Why do people still refuse to believe in the link between race and IQ?

Because science has proven time and time again that environmental factors trump genetics.
>nb4 shitty fake infographic

What do you think your point is? Pick a population. Choose a genetic marker to divide it by. One group will have a higher IQ for genetic reasons.

Now what?

You probably have an IQ of about 1.

Attached: walnut 2.jpg (450x450, 74K)

Literally the opposite is true.

Consider the Jews:
> Oppressed since forever
> High IQ

Consider the Hawaii natives:
> Literally in paradise
> Low IQ

Politicians blame the economic gap caused by IQ differences on racism, and that’s the problem. If we lived in a total libertarian system with no gibs or affirmative action, this wouldn’t be as big of an issue.

Instead, the have nots are being subsidized by the rest of us leading to a less efficient economy / country.

Actual government policy continues to be enacted based on false premises because the masses don’t want to accept the truth.

Burden of proof is on those making the claims. IQ tests show blacks consistently score the lowest of any race on average. Until YOU or anyone else provides me with this mythical proof that this is due to environmental factors, I have to assume that niggers are just dumb.
>hurr durr provide proof it isnt
The IQ studies like the ones referenced in the OP are my proof. I am making no further claims than what the data suggests.

Any racists wanna try to tackle this? This is what you don't understand about "race is a social construct."

Yes: to the extent that intelligence is genetic, any large group divided in two by literally any genetic marker you pick will have one group with a higher intelligence as the result of their genetic makeup. So why pick race? You could divide as easily on brunette versus blond, green eyes versus brown, right-handedness versus left, which finger is second-longest, whose fingerprints contain a particular swirl or not, which group had the gene that makes cilantro taste like soap to them...

You could divide the population by literally any given genetic marker or set of genetic markers and every single time you pick a group of markers, you will end up with one group that has the genes for higher intelligence than the other group does.

And you picked "race." And you cannot rationally answer "why?"

You explained genetics you nonce. Environmental being the individuals upbriging.

Because while your heart, your pancreas and your bone marrow are tissues governed by the laws of biology and thus the chemicals your genes code for can affect them,
Your brain is special and would NEVER be affected by something so base as chemistry.

The petrol pump doesn't measure IQ bro

Race is the only genetic marker you can separate by(excluding shit like Down syndrome) that will create a difference of a full standard deviation between group averages. The difference between blonde and brunette IQ would be less than a few points between the averages. Try again nigger.

Prove it. To start, you'll have to decide which genetic markers identify a race. You actually can't even do that much.

But let's pretend that you could. Ok, then what? Again: what's your point? Let's pretend that what you just claimed was true.

How should we use that information? And however you want to use, what's magical about a standard deviation? If you want to use that information to literally any purpose, whatsoever, then you're defining genetic indicators of intelligence as good. So why is a standard deviation so magical that we shouldn't apply exactly the same use for that information to whichever group--brunette or blond--likewise contains genetic makeups with higher intelligence?

You cannot rationally defend yourself in this conversation.

I am neutral as can possibly be the case on this topic, partially because such a distribution exists for all races, the mean is shifted for each group, but there are clearly very intelligent and minimally intelligent individuals in each group. I choose to interact with only those on the high end, regardless of race, so the mean matters not.

However, the science you refer to on environmental factors is sorely lacking. One look no further than the parity of twins separated at birth. Almost regardless of environment, they end up awfully similar in every way.

But you claim that environment is the major factor. The example presented clearly indicates that genetics matter more.

Plus a few tens of thousands of years of "struggle or die."

Also, refer to adoption studies. Adopted children maintain many of the traits of their biologic rather than adopting parents, yes, including intelligence. Environment is A factor, not THE factor. Genetics plays a major role in intelligence if all other factors are equal.

They want everyone to think we are all the same so they can move through the amorphous society free of suspicion, while they use historical issues to reinforce a rigid narrative of who the victim and aggressors are.

