and work. Why am I doing this anyway?


Do you mean between countries or do you mean the American "muh poverty" argument? If the former I agree with you. If the latter, I don't understand why you are acting like no-one has ever tested a sample of American children within the same income bracket who live with both biological parents, one of whom has approximately a bachelor's degree, and done the tests blind. Wait, that's not fair - you're acting like that because nobody wants to talk about how no matter how many environmental variables are controlled for (among people in the same country), the result just refuses to move by more than one point. Yes, each study may be flawed, but each flaw is different and each result is still the same.
You accuse me of "speculating" that at least half of the difference is genetic, because the causes aren't understood. A majority environmental cause would be much easier to find and control for, so it follows that that's exactly what people spent decades trying to do. And when the result was the wrong one, they just didn't tell you, instead leaving you to speculate about something that's actually almost entirely measurable.
I'll give you the source if you like, but it's Rushton, and therefore open to dismissal based on the following logical equation:
I didn't go reading Rushton for fun, I blame it entirely on Jared Diamond, author of Guns Germs and Steel. For absolutely no purpose, the book includes the laziest, most low-energy rebuttal of IQ I have ever read. Possibly worse than anything in this thread, and what annoyed me the most was that it was not even slightly related to his thesis. I read Rushton among a few others in protest, and while it was boring, and occasionally genuinely offensive, I just can't fault his science.
Image 1 here, since it does apparently have a source, demonstrates the same in school test scores. When the poorest white kids test roughly equal to the richest black kids, the argument that a MAJORITY of the IQ difference is environmental instantly becomes far-fetched - not necessarily wrong, since income isn't everything, but certainly requiring extraordinary evidence. The people who tried to find that evidence failed so completely that "in the absence of a gene for IQ, we have to assume the difference is primarily environmental" becomes far less reasonable than the reverse.

I understand that it's shitty, because an environmental difference could be fixed with national self-improvement, and a genetic one can't, but this is kinda the point here:
The day I realised that I held the opposite of the above as an assumption that informed my opinion on things was a pretty shit day. I don't really wish it on you, since the only thing I got for it was being right, and I was happier when I was wrong. Ideally it wouldn't matter if people held wrong, but pleasant, opinions, but it does, so here we are.

Anyway. In this post here I believe you make the best possible argument. I don't want to hear any more of it particularly, but I encourage you to use it more in general. Attacking the validity or relevance or fairness of IQ are all dead ends. Far better to focus on how IQ is not the measure of human value, or even that it isn't the only form of intelligence or some shit. There is one quite serious problem remaining with this line of argument, but this is plenty long enough as it is.

I don't have time to respond to this, but there have been 4 studies conducted on adoption. 2 of which found no difference in IQ, one that found the black child had higher IQ than the white children in one case, and one that found the black had lower IQ. All cited here: debunkingstormfags.blogspot.ca/2016/07/with-rise-of-alt-right-far-right-neo.html

So no, adoption studies do not support racialism.

I said nothing about adoption. I was talking about taking a sample of rich black kids with stable wholesome families and educated parents. Adoption throws up a whole lot of unrelated factors and isn't a good test. No-one's making you read anything, but don't reply to a point I didn't make.

Because you are a dumbfuck autist that thinks IQ pseudoscience is relevant in any way whatsoever

thanks for bringing that up, you've really nailed it there. Moving on from whether broad generalisations about IQ are TRUE or FAIR, which we obviously can't agree on since that would be racist, the next question is whether they are RELEVANT. Actually this is exactly the problem with the argument here:
Your example is African-Americans, because they contribute to America in a way that they could never have contributed to Africa. Europeans would probably never have invented jazz, but Africans could never have invented jazz without Europeans, because you can't play jazz with animal skins and hollow logs. It took many hundreds of years of enough stability and wealth that individuals with unusually high IQs were able to stay inside and invent the piano and trumpet.
All technology is a team effort between the population average IQ creating a society stable enough, and a series of unusually clever people building on each others' work. And those two things are actually one and the same, because:

This is relevant because:
1) Technological progress is impossible when a group's IQ is low enough, like it is in Australia at 65. Even if half the difference is due to oppression, half the difference is worse than the entire American gap. If all humans had such low averages, all humans would still be throwing spears. Instead, we're arguing on the internet because some people are smarter than others.
2) Simply sharing the technology developed as above works to some extent in a mixed society, but it will ALWAYS result in stratification along racial lines, because of the careers listed bottom left in the original image which are relevant to all people regardless of colour. Giving high technology to countries with a low enough average is also pointless because nearly all the population doesn't understand cause and effect and lacks the concept of the future. This is why South Africa barely has electricity despite inheriting all the infrastructure of a prosperous high-tech society only 25 years ago.
3) Diversity quotas. The point in diversity quotas is that if young black and brown children growing up in America could only be given suitable role models and high expectations, they would be just as likely to grow up to be good at building spaceships as white and asian kids. And if that's not true, then you're crippling science and actual progress for NO REASON.
Here are the people who sent a probe to Jupiter, and here's google's premonition of what the next team is going to look like. That's who you're trusting to get us off this rock before we blow it up. It is literally impossible that google's team was the most qualified for the job, but that's who is going to get anyway, and it's because people like you hold wrong opinions (and positions of power).

