Environmental or genetic Jow Forums?

Attached: iq5.jpg (580x381, 44K)

Attached: black-white-crime.jpg (616x2030, 801K)

Different races/groups have different general IQs
That's the bottom of it

both, with major part being genetics.

>Environmental or genetic Jow Forums?
silly question, doesn't really make sense.

Both, but 80% genetic, 20% environment

80/20 rule

80% genetic, 20% enviroment

Attached: White Excellence.png (1208x941, 1.07M)

Mix

I think it is weak argumentation in general. If you're obsessed with having a high IQ society, or whatever, that means you're OK with being replaced by Chinks or Jews, and exterminating the lower IQ end of your folk. Just seems to me to be a pathetic way to justify natural tribalism.

genetic

Attached: 1533959958616.png (843x843, 249K)

Back when I was taking a psychology (read: Freud dicksucking) class in HS they tסld me that it was 50/50. Now most sources I read say it's 80/20, mainly due to the discovery of different genes that have an effect on intelligence. Since we will inevitably discover more of these genes in the future, will the ratio possibly tip even more towards the side of genetics?
Maybe, though people naturally are nationalistic and only have had different values or the past 70 years or so. Nevertheless, it seems obvious to me that studying the source of intellignce is paramount to advancing civilization, and not being too keen on it for political reasons seems absurd, like not studying evolution because the bible disagrees with it.

Also I fail to see where you got the idea that valuing IQ and trying to understand it necessarily leads to genocide and ethnic replacement. I think you might be projecting other people's mindsets onto me.

It's genetic and it's not even debatable.

Attached: race realism.gif (2970x2483, 1.06M)

both.

Not exactly but environment does effect genetics.

genetic.

Attached: 1524391801064.png (962x2179, 976K)

Both indeed. But we've got a clear line on beginning to understand the genetic end of it, but we don't understand environment at all.

Attached: Aboriginal vs. Caucasian skull.jpg (600x720, 441K)

Protip: claiming it's "both" is the GENETIC theory, brainlets

The competing theories are environmental (100% environment) and genetic (environment affects intelligence, but there's a sizable genetic component)

I think you're accidentally agreeing with me.

Of course we agree. That's not the point.

There's this myth around that there's 3 theories (100% genetic, both, 100% environmental)

When there's only 2 theories:
Genetic: (partly genetic, partly environmental)
Environmental: (fully environmental)

Both and more. We're a product of our genes, our environment, and our soul.

Sort of. You start with a code, then various environmental triggers determine what portions are expressed.

This book was shot down by the entire scientific community. The authors have no experience in genetics. Case closed

How so? I really want to get my hands on some reading that at least argues against it if not debunks it, but no one has responded with anything whenever I've asked. Do you have a text you can point to? I'd appreciate it.

youtube.com/watch?v=LmTiZB_Aq7k

Science doesn't become false because of opinions. As much as many people seem to believe. Science is a process of determining truth. Replication is required for hypothesis to be supported or not, not angry words. Anyone who dismisses an idea because it offends them, is not a scientist, does not like science.

Modern day "science" has become heavily politicized. Just look at the removal of homosexuality from the DSM by the APA because of the terrorism of groups like the gay liberation front. Do not believe any pop culture style science reporting, odds are it's out right false or being misrepresented.

Just look at the retention of the "out of africa" hypothesis to prop up political egalitarianism despite contradicting evidence. Look at the noble prize winner for the discovery of the structure of Dna being black listed and having to try to sell his noble prize because he discusses his personal experiences - of negros being slower.

Those categories aren't opposites.

That isn't what the bell curve is about. Not even close. Why has nobody read that fucking book. I hate all you retards.

(Obviously IQ is heritable)

>This book was shot down by the entire scientific community
(It wasn't)

For those interested in an overview of the bell curve
bookrags.com/studyguide-the-bell-curve/#gsc.tab=0

I've been looking all over for a proper source that goes against many of this book's claims and no matter how many different people I ask, none of them can point me to one. I'm not the type to consider myself versed on a complex subject such as this because I've read a single Scientific American article, and I also am very weary of dismissing a side because I can't quickly find good scientific reading that supports them. I am, however, seriously beginning to suspect that there aren't actually any counterarguments to this that also aren't counterarguments to the entire existence of qualitative intelligence.