Attached: 8661702b6ca1e0c616fb9e34c600adc925df4bbc10196e6179400b97cb56d436.jpg (384x1920, 116K)

I dont have to determine whigh genetic markers define race. Phenotype and ancestry take care of that. A standard deviation is a statistically significant gap. You are arguing that a crack in the sidewalk and the Grand Canyon are the same size here. You dont have to make a standard deviation the cut off, the thing to realize here is that its a large difference compared to a tiny one.
>lets assume you are right
>that information is uncomfortable, and wont lead to anything good so we better just pretend that it doesn’t exist
Science does not care about your feelings. If you are willing to compromise on this then we might aswell delete all uncomfortable research, and only accept results of studies that tell us all how special we are. Also, I am not the ine who made the original claim, so the burden of proof is on you. Post blue and green eye IQ distribution, or blonde and brunette. Go ahead, I will wait.

Again, what would your point be?

Just pretending the things you just said weren't wrong, what would you suggest doing with this information?

>Also, I am not the ine who made the original claim, so the burden of proof is on you. Post blue and green eye IQ distribution, or blonde and brunette. Go ahead, I will wait.
Wait, are you claiming that, if you took a population of, let's say, 1 million people, and divided by brunette/blond, you think the two groups would have the exact same IQ?

Within 5 points depending on the size of each group, if I had to guess.

I suggest recognizing this information for what it is instead of pretending that data is racist.

Attached: E8D80BB3-9961-41FD-B53A-8576B97C24C3.jpg (625x910, 203K)

I prefer total idiots to half-wits, since idiots don't make horrible failures of abstraction and operate in the world based on caricatures of reality like quasi-intelligent people do.
You wouldn't have had Chinese communism and their utopian nonsense with only idiots.

Im going to bed. I will laugh at your sorry attempt to dance around the facts in the morning.

Attached: 314ACD46-6E28-45B5-A80B-DCAF7EDC5469.jpg (600x405, 26K)

You're walking yourself into a trap of irrationality.

If it is worth recognizing that "race" indicates different intelligence levels, then why not that genetic markers for blond hair do? Or green eyes? Or finger-print-swirliness?

And if it's important to recognize the difference in IQ between people, then why not just test everyone and tattoo that number on their forehead?

You've picked "race," without a single rational explanation possible for the "why?" "Standard deviation!" first off: isn't prove-able. Because even if you were able to define what genes constituted "race," there'd be a subset in there that actually handled intelligence and voila: we could further refine our terms to the point that race was no-longer and indicator.

The point is: your argument is entirely irrational and indefensible. Plus your goal of "recognizing" is nonsense and not something you wish to maximize. You're just trying to search for justification for your pre-existing bias. Prolly 'cuz you have a pretty low IQ.

Get rid of diversity quotas slowing down human-kind’s progress. The NBA doesnt have to have diversity, then neither should Google.

Human-kind's progress toward what? Let's try to figure out what it is you really want out of all of this. I think you're going to be surprised by the number of lurking premises and assumptions built into your belief structure. Once you think about what your real issue is, you're going to discover the hangups you have over "race" are irrational. It'll help you grow as a person. You'll be able to progress to someone who is more empathetic and understanding of his own motivations.

>You're walking yourself into a trap of irrationality.
Just because you keep claiming to be right doesnt make it so.
>If it is worth recognizing that "race" indicates different intelligence levels, then why not that genetic markers for blond hair do? Or green eyes? Or finger-print-swirliness?
We have been over this, race creates a MUCH larger gap than any of those. To pretend that race has no effect on IQ is willful ignorance. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Are you black or something?

Goodnight Rabbi.

>We have been over this, race creates a MUCH larger gap than any of those.
So what? If it's good to recognize the gaps, what does the size of the gap matter? Why would it be good at one size, and not another?

This is why you're irrational.

Mandated racial quotas are not to most people's benefit - in the best case scenario, you have someone commanding others to do something they were going to do anyway (zero impact) while most of the time you're forcing people (under duress) to alter their normal associative behaviors by threatening them, which is a negative thing in and of itself besides the fact that people's regular chosen options tend toward being helpful and productive and you're just taking away their ability to choose.

Because race is a socially-constructed category. The relationship between parents and their children is genetically simple, whereas the relationship between genetically and historically distant people who we have socially categorized into racial categories is extremely complex, inconsistent, and tangled. Saying individual genetic differences implies racial genetic differences is fucking stupid.

Attached: Freddie deBoer.png (800x580, 723K)

Ok, so you're against affirmative action.What does that have to do with race and the indefensible claim that it is linked to intelligence to a degree that is magically significant, as opposed to any other set of genetic markers?

Can you teach a dog quantum physics? If no, then why?

