Genetics has no effect on IQ. Prove me wrong. Don't just cite statistics...

what if i were to tell you guys that china cheats on iq tests by only having the top schools perform them

Attached: zebradomesticated2.png (674x1024, 1.62M)

NE-Asians do well everywhere dude. Proof is in the pudding.

>blacks were only enslaved for about 400 years
>super low IQ in the 80s
>Jew enslaved by Egyptians and treated like scum and shit for thousands of years
>IQ in the 100's
Honestly, why would African blacks need to be smart? Resources in Africa were very abundant, so travel and knowledge weren't really necessary, just fending off attacks by other animals decided whether they survived to reproduce or not I can't believe I fell for this bait.

China cheats on everything
If China is as smart as propagated, then why are they incapable of inventing anything? Entire industries are based off ignoring copyright and producing knock off products ie Xiaomi

>muh guns, germs, and steel
Interesting choice of image. You obviously haven't read the book, or you don't agree with the thesis it presents, as Diamond suggests that Melanesians are inherently more intelligent than the rest of humanity.

>Genetics has no effect on IQ.
Are human beings more intelligent than our proto-human ancestors? If so, why? If a child from one of these proto-human species were to be cloned and raised today would you expect that child to be just as intelligent as the average human being? Why are some dog breeds more intelligent than others?

Unfortunately for your position the heritability of intelligence is well established across many adoption and twin studies. There's really not double that genetics plays a significant role in determining IQ.

Attached: Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel_revisited.png (662x5691, 444K)

Race is defined by DNA.
DNA determines development of body structures.
The brain is a body structure.

How the fuck can't you follow even simple logic?

>Genetics has no effect on IQ. Prove me wrong.
okay.

Attached: africanIQexplainedThroughGenes.png (986x879, 140K)

>guns germs and steel
Not a good start op

Isn't that a commie book?

>historical circumstances created environments that selected for high IQ making people from those cultures in the specific advantageous historical circumstances higher IQ over time because the environment and circumstances selected for continually higher IQ.

Checkmate retard.

Attached: 1545151493114.jpg (800x450, 90K)

>prove this without using anything to prove it
the amount of mental gymnastics and sheer effort the book engages to avoid an obvious answer. quite counter-productive.

No, they have the genetic disposition because of historical circumstance.

don't be stupid, there are tendencies among populations.... blacks seem to be emotionally smarter. whites seem to be generically smarter (there are plenty of smart and stupid/avg honkys). asians are better at math

it's alll a tendency and there are numerous among each population that skew the average. culll 3/4 of the stupid but keep some around

intelligence doesn't mean you're creative. whites have a high level of creativity compared to Asians even though they're less intelligent. While intelligence is certainly important, it isn't everything in determining a race's success.

The real red pill is mixing both approaches, they're not opposite but complementary

How the fuck could different populations living in different parts of the planet for thousands of years with obviously different physical characteristics NOT have some statistically significant differences in cognitive behaviour?

Blacks are prone to sickle cell anemia because racism.

>mfw

Attached: image.jpg (239x224, 18K)

>prove me wrong
>And don't you dare show me evidence!
Dumb ass fuckhead

Attached: 1547068056116.gif (300x300, 2.12M)

Pulitzer price is a sign that the work is a load of bullshit or a premium gatekeeping at least

>Can you PROVE that the reason certain races have higher IQ is because of genetic disposition rather than historical circumstance?

holy shit jew, maybe these things are equivalent?

To add, you'd understand this if you worked with Asians in an office environment.

They can always beat you in raw efficiency, but when it comes to creating new ideas, they absolutely suck.

>How the fuck could different populations living in different parts of the planet for thousands of years with obviously different physical characteristics NOT have some statistically significant differences in cognitive behaviour?
Some claim that there hasn't been enough time for significant chances to occur. But that isn't true, of course.

westhunt.wordpress.com/2019/01/07/gene-flow/

Attached: 'Sea_Nomads'_Are_First_Known_Humans_Genetically_Adapted_to_Diving.png (1817x1338, 706K)

>Don't just cite statistics. Can you PROVE that the reason certain races have higher IQ is because of genetic disposition rather than historical circumstance?
what

OH NO NO NO
LOOK AT THIS DUDE

Attached: jared diamond.jpg (1024x744, 166K)

This

fucking eskimos, lmao

>Some claim that there hasn't been enough time for significant chances to occur. But that isn't true, of course.

It's also been successfully achieved with other mammals through selective breeding in a relatively small number of generations.

>See's doco while still normie Bluepill faggot
>Becomes Redpilled
>See's name (((Diamond)))
>Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

Every. Fucking. Time

Attached: o0cgg22jf0i11.jpg (960x639, 115K)

To be fair those Zebras are only tamed, not fully domesticated. That doesn't mean domestication of the species is impossible though. It's just that no one has ever given a go at it.

Abstract thinking is representational of intelligence, such as Math, in which the ability to think outside of traditional is a benefit. A computer can do exactly the things Chinese people can do, is a computer as intelligent as a chink? It doesn't matter because a computer can't think outside of the box which is exactly the problem with Chinese people, they can do tasks with effeciency over and over but they never think of a better way to do it.