If you'd like to see some of the titles published following the bell curve to further read about the subject.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#The_Bell_Curve_debate

In fact the opposite is true. There was some King Kamehameha virtue signaling in the mid-90s when the book was released but in the decades since academics and professionals and experts in the fields have conceded that Herrnstein and Murray's conclusions were correct. the primary criticism that today is not toward the scholarship, but rather asks the question of "why?" As in we should be careful about the information we put out for the masses to consume with an eye on how it might be received or interpreted.

And let's remember that the bell curve is not about race, but about intelligence. It's a topic that makes a lot of people uncomfortable.

Check out the link I provided. The most common counter argument provided boils down to "Okay, yes we can observe the differences mentioned. But we don't know why those differences exist (why they would be genetic)."
If you want to see follow up, check out Rushton's work, if you don't feel like reading a lot check out the small pocket book he worked on.
goodreads.com/book/show/783721.Race_Evolution_and_Behavior

>Protip: claiming it's "both" is the GENETIC theory, brainlets
Literally this. If genes are partially responsible for the curve then it's an admission of the superiority or inferiority of a set of genes.

Both. Environment affects genetics over time so there's no separating the two.

If you take identical twins and place one with a two parent, low-stress, high socio economic status home and place the other with a single mother in public housing, no doubt you'll see different outcomes in spite of early potential being the same.
Over time (generations) some changes become heritable and there is a genetic component.
You don't need high IQ to survive in the hood, you need aggression and instinct. The middle class kid doesn't have to worry about surviving and can dedicate resources to higher purposes.

I should clarify, the small pocket book is the abridged version of the one linked.

Correct. That I'm aware of, there is little to no disagreement (on scientific grounds) that differences in IQ can be observed between negros and others. The dispute is the why.

Guns, Germs, and Steel does a pretty convincing job of making it the environment

American Renaissance has done a lot of work collecting/conducting research on this subject for those interested in more follow up.
amren.com/news/2014/01/race-differences-in-intelligence-2/

The notion that systemic oppression is the cause of lower black IQ is ridiculous. Especially when we consider that African nations average even lower.

It doesn't. The more favorable environment falls flat when actually examined. The most popular criticism of Diamond is that of Zebras, he argues they cannot be domesticated like wild horses. Soon after Europeans entered the African continent they had tamed them.

Attached: hero-3c.jpg (1160x435, 255K)

Oh a little bit of this, a little bit of that

Attached: maxresdefault (1).jpg (1280x720, 209K)

I suggest you watch this video about Turkheimer who's a researcher in the field that denies, or downplays, the biological component to intelligence.

youtube.com/watch?v=WPV6Hz9iwQo

Even though The Alt-Hype is more popular than ever, he's still incredibly underrated.

Indeed. The disparity in IQ has been shown even among negro grad students and non-negro grad students from the same school - which was located in Africa. This was part of what Watson had spoken of in fact - that he'd observed negro grad students failing to grasp basic concepts that others did not.

>80% genetic
You guys need to watch this short video to understand what heritability is
youtube.com/watch?v=m0T2miip8jo

This, compare the average IQ of American blacks and lower class Russians
Both had to deal with centuries of slavery and oppression yet the descendants of serfs are much more intelligent than the descendants of slaves

I found a more thorough response I'd saved which addresses each of the primary points Diamond tries to make in the book.

Attached: Guns, Germs, and Steel1.jpg (1551x805, 454K)

This is simply not true. In fact, what you just said is outrageous bullshit. Nobody has tamed zebras, and you'd have to be supremely delusional to think Africans who have been dealing with them for hundreds of years failed but Europeans did it quickly.

You say the environment explanation falls flat then when explained then give absolutely no explanation.

I understand the emotional want you may have to believe you have "superior white genetics", or whatever, but your post sure isnt showing it.