You don't need genetic markers to determine race. There where races before we even discovered dna....

You wrote 40 wrong, stupid nigger.

>Ok, so you're against affirmative action.What does that have to do with race
Well affirmative action is literally defined in terms of race and sex, but as far as
>the indefensible claim that it is linked to intelligence to a degree that is magically significant
I neither know nor care.
Whether there's links or not I don't see what moral significance that has for me or anyone else. How I'm supposed to conduct myself - and how other people ought to conduct themselves - doesn't change based on some observation about an aggregated statistic. We deal with individuals when we deal with people, and whether they're bright or dull we're not supposed to mistreat them.
Insulting people who say demonstrably stupid things is not mistreating them by the way - that needs to be kept in mind.

We are done debating this. You either see the truth or live in a fantasy land where niggers are equal to whites.The reality is that none of the evidence matters. You queers just "feel" what you believe in. So fuck off. You sound like a flat earther when you talk about this stuff. Doing infinite mental 4d gymnastics to justify your fabricated view of the world.

You know whites had much lower IQs even a century ago than now. People can change and evolve, education has a lot to do with it.

You think whites back in the Middle Ages had 100 IQ average? Of course not, that's why they believed in all sorts of stupid shit like witchcraft, things that Africans believe now. We laugh at them now but 400 years ago that was us.

How can you guys account for the lack of a racial gap between cognitive abilities in children at 8 to 12 months, and the presence of a large gap at 3? Did their genome changed that much in 24-28 months? Or is there a much more plausible explanation – that we have socially constructed racial categories and embedded deep and persistent inequality into our society based on those categories, which in turn results in educational inequality? The race science crowd will insist that we’ve controlled for socioeconomic status, but this presumes that metrics like income band can account entirely for the relationship between race and socioeconomic reality, which I don’t think is true. The impact of race on someone’s position in our society is profoundly multivariate, with all manner of pernicious inequalities that are not fully explained by raw metrics of income and wealth.

Attached: FredrikDeBoer.jpg (200x300, 45K)

black one is higher. pol btfo

I don't care whether there is or isn't one.
What possible implications does your observation about a literal statistical aggregate have on how you're supposed to treat the real individual people you encounter?

The larger the IQ gap, the bigger the economic and social impact. For example, the gap between East Asians and Europeans is smaller than Europeans and Africans and this shows IRL.

I’m kind of confused. Do you believe the size of the gap doesn’t matter as long as one exists?

Because Libtards.

that vocabulary test is fucking easy, even i scored around 29k

Muh racism

They just claim it's because of whitey keeping the black man down. Boasian anthropology opened the floodgates for this complete rejection of reality

Attached: 1495398250700.gif (2406x1936, 861K)

>Why do people still refuse to believe in the link between race and IQ?
Biases and hate.

The sample size for some of these tests (SAT, LSAT, etc) is in the millions, and even when you account for every single variable imaginable, the IQ and economic gap persists.

I don’t see a biological issue with IQ gaps forming a certain time after birth. I’m sure the same thing happens for other functions. We’re not magically born with our full intelligent potential. Everyone agrees that malnutrition will permanently decrease ones IQ. Like I said above, when you account for all variables and the gap still remains what else is left to say?

We have the data on our side and the common sense on our side. With the African population exploding, I would love nothing else to be proven wrong but alas it seems humanity’s future is a bleak one.

Not the case. Twin studies demonstrate the heritability of IQ. Unless you're saying that environmental factors select for certain traits over a very long period of time

Race is pertinent because groups organized by race have lower variation within them genetically than populations grouped according to any other metric you suggested

Toward what moral proposition is genetic variation relevant in the first place?

The mental gymnastics used to obfuscate basic aggregate data here is astounding. Comparing ethnic-sub groups that have developed separately over thousands of years to Blondes vs. Brunettes? Are you fucking serious? What a pathetic attempt to subvert and deliberately misinterpret plainly obvious information. Racially categories are no more socially constructed than the difference between a lion and a panther. Obviously society constructs archetypes in order to systematize information. Just because these differences are recognized and subsequently systematized by human beings doesn't mean that the recognized differences are non-existence.

Say you're just granted whatever statistics you want. All of them are accepted.
Do you have some sort of actionable conclusion?

You say you 'account for every single variable imaginable', but, of course, you can't control for race itself! That's what you're trying to measure in the first place!