That is an incredibly shots argument. It was history and social pressures that forever some people to get smart or die. Things like climates change. Watch "From Ape to Man." When there is drastic climate change in an area, people who can't adapt die. I would argue the less intelligent are the ones who die.

What is wrong is to argue it's okay to kill people who aren't as smart. Its not okay to take someone's land just because they are less intelligent. Shale we say--stupid.

Its it okay to bring in a bunch of Mexicans to do the jobs of stupid people here in the US, because elitist process believe they are inferior. That's the excuse they use for destroying people's wages.

Attached: 1352444295160.jpg (609x676, 60K)

Yes, but is Jared Diamond actually ((((((((Jared Diamond)))))))) ?

>Don't just cite statistics
>Prove me 1+1=2 without using arithmetic.

If a child from one of these proto-human species were to be cloned and raised today would you expect that child to be just as intelligent as the average human being?

>no they wouldn't even have the genetic variances that allow us to us language with grammar and syntax.

Reminder that adopted children are just as similar to their adopted parents in terms of personality and IQ as they are to COMPLETE STRANGERS by the time they reach the age of 18. And adopted children show similarity to their biological parents in terms of personality and IQ, even though they're not raised by them.

dailymotion.com/video/x6hxq11

Attached: Parenting_has_a_marginal_and_inconsistent_influence_on_offspring_IQ..png (687x1123, 97K)

>oi vey, goys! Don't use statistical genetics to prove things.
kys

Attached: 5ae.jpg (1240x786, 175K)

This

>Genetics has no effect on IQ.
Fuck off, false flag. IQ is PARTIALLY heritable, but ONLY partially.

but genetics determines weather your hair care products are locked up

Nice kike post like
Reveal flag

>evolution ends at the skin goy, believe it
The brain is the most convoluted and specialized organ in the body. How do you possibly think of all the differences between races of organ function, the brain remained untouched?
There's the logical answer.
The mud shanty shitholes you see in Africa are society as an expression of the population's intelligence. The only ones that have surpassed sub-shithole (mudhut) tier are those that were previously colonized and uplifted by superior Europeans.
There's the observational answer.
If whites adopt a black child, the child's IQ will only slightly improve. If intelligence was entirely environmental, the child's IQ would be far more reflective of parent IQ.
There's a statistical answer.

So we admit there's some element of environment, some element of genetics. Viewing nurture as the sole reason for developmental variance is therefore unfounded. So the question becomes - what percentage of variance explained by environment and genetics? A kike like Noam Chomsky would say 80% environment, 20% genetic. A kike like Jared Diamond would say 90% environment, 10% genetic. Most stormfags rest on 70% genetic, 30% environmental. It's probably somewhere in the middle, barring extreme substance abuse or some other confounding variable.

It's mostly in the genes m8.

>looks at Africa
>looks at Europe
Gee, I wonder...

You obviously misread my post. Stop embarrassing yourself.

>Genetics has no effect on IQ. Prove me wrong. Don't just cite statistics
>1 post by this id
>50 replies
C'mon guys, quit being retarded

In the developed world it's safe to say that genetics plays an overwhelmingly more significant role than environment. See pic and watch video:

If that's true, then how do you explain their higher IQ scores.

They aren't cheating.

What was Ryan Dawson's argument that it isn't hereditary IQ?

I'm just posting for the benefit of any lurkers reading the thread.

You are just baiting people to post stats.

>Don't just cite statistics. Can you PROVE
I really normally follow the rules, but are you asking to be saged?

I like Dawson but he seems to be completely ignorant on the topic. I doubt he's familiar with any twin or adoption studies.

Holy shit, please get an education before posting on complex and nuanced subjects. You missed his entire fucking point and it's the middle of the fucking day.

"Diamond was born in Boston, Massachusetts, United States. Both of his parents were from East European Jewish families who had emigrated to the United States."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond

Parenting, where you live and go to school, yout friends, etc have no influence on a persons IQ. You pulled that 30% number out of your ass.

True. Prove data without statistics. Feminist detected?

Attached: 1526165101755.jpg (400x460, 36K)

Every. Single. Time.

No, I know that he is full of shit. I just wanted to know his actual argument.

/Thread

Attached: 1483368336080.jpg (435x286, 20K)

this

2

Have you actually read the book in the OP? It's okay to admit you haven't.

Extensive psych testing experience here. Yes, they absolutely do. Children can significantly vary in their IQ scores during childhood if their developmental environment drastically changes. The clincher is that when a child leaves home, IF they end up in an environment conducive to development they are likely to at least get close to what their IQ could have been if they had a better environment by their mid 20s.