Both (sort of)
Nature gives you a ceiling of how far you can go. Nurture gets you to that ceiling.
broadviewuniversity.edu/student-life/studying-and-diminishing-returns/

Think of height, A malnourished childhood for Michael Jordan would stunt his growth. But no amount of calories and exercise could have gotten Danny DeVito to 6 feet.

Attached: 1511500373212.png (1063x1063, 245K)

>nobody has tamed Zebras
Define tamed, then tell me why using them to pull a carriage does not apply.
>negros failed, but others didn't
The evidence supports this though.
>no explanation

1. This is complete bullshit. There was significant interactions by the time of the greek, roman, and persian empires well before the 15th century. What the fuck is he saying?

2. Simplified strawman.

3. Sub-Saharan africa did not have the same level of domesticated mammals. What DOMESTICATED mammals did the aboriginees hunt to extinction?

Ok not reading any further. This guy is literally just making up strawmen and saying NU UH THE EXACT OPPOSITE IT TRUE with 0 contect or explanation.

>Emotional want to be superior
Wouldn't it be more likely that you - whose clearly emotional about this issue. Simply wants to not feel as if you're inferior? The idea of non-negros capability is not disputed because the modern world proves sufficient. The thing which is constantly argued for is that negros are not inferior. Yet it seems to be such a difficult thing to demonstrate.

Read the book, as you clearly havent. Here you go, brainlet.

youtube.com/watch?v=wOmjnioNulo

Well when you provide 0 evidence against hard science aside from contrarian strawman, it becomes pretty obvious.

>What the fuck is he saying?
That the idea of a unified Europe is down right silly because any obstacles argued for with negros could also be applied (sometimes more so) to ancient Europeans.
>Simplified strawman
Elaborate how
>Sub-Saharan Africa did not have the same level of domesticated mammals
You're right it didn't, what did have/has is large amounts of domesticatiable mammals. Which European arrival demonstrated.
>What mammals did aborigines hunt to extinction?
The Australian ones? Quite a lot, look up the extinction of the mega flora and the evidence for their role in causing the dessert. Desserts are simply not nature, they're almost always caused by outside action.
>not reading further
Why?
>Making up strawman
Explain how it's a strawman

Both
Mostly genetic

A Swede raised in rapebaby Congo would turn out dumb and violent. He would also become warlord quickly

>I googled my opinion then linked a video which supports it
Am I arguing with the poster of the video or you? At least say what the video is claiming in your own words.

>Provide 0 evidence
Why do you feel the foundation of his claims where not addressed?
>Hard science
There is no such thing as hard or soft science, these are terms for the general public who know little to nothing. Either something is scientific (based on empiricism, processed via the scientific method) or it's not. Also feel free to explain why you think his book is scientific considering it's a review mostly of historical information and trying to line it up with his own personal hypothesis on why there is variation among observed humanoids. (spoiler, history cannot be scientific by definition. You cannot observe something which has already happen, you cannot test something that has already happened. You cannot replicate the test etc)

>Video cites buffalo as an example of unfriendly and thus undomesticable
There are many bison farms in the area I live, China domesticated water buffalo a long time ago.
>Cites bears as non-domesticable
>Ignores entire industry of trained bears for Hollywood movies
>Countless examples of their use in warfare or just as pets
The person who made this video is a complete idiot

Why are you adopting the egalitarian position without evidence? The claim that all races are identical or perform identically on each and every phenotypic trait if given the same environment is a positive claim as well. There is no reason to expect that each race will perform identically on any given psychological trait; in fact, we know there are many phenotypic differences between the races (pic related) which demonstrates the possibility of there are also existing psychological differences between the races. If you know nothing about this issue, there are three positions which are available to you:
>Agnosticism (I don’t know)
>the point of least error (50% genetic/50% environmental)
>or the general heritability of the trait in the population you are examining (80% genetic/20% environmental)

Attached: 3CE11B45-CEC1-45AC-9899-97190C110D0D.png (1334x750, 1.87M)

This entire conversation is already defunct. The only place where a question exists about human population differentiation is in the minds of the average person and absolute charlatans in particular fields. I don't know if it's accurate to call sociologists charlatans though, their entire field is dedicated to justifying the persistence of disparity. Biology is already to the point where we could say for certain that the hereditarian hypothesis is correct.