International evidence suggests oppression, discrimination, and societal resentment lowers group IQs. Oppression has a clear effect on marginalized groups globally. Where IQ tests have been given, children of caste-like minorities score about 10-15 points lower than dominant group children.

It's not that IQ isn’t heritable, or even that it’s impossible to imagine it differing among groups. It’s that it’s impossible to look at the cruel and insane experiment America (and the rest of the world) has run on its black residents and say anything useful about genetic differences in intelligence.

Attached: ezra klein.jpg (1920x1080, 92K)

95% of niggers wouldn't even know what half of those words mean.

Actionable conclusion? Are you asking if I have some sort of normative opinion on what should be done with the data? I don't need a conclusion, I'm simply defending the data as it stands.

African IQ: 70
African American IQ: 85-90
"Cruel and insane experiment"
AKA: our ancestors brought them here and we don't know what the fuck to do with them. Not much of an experiment really.

If data is useless then it's useless - there's no reason to talk about it at all.
Either attacking or defending it is a complete waste of time and energy, since it's truth or falsity has no bearing on anything.

You either have some idea of a use for the data, or else you're literally sitting there wasting your own time arguing about something that has zero implications for anything.

>Come into this thread
>See this post
>Spend a couple min. doing this test
>Bullshit the last 25%

Pic Related. That test is bullshit.

bragging in a room full of retards doesn't make you less retarded.

Attached: Capture.png (825x613, 19K)

the funniest part of this whole thing is the framing of race-IQ as somehow "forbidden knowledge" when of course the belief that blacks are biologically inferior is America’s most ancient justification for bigotry and racial inequality and isn't new at all

Attached: rsz_ezra_klein.jpg (800x600, 49K)

Just because I don't have a piece of legislation drafted on the back of my hand pertaining to the data and its general effects on society doesn't mean the data is useless. The crime rate correlations alone are enough to justify a large scale dissemination of the data. How on earth can you argue that data, clearly indicating the root causes of significant societal issues, is not somehow relevant?

Realize holding different races to the same standard is stupid and segregate.

What the fuck does discrimination and societal resentment even mean when trying to quantify things? Sounds like random vague interpretations that liberals use with no hard science behind it to make themselves feel better.

Chinese Americans were practical slaves in the early 1900s and outpace everyone today.

If oppression has clear effects on marginalized groups, why do middle class Africans still test so low in Africa which is 99.99% non white?

verbal intelligence is only one component of IQ, so it's very difficult to infer your IQ from verbal aptitude alone. That said, I scored 30150 (pic related) and got a nearly perfect score on the reading section of the SAT without studying at all, and my overall SAT score correlates with an IQ in the mid-high 140's, so I'm going to guess you're in the 140's as well, assuming you're not mathematically retarded.

Attached: vocab.png (687x457, 17K)

What does legislation have to do with anything?
If you have one single practical use for the data then it wouldn't be useless.
If you're sitting there defending data that you can't even think of ONE *SINGLE* use for then you're lacking in wits.

People self-segregate on their own terms.

Total bullshit. Half the legislation in the books would be thrown out if most Americans understood the IQ differences between races. Lower IQ races would be pissed their money goes to public colleges and they’re essentially subsidizing Asians/whites. Schools wouldn’t be getting insane amounts of funding when people realize test scores have stagnated cause of biology and many many teachers are just babysitters.

>So why is a standard deviation so magical that we shouldn't apply exactly the same use for that information to whichever group--brunette or blond--likewise contains genetic makeups with higher intelligence?

We already do the same thing with IQs by each US state and the fluctuation already is a few points. Unless you think hair color is somehow a more meaningful metric than state origin.

Also if you want a more generalized sample go to any multicultural public high school in the US and youll see the correlation between grades and skin tone. This is also visible globally.

Your logic just doesnt apply.

Attached: kguVdDnjhRPYEhgQYMJJHcDtuYEv8mRJLniXgsGTROU.png (1317x1598, 476K)

it's about 80/20 genetics/environment
this has been studied extensively and if you disagree you are simply ignorant, or are sitting on revolutionary scientific evidence that you have not published. big guess which one it is.