>Prove me wrong without using proof

Attached: 1524597430207.jpg (590x639, 149K)

China trains people to be good at tests
Achieving high score on tests does not equal intelligence, if it did then why is China so inept at doing anything of value to the world? Exploiting a large population of Labour to increase GDP does not equal intelligence, stealing Western patents is not intelligence
China covers its weakness by having a large population to mask the fact that they're not as smart as they claim. Just like how people in China die every day because of dumb errors, but the population is so large that it doesn't matter. In this case quantity does win over quality

Also I got the 30% from a stormer thread where they all concluded from their baseless discussion that "sounded" like a good fit.
Even alt-hype, an absolute race realist settles at close to 50%. You're just as moronic if you settle at 100%.

The heritability of IQ increases with age and by adulthood twins reared apart will have similar IQs.

All that stuff about better schools, headstart programs, etc is false, it doesn't work.

It doesn't take much sophistication to realise it's a combination of inherited and environmental factors that determine IQ.

>alt-hype
Literally who? I don't follow ecelebs.

And I don't think it's 100%, twins aren't exactly the same in anything.

What enviromental factors?

>What was Ryan Dawson's argument that it isn't hereditary IQ?
he doesn't have one. He argues situational and historical determinism and says it isn't as important as WNs say it is.

So my image of IQ is essentially just hereditary potential. But if that was that, shouldn't those children, who had a less than optimal environment, be able to raise their IQ to their "actual and natural" level they were with when introduced to more beneficial environments later on.

Parental and environmental influence on the actual/natural IQ of the person would suggest some form of neuroplastic/epigenitic effect, especially during childhood.

What does this imply and can we use it for our advantage?

Absolutely, however in training children for testing you can measurably improve their performance in other tasks relying on that measure. That's where environment comes into it. Just as the part of a brain devoted to a string musician's fingers is physically, measurably larger than someone who does not extensively use dexterous activity, children who read more, do maths more, etc. will increase their outcomes in those areas.

>The heritability of IQ increases with age and by adulthood twins reared apart will have similar IQs.
exactly what I just said in my post, except they will certainly not be the same and much of the variance will be explicable by environment.
>All that stuff about better schools, headstart programs, etc is false, it doesn't work.
Not to a huge extent, but there is a lot of research showing positive outcomes especially in white/asian children from those programs. But you're underestimating the extent to which shit parents fail to expose their child to developmental tools such as reading books, incidental mathematics and kinesthetic repetition.
Good, proactive parents have a much greater influence than some program a kid rocks up to for a few hours.

You're describing the Wilson Effect, individuals gravitate towards their genetic predisposition when they enter nonshared environments.

Attached: 2+2smuggie.png (769x733, 34K)

Well, the only thing I consider the IQ issue not as important as well, is, because if you are not convinced on the grounds of handing over your nation to foreign settlers, then IQ statistics will not convince you that this is wrong. If you so fundamentally fail at the basic human level, there is no help for you, the least in academic debates. But it's also not good for us as Europeans to undermine white nationalism.

Checked. Also relevant:
unz.com/akarlin/our-biorealistic-future/

>Arguing over a test for children

Attached: 1503695190831.gif (190x199, 163K)

>Even alt-hype, an absolute race realist settles at close to 50%
that's not what that means, and he lays out r=~.8 which would account for around 65% of all the variance in a population.

you can't train for an IQ test, that's the whole point.

this doesn't answer the question.

That's what I said in my comment, however they miss out on development which occurs during childhood, which does have a measurably greater effect due to the increased rate of neural development which occurs during childhood.
Exactly, the Wilson Effect. They do not get as close to their genetic predisposition wherein they would have if they had a more conducive family and school environment.

Glad an avid alt-hypesucker could pipe up.

>genetics has no effect of IQ

Pic related
Checkmate atheist

Attached: 83F45B4D-B520-4B23-B396-246F2180BB57.jpg (940x1024, 136K)

>exactly what I just said in my post, except they will certainly not be the same and much of the variance will be explicable by environment.
No, it's explained by things like de novo mutations, minor brain trauma caused by diseases in childhood, and unknown factors nobody has figured out yet.

>Not to a huge extent, but there is a lot of research showing positive outcomes especially in white/asian children from those programs. But you're underestimating the extent to which shit parents fail to expose their child to developmental tools such as reading books, incidental mathematics and kinesthetic repetition.
Prove that it works. It fucking doesn't. Many Western nations have already spent billions trying to find a way to reliably increase the IQs of minorities and poors, and nothing has worked. Not headstart programs, not more programs, not Ipads in schools, etc.

>Genetics has no effect on IQ. Prove me wrong.

cow calculus.

So if your parents fucked up during your childhood, you are pretty much "scared for life". Even if through dedication, hard work and later extended education by your own efforts you improve your situation?

Parenting has no influence on your IQ by the time you are an adult. A sledgehammer to the head can lower your IQ of course, but spiritual damage doesn't do anything.

Well, your words against his then. I am currently contemplating my own biography and am not sure what to believe. But then again my own life is also not really a strong case for hereditary intelligence, since I diverge so dramatically from my own parents. Both in IQ, character and interests.

Brain = Hardware
Environment = Input
So if you change the input you still get the same result?

Within the normal range parenting has little to no effect on their children's adult IQ. Something like serious physical abuse would be outside the normal range, think locking one's child in a closet all day and feeding them dog food.