>Brain size variation over primate evolution and human development is associated with shifts in the proportions of different brain regions. Individual brain size can vary almost twofold among typically developing humans, but the consequences of this for brain organization remain poorly understood. Using in vivo neuroimaging data from more than 3000 individuals, we find that larger human brains show greater areal expansion in distributed frontoparietal cortical networks and related subcortical regions than in limbic, sensory, and motor systems. This areal redistribution recapitulates cortical remodeling across evolution, manifests by early childhood in humans, and is linked to multiple markers of heightened metabolic cost and neuronal connectivity. Thus, human brain shape is systematically coupled to naturally occurring variations in brain size through a scaling map that integrates spatiotemporally diverse aspects of neurobiology.

science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6394/1222

There was also a paper I was reading that correlated different brain morphologies to SES, which if you know anything about SES and 'g', this is essentially just a correlation between morphology and low IQ. Another about regional morphological differences existing between populations that historically had different caloric intakes/availability. Once you understand these are all proxy terms for racial and ethnic differences, your granted very accurate prediction powers.

Here's another one
>The capacity to read develops throughout intensive academic learning and training. Several studies have investigated the impact of reading on the brain, and particularly how the anatomy of the brain changes with reading acquisition. In the present study, we investigated the converse issue, namely whether and how reading acquisition is constrained by the anatomy of the brain. Using multimodal MRI, we found that (a) the pattern (continuous or interrupted sulcus) of the posterior part of the left lateral occipito-temporal sulcus (OTS) hosting the visual word form area (VWFA) predicts reading skills in adults; that (b) this effect is modulated by the age of reading acquisition; and that (c) the length of the OTS sulcal interruption is associated with reading skills. Because the sulcal pattern is determined in utero, our findings suggest that individual difference in reading skills can be traced back to early stages of brain development in addition to the well-established socioeconomic and educational factors.

"How interindividual differences in brain anatomy shape reading accuracy"

Read between the lines. It's talking about hard ceilings that are genetic.

Predominately genetic. Then prenatal. Then environmental. Probably something like a 70/20/10 split.

It's genetic you fucking tards

Twins studies prove the variance in IQ between individuals is mainly due to genetic factors, so when we have two populations that have different IQ levels and there are no fact-based explanatory societal factors, it only makes sense that this gap is mostly explained by genetics.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889158/

That book actually argued that removing barriers like race, class, and gender would mean the most intelligent people would dominate and they would be diverse.

>they would be diverse
Depends on the population size you're pulling from. If this was limited to the current population of the US the distribution of the cognitive elite will resemble the same racial hierarchy that already exists and persists. You'd have to pull globally to achieve anything resembling "equal" numbers of gifted, and even then a hierarchy will still persist.

You'd also have to ignore the fact that the greater something a negro has done is, the higher chance they have greater amount of non-negro ancestry.

Both but mostly genetic. This is the objectively correct answer by the way.

environment will affect the expression of genetics

stormfag here, it's both. Environmental correlation has genetic causation as well though, so trying to say rGE matters in a racial context is a perfect example of jewish circle-talk in science.

yes genetics are highly heritable
however in an environment with little nutrition, education and culture the genetic potential cannot be fully expressed

Literally sucking jew cock if you maintain the genetic purist position, and suck nigerian cock if you're the environmentalist warrior.

dawkins SS basement larpers will screech but indeed it is a mix.

> HERRNSTEIN...
> Book claims ashekanazi jews are 15 pts smarter then everyone else and blacks are retarded.

Book is accurate but IQ is not a good measure of intelligence, its a good measure of your logical reasoning. Logical reasoning to the extreme is total sociopathy and evil. Being honorable, having integrity, following bushido, attaining karma, being good are all things that are not logically intelligent. In other words, Ashekanazi jews are smart like a parasite is smart. They are smart in the sense that they are good at deceiving and manipulation and leeching, its logically smart to force people into slavery, its logically smart to let others do all the work and then steal the fruits of the work, its logically smart to be a parasite. I call this type of intelligence 'insect' smart. The other type of intelligence is related to the pineal gland. Its the crystal in your brain that is connected to spirit, god, the universe, the ether, etc. It is the intelligence related to awareness, intuition, and consciousness. I call this type of intelligence 'crystal' smart.