Because people have been brainwashed to thinking race is "skin-deep"

>Lower IQ races would be pissed their money goes to public colleges and they’re essentially subsidizing Asians/whites

whatever subsidies they're chipping in for are peanuts compared to the expenditures that benefit low IQ people. the notion that government programs have a net effect of funneling money from the inept & stupid to the intelligent is laughable.

on the plus side, anytime someone refers to race as "skin color", you instantly know you're dealing with an idiot and should extricate yourself from the conversation as quickly as possible.

Jesus Christ there are myriad "actionable conclusions" that can be extrapolated from the data. How many hours do I have to brainstorm? Legislation has everything to do with it because as you say, if nothing is done about it then we're all just wasting time discussing the matter. I would argue that pushing for some degree of mainstream acceptance of the information in general would be incredibly useful. If we could meme this into the black community (extremely hard to do I admit) perhaps they could begin taking accountability and work to better themselves organically, as opposed to having whites play around and "experiment" with them from above.

>Jesus Christ there are myriad "actionable conclusions" that can be extrapolated from the data
So how about one.
I can't imagine being a person like you.

Yeah that's right

I dunno

Attached: 20190129_182723.jpg (1080x2149, 833K)

Obviously. My biggest gripe are the lies that come with the gibs. They blame racism when it’s biology.

This knowledge can’t be taught to the general public imo. We just need a libertarian government so the socialists stop blaming racism for biological gaps.

Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

James Watson had his career ruined for making an innocuous statement about it. Get fucked kike

I just provided one you fucking imbecile. A general increase in awareness of the information via memetics. Hopefully would inspire some degree of societal accountability. Not likely, but its a better than your solution: close your eyes, plug your ears and scream.
I actually can imagine being a person like you. It's a horrible thought experiment.

Attached: 20190129_182733.jpg (1080x2147, 753K)

He's saying that there is a chunk of the tested IQ difference between blacks and whites (and asians) that doesn't go away regardless of the economic/family/social background of the participants.

Also
>International Evidence

Also
>Control for race
Race is the thing they are trying to ISOLATE, not control, and you isolate for it by controlling for OTHER factors, which Charles Murray already did.

Social effects like oppression DO have an effect, but there is STILL a difference once you CONTROL for them, hence the problem. You're repeating the same old fallacy that because blacks are poorer and less powerful than whites its impossible to get any clear indication of the variables at work, but that's simply not the case, there are all sorts of ways of controlling for environmental factors - multivariance studies, twin studies etc as well as massive test populations.

Also the 'oppressors' that you are talking about don't have any kind of political upperhand, most normies want to see blacks succeed, and its an economic drag for africa to remain a shitpile charity-hole. Pax Americana is built on mutual profit, but its impossible with mud hut people and that's that.

They also genuinely do hate you and want to rape your women, btw, not joking about that one bit.

Attached: dante-and-virgil-in-hell-1850.jpg (482x600, 55K)

Nobody is going to see an aggregated statistic and think to themselves "man - I feel personally embarrassed by this aggregated statistic, so much so that I am going to personally attempt to raise my/others IQs who were counted among that aggregated statistic, because it's a personal embarrassment that I am personally responsible for!"

You may think of other people as amorphous blobs, but they don't think of themselves that way.

So try another.

Thank you, shouldn't be this difficult.

the whole point is that society and progressivism decided to use race as the be all end all. there's no use in comparing the IQ of obscure genetic traits because nobody would care if blondes made more on average than brunettes or vice versa. the point is to explain the achievement gap between races isn't caused by oppression but by correlations between races and IQ etc.

This is what I was wondering. I get the point that we size up a person based on how they look, and that choosing to correlate a person's facial structure and skin tone is as arbitrary as discriminating based on a person's hair color.

But the fact that the initial hypothesis stems from gut feeling doesn't somehow make the conclusion wrong. Not only that, we -already know it's possible- to correlate a person's facial structure to their intellectual capabilities. Instead of dismissing discrimination outright because it's rooted in intuition, it should be examined with what metrics people can be grouped and if doing so is useful. For example, grouping people based on blood type is pretty important for transfusions.

Attached: thumb.jpg (940x480, 216K)

Because it hurts nigger's feelings.

Not going to happen en mass. I fully concede that. However, get an above average IQ, charismatic black leader that is self aware enough to recognize the plague on his own community and he very well could influence the community in a more productive direction.

*that choosing to correlate a person's facial structure and skin tone to their intelligence

People are forced together through the education system. Segregation is banned through legislation like affirmative action.