In conclusion: IQ isn't relevant, so long as someone else has enough of it, and that someone else is running your country. If you actually believe either that IQ is not relevant to past and present technological progress, or that technological progress is not relevant to you, you should go and live in South Africa, or throw things at kangaroos, rather than arguing on the internet.

...

The problem with your entire post–and likely the majority of your worldview–is an inherent misconception of what intelligence quotient is. It is not a number that measures a person's worth, even from a purely utilitarian worldview. If you inject your own personal feelings about others into it, debates about whether it is a valid metric for one reason or another become effectively moot.

This is completely stupid, the overwhelming majority of people haven't done anything to make their mark on history. Everyone is building off of the past in some way because that is how causality works. Even by Holla Forums reasoning, whites were not the magical bastion of reason shining among the barbarians: modern civilization grew out of Asia and the Fertile Crescent, and the Romans were the ones who truly brought it to Europe. Before that most Europeans were mudhut people too. It'd be just as stupid to assume this means Asians are superior.

My previous argument applies here too, and statistics do not work like that.

Now this is just historical revisionism, South Africa has always been a shithole. And again, you are weirdly implying that whites are exempt from "most people are not special".

We are not liberals.

Psst: if a company is willing to ruin its own endeavors, it never cared whether they took off to begin with. Most privately funded research like this is purely a PR move.

Pirate flag poster is a retard, yet you somehow managed to outdo him: "race is magical because science".

...

Holla Forums you goddamn laughingstock

...

tl;dr fam

IQ is irrelevant

...

you're arguing with Holla Forums, not me. Back here I said

This is my fault for writing more than you were willing to read (although I still don't get why you'd reply anyway), and getting side-tracked by the question of validity. The highlighted "no statistical difference" was, tbh, a bit triggering. I'm trying to tell you why this image someone posted a week ago does your own perspective a horrible disservice, and you're trying to tell Holla Forums why they're wrong, that's why we're not getting anywhere.

Let me just clean up and I'll be on my way. The image says:
As you told Holla Forums, the most explicit graph in the bottom right makes it out to be far worse than it is, because it doesn't mention all the productive career choices available to the modern individual that have little or nothing to do with IQ. Unfortunately the image doesn't rebut the graph's suggestion that half of black people are only suited to menial tasks with this point; rather says that it doesn't matter anyway because ordinary people are ordinary.

You and pic related both seem to be equating
with
Whether or not it's relevant to the INDIVIDUAL might depend on what they want to be when they grow up, however, a GROUP's average can't ever be irrelevant because:
If you think IQ is irrelevant to people as a whole, and not just the individual, you apparently see no difference between the internet and throwing things at animals.

The race thing specifically wouldn't matter particularly, except that:
Racial stratification at least at the highest and lowest rungs will always happen naturally in even the most fair of mixed societies, which again wouldn't matter, except that this can't presently be accepted as natural and/or for the best, because either you lot or the liberals are trying to enforce equality of outcome.

and finally:
The conditions in which a low average didn't matter are rapidly disappearing as all the poorest, most unstable, and (coincidence no doubt) dumbest countries in the world start doubling their populations in ever shorter time spans, and the denser the population (heh), the more IQ matters - both to the individual's success and to a country's food supply, as a start. And current events teach us that if your country is shit, the best thing to do is to leave and move to a better country somewhere north of you.

So can capitalist countries not have shitter then?

Great question and a worthy bump to a quality thread.

There just is really no colleration between feces in streets and the economic system of the country.

We're poo projecting right now.

Did you read the post, you retard?

Capitalism failed to provide effective public sanitation education and enough toilets for the very poor because there's no profit in doing so.

Not every country that operates under the capitalist mode of production has people shitting in the street, but where people are shitting in the street when they could be doing otherwise, this is a failure of capitalism.

We have already seen that when the same people in the same country operate under communism, the street shitting problem is eliminated.

...

Ok.

made my day

Iranian ?