Whites are 1/2 'insect' smart, and 1/2 'crystal' smart.
Asians are 3/4 'insect' smart, and 1/4 'crystal' smart.
Jews are 4/4 'insect' smart.
Blacks are 4/4 'crystal' smart.

Insect intelligence IS NOT what separates us from animals, animals have those same types of intelligence, a machine has this type of intelligence moreso then humans. Crystal intelligence IS what separates us from animals, no other animal in existence has a crystal within their brain (pineal gland), no other animal will do things that go against logical reasoning, no machine will do things that go against its programmed logical reasoning, but humans can and its what makes us capable of change, improvement.

Attached: ericdollard.jpg (776x960, 74K)

This is why they put flouride in the water. Flouride destroys and fogs crystals. Flouride also lowers your IQ. I suspect the lowering of IQ is a side effect of flouride destroying your pineal gland. Its not lowering your insect intelligence, its lowering your crystal intelligence. What defogs and increases the size of the crystal is IODINE, iodine used to be in our salt, and in our bread, now it is in basically nothing anymore. This was by design I suspect. You can buy iodine in its purest from alex jones lol. The dude knows his shit.

Attached: 43975679.png (1907x858, 25K)

The basis for the Askenazi IQ measure you see is arguably due to 1. Their European genes 2. Their historical practice of eugenics. They lived in isolated communities, micro-nations within states. Only the best reproduced, the lower rung went onto form the Hasidic sect. If you measured Askenazi IQ these days you likely wouldn't find the same 15 point difference. Ironically because so many of them have abandoned Judaism for egalitarianism.

Fuck off back to or wherever the fuck you came from you fucking idiot

Can't believe no one has posted this yet. Try not to drown; Start with "The 10,000 Year Explosion."

www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com

Attached: Afficuns.png (1490x994, 3.56M)

>nigger genes
>nigger culture
Either way they’re fucked.

Culture is part and parcel of environment. Otherwise, yes. is another piece, keeping in mind that environmental factors also select for genetic factors in addition to triggering genetic traits.

14% Genetic
88% Environmental

PSY.D HERE.

GENETIC. OBJECTIVE FACT: MOST PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAITS ARE 40-80% GENETIC.

MOST THINGS ARE GENETIC.

WHITES AND ASIANS ARE LITERALLY GENETICALLY DISTINCT AND GENETICALLY SUPERIOR TO OTHER "RACES" I.E. HOMO SAPIENS.

NEANDERTHAL ADMIXTURE MAKES WHITES AND ASIANS SUPERIOR TO "HUMANS" AKA NIGGERS.

This is what they've done with it since

Attached: Nigs.png (1138x852, 1.03M)

>www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com
nice link, thanks

The "genetic" stance is basically identical to "both". The competing theories are 100% environment or genetics+environment. No one is autistic to believe 100% of IQ/intelligence comes down to genes.

Arthur Jensen published an excellent meta-analysis that reviewed three decades of research into the issue.

His paper concluded that race differences in IQ were anywhere from 50-80% genetic, depending on which line of evidence you looked at. He published the paper in 2005 in a journal owned by the APA, a peer reviewed publication.

Search for "Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability".

This paper is a goldmine if you're ever debating with SJW retards. They're never convinced of anything by evidence and reason, however, so that's a waste of time.

Attached: 110612060348148929.jpg (467x700, 59K)

No measure of cognitive ability will ever be perfect, but IQ is far-and-away the most objective, predictive measure of intelligence we have to date.

Nothing else comes even close to its ability to correlate with real-world cognitive outcomes. And no, intelligence is not some mystical magic force that is completely unknowable and incomparable between people.

Attached: Y42xM.jpg (2556x1895, 548K)

Hur